|
URDU, DAKKHINI URDU VIS-À-VIS EMENEAU'S
CONCEPT OF ' INDIA AS A LINGUISTIC AREA'
Khateeb S. Mustafa
Urdu Teaching and Research Centre
SOLAN 173 211, H. P.
[ksmustafa2003@yahoo.co.in]
Introduction.
Urdu and Dakkhini in Historical Perspective:
Urdu is an Indian language, more precisely, an Indo-Aryan language. It evolved from Shaurseni Apabhramsa through the dialects prevalent in and around Delhi at the end of 12 th century A. D. (Beg 1988:1). The language thus was rife in Delhi in 13 th century A.D. In the early stages of its development it followed the structural norms of Haryani; Urdu flourished and graduated to become a literary vehicle (firstly in Deccan in 15 th century A. D. and later in northern India in 17 th century A.D.), an official language (in the later half of 19 th century A. D.) and as a medium of science and technology education (glaring instance is that of the Osmania University, Hyderabad of 1920-1950).
Much earlier to its becoming a literary vehicle in Deccan the language had begun to move and spread to other parts of Indian subcontinent. In this process it was helped by all and sundry i.e. Sufis, saints, soldiers, common people etc. Wherever it went, kt established itself firmly and deeply there in that region. This is how today one finds Urdu being spoken in almost all the regions of Indian Union. Notwithstanding that the language was a major regional language in pre-independence era, it has come to be a minor language in many states of post-Independent India .
Urdu in the process of its migration and subsequent implantation in other regions of India did not remain a static and freezed entity. Evincing a good deal of dynamism and sociability, it interacted with the dialects/languages of the respective region. It mingled with them linguistically; adopted and absorbed many of their traits; in turn, transmitted many of its own to them. As a result of this, currently though one may find a diglossic situation with respect to formal and written Urdu (subject to further probe) the spoken Urdu found in different part of the country is not a homogeneous but a heterogeneous linguistic entity. Thus today one may recognize several varieties of Urdu, say, as Bihari Urdu (as spoken in Bihar and its adjoining areas), Panjabi Urdu (as spoken in Punjab, Jammu etc), Standard Urdu (as spoken in Delhi, Aligarh, Meerut, Lucknow etc and which approximates to the written variety), Mumbai Urdu (as spoken in Mumbai and its adjoining areas), Dakkhini Urdu (as spoken in the southern peninsular India) etc.
Our focus in the present study would be on Dakkhini Urdu1 , a crucial variant of Urdu. Crucial because it is a sort of off-shoot variant detached from its main source, that is, the 13 th century speech, prevalent in and around Delhi . Genealogically the latter may be considered as a fairly earliest antecedent of today's both Urdu and Hindi.
Having been branched off from its main source, that is, the 13 th century Delhi speech, this variant of the latter migrated and got implanted in the far off Deccan mainly by the capital shift from Delhi to Devagiri (now Daulatabad) in 1327 A.D. by Sultan Mo ? ammad bin Tu gh laq. In course of time, it firmly established itself in Deccan . It is here that this immigrant variant came to be known as 'Dakkhini' or Kakani' among a host of other names such as Guiari and Gooiari. Zaban-e-Hindi. Hindwi, Musalmani and Turkamata.
The rule of Mo ? ammad bin Tu gh laq in Deccan did not last long and he shifted his capital back to Delhi in 1337 A. D. The post-Tughlaqian era witnessed the growth of many independent kingdoms in Deccan . The first of such kingdoms was that of Bahmanis founded in 1347 A. D. with its capital at Gulbarga in the beginning and later at Bidar ; the second was that of 'Adil Shahi's established in 1490 A. D. with its capital at Bijapur and the third was Qutb Shahi kingdom founded in 1512 A. D. at Golkonda. Dakkhini was patronized by the kings of all these dynasties and its cause was well-served. That under the patronage of all these kingdoms Dakkhini grew as a distinct literary language is beyond doubt. A few scholars have suggested to its becoming an official language too during the period. But some more evidence is needed in this regard.
