Selected Writings on Indian Linguistics and Philology

298 Pages·39.515 MB·English

by  Kuiper F.B.J.

FaB.J. KUIPER
LEIDEN STUDIES IN INDO-EUROPEAN 8
SELECTED WRITINGS ON
Series edited by
INDIAN LINGUISTICS
R.S.P. Beekes
. . AND PHILOLOGY
A. Lubotsky
J.J.S. Weitenberg
Edited by·
A. Lubotsky, M.S. Oort and M. Witzel
Amsterdam - Atlanta, GA 1997
VI Vll
9. Eine alte Bedeutung von ved. cyávaii. AO 16 (1938), pp. 310- Postscript on ajá. Indo-Iranian Journal9 (1965), pp. 30-31 ........ 381
313 ............................................................. 156 The Sanskrit Nom. Sing. víf. Indo-Iranian Journall0 (1967), pp.
10. Vedisch piirdhí, Pt'!7tti 'geben'. AO 16 (1938), pp. 313-326.159 103-125 ........................................................ 383
11. Ai. Mandiikinf 'EN. verschiedener Flüsse'. AO 17 (1939), pp. ví dayate and vidátha-. Indologica Taurinensia 2 (1974 [1975]), pp.
17-20 ........................................................... 173 121-132 ........................................................ 406
12. Ai. yttpa-~ 'der Pfosten, an den das Opfertier gebunden wird'. ahura mazdii 'Lord Wisdom'? Indo-Iranian Journal18 (1976), pp.
AO 17 (1939), pp. 20-22 ........................................ 176 25-42 ........................................................... 418
13. Ai. sir~aktí-~, sfrokti-~ 'Kopfleiden, Kopfschmerz'. AO 17
(1939), pp. 22-24 ............................................... 178
C. NOTES ON VEDIC NOUN-INFLEXION. Mededelingen der Ko
14. Ai. iisfdati 'nahert sich' und Verwandte. AO 17 (1939), pp.
ninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Ajd. Letter-
25-30 ........................................................... 181
kunde, 5/4, pp. 161-256 ........................................ .439
15. Ai. surungii 'ein unterirdischer Gang, Mine, Bresche'. AO 17
(1939), pp. 30-34 ..... 186
oo ........................................ Word index (by A. Lubotsky and M.S. Oort) ...................... 531
16. Jaw. aiahva-, aiana-, ayrii, ayostis 'Namen von Krankheiten'.
AO 17 (1939), pp. 34-35 ........................................ 190
Errata ............................................................ 566
17. Jaw. iieaiti 'verdirbt' (intrans. und trans.). AO 17 (1939), pp.
35-50 ........................................................... 191
18. Jaw. jraspiit-'Kissen, Pfühl'. AO 17 (1939), pp. 50-51 ..... 206
19. Jaw. vyusr¿, Hao.N. 2,7 und apa.asavr¿,n Yt. 19,84. AO 17
(1939), pp. 51-63 ............................................... 207
20. Aw. sii 'wehren'. AO 17 (1939), pp. 63-64 .................. 219
The Three Sanskrit Roots a ñc-/añj-. Viik 2 (1953), pp. 36-98 ...... 221
Shortening of Final Vowels in the Rigveda. Mededelingen der Ko
ninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Ajd. Letter-
kunde, 18/11 (1955), pp. 253-289 ............................... 284
Avestan mazdii-. Indo-Iranian Journall (1957), pp. 86-95 ......... 321
Rigvedic sahasiivan. Annals oj Oriental Research oj the University
oj Madras 13 (Centenary Number), Sanskrit section (1957), pp.
14-18 ........................................................... 331
Avestan ainita- "unharmed". Indo-Iranian Journal3 (1959), pp.
137-140 ........................................................ 336
Yiipaya~ti- (Divy. 244,11). Indo-Iranian Journal3 (1959), pp.
204-205 ..................................................... " . 340
Sváv!~ti-, ~S. I.52.5a, 14c. Indo-Iranian Journal4 (1960), pp.
59-63 ........................................................... 342
Three Notes on Old Persian. Annali Istituto Orientali di Napoli
(A ION), sezione linguistica, II/2 (1960), pp. 159-170 ............ 347
Zur kompositionellen Kürzung im Sanskrit. Die Sprache 7 (1961),
pp. 14-31 ....................................................... 359
The Interpretation of Chandogya Upani~ad nI.1.2. Munshi Indolo
=
gical Felicitation Volume [1963] Bhiiratfya Vidyii 20/1-4 (1960)
and 21/1-4 (1961), pp. 36-39 .................................... 377
v
Kern Institute miscellanea. 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introducticm (by M. Witzel) ........................................ ix
A. PAN-INDIAN, DRAVIDIAN AND MUNDA STUDIES
Altindisch abhyiisa-~ 'Studium, Gewohnheit usw.'. Sfbinda (~S
VIII,32,2) und Binda. Acta Orienialia 17 (1939), pp. 304-317 ...... 3
Two Problems of Old Tamil Phonology. Indo-lranian Journal 2
(1958), pp. 191-224 .............................................. 17
=
Rigvedic k1:rín- and krifí-. Sir Ralph Turner Jubilee Volume, I
Indian Linguisiics XIX (1958), pp. 349-362 ....................... 51
Note on Old Tamil and Jaffna Tamil. Indo-Iranian Journa16 (1962),
pp. 52-64 ........................................................ 65
The Genesis of a Linguistic Area. Indo-Iranian Journal10 (1967), pp.
