Reconstruction talk:Proto-Dravidian/palacV

@माधवपंडित Why would Marathi have undergone spontaneous aspiration? Also, from the two sources I'm seeing (a Hindi-Hindi and Gujarati-Gujarati dictionary), they both claim descendency directly from Sanskrit. I wouldn't take it seriously but for the Prakrit forms provided: पुं० [सं० पनस, प्रा० फनस] कटहल and [सं. पनस, प्रा. फणस], respectively. I too think a Sanskrit derivation to be a little unlikely, but spontaneous initial aspiration is noted in the Prakrits (in an Introduction to Prakrit), but I'm not sure if it occurs in later periods. DerekWinters (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters: Interesting. You know, I had a lot of problems with placing the Marathi borrowing; I knew that the ultimate origin was Dravidian but was having difficulty determining what exact language it was borrowed from. Was it through Sanskrit via Dravidian or directly from Dravidian? I ultimately settled at the Gondi languages. Here's my conjecture:

• TL;DR version: the actual PD word may have been with an initial *ph which was reflected in the initial /h/ of Kannada ಹಲಸು (halasu) and the initial फ (pha) of the Indo-Aryan borrowings. Marathi फणस (phaṇas) may have been hypercorrected to give Sanskrit पनस (panasa). If this is true, we will have to move the page to *phalṇas

• Detailed version:
  • I've noted that the aspirated consonant फ (pha) occurs in Indo-Aryan words borrowed from Dravidian; see Sanskrit फल (phala) which was borrowed from Proto-Dravidian *palam.
  • I'm now feeling that the initial consonant of *palṇas is aspirated; because Kannada attests a descendant with an initial /h/ (Kannada ಹಲಸು (halasu)). Hence perhaps the actual root was *phalṇas and was reflected only in Indo-Aryan borrowings and the Kannada initial /h/?? If that proves to be so, we'll have to move the entry.
  • I do not think Marathi फणस (phaṇas) comes from Sanskrit पनस (panasa) because Sanskrit प (pa) does not yield Marathi फ (pha); also bear in mind the retroflex ण (ṇa) which I'm sure was borrowed. In fact, I now feel that it was the other way round; Sanskrit पनस (panasa) was not even borrowed from Proto-Dravidian; I feel it was a hypercorrection of Marathi फणस (phaṇas) and introduced in Classical Sanskrit.
  • Telugu would've been the likeliest donor for Marathi फणस (phaṇas); however, there is no retroflex consonant in the Telugu descendant. On the other hand the Gondi languages have it and they are also geographically in contact with the Marathi speakers making the idea that Marathi may have borrowed from Gondi more likely. माधवपंडित (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This still cannot explain how the Marathi word came to have a spontaneous initial aspiration when Gondi *paṇs did not have it; I would attempt to explain this by theorizing that Prakrit phaṇas was perhaps borrowed from an old Gondi dialect which had retained the /ph/. Being tribal languages, these are not very well documented or attested, so we cannot be sure of the initial consonant in even the modern Gondi-Kui languages, whether they're /ph/ or simply /p/. Adding to the confusion is the fact that languages influence each other, further making things a hopeless muddle. माधवपंडित (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and great job finding the Middle Chinese borrowing माधवपंडित (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित I thought Proto-Dravidian didn't have aspiration (and only infrequently have I noticed that South Indians can pronounce aspirated consonants). The process of Kannada developing /h/ from /p/ may follow a path similar to Japanese, although I know nothing of Kannada to be honest. Take a look at the etymology one for 火, 歯, and 葉 for example. DerekWinters (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• The Introduction to Prakrit makes the case that the pronunciation of stops in the Old/Middle Indic period was quite weak, leading to their frequent elision (or voicing too). Thus that would make sense for Indo-Aryan languages analyzing a simple unaspirated Dravidian stop as an aspirated one. It also states that there can be spontaneous aspiration, but as I'm checking it now, the example it gives for /p/ -> /ph/ is पनस -> फणस so that's quite unhelpful.
• The retroflex ण is extremely productive (which is the best word I have for it) (alongside the ळ) is Marathi and Gujarati, in that words that didn't even have them before sometimes develop them spontaneously. Reading Gandhi's autobiography, there are a few words that don't use the ळ or ण then that use them now. Also, ण was a regular development in the Prakrits from Sanskrit न, so that may explain it's occurrence in Marathi.
• I'm also 50% sure that the Telugu may have directly come from Sanskrit because Telugu is just like that.
• Do you have any resources on the phonology of the Gondi languages, to see if their stops may or may not have been aspirated (at least partially).
• I know that Old Marathi borrowed considerably from Old Kannada, but that only few Old Kannada loans made it through to the modern day. Thus, depending on the Old Kannada (and Old Marathi) forms, we might have a source. DerekWinters (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC).