The independent kingdoms of Deccan however could not withstand the Mughal onslaught in the latter half of 17 th century. With the annexation of Bijapur in 1685 A. D. and Golkonda in 1686 A. D. by Aurangazeb they also vanished from the scene completely. With this, the era of 'Dakkhini as a literary language' too ended. In the subsequent period Dakkhini remained only as a spoken dialect as it is being today.
As noted above, Dakkhini beyond doubt, bloomed as a literary vehicle during the era of above dynasties and a good deal of literature, especially sufistic, was produced. Many kings themselves were poets of Dakkhini. Notable of them are Mu ? ammad Quil Qu t ? b Shah (4 th of Qu t ? b Shahi dynasty) and Ibr t ? him 'Adil Shah II (of Adil Shahi dynasty). Besides the kings we have other poets too. Mentioning a few important ones and their works will not be off the point. Poets of Bahmani period - Shah Miranji Shamsu'l Ushshaq (1496 A.D.) : Kh ush N a ma, Kh ush Nag h z; Ni z ? ami Bidari : Padam Rao Kadam Rao (1460-62 A. D.) ; Feroz Bidari : Pirat Nama (before 1564 A.D.). poets and prose writer of Qu t ? b Shahi period : Mulla Wajhi : Sabras (1635 A. D.), a prose work; Qu t ? b Mushtari 1609 A. D.), Mu ? ammad Quli Qu t ? b Shah : Kulliyat-e-Mu ? ammad Quli Qu t ? h Shah (1616 A. D.), Gh awwasi : Saifu'l Muluk wa Badi 'u'l Jamal (1625 A. D.), Tu t ? i Nama (1639 A. D.), Ibn-e-Nisha t ? I : Phul Ban (1655 A. D.); 'Adil Shahi period : Shah Burhanu'd din Janam : Irshad Nama, Kalimatu'l ? aq a iq (1582 A. D.), Mulla Nusrati : Gulshanp-e-'Ishq (1657 A. D.), ' Ali Nama, 'Abdul : Ibrahim Nama (1603 A. D.), Ibraahim ' Adil Shah : Nauras (1596 A. D.). All these works are written in Perso-Arabic script and a few of them are published. It may be added that 'Dakkhini is documented from 14 th century in Deccan . The first prose work of Dakkhini is Mi'raju 'I 'Ashiqin by Kh waja Banda Nawaz Gesu Daraz (1322-1423 A. D.)' .
. The 1991 census and Dakkhini's demographic status:
Dakkhini has no recognition in the 1991 census-either as a scheduled language or as a non-scheduled language. Rather the census has treated it as a form of Urdu. Therefore the number (of speakers) given under 'Urdu' in southern states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is in fact the number of Dakkhini Urdu speakers. Most of them are concentrated in these states and form the biggest linguistic minority in each state. Altogether there are 11076852 Dakkhini speakers in three states. They constitute 25.5% of the total Urdu speakers in India (43406932) , whereas in three states together their percentage is 6.61 of the total population (167344155).
State-wise Andhra Pradesh ranks first with the highest number of Dakkhini speakers (5560154 = 50.2%) of the total speakers followed by Karnataka (4480038 = 40.4%) and followed by Tamil Nadu (1036660 = 9.4%) .
Dakkhini generally forms the religious symbol of Muslims in all the three states. Nevertheless it is untrue to say that all the Muslims in each state are Dakkhini speakers. There are a number of Muslims who speak the respective majority language of state i.e. Telugu in Andhra Pradesh, Kannada in Karnataka and Tamil in Tamil Nadu as their mother tongue. This probably explains why in each state the number of Mulsims is slightly higher (i.e. 5923954 in Andhra Pradesh, 5234023 in Karnataka and 3052717 in Tamil Nadu) than that of the Dakkhini speakers.Thus in Andhra Pradesh 6.14%, in Karnataka 14.4.% and in Tamil Nadu 66.04% Muslims do not speak Dakkhini as their mother-tongue.