81-102 ........................................................... 78
B. VEDIC AND IRANIAN STUDIES
Ap. eiiiiy und ai. s7Lsti. Acia Orienialia 12 (1934), pp. 191-210 (From
the article "Zur Geschichte der indoiranischen s-Prasentia", pp.
190-306) ........................................................ 103
Indo-Iranica 1-20. Acia Orienialia.
1. Ai. anganii 'Frau, Weibchen (eines Tieres)'. AO 16 (1938),
pp. 203-206 ..................................................... 123
2. Ep. kl. asiamana-m 'Untergang der Sonne'. AO 16 (1938),
pp. 206-211 ..................... : ............................... 126
3. Ved. iidhrá-h 'schwach, arm, dürftig, gering', G.aw. iidro
'gering (an Stell~ng), abhangig, untergeben'. AO 16 (1938),
p. 212 .......................................................... 132
@ The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of "ISO 4. Ved. enii. AO 16 (1938), pp. 213-220: ....................... 133
9706: 1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - 5. Ai. bhrkufí-, bhrakufí-, bhrukufí- 'das Verziehen der Brauen'.
Requirements for permanence". AO 16 (1938), pp. 295-297 ....................................... 141
6. Ai. ka'f!apa-~ 'eine bestimmte Waffe'. AO 16 (1938), pp. 297-
ISBN: 90-420-0235-2 300 ................ :' ...................................... '. ..... 143
©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - Atlanta, GA 1997 7. Ai. gehá-m 'Haus', gehya-m 'Hausrat',' gehinz(Kl.) 'Hausfrau'.
Printed in The Netherlands AO 16 (1938), pp. 301-303 ...................................... 147
8. Ai. campü-~ 'eine bestimmte Literaturgattung'. AO 16 (1938),
pp. 303-310 ...................................................... 149
VI
VIl
9. Eine alte Bedeutung von ved. cyávati. AO 16 (1938), pp. 310- Postscript on ajá. Indo-Iranian Journal9 (1965), pp. 30-31 ........ 381
313 ............................................................. 156
The Sanskrit Nom. Sing. víf. Indo-Iranian Journal10 (1967), pp.
10. Vedisch piirdhí, P!''f!ÍLti 'geben'. AO 16 (1938), pp. 313-326.159 103-125 ........................................................ 383
11. Ai. Mandakinz 'EN. verschiedener Flüsse'. AO 17 (1939), pp. ví dayate and vidátha-. Indologica Taurinensia 2 (1974 [1975]), pp.
17-20 ........................................................... 173 121-132 ........................................................ 406
12. Ai. yflpa-~ 'der Pfosten, an den das Opfertier gebunden wird'. ahura mazda 'Lord Wisdom'? Indo-Iranian Journal18 (1976), pp.
AO 17 (1939), pp. 20-22 ........................................ 176 25-42 ........................................................... 418
13. Ai. sir?aktí-~, szrokti-~ 'Kopfleiden, Kopfschmerz'. A O 17
(1939), pp. 22-24 ............................................... 178
C. NOTES'ON VEDIC NOUN-INFLEXION. Mededelingen der Ko
14. Ai. aszdati 'nahert sich' und Verwandte. AO 17 (1939), pp.
ninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letter-
25-30 ............... '" ......................................... 181
kunde, 5/4, pp. 161-256 ......................................... 439
15. Ai. surunga 'ein unterirdischer Gang, Mine, Bresche'. AO 17
(1939), pp. 30-34 ............................................... 186
Word index (by A. Lubotsky and M.S. Oort) ...................... 531
16. Jaw. aiahva-, aiana-, ayra, ayostis 'Namen von Krankheiten'.
AO 17 (1939), pp. 34-35 ........................................ 190
Errata ............... , ............................................ 566
17. Jaw. aBaiti 'verdirbt' (intrans. und trans.). AO 17 (1939), pp.
35-50 ........................................................... 191
18. Jaw. fraspat-'Kissen, Pfühl'. AO 17 (1939), pp. 50-51 ..... 206
19. Jaw. vyus'l Hao.N. 2,7 und apa.asav'ln Yt. 19,84. AO 17
(1939), pp. 51-63 ............................................... 207
20. Aw. sa 'wehren'. AO 17 (1939), pp. 63-64 .................. 219
The Three Sanskrit Roots añc-/añj-. Vak 2 (1953), pp. 36-98 ...... 221
Shortening of Final Vowels in the Rigveda. Mededelingen der Ko
ninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letter-
kunde, 18/11 (1955), pp. 253-289 ....... , ....................... 284
Avestan mazda-. Indo-Iranian Journal1 (1957), pp. 86-95 ......... 321
Rigvedic sahasavan. Annals of Oriental Research of the University
of Madrás 13 (Centenary Number), Sanskrit section (1957), pp.