@DerekWinters: I'm pretty sure the Old Kannada form was *palasu although it's very difficult to find documented and attested Old Kannada text on the internet, let alone the word for jackfruit. So Marathi (with a ण (ṇa)) cannot be from a Tamil-Kannada language (all with a /la/ for the second syllable). Is it possible for a Prakrit to have borrowed the word from an old, unattested Dravidian dialect (presumably Gondi) and turned it into *phaṇas (whence Marathi फणस (phaṇas)) and Classical Sanskrit later hypercorrected it to पनस (panasa)? I'm theorizing a hypercorrection of a Prakrit word rather than a direct borrowing from Dravidian because of the न (na) in the Sanskrit form whereas the original Dravidian root had a retroflex /ṇ/. And Telugu borrowed from Sanskrit. I'm still having trouble understanding how Sanskrit पनस (panasa) can give rise to New Indo-Aryan फणस; nowhere else does Sanskrit प become New Indo Aryan फ. This, added to the fact that the Marathi term "inherited" from Sanskrit would be closer to the ultimate origin than the Sanskrit word itself, makes me think that the direction of derivation was the opposite in this one, with Sanskrit taking from Prakrit (and Telugu subsequently borrowing it, just out of habit lol) and Marathi inheriting from Prakrit. माधवपंडित (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित Hmm you're right, I overlooked that. From what I've seen of Sanskrit hypercorrections, it often involves an r and doesn't de-aspirate, but that's all I've seen. क्रमुक <- कमु(क) (areca nut), द्रविड <- दमिळ, कर्पास <- कपास, कर्पूर <- कपूर, विराल/विलाल <- बिडाल/बिलाल/बिराल, etc. It may have been the case here, but I'm inclined against it. I think it's decently possible that पनस could have been derived from a Dravidian source directly, but it would be helpful to know the earliest attestation and where it was attested. The possible path (that I am not really endorsing) that पनस could have taken to get फणस in Marathi would be पनस spontaneous aspiration of the प in any stage of development, and a regular shift from न to ण from Sanskrit to a Prakrit. This is extremely unlikely, but could be the case. DerekWinters (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense to me; I've made the changes and also mentioned alternative possible derivation routes. माधवपंडित (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित Oh you did change it. I agreed with your original derivation from a Gondi language more though, but I guess we don't have a specific language to place it from? If you wish to switch it back I have no issues with that. DerekWinters (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters OK, if I were to place Marathi फणस (phaṇas) as borrowed from a Gondi dialect, where would I place Maharastri Prakrit & Sauraseni Prakrit terms? Would they be borrowed from Gondi or inherited from Sanskrit? I think Maharastri borrowed from Gondi (with Marathi inheriting from it) and Sauraseni inherited from Sanskrit. Let me know what you think about this and we can make those changes. माधवपंडित (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@माधवपंडित So I just combed through the Old Marathi dictionary I shared with you, and found nothing for jackfruit or breadfruit sadly. The Maharashtri source that Woolner gives looks to me like a simple derivation from Sanskrit, whereas interestingly the Sauraseni he provides looks like a borrowing from a Dravidian source. Hmmm, maybe he got them flipped, but I'm not entirely sure (@Aryamanarora can you help us out here with the Prakrit stuff?)