1.3.0. Dakkhini speakers and bilingualism.
There is a high incidence of bilingualism among Dakkhini speakers of all the three states. Most of them, if not all, tend to acquire the majority language of the state (i.e. Telugu in A.P., Kannada in Karnataka and Tamil in Tamil Nadu) as a second language or third language. Thus 2115103 (=38.04%) of the total Dakkhini speakers are returned as knowning Telugu as a second language in Andhra Pradesh. Likewise in Karnataka 1951487 (=43.5%) Dakkhini speakers are returned as knowing Kannada as a second language while in Tamil Nadu 1036660 (=1.8%) Dakkhini speakers are returned as knowning Tamil as a second language.Thus the percentage figures for Telugu in Andhra Pradesh, Kannada in arnataka and Tamil in Tamil Nadu are higher than those of any other second language like English, Hindi, Tamil in Andhra Pradesh, Telugu in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu etc.
Thus a significant chunk of Dakkhini speakers in each state is bilingual. Dakkhini is not of much help to them educationally, intellectually and professionally. Nevertheless they have been maintaining it since generations. They acquire Dakkhini at home in intimate family environs since their early childhood and use it throughout their life. But owning to their day today dealings and mobility among the major language speakers (in each state) the Dakkhini acquire the major language (of the respective state) too perhaps at a later stage of their life. They speak this when the situation warrants so. This kind of code-switching situation has resulted in the convergence of the grammatical structures of Dakkhini and the respective major language of the state. It is a bi-directional convergence.
In the current paper our endeavour has been to demonstrate the impact of Telugu, the major language in Andhra Pradesh on Dakkhini. Fior this purpose we have chosen three items of Dakkhini viz., the auxiliary verb rh?-, the relative participle and k?rko complement construction. In order to show the existing convergence in Dakkhini with respect to these items we have studied the morphological and syntactic behaviour of these items and have compared this with that of their counter parts in Telugu and Urdu.
The study shows that Dakkhini and Telugu are closer to each other than Dakkhini and Urdu are on the one hand and Telugu and Urdu are on the other. The differences between the last two viz., Telugu and Urdu must be interpreted as part of larger frame of differences between the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan. But the differences between Dakkhini and Urdu on the one hand and the similarities between Dakkhini and Telugu need to be explained in terms of the close contact and constant interaction Dakkhini has been having with Telugu since many centuries.
Further it has also been noticed that Dakkhini in order to move closer to Telugu and get itself conformed to the pattern available in Telugu vis-à-vis the above items, has reanalyzed the above items sometimes formwise and sometimes morphologically and syntactically. In the process it has acquired and adopted many features of Telugu thereby departing radically from Urdu, its genealogical affiliate. The Dakkhini situation thus proves beyond doubt that indeed ' India is a linguistic area' where languages belonging to different families happily co-exist and share traits in common 'which are found not to belong to other members of (at least) one of the families.
The data for the paper is drawn from the Rayalseema dialect of Dakkhini especially the one that is spoken in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh.
Now the discussion on the above items follows.
2.0.0. The Dakkhini auxiliary verb rh?- :
Here we argue that the Dakkhini rh?- is the same as the Urdu aspectual verb r?h- (~ reh-) and that Dakkhini in order to be closer to Telugu in this respect with a slight modification in its form has reanalyzed the latter functionally and distributionally. Further the reanalysis has happened only at the primary aspectual level but not at the secondary aspectual level.
2.1.0. Let us consider the past, present and future progressive constructions in Urdu, Dakkhini and Telugu first.
past:
Urdu 1 a. l? ? ka p? ? h r?ha tha 'the boy was reading/studying'
Dakkhini b. b?cca p? ? ta (x) tha ' -do- '
Telugu c. ?bbayi c?dvut (x) Unna ? u ' -do- '
present:
Urdu 2 a. l? ? ka p?rh r?ha h?i 'the boy is reading/studying'
Dakkhini b. b?cca p? ? ta (x) h?e ' -do- '
Telugu c. ?bbayi c?dvut (x) Unna ? u ' -do- '
future:
Urdu 3 a. l? ? ka p? ? h r?ha hoga 'the boy will/would be reading/studying'
Dakkhini b. b?cca p? ? ta (x) rh?t?e ' -do- '
Telugu c. ?bbayi c?dvut (x) Un ? a ? u ' -do- '
It may be noticed that the Urdu construction in all the three sets above possesses 'r?ha' as an additional element whereas the same is lacking in Dakkhini and Telugu constructions. Further it may be said that in Urdu bare verb stem followed by perfect participle of r?h- followed by an auxiliary such as h u , h?i, the etc gives a simple progressive meaning. It must be noted that the simple progressive meaning is due to r?h-, the aspectual verb. Compare: l? ? ka p? ? h r?ha h?i 'boy is reading/studying' and l? ? ka p? ? hta h?i 'the boy reads/studies (habitually)'. On the contrary in both Dakkhini and Telugu an imperfect participle of a verb followed by an auxiliary itself forms a progressive phrase. In none of these languages there is any aspectual verb comparable to that r?h- of Urdu. This will be further corroborated in the following arguments.