14-18 ........................................................... 331
Avestan ainita- "unharmed". Indo-Iranian Journal3 (1959), pp.
137-140 ........................................................ 336
Yiipaya?ti- (Divy. 244,11). Indo-Iranian Journal3 (1959), pp.
204-205 ........................................................ 340
Sváv!'?ti-, ~S. L52.5a, 14c. Indo-Iranian Journa14 (1960), pp.
59-63 ........................................................... 342
Three Notes on Old Persian. Annali Istituto Orientali di Napoli
(AION), sezione linguistica, II/2 (1960), pp. 159-170 ............ 347
Zur kompositionellen Kürzung im Sanskrit. Die Sprache 7 (1961),
pp. 14-31 ....................................................... 359
The Interpretation of Chandogya Upanir;;ad IIL1.2. Munshi Indolo
=
gical Felicitation Volume [1963J Bharatzya Vidya 20/1-4 (1960)
and 21/1-4 (1961), pp. 36-39 .................................... 377
IX
INTRODUCTION
M. Witzel
In 1987, on the occasion of F .B.J. Kuiper's eightieth birthday, it had
been planned to honor him with the reprint of a major part of his articles
which cover virtually all the fields of lndian and lndo-Iranian philology
and linguistics.1 His selected writings on mythology had been published
earlier by his friend John lrwin under the title Ancient Indian Cos
mogony. lrwin added a detailed discussion2 of Kuiper's work on lndo
lranian and Vedic mythology. Here 1 will discuss Kuiper's linguistic and
philological work because its full range has not been easily available3 and
consequently appreciable in South Asia where this collection originally
was to be published. For various reasons this plan could only be carried
out now, with considerable delay, in the Netherlands.
The selection made here is limited to F.B.J. Kuiper's writings on
linguistic and philological problems in the older forms of the languages
and literatures of India and Iran. It comprises those on Sanskrit and
Prak~t, on Dravidian and MUl).q.a, on Old Persian and Avestan. It also
includes problems of the reconstructed parent language (lndo-Iranian)
spoken by the still undivided, proto-historic Aryan tribes before they
entered Iran and the lndian subcontinent. Finally, this selection deals
with the Pan-Indian linguistic area, with the lndian Sprachbund, as it
has developed over the past four millenia, with special attention to its
earliest stages.
However, we have excluded most, though not all of the articles pub
lished in the Indo-Iranian Journal as they are easily traceable and ac
cessible. For example, in India alone the Journal is available at more
than fifty public or University libraries. Even though the collection of
Kuiper's articles on Old lndian mythology, together with this volume of
1 In this way, we hope to circumvent the fact that in many countries a collection
and reprint of even such out standing work as that of F.B.J. Kuiper is not made
possible by scientific orgaruzations and has to be left to the initiative of individuals.
2F.B.J. Kuiper, Ancient Indian Gosmogony, Essays selected and introduced by
John Irwin, Dellii 1983. A cletailed description can also be found in T. Elizarenkova's
Russian translation of his articles (Trudy po vedijskoj mifologií [Studies on Vedic
mythology], Moskva 1986).
3See the English translation of T. Elizarenkova's introductory essay to Trudy po
vedijskoj mifologii, (T. Elizarenkova, F.B.J. Kuiper, Fundamental directions of his
scholarly work, Numen XXXIV, 2,1987,145-178).
f
x
Xl
selected studies, cannot fully present the whole range of his work, 1 trust early Seventies. The student unrest tha:t had blown over from across
that the most important or otherwise representative studies have been the Atlantic and shook most West European countries at the end of the
included both in Irwin's and in the present volume. Sixties, had its effect in the Netherlands as well. The result, a seeming
ly democratic set-up of the University, brought with it an enormous
* * *
amount of time spent on a point by point discussion of the organization
of research, teaching and administration on all levels. Many professors
Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper was born on July 7, 1907 at
became discouraged by this unproductive loss of time and energy, and
's Gravenhage (Den Haag, The Hague) in the Netherlands. He spent
his school years at the gymnasium in The Hague. He then studied La this certainly was one of the reasons why Kuiper took the possible early
tin and Greek as well as Sanskrit and Indo-European linguistics at the retirement 'at the age of 65, instead of the customary one at the age of
University of Leiden. Towards the end of Willem Caland's life he also 68.
took private lessons from this great Vedic scholar at Caland's home in It must be said that Kuiper has, in my impression, enjoyed and profited
the Koningslaan in Utrecht. True to Caland's special interest, they read from his retirement. If one takes a closer look at the number and range
Brahmar;ta and Sutra texts. At Leiden his teachers were, among others, of his publications after this date one easily notices that they are greater
F. Muller and N. van Wijk. In 1934 he completed his dissertation on the in number and perhaps also in range than those he had published after
nasal pre~ents ~n Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages; the work his dissertation.
was pubhshed m Amsterdam in 1937.
Little involved anymore with University business, he has enjoyed con
As all the positions in Sanskrit and allied subjects were occupied at tact with his friends, with visiting colleagues, and with his violin quartet.
that time, just as they are today, and as it was a period of severe eco 1 remember many spirited conversations in his house in the Handellaan
nomic difficulties, Kuiper took a position as a high school teacher of at Voorschoten or at my home, and he particularly enjoyed visitors from
Latin and Greek at the lyceum of Batavia (J akarta) in Indonesia then aH parts oí the globe who carne to see him. Also, 1 remember weH the one
the Dutch East Indies. The experience of a tropical, at one time Hindu occasion that 1 could persuade him to "rejoin" us at the Institute Kern,
Buddhist country, made a deep impression on him although he would in 1981/82, when 1 had invited Dipak Bhattacharya of the Vishvabharati
find a chance to visit India only much latero For, when he was appointed University at Santiniketan for a one year stay at Leiden, intending to
as Professor of Sanskrit at Leiden University in 1939, he was not allowed further his edition of the Paippalada Sarphita of the Atharvaveda. We
by the Education Ministry to stop over in India on his way back from read sorne unpublished parts of this text, the manuscripts of which Di
Jakarta. Then the second world war began. pak's íather Durga Mohan had borrowed and acquired in Orissa at the
In May 1940 German troops occupied the Netherlands and there was end of the Fifties and in the early Sixties. At that time Kuiper made
no way to visit other countries until after the end of the occupation in many valuable suggestions which will be included in a proposed edition
May 1945. During this period, Kuiper had to work in relative isolation. of the texto
This isolation was intensified when the University was closed in 1943 During his years at Leiden University, Kuiper taught Sanskrit, Pra
after ~he Leiden. professor Cleveringa gave a strong speech against th~ krit and Indo-European linguistics. Among his foremost pupils are the
excluslOn of JewlSh professors from the University, which had been or linguist R.S.P. Beekes, G. Schokker who specializes on early New Indo
dered by the ~ azi occupation. For two years, until the liberation in May Aryan, Prakrt and Sanskrit drama, and the Buddhist scholar J.W. de
1945, academlc work had to be done in seclusion. The last winter was Jong.
the most difficult periodo After a strike, the German occupation had shut
In 1957, Kuiper founded, together with his Leiden colleague J.W.
off all communications, notably trains with food supplies to the western
de Jong, the Indo-Iranian Journal. He was its chief editor for the next
pa.rt o~the ~eth~rlands (the provinces ofNorth and South Holland), and
quarter of a century, until 1979 when he successively asked the present
thlS wmter lS stIlI known as bollen winter because people had to resort
writer to take over moreofhis responsibilities. Nevertheless, he still takes
to eating tulip bulbs.
an active interest in it and remains activelyinvolved in it as one of the
After the liberation, Academia gradually retraced its previous course editors and also by contributing many of his own articles. The journal
though in a somewhat different political and social atmosphere tha~ was and to sorne extent still is the only truly international journal oí
before the war. Greater reforms were tocome in the late Sixties and Indological studies. Its foundation was a great step íorwards and right
r
XlI
XlII
from its first issue it carried articles by the foremost scholars of the day. quently represented by unexpected vowellengthening (e.g. visviivasu),9
To quote T. Elizarenkova,4 it is a journal "which united the best forces or by the 'extra' i of the set roots (as in bhav-i-tum, bhav-i-~yati).
of scholars of different countries. lt determined in many respects the Among Kuiper's early investigations on the laryngeals in Sanskrit was
course of studies in lndian and Iranian studies. The activity of Kuiper 10
a study of Vedic nouns. This was followed, after the war, by a study
in this journal is uncommonly many-sided. He is not only the author
of those cases where laryngeals played a role in phonology and were
of many articles which have opened new perspectives for Indology, but
of consequence in many of the verb forms and in word formation in
also an active reviewer who quickly published his reactions to important
general.ll
lndological and Iranistic publications, a participant in different scholarly
The traces of laryngeals can also be noticed in sorne peculiarities of
discussions. "
Rgvedic sa~dhi,12 that is where final vowel is shortened in unexpected
~ays. However, this shortening takes place only in certain positions,
* * *
which had already become difficult to understand or even i~comprehen­
The articles in the present volume are not arranged historically in the sible to the BrahmaI).a time redactors of the text (such as Sakalya).
way Kuiper's thinking developed but have been divided into the major These investigations became, again in the words of T. Elizarenkova,13
areas of his interests described aboye. Because all of his articles could not "an integral part of comparative-historical study of the Indo-European
be included here, his philological and linguistic writings will be discussed languages and the successful application of the laryngeal theory to the
in sorne more detail.