Also! One thing I noted in the dictionary: फरसु is the Old Marathi form of परशु (alongside परशु) and that is extremely interesting. They also have फासा, फांसा (c.f. Hindi फांसी) from Sanskrit पाश. Also, फूल is supposed to derive from पुल्ल through a Prakrit phulla. They also give a few other words from Sanskrit verbal roots but I'm not the most convinced (check them out yourself, page 523 or something onwards is the whole फ section (it's pretty short)). So essentially, I'm even more confused now. DerekWinters (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters: You're right this is confusing but it has cleared up that Skt. प can become New I.A फ. Now, with the word फणस or even पणस absent in the dictionary, one might think the word did not exist in Old Marathi with the Marathi फणस (phaṇas) being a later borrowing. All the same, Maharastri Prakrit had a term for it. Also, the M.Pkt term may well have been phaṇas and Woolner probably got Sauraseni and Maharastri mixed up. I think we better leave the Marathi term inherited from Sanskrit because, if we put it as borrowed from Gondi, we will have to account for the aspirated फ. माधवपंडित (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, thanks for help with the Tulu term. But I don't know if the Tulu term ಪೆಲ (pela) is attested on its own. Is there a way to show that only part of the term derived, and that the second is a common fruit suffix? DerekWinters (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We can put the ಕಾಯಿ (kāyi) part in brackets like they do in English entries with partially inherited English terms माधवपंडित (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters Something's just struck me: the Marathi term for breadfruit is नीरफणस with the नीर being from PD *nīr (water). So whatever language Marathi borrowed the term for "water jackfruit" from, it must also have borrowed jackfruit from. But I've been looking and no Dravidian daughters attest "nīrpaṇas". Some lost, unattested tribal dialect is the key to this, which probably donated both the terms. माधवपंडित (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

That is extremely interesting. No other North Indian language that I can find has a similar term, not even Gujarati, so I'm quite perplexed by it. It probably is some tribal language that gave it. DerekWinters (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

By the way, are you sure Maharastri Prakrit did not have the aspirated फ? Where did the Marathi फ come from then? माधवपंडित (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not seen the term attested myself and am just going off of what Woolner has listed (but he's pretty reliable I think). DerekWinters (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

[1] does this help? It's Sanskrit paṇas, Sauraseni phaṇas, Ardhamagadhi phaṇas, Maharastri paṇas, Magadhi paṇaś. It's possible it was borrowed into Proto-Indo-Aryan, considering the wide geographical range and how the Prakrit descendants follow normal phonetic rules. I think the Dravidian was *palṇas. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters, माधवपंडित forgot to ping. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 18:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora That's actually very helpful. Thanks! DerekWinters (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: Thank you very much. This certainly clears up every confusion :) माधवपंडित (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Krishnamurti presents *pal-acV/pan-acV that is kinda different from *palṇas. Can we use this instead? --Octahedron80 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Indo Aryan borrowings

@Aryamanarora what makes you think that Proto-Indo-Aryan borrowed from Proto-Dravidian? The present understanding is that PIA was spoken in a region much to the north of India, near Siberia. By the time the "Aryans" reached India, PIA was long gone with the Mittani-Aryan and Vedic Sanskrit dialects already formed. This one case could be the Prakrits borrowing from Sanskrit.

Also, with the argument being made that the Prakrits are all one language, couldn't a similar argument be made the vedic sanskrit, and its dialects (and perhaps even the classical sanskrit and its dialects when it was spoken natively) gave rise to the Prakrits? DerekWinters (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters: Wouldn't the reach of Dravidian also be further north back then? Also, the resulting Prakrit reflexes (especially the p/ph distinction between dialects) reflects Old-Indo-Aryan origin. Perhaps it was borrowing from Vedic Sanskrit (which, really, is representative of Old-Indo-Aryan). I don't want to keep the Prakrit directly under Sanskrit though because that's also including Classical Sanskrit which was by no means the ancestor of Prakrit. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 03:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora: I didn't write the first comment by the way. But then should we split Vedic and Classical Sanskrit? DerekWinters (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@DerekWinters: No, that would be a bit too drastic. We should, though, try to verify this specific word's existence in the Vedic lexicon before moving the Prakrits under Sanskrit. —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 03:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora Would it be that drastic though? I have no knowledge of their respective grammars, although I have heard that Vedic's was considerably different. Or we could at least make Vedic an etym-only language, and thus we could place the Prakrits under there. Because I would argue that Old Indo-Aryan would have to be subsumed under either the Vedic dialects (one language) or, as he mentioned, the Mittani-Aryan dialect (another language, possibly), and thus the Prakrits would have to derive from Vedic. But I also am not as well read on the Prakrits, PII, PIA, etc. as you are. DerekWinters (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Reach of Dravidian was definitely further north but PD was probably spoken no further north than modern day Pakistan whereas Proto-Indo-Aryan was formed and spoken in Sintashta & Andronovo cultures which comes to southern Russia and upper Central Asia. Perhaps it was borrowed into Old Indo-Aryan (a group of closely related mutually understandable dialects). If the word does not appear in the Vedas, it can still mean that the word was lost from Vedic but survived in a parallel dialect and later on Panini "created" sanskrit by merging the vocabulary of Old Indo-Aryan dialects (thus standardizing it) and reintroduced the word in Sanskrit vocabulary.