GENERAL
LINGUISTICS IN SOUTH ASIA
(1877-1968)
Johnson
had said that he could repeat a complete
chapter
of the “The Natural History of Iceland”
from
the Danish of Horrebow, the whole of
which
was exactly thus:-“CHAP,LXXII.
Concerning snakes.
There are no snakes to
be
met with throughout the whole Island”
Boswell,
Life of Johnson, at 13 April
1778.
For an area that can be
named with Justice the cradle of linguistic science and at the same
time a museum of languages (diachronically as well as synchronically
speaking).South Asia presents a rather depressing picture when one
surveys the current trends there in language studies generally and
in general linguistics specifically – only slightly less depressing
than the late V.S.Sukthankar (1941) found it to be in addressing the
Philology section of the 10th All India Oriental Conference.
“We read with pardonable pride” he says, “the ecomiums lavished by
foreign scholars on the great grammar of Pānini and we are complacent
enough not to realize that these very ecomiums are at the same time
the most crushing indictment of his unworthy descendants, who have
shamefully neglected the study of this important subject”- and while
saying this, he has both “medieval and modern times” in mind (pp.595,596).
The great divide between
ancient and modern times in this field as in many others in South
Asia is of course the coming of scholarly contact with the West. The
classical period in ancient times that saw the rise of linguistic
science is undoubtedly the one associated with Pānini, his predecessors,
successors and collaterals –among these last, one must not forget
to include the author of Tŏlkappiyam, founder of the Tamil grammatical
tradition. In this connection it is customary to speak of the munitrayam
– Pānini, Kātyāyana, and Patañjali. Sukthankar rightly
questions this – great as the achievement of the latter two is as
expositors of Pānini, it remains essentially derivative. The
brilliance of Pānini’s achievement in the field of descriptive
grammar – Chomsky (1965), p.v) willingly credits him with “a fragment
of …a ‘generative grammar’ in essentially the contemporary sense of
this term” – should not blind us to the not inconsiderable gains in
other field of linguistics. Articulatory phonetics still owes some
of it’s technical terms – some disguised as loan translators – to
the Šiksās and the pratiŠākhyas. On
more than one occasion, modern investigations have vindicated the
ancient Indians observations over against their modern critics like
Whitney. Etymology or nirukta was largely speculative and fragmentary
in those pioneer attempts. One must not forget, however, that some
of these etymologies were in reality thinly disguised attempts at
semantic dissection and must be evaluated as such. Moving to Prakrit
as opposed to Sanskrit etymology, the picture is more creditable –
the Prakrit grammarians did take the first momentous step in historical
and comparative linguistics, namely, recognizing sets of systematic
phonemic correspondence between historically related languages. Curiously enough, we have no theoretical treatises
that will ground these practical achievements onto a system of generalizations.
( I say curiously because the picture is quite the opposite in certain
other fields- the ancient Indians, for example, produced some brilliant
treatments of poetics, but there is no literary criticism of specific
texts worth the name.) The nearest one comes to general linguistics
is in some treatises on the philosophy of language-notably Bhartrhari’s
Vākyapadiya, an exposition of the sphota theory
of language-and in semantic discussion on the powers of words(ŠabdaŠaktiö) by logicians of the Nyāya school
and by the students of poetics. All in all, it was not nobody should
be credited with being the first to have a particular linguistic insight
until after one has made sure that no Indian has anticipated him centuries
earlier. Only, one must not forget that one may have to dig out tons
of inferior commentarial ore before coming across such nuggets of
gold.
The first scholarly contact
with the modern west took the shape of western antiquarians seeking
the help of a Hindu pandit or a muslim maulavi in exploring the rich
treasures of traditional learning. This remained (and unfortunately
still remains) an unequal and therefore limited encounter. But the
antiquarian bias thus given to language studies in modern India is
still with us. We have to wait for the first university trained generation
of Indian scholars to come up and play in the deliberations of the
Asiatic Societies of Bengal and Bombay and receive their training
in the universities of Germany, England, and France. Indian antiquary
was founded in Bombay in 1872 as “a journal of oriental research
in archeology, epigraphy, ethnology, geography, history, folklore,
languages, literature, numismatics, philosophy, religion etc.” Linguistic studies –or philogical studies as they were then called-
were to remain so tucked away in Indology throughout the first period
(1877-1919) of South Asian linguistics, which opens with the inauguration
of the Wilson Philological Lecture series at the University of Bombay
by the Indo- Aryanist R.G.Bhandarkar, the Indian co-founder with the
John Beames, A.F. Rudolf Hoernle, and Bishop Robert Caldwell of the
modern study of South Asian Languages. Although there were Indian
sanskritists in the modern sense before him – Ram Mohan Roy, the father
of Modern Indian Awakening for example, if no other- Bhandarkar was
the first Indian to study modern philosophy. The complexion of linguistic
studies was decidedly historical: the focus was on phonology and morphology:;
the horizon was exclusively Indo-European, if not Indo-Iranian, if
not Indo-Aryan, if not limited to Sanskrit. This state of affairs
was to continue more or less unchanged in the next period also; Sukthankar
(1941, p.598) had good cause to continue to animadvert on his generation
which was “so conservative- that it never occurs to any one of us
to study any language outside our special, hallowed system of languages”.
Hindus would have no interest ordinarily in Arabic and Persian; Muslims
in Sanskrit; North Indians in Dravidian; non-Parsis in old and middle
Iranian. The so called adivasi languages would be left to missionaries
and European officers; interest in languages outside South Asia- even
in Greek and Latin and Tibetan and Chinese-would be minimal.
The next period (1919-54), which may be conveniently dated
from the publication of Jules Blotch’s La Formation de la langue
marathe, shows improvement in one important respect. The rather
wholly, vaguely romantic synthesis represented by Max Müller’s lecture
on the science of language(1862-66), so pleasing to the new- found
Indian national consciousness in it’s idolization of Sanskrit, finally
lost it’s grip. The Juggrammatikers’ revolution finally caught up
with South Asian Linguistics. Around 1919, a number of things happened.
The University of Calcutta founded a chair for Comparative Philology
in 1913; I.J.S Taraporewala was the first Indian to be appointed to
it (in 1917). In 1921 the University of London awarded a young Indian,
Suniti Kumar Chatterji, D.Litt for his work on the The origin and
development of the Bengali language done at the newly founded
School of Oriental Studies. Chatterji held the Calcutta professorship
from 1922 to 1952 and put India on the International map of linguistics
to follow. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute was founded at Poona
in1917 and was the venue in 1919 of the first Oriental conference.
P.D Gune’s Introduction to comparative philology was first
published in 1918 and was to be the staple English reading
of generations of young Indian philologists along with A.C.Woolners
Introduction to Prakrit (1917) Otto Jespersons’s Language
(1922), Joseph Vendryes’s Le language (1921, English translation
1931), and I.J.S.Taraporewala’s Elements of the science language(1931). Jules Bloch, L.P Tessitori,R.L.Turner
in the West and Chatterji, Siddeswar Varma, Baburam Saksena, Dhirendra
Varma, L.V.Ramaswamy Aiyar, Balakrishna Ghosh, Muhammad Shahidullah,
in India represent the next generation in South Asian linguistics.
Sir George Abraham Grierson- representing a fine tradition of administrators
turned scholors- completed his monumental LSI (1903-28) in
this period with the assistance of Sten Konow. It began to show it’s
impact- the teeming non-literary dialects of “cultivated languages”
and the “uncultivated languages” finally came into their own. The
Reverend T.Grahame Bailey and Chatterji introduced the International
Phonetic Alphabet to the philologists (respectively in A Panjabi
phonetic reader 1914; and in A Brief sketch of Bengali phonetics
1921). Finally, we must note the accentuating of a trend that was
already present in the first period and even earlier. The rise of
modern literatures in the regional languages in the 19th
century, the standardization of anew prose medium (the ancient literatures
being predominantly in verse), the practical needs of the European
officers and the missionaries, the growing importance of the regional
consciousness- all of these converged to make the need felt for standard
grammars and dictionaries. These were necessarily bilingual at first
(grammars in English, the dictionary glosses in English); later grammars
written in the respective languages and* later unilingual dictionaries
remained on the whole innocent of linguistics of any brand till the
next period. The dates of these broadly reflect the uneven time-spread
of the British conquest, of regional cultural developments, and of
the weaning away from English. (The dates of the influential text
books on linguistics in the regional languages may also be compared
with these.)
The holding, in 1954, of the first separate meeting on the
Linguistic Society of India (founded in 1928 at the 5th
Indian Oriental Conference at Lahore) marks the beginning of the contemporary
phase in South Asian Linguistics. The coming of independence to India
in1947 transformed the very complexion of scholarly contact between
Indians and the rest of the world. The 1953 conference of linguists
and Indian educationists presided over by Sir Ralph Turner at Deccan
College, Poona expressed the need for an intensive training programme
in India for young linguists who could then take up a fresh linguistic
survey of the country based on first-hand field study. The Language
Project (1954-59) at Deccan College made this desideratum a reality;
since 1960, the summer school of Linguistics have continued under
other auspices. Indian linguistics was finally ready to catch up with
the Saussure-Sapir-Bloomfield revolution in linguistics. The newly
founded Linguistic Research Group of Pakistan under the energetic
stewardship of Anwar S.Dil held the First Pakistan Conference of Linguists
at Lahore in 1962.Ceylon is feeling the impact of the new linguistics.
The newly founded Tribhuvan Unversity at Kathmandu, NeÖpal
has provision for Indology and linguistics. Though universities in
this area have been accepting dissertations on linguistic subjects
for a long time, Calcutta was still the only South Asian university
center in 1954 offering a regular course in the subject. There are
now over 15 universities that offer some course in linguistics. Linguistics
has been put back on the map of Indian scholarship. There is also
a practical motivation for this study- the so called language problems
of South Asia, especially the need for expanding, updating, and diversifying
language teaching facilities. The danger of unscholarly motives like
regional or national chauvinism creeping into language studies is
very real but is probably not a serious threat. A welcome feature
of the present situation is that linguistics has started attracting
recruits from fields other than language teaching, literature, and
cultural history. In addition, there are research groups interested
in language at the science institutes at Bombay and Bangalore.
We are now ready to take
an overview of the organization of South Asian linguistic studies
which will enable one to place a given work against its institutional
background.
At one extreme are facilities
organized by foreigners primarily fro their own use either in their
own countries or on south Asian soil. London, Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh,
Paris, G Öttingen,
Heidelberg, Berlin, Rome, Leningrad, Pennsylvania, Yale, Wisconsin,
Chicago, Cornell, Berkeley, Texas, Tokyo are some of the important
university centers. The Netherlands, Portugal,
Norway, China, Munda Language project of the University of Chicago,
Ecole francaise d’Extrême-Orient, South Asia Institute of Heidelberg
that also operated in India. South Asians of course have benefited
considerably from these foreign efforts.
Nearer home are works
written for the benefit of European officials in colonial India and
Ceylon and of Christian clergy, missionaries, and Bible translators
a coming from the west. The role of missionaries centers like Serampore,
Tinnelvelly, Mangalore , Madras, Goa, Ranchi is notable. We owe the
works of Caldwell, H.Gundert, Ferdinand Kittel, and A.H.Arden on Dravidian
languages in the first phase to this activity. Foreign agencies for
klpromoting English, French, or German language studies in South Asia
also belong here.
On a more disinterested
plane is the scholarly activity of British and, later, Indian officials
in the various governmental agencies like the Linguistic Survey of
India, the Anthropologicl Survey of India, the Census of India, the
Tribal departments in Maharashtra, Madhyapradesh (and the Central
provinces and Berar), Bihar, Orissa, and Assam. Many British administrators
and army officers also carried on scholarly activity as an act of
supererogation.
Indian scholarly agencies
with a clearly international orientation – involving the use of English
in publication outlets and the association of visiting foreign scholars
for example- are the universities a departments of philology or linguistics
and associated research institutes (for example, Calcutta, Poona,
Annamalai, Agra, Saugor, Osmania, Delhi, Kerala universities; Deccan
college); endowed lecture series (notably Wilson philological lectures
at Bombay); specific projects (Sanskrit dictionary at Deccan College,
Sinhalese dictionary at Colombo); department of foreign and classical
languages and literatures; the Oriental and Indological research institutions
(fro example Pune, Baroda, Madras Hoshiarpur institutes; Asiatic Societies
of Bengal (At Calcutta), of Pakistan (at Dacca) and of Bombay; Bharatiya
vidya Bhavan); and the agencies associate with Hindu, Buddhist, Jain
Islamic, and Zoroastrian studies. Arya Samaj and other reformist movements
have promoted and influenced humanistic studies. Arya Samaj and the
reformist movements have promoted and influenced humanistic studies.
Then we must not forget scholarly forums like the Linguistic Society
of India, the All-India Oriental Conference, or more local bodies
like the linguistic circle of Delhi, the Philological society of Calcutta.
The crop of language problems
have naturally given rise to numerous governmental and non-governmental
agencies like the language promotion departments (Central Hindi Directorate
at Delhi, Panjabi Language Department at Patiala, the three central
institutes of English, Hindi, and Sanskrit; agencies tackling the
problem of teaching Hindi and other modern Indian languages to Indians
as second languages (Rashtrabhasha Prachar Samithi, Wardha; Maharashtra
Rashtrabhasha Sabha, Poona; Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras;
Antarbharati, Poona; and others); agencies tackling the problem of
teaching English(apart from the Central Institute of English there
are other bodies at Bombay, Allahabad etc, Dacca was center where
Michael West worked); and the various terminology-producing bodies
attached to the Government and the universities and Independent ones
like the late Dr.Raghu Vira’s International Academy of Indian Culture
(at Nagpur, later Delhi). Although foreign cooperation has had a part
to play in some of them, these agencies are obviously oriented towards
specific local needs.
For years to come, there
is no prospect that linguistic work published in South Asian languages
will be read on a large scale outside the particular speech communities,
let alone outside South Asia. Work in Hindi may be a partial exception
– non-Hindi speaking Indians sometimes publish in Hindi. The work
of the regionally oriented bodies have served to counteract the immense
and sometimes crippling prestige of Sanskrit. Such are the language
of literature departments in the regional languages in universities
and colleges; the various Sahitya Parishads and similar bodies (Nagari
Pracharini Sabha, Anjuman- I Taraqia Urdu, Vangiya Sahitya Parishad,
Maharashtra sahitya Parishad, Srilanka Sahitya Mandalaya, Andhra Pradesh
Sahitya Academy, Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Arts, Cultures and Languages,
Gujrat Vernacular Society, Bihar Rashtra Bhasha Parishad, Tamil Sangam
and others); and regionally oriented research enterprises(Bihar Research
Society, Kamrup Anusandhan Samiti, Vidarbha Samshodan Mandal, and
others) and publishing ventures (like Maharashtra Kosha Mandal, Rajasthan
Oriental series, Southern Languages book Trust). It must be mentioned,
though, that some of those do publish in English or Hindi.
At the other extreme,
away from this network institutions, not all of which will be equally
useful to linguistic studies, stand some relatively lonely efforts.I
have in mine the work of persons like L.V.Ramaswamy Aiyar, Vishwanath
Kashinath Rajwade, Kishoridas Vajpeyi, Vasudevashastri Abahyankar,
G.K.Modak Shastri, Sitaram Lalas. The fate of purely traditional pandits
and maulavis has on the whole been on of playing third or fourth fiddle.
The world will be the loser if individual efforts against heavy odds
remain neglected.
In the third or contemporary
phase we have become so accustomed to the competition of the rival
models of language description that younger linguists are apt to forget
the vastly different picture that prevailed when these models did
not hold the stage. Of course, South Asian Linguistics does not have
it’s exhibits of classical American descriptions, Pike- tagmetics,
Lagacre-tagmemics, Harris- transformationalism, Chamsky-generativist
presentations, Firthian studies, Halliday-inspired systemic grammars,
even glossematic studies. Structuralism has some historical-comparativist
work to it’s credit in the Indo-Aryan, Dravidian, and Munda fields.
(South Asian linguists have little contribution to make to the Indo-European
or even to the Indo-Iranian field).
Dialect comparisons, however
and descriptions, however and descriptions of earlier stages preserved
in written texts still remain unaffected by structuralism. There have
been some frequency counts and information theory has been applied,
but glottochronology and computational linguistics are still not in
the picture. Out of the hyphenated branches, sociolinguistics has
made real headway. The mathematician-Indologist, D.D.Kosambi, has
an early critique of Zipf to his credit. In experimental phonetics,
one must mention a sizable quantity of London-style kymography and
photography and palatography done at London, Edinburgh, Prague, Agra,
and Poona; some spectrographic work done mostly abroad; and a whole
succession of papers and monographs published by C.R.Shankaran of
Poona and his associates centering around the alpha-phoneme and alpha-phonoid
theory. Only recently there have been stray papers dealing specifically
with linguistic theory- M.A.Mehendrales’s studies in the theory of
internal construction, or D.N.Shankar Bhat’s studies in the nature
of language change and divergence, for instance. The problem of devising
suitable equivalents in Indian languages of technical terms in linguistics
found in English has exercised many linguists and non-linguists; and
the fruits of their own labors have appeared as dictionaries or glossaries
attached to books.
Most of the book-length
treatments of general linguistics that have appeared in South Asia
either in English or in south Asian languages in the second hand the
third phases(very few before that) are essentially derivative text
books trying to cover the whole field then known or to cover a sub-branch
like phonetics or semantics. By and large, however one has to infer
the general conception of language underlying the mass of specific
studies untouched by structuralism in the absence of explicit methodological
or theoretical discussions.
The general orientation
thus revealed has already been suggested in the historical review
of the three periods. For comments on specific text books on general
linguistics and its branches written in South Asian languages, other
articles in this volume may also be consulted. Some general observations
may be made here.
(1)
Surprisingly enough there have not been many significant attempts
to relate the work of Pānini or other ancient grammarians to
modern linguistics, or to reassess their work, or to make explicit
the assumptions underlying it or to apply their methods to contemporary
languages. There are no neo-Pānians.
(2)
Expectably the dominant orientation in the first and the second periods
was historical. Books purporting to be on general linguistics or semantics.
And yet, there is ground for suspecting that the classical historical
doctrine of sound change and anology, intrinsic and extrinsic forces,
inherited and revived or borrowed traits, language split and partial
convergence through borrowing and substratum influence has not really
seeped through. Too often there is loose talk of language and dialect
mixture without any effort to determine paternity: too often there
is a refusal to follow through the implications of a historical finding;
too often there is amateur etymologizing; too often there is a failure
to distinguish between genuine sound change and sound substitution
in tatsama revival. Not too often but often enough to be disturbing,
there is an explicit or implicit rejection of the whole historical
assumption-one still comes across brave attempts to derive even Arabic
or Tamil from Sanskrit. The reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European
is suspected to be an attempt to dethrone Sanskrit from natural position
as the mother of all languages. Most of the textbooks show a very
perfunctory treatment of comparative reconstruction.
(3)
The Indian penchant for synthesis or desire to displease nobody often
results in cheerful conflation of disparate or even conflicting elements.
A recent grammar of Hindi, to take a relatively trivial example, postulates
with the moderns a direct and an oblique case, at the same time recognizing
the seven Sanskrit-like cases with their case endings! The more recent
text-books or doctoral dissertations will garnish an essentially traditional
plan with a sprinkling of allophones and morphemes. There is an all
too great readiness to read into ancient lore anticipations of modern
ideas.
(4)
A closely related failing is an insufficient sense of context, of
logical interrelatedness. Statements of Western and Indian “authorities”
will be torn out of context- particularly definitions- only to be
piled up irrelevantly to parade the author’s learning or to be commandeered
to support his statement. There is no sense of an ongoing discipline
with provisional syntheses, palace revolutions, and new theories necessitating
a total renovation and reassessment of all the existing ideas. If
an American tyro will behaves if there was no linguistics before Chomsky
or if a Continental conservative will behave as if there was no linguistics
after Brugmann or whoever, the Indian’s sense of continuity (which
is not such a bad thing after all) can run away with his sense of
methodological rigor. The vague psychologizing about the origin and
growth of languages of the first period is carried over into the second
period after the Junggrammatikers had made some impact without any
sense of incongruity.
(5)
The weakness of such scholarly apparatus as bibliography, index, references
has been frequently noted in reviewing South Asian work. The editing
of journals and monograph series is lackadaisical- a far cry indeed
from the briskness and the meticulous attention to style in all senses
of a Bernard Blotch. The stratified power structure of the South Asian
academic community hamstrings an editor as it does a would be candid
reviewer.
(6)
The general plan of typical South Asian textbook
on linguistics can be formalized somewhat as follows:
(i) (a)
What is language?
(b) What is linguistics?
(c) history of linguistics
(ii) (a) Articulatory phonetics (basically
that of Sanskrit and English)
(b)
Phonetic change
(c)
Word-building, inflection, word- classes
(d)
Sentence analysis
(e)
Semantic change (often with an excursus on ŠabdaŠakti)
(iii)
(a) Origin of language
(b)
Growth of a language
(c)
Causes of change
(d)
Language variation in time, space, and social strata
(e)
Structural and genetic classification of languages
(f)
Linguistic paleontology (i.e. the reconstruction of pre-history from
linguistic evidence) and comparative reconstruction (perfunctory treatment)
(iv)
(a) Indo-European family; centum and satem ; Grimm’s Law and Verner’s
Law
(b)
Languages of India
(c)
Old, Middle, and New Indo-Aryan
(d)
Languages of the world
This scheme is no doubt
over-formalized –the four main divisions shown will normally thoroughly
interlard each other.
(7)
South Asian linguistics is of course an ambiguous term: it can refer
either to work by South Asian linguists or to work about South Asian
languages. While the comments so far (from (1) to (6) were directed
at the former, the ones that follow (from (7) to (9) are very often
applicable also to the work of western scholars on South Asian languages.
The
general plan of the description of a language or dialect or a given
historical stage of a language preserved in written texts can be formalized
somewhat as follows:
(i)
Phonology
*(a)
The alphabet: letters and their articulatory classification (sometimes
with a capsule introduction to articulatory
phonetics)
*(b)
Accent and intonation (perfunctory treatment )
*(c)
Sandhi rules
(ii)
Word grammar
(a)
Parts of speech
(b)
Survey from nouns to interjections, under each of the following headings:
subclasses *categories of inflection *derivation, uses in a sentence
of the inflected form including concord and government
(c)
Word building* derived words *reduplicated word* composite words
(iii)
Sentence grammar
(a)
The analysis of a simple sentence (after the logician Alexander Bain’s
English grammar)
(b)
Complex and compound sentences
(c)
Word order
(iv)
(a) Orthography (If a written language)
(v)
(b) Punctuation (If a contemporary language)
(b)
Versification
(c) Figures of speech
(e)
Etymology (being a capsule history of the language)
An obelisk marks optional
elements, an asterisk indicates heavy reliance on the model of Sanskrit.
Incidentally, looking at (ii) and (iii) here, it would seem that the
so called word-and paradigm model is better termed the paradigm-and
use model to bring out it’s partial viability in comparison with item
and arrangement and item- and process models.)
(8)
The general plan of the history of a cultivated language (often tagged
on to a history of literature and often prefaced with a capsule introduction
to linguistics) can be formalized somewhat as follows:
The Origin and Development
of the X language
(i)
Origin: place in the family, earliest surviving written records; epochs
in the history
(ii)
Vocabulary elements : for example, for
modern Indo-Aryan language: tatsama, tadbhava, desi, and
foreign (i.e known cultural borrowings)
(iii)
Phonology: the sound correspondences between contemporary X and the
languages listed in (ii), possibly with a reverse index
(iv)
Morphology : derivatives affixes and their etyma,
reduplication, composition, inflectional affixes and their etyma;
numerals, pronouns, particles and their etyma(morphology usually arranged
by parts of speech)
(v)
Dialects
(vi)
Script and orthography
An obelisk
marks optional elements.
(9)
The general plan of an entry in a unilingual or bilingual dictionary
is somewhat as follows:
(i)
Entry word in the local script
(ii)
Transliteration in Roman or Devanagari
(iii)
Origin tag- Sanskrit, Persian, English etc.
(iv)
Part of speech tag
(v)
Subclass tag- gender of a noun, transitivity of a verb
(vi)
String of glosses (* with some punctuational structuring
(vii)
Idioms with glosses
(viii)
Citations from literary texts
(ix)
Etymology
An obelisk
marks optional elements.
We have
a long way to go. We can begin to adopt the words of Goethe cited
by Sukthankar 1941, p.609) by acquiring what we have inherited – from
our own past as well as from the rest of the world.
REFERNCES
Chomsky, A. Noam, Aspects
of the theory of syntax. (Cambridge, Mass, 1965).
Sukthankar, V.S., “The
position of linguistic studies in India”. Proceedings of the 10th
All India Oriental Conference 593-609 (1941). Deliverd 1940. Reptd
Bharātiya vidya 2.23-35 (1942); Sukthankar
memorial edition 2. 386-99 (Bombay: Karnatak, 1945).
COLOPHON
This was published in Current Trends in Linguistics,
Vol. 5, Linguistics in South Asia, The Hague: Monton, 1969, p
532-42.
Editor
: Thomas A.Seboek
1.Soviet
and East European Linguistics
Associate Editors:Paul L.Garvin, Horace Lunt,
Edward Stankiewicz
Assistant Editor: John R.Kreuger
1963,XII+606 pp.f 70-/$20.00
2.Linguistics
in East Asia and South East Asia
Associate
Editors: Yuen Ren Chao, Richard B.Noss, Joseph K. Yamagiwa
Assistant
Editor: John R.Kreuger
1967.
XX + 979 pp.f150-$42.00
3.Theoretical
Foundations
Associate
Editors: Charles A. Ferguson
Assistant
Editor: Albert Valdman
1966
XII + 537pp. f 60-/$17.15
4.Ibero-American
and Caribbean Linguistics
Associate
Editors: Robert Lado, Norman A.McQuown, Sol Saporta
Assistant
Editor: Yolanda Lastra
1968.
XVIII+660 pp.
5.Linguistics
In South West Asia and North Africa
Associate
Editors: Charles A. Ferguson,Carleton T.Hodge, Herbert H.Paper
Assistant
Editor: John R.Kreuger, Gene M.Schremm
6.Linguistics
in Sub-Saharan Africa
Associate
Editors: Jack Berry, Joseph H.Greenberg
Assistant
Editor: David W.Crabb,Paul Schachter
7.Linguistics
in Oceania
Associate
Editors: J.Donald Bowen, Isidore Dyen, George W.Grace,
Stephen
Wurm
Assistant
Editor: Geoffrey O’Grady
8.Linguistics
in Western Europe
Associate
Editors: Einar Haugen, Werner Winter
Assistant
Editor: Curtis Blaylock
9.Linguistics
in North America
Associate
Editors: William Bright, Dell Hymes, John Lotz,
Albert H.Marckwardt,
Jean Paul Vinay
10.Diachronic,
Areal, and Typological Linguistics
Associate
Editors: Henry M.Hoengiswald, Robert E.Longacre
11.Linguistics
and Adjacent Arts and Sciences
Associate
Editors: Arthur S.Abramson,Dell Hymes, Herbert rubenstein, Edward
stankiewcz
Assistant
Editor:Bernard Spolsky
12.Index to Current trends in Linguistics,
Vols 1-12,
volumes 6-`3 are in preperation
|