materials of the Vedic language served as a stimulus for the study of tra
ces oflaryngeals also in other ancient languages: Greek (Cowgill), Hittite
(Puhvel), ltalic (Watkins), Germanic (Lehmann)." This evaluation can
easily be applied to much, if not to most of Kuiper's work in other areas
1. Indo-Iranian and the Laryngeal theory
as well. As will be seen, Kuiper was typically the forerunner of innova
F.B.J. Kuiper's e~rliest publications5 deal with the Indo-European ting research in several areas of Indo-Iranian linguistics and mythology,
grammar, notably wIth the verbs that show an n-infix in the present and of Indian studies in general. The present writer, therefore, thinks
stem,6 - a rathe.r characteristic feature in Indo-European.7 In passing it himself lucky to have spent sorne nine years in Kuiper's close vicinity
should be m~ntlOned that he continued his interests in Indo-European enjoying frequent contacts.
throughout hIS c.areer, though this only occasionally resulted in separate The study of RV sandhi was not the last one in Kuiper's occupation
works such as hIS study of Homer, Nwpom X('J..AxéiJ.8 The next group of with laryngeals. Apart from his writing, this approach also influenced
problems tackled by him were the effects that the laryngeals had exerted his pupil R.S.P. Beekes, and indirectly much of Dutch Indo-European
on t~e Vedic phonolo~ical, nominal, and verbal system, including their studies now concentrated at Leiden. He continued to write occasionally
Iraman analogues; thIS was followed by a study of their influence on on the topic. A rather short example among them, the brief note on aja
J;tgvedic sandhi. has been included here on purpose, as to indicate how linguistic and
T~e laryngeals, usually perceived as three sounds of different phonetic close philological study can aid in the interpretation of the Veda. The
14
quahty represented by the symbols h , h , h3 or simply by H, are sounds occurrences of the word aja in the RV have frequently been taken to
1 2
that are reconstructed for the Proto-Indo-European parent language.
T~e~ have disappeared iI). nearly all Indo-European languages except for 9 For one oí the rather íew Indian reactions to publications illlndo-European lingui
stics and the laryngeal theory in particular, see Satya Swarup Mishra, New lights on
HIttIte.where h2 ~nd h3 are retained. Nevertheless, they have left many Indo-European comparative grammar, Varanasi (Mallisha Prakashan) 1975. Mishra,
traces m the vanous languages. In Vedic Sanskrit, they are most fre- p. 67 sqq., still maintains: "1 have established that this [laryngeal] theory is no
thing but a burden to lE Comparative Grammar." Cí. also Mishra, The laryngeal
4 Numen XXXIV, 2, 1987, 145-178. controversy, Indían Línguístícs 29, 1968.
:Z~r ?eschichte ~er indo-irallischell s-Prasentia, AO 12, 1934, 190-306. 10 Notes on Vedíc Noun l7ífiexíon. Amsterdam 1942.
DIe Indogermanlschen Nasalprasentía. Ein Versuch zu eíner morphologíschen llTraces oí laryngeals in Vedic Sanskrit, India Antígua, FS. J.Ph. Vogel, Leiden
Analyse. Amsterdam 1937.
1947.
7 A~ Kuiper ~emarks in .his preíace, "Die Ursache des alleinigell Vorkommens von 12 Shorteníng of final vowels ín the Rigveda, Amsterdam 1955.
Infixbildungell [m I.E.] blelbt nach wie vor eill ungelostes Riitsel" . 130p. cit. p. 147 sq.
8 MKNA W 14, 5, pp. 201-227. 14For example, R.a. Narahari, The "ullborn part", AP 24 (3), March 1953, 106-
XIV XV
mean unborn (next to goat), even after Kuiper's note. Kuiper succinctly his treatment of parye divi15 which means, in a cosmogonic sense, "on
. shows that the passages where aja has been supposed to mean unborn the following day of a new period" (and not "decisive moment" as in
are wrongly understood, and that the only correct interpretation is goat Geldner's RV translation); or svav[?1iI6 which is determined as "sponta
17
-something quite unfortunate for those who h~ve used t.he mean~ng ~ja neous action"; or the important investigation of vidatha "distribution
"unborn" to construct some wide-ranging theones on rebuth. As lmgms of gifts" , which aims at improving thesocial standing of the donor and
tic study shows, the root jan "to give birth" .c ontains a finallaryngeal, a of strengthening of his vital powers. This investigation is the key to the
set root in Panini's terms, and the inflection of a supposed aja- "unborn" understanding of a large part of the J3,gvedic social and religious struc
m~st have indicated this. But it does not, and with this seemingly simple tures.
observation, all the theories built on the use ofthe word in the RV should Kuiper's 'studies in other lndian languages are taken up in more detail
finally and safely be put to resto below. Some of them have become separate monographs.
Il. Vedic IIl. Iranian
This selection includes a few articles which have a bearing on themes The Iranian languages and religions are closely related to those of
of lndian mythology and cosmogony as well, though they were mainly in early India, notably Vedic. They, and their common parent language
tended as linguistic papers. lncidentally, this combination is quite typical and culture, lndo-Iranian (Aryan), are represented here by a numher of
for Kuiper's writing. It indicates what can be achieved if one combines studies. In this field as well, Kuiper has been fascinated by mythology,
critical observation of the minutiae of linguistic theory and traditional and again, many of his ohservations take their origin in minute philo
philology, especially with a study of all the Vedic texts available and logical and linguistic observations, as in his articles on Mazda or Ahura
with a well-founded and systematic investigation of Vedic religion. In Mazda.