2.1.1. The Dakkhini rh?- is basically an auxiliary verb and is parallel to Telugu auxiliary Un- and Urdu auxiliary ho-. Further morphologically and syntactically all these behave the same way. Thus morphologically with present, past and habitual present-cum-future suffixes the Dakkhini rh?- yields the forms viz., h- 'am, are etc', th- 'was, were' and rh?t u , rh?ty u etc. Similarly Telugu Un-yields the forms- Unnaru, Unnamu, Unna ? u, Undi, Un ? a ? u, Un ? Undi, Un ? aru etc. Urdu ho- gives forms-h- 'am, are etc', th- 'was, were' and hoga, hogi, h õ ge, h õ gi. All these forms are capable of occurring as copula in copular construction. e.g.,
Dak. 4 a. taj mahal bh?ut ?ccha h?e 'the Taj Mahal is very beautiful'
Ur . b. taj m?hel b?hot ?ccha h?i ' -do- '
Tel. c. taj m?h?lu cala bag Undi ' -do- '
Dak. 5a. Unke gh?r me~ d?s ?dmyã rh?t?i 'there will/would be ten persons in their house'
Ur . b. Unke gh?r d?s log h õ ge ' -do- '
Tel. c. va! In ? lo p?di m?ndi Un ? aru ' -do- '
The r?h- of Urdu with past and future suffixes does yield the forms -- r?ha, r?hi, r?he, r?hega, r?hegi, r?he~gi etc. But these forms can function neither as auxiliary verbs nor as copula verbs. Thus see that in 1a above if we substitute tha with r?ha (i.e. *l? ? ka p? ? h r?ha r?ha) the construction becomes ungrammatical. Similarly if the copula in 5b is replaced by the appropriate form of r?h- (i. e. Unke gh?r d?s log r?he~ge), the construction is grammatical but on a different semantic plane.
From the examples given above it is evident that the Dakkhini rh?- and Telugu Un- are parallel to each other and the Urdu r?h- is altogether a different entity.
2.1.2. The arguments adduced above firmly establish that Dakkhini rh?- and Urdu r?h- are two separate entities both morphologically and syntactically at primary aspectual level and that the Dakkhini rh?- is parallel to Telugu Un- at this level. Now let us consider the situation at secondary aspectual level. By secondary aspectual level we mean a situation where the imperfect or perfect participle of the verb is followed by inflected forms of aspectual auxiliary verbs to express complex progressive meaning. Thus:
Ur . 6 a. rat bh?r jagte r?ho 'please be awake for the whole night'
Dak. b. ras sari jagte rh?o ' -do- '
Tel. c. ratr ?nta melkon Un ? ?n ? i ' -do- '
Ur . 8 a. bano h?r v?qt soyi r?hti h?i 'Bano is always (found) slept'
Dak. b. banu k?bbi soi rh?tye ' -do- '
Tel. c. banu yeppu ? u pa ?? kone Un ? Uundi ' -do- '
Here the system is fairly comparable. It may be noted that in Dakkhini the imperfect (6b) and perfect (7b) participles are followed by the verb rh?- and the latter is contributing to express the complex progressive meaning just as Urdu r?h- and Telugu Un- are doing in the respective constructions.
2.3.0. The Urdu r?h-, the Dakkhini rh?- and the Telugu Un- can occur as main verb in a construction. In such a case they give the same meaning, that is, 'to stay (in space and time)'. e.g.,
Ur . 8 a. h?m sol?n me~ r?hte h??i 'we stay/reside at Solan'
Dka. b. h?me so?n m ? rh