Kuiper's case, this is enhanced by his systematic approach based on a He analyzed the word mazda18 which is part of the name of the highest
comprehensive theory - a theory that takes into account both the struc god, ahura mazda, mazda ahura, making use of the laryngeal theory,
ture of Vedic religion as well as its gradual historical development. He and concluded that it means "wise". A long discussion about this word
follows this development in e~ch case from the level of the J3,gveda to and concept has been carried out with another grand old man of Indian
that of the Mantra texts of the Atharvaveda and the early Yajurveda, studies, Paul Thieme, over the exact and correct interpretation of the
then to that of early Yajurveda Sal1lhita prose, and finally to that of the collocation.19
BrahmaI).as proper and of the UpanÍ1!ads and Slitras.
The declension of Ahura Mazda makes it East Iranian, and this is
This periodization of the Vedic period, which is increasingly used now, proof of a spread of the ZoroastriaI]. faith from Eastern towards Wes
is combined in Kuiper's work with a magisterial view of the unique traits tern Iran.20 These two, originally separate, epithets were joined only
of Vedic and later Hindu religion, so much so that some reviewers, for under the Achaemenids as ahuramazda-,21 which posits Zoroaster's date
example those of his hook Varu~a and Vidii?aka, felt compelled to state long before that of the reign of Cyrus, i.e. more towards the beginning
that he had shown that nothing ever had really changed in the period of the first millenium B.C. than to the middle of the sixth century as
from the J3,gveda to the Epic and later Hindu texts. This, of course,
does injustice to Kuiper's intention and to the actual execution of his 15 IIJ 5, 1962, 169-183.
research plans, with its great attention to historical detail as displayed 16 IIJ 4, 1960, 59-63.
in his books and in the articles presently reprinted. 17 Ind. Taur. 2, 1974, 121-132 .
18 Avestan mazdii, JIJ 1,1957,86-95.
There is no room here to go into detail with regard to similar ar 190n this, see most receritly by J. Narten, Der Yasna Haptayhiiítí, Wiesbaden
ticles as the ones detailed ahove. However, as examples may he listed: 1986, p. 29, and passím.
20 Cí. K. Hoffmann, A ufsatze zur Indo-Iranístík, p. 275 sq.; and: Das Avesta in der
Persis, Prolegomena to the sources on the hístory of pre-Islamíc Central Asía, Akad.
~08, see Dandekar, Ved. Bíbl. JII, 422: ajo bhaga~ RV 10.16.4 = precursor oí Up., Kiadó, Budapest 1979, 89-93.
Atman oo. destiny oí unbOTIl part is heaven; seat is manas "brain". 21 Ahura Mazda "Lord Wisdom"?, JIJ 18,1976,25-42.
XVI XVll
Henning thought. At Zoroaster's time East Iranian already was sharply
once complained about the growing specialization in Indian Studies and
22
differenciated from Western Iranian.
the narrowing of one's field ofvision, at least as far as active knowledge of
Zoroaster's language,23 even if it originally was a Western Iranian
the texts and participation in research is involved, he simply remarked:
(Mede) dialect from Ragha (modern Rai~ south ofTehran), has absorbed "Well, this is what we used to say about our predecessors ... "
many traits from other sources; it is to sorne extent an artificiallanguage,
His work in Dravidian comprises such topics as the periodization of
a Kunstsprache, elements of which often are older than the language of
sorne sound changes in Dravidian, the correlation of voiced and unvoiced
24
the RV. This fact may be explained by a certain amount of conser
consonants at the beginning of words and their loans into Sanskrit,26
vatism of the sacred and even of the popular language in Iran, which
or the phon,ology and morphology of Old Tamil (aytam problem), the
shows little impact of the substrate languages - an unstudied problem so 27
formatÍon of an epenthetic -i when two nominal bases join including his
far. This kind of influence certainly was less than that exerted on the lan 28
reply to Chandrashekhar as well as sorne problems of morphology.29
guage and culture ofthe ~gvedic Indo-Aryans in the Panjab. North-west
India was a large "colonial" area, where the Indo-Iranian or early Vedic
immigrant clans and tribes (including their poets) were struggling with
each other and with the more numerous local population of non-Aryan V. MUl,l<;la
descent which belonged to the post-Indus civilizations (c. 1900 B.C. and
The other great non-Indo-European linguistic family of the subcon
later). In Greater Iran, however, the local population, for example that
tinent, MUl).q.a, is dealt with in many of F.B.J. Kuiper's studies. We
ofthe Bactro-Margiana archaeological complex at the close of the second
could only select a few shorter articles on this topic in this volume.
millenium B.C., does not seem to have influenced the Iranian offshoot of
Indo-Iranian to the extent the indigenous languages affected Vedic and Kuiper's interest in MUl).q.a certainly was kindled by his long stay in
other Old Indo-Aryan dialects in the Panjab and beyond.25 Indonesia. Early on, he published a study on the relationship between
3o
the Munda and Indonesian languages. He correctly pointed out that
Munda is' related to Malayo-Polynesian (Austronesian) - now an accep
ted 'f~ature of Asian linguistics, in which Austro-Asiatic (Mul).q.a and
IV. Dravidian Mon-Khmer) is seen as related to A ustronesian (Malayo-Polynesian),
while the whole family is now called Austric and thought to include
Another group of Kuiper's studies in the present selection deals with
sorne other South-East Asian languages as well.
specific questions of Dravidian and other pre-Indo-European languages
Among his earlier studies in MUl).q.a are his investigation into con
of the subcontinent. Kuiper is one of the few Indologists who excels by 31
sonant variation, which makes linguistic comparison difficult. However,
his knowledge of all the major Indian language families, something that
it must be remembered that we know of the MUl).q.a languages only for
makes his younger colleagues fe el rather uncomfortable. However, when 1
the past 100 or 150 years and from often imperfect phonetic transcrip
22 Cí. Kuiper, Old East Iranian dialects, IIJ18, 1976, 241-253 and: Old East Iraman tions. It was necessary for Kuiper, even after the appearance of Pinnow's
*niimaní "names", etc., JIJ 20 (1978) 83-94; ; cí. also present writer, Early Eastern comparative grammar32 to study closely the phonetic, phonematic and
Iran ánd the Atharvaveda, Persíca IX (1980), 86-128; Jungavestisch apiix;;¡Ora- im
System der avestischen Himmelsrichtungsbezeichnungen, MSS 30, (1972), 163-191,
26Zur Chronologie des Stimmtonverlusts im dravidischen Anlaut (skt. kur¡,ga-m,
esp. n. 18; Humbach, Die awestische Landerliste, WZKSOA 4, 1960, 34-36.
kutfcaka-~, gola-~), BSOA 9 (1939), 987-1001.
230n Zarathustra 's language, Amsterdam 1978.
27Two problems oí Tamil phonology, IIJ 2,1958,191-224.
24Such as the well-known archaic agreement oí the neuter plural oí the subject with
28 A. Chandrashekhar, The iiytam problem reexamined, Ind. Líng. 34, 1973, 211-
a singular in the verb or many individual íorms such as the possessive pronoun mana
216, and Kuiper, The iiytam problem, Ind. Ling. 35, 1974, 205-217.
instead oí innovative Vedic mama (affected by assimilation); the older, Iraman íorm
29Note on Dravidianmorphology, AO 20, 1948, 238-252.
agrees with Germanic (Gothic maíns, Engl. mine etc.), and can be compared even
30Munda and Indonesian, .Gr. Neerl., Leiden 1948,372-401.
beyond the Indo-European area with Uralic (Finn.) mí-na, Altaic (O. Jpn.) wa-no,
31Consonant variations in"Munda, Língua 14, 1965, 54-87.
etc.
32Cí. H.J. Pinnow, Versuch eíner hístoríschen Lautlehre der Kharía Sprache, Wies
25This question, especially its Iraman aspect, is in need oí much closer study; cí.
baden 1959; or: Theposition oí the Munda languages within the Austro-Asiatic lan
the Proceedíngs of the Conference of Archaeologísts and Línguists, held at Toronto
guage íamily, Linguístíc Comparíson ín South East Asía and the Pacífic, ed. H.L.
ín October 1991, ed. by George Erdosy as: The Indo-Aryans of Ancíent South Asía.
Shorto, London (SOAS) 1963, 140-152; N.H. Zide, Munda and Non-Munda Aus
Language, Materíal Culture and Ethnícíty, Berlin/New York 1995.
trasiatic Languages, Current Trends in Linguístics, 5, 1969, 411-430.
xviii
XIX
structural facts of the various MUJ)~a languages and dialects, befare he modern lndo-Aryan can be detected. Kuiper pointed out that under the
could begin to use this rather late material for a comparison with Vedic present lndo-Aryan appearance of Nahali, there is a Dravidian substrate,
and classical Sanskrit in arder to study MUl).~a loan words in these early and under that a MUl).~a substrate; still below this, there exists a level
texts. This, he has carried out especially in his study of RV loan words represented by the c. 25% of Nahali vocabulary that are not related to
in the Fs. Kirfel and recently in a separate book.33 any other lndian language. Proto-Nahali therefore represents the true
lndian substrate, which is otherwise unattested and unstudied in the
various modern and ancient languages ofIndia.39 (This does not exclude,
of course, the possibility that even the Proto-Nahali substrate language
VI. Pan-Indian linguistics
again is to'be leveled into several earlier and so far unknown substrate
Finally, we come to F.B.J. Kuiper's Pan-lndian studies. Our present languages) .
selection stresses his treatment of the languages of the lndian subcon Therefore the earliest attainable substrate of N ahali leads us back to a
tinent seen as a whole, as a linguistic area, a Sprachbund.34 This was time when none of the three majar language groups was in evidence in the
the programmatic title of one of his articles: "The genesis of a linguis area of the Proto-Nahali speakers. Proto-Nahali is one of the "original"
tic area" (IIJ 10, 1967). The concept had been developed in the studies languages spoken on the subcontinent, next to Proto-Burushaski in the
of the Balkan area where languages belonging to four or five different Western Himalayas, Proto-Kusunda in the Nepal Himalayas, the possible
linguistic families have been in clase contact over the past few millenia substrate ofTharu in the lndian and Nepalese Tarai, and the substrate of
a~d ha~e .greatly influenced each other across linguistic boundaries by the Vedda language in Sri Lanka. Theoretically, Proto-Nahali, along with
bljmultl-Imgual, calque type borrowing which extends to grammatical the other proto-Ianguages such as Proto-Burushaski, ana the perhaps
feature~. For exa~ple Rumanian (a 'daughter' language of Latin) and more likely Proto-Dravidian, could be a candidate for the language of
Bulganan (a Slavlc .langua?e, with an old-Turkic, i.e. Bulgar adstrate) the lndus inscriptions.
both have a postposlted artlcle, attached to the noun.35 Similar develop Kuiper's stress of the concept of an lndian linguistic area (Sprach
ments can be detected in the lndian subcontinent,36 such as the spread of buná), has been seminal for the research carried out during the past
retroflex (still often called cerebral, miirdhanya) sounds, or the develop few decades. It acquires special importance in view of the more recent
ment ~f two types of gerunds in Vedic Sanskrit which is based, according concept of a Nostratic linguistic family,40 as two of its sub-families are
to Kmper, on a Dravidian calque (see below). Therefore, Kuiper's semi lndo-European and Dravidian (next to Uralic, Altaic, Caucasian and
nal paper "The genesis of a linguistic area,,37 has been chosen here as a Afro-Asiatic), and also in the context of the rather hastily conceived, still
41
representative article. more encompassing, linguistic super-families. As Kuiper mentioned in
It is necessary to refer at greater length to his studies on N ahali 38 passing in his book on Nahali, clase observation ofthe various substrates
:v
hich could not be included here. N ahali is a small triballanguage, found in alllanguages of the lndian subcontinent could lead to wide-ranging
42
m ~he border are.a between Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra (north of comparisons such as that of some words in Proto-Nahali and in Ainu.
Elhchpur). In thIs language the influences of MUl).ga, Dravidian, and of
39Note that 80% oí agricultural terms in Hindi have no Indo-Aryan etymology,
and 31% oí these words go back to (an) unknown language(s) no longer extent in
.33 34 CA~r .y .ar:n0sm iann tJhaek Robigsvoend,a U,.. bAemr dsti. ee rpdhaomn o-loAgtilsacnhtean (SRporadcohpbi)ü n1d9e9,1 .T raveaux du Cercle athgeri csuulbtu croen,t iinn:e nMt ,. Dseees hCp. anMdaes aicnad, HA.r Hyaonc ka, nAdr ynaonn -aAndry naonn e-Alermyaennt sin i nIn dnioar,t hC SISnEdiAaSn
Lzngutsttque de Prague, 4, 234-40¡ reprinted in Selecied Writings, The Hague, 1962, Publ., Univ. oí Michigan, Ann Arbor 1979, p. 55-152.
Vol. I, 137-143.
40 As developed by the late Russian linguist lllich-Svitych, Opyt sravnenija no
. 35For examp~e, irr;rerator-ul Romani-lor "The emperor oí the Romans" in Ruma straticeskix jazykov, Moskva 1971-1984¡ see Vitaly Shevoroshkin, Reconstructing Lan
ruan, and pf}rvt-yat the first", drugi-yat "the other" in Bulgarian. guages and Cultures, Bochum 1989¡ íor popular surnmaries see US News and World
36Se: also M.B. Emeneau, India as a linguistic area, Language 32 (1956), p. 3-16¡ Report, Nov. 5, 1990, Scientific American, Apr. 1991, 139-147, The Atlantic, Apr.
A.F. SJoberg, The Impact oí Dravidian on Indo-Aryan, in: Reconstructing Languages 1991, 39-68.
a~~ Cultures, ed. E. Polomé and W. Winter, Berlin/New York 1992, p. 507-529. 41 For a summary see Scientific American, Apr. 1991.
IIJ10 (1967), p. 81 sqq. 42I may point out, in passing, the history oí early loan words such as that oí
38 Nahali. A comparative study, Amsterdam 1962¡ The sources oí Nahali vocabulary rice (see KEWA, S.V. Ved. vrfhi) and sugar cane, or the proto-Asian words íor líon
in: H. Zide, Studies in contemparative Austroasiatic. Linguistics, ed. N.H. Zide, Th~ (sirp,ha), mustard (sar~apa) and tiger (pu7}(larrka), pointed out long ago, by Henning
Hague 1966, p. 96-192.
and Mayrhoíer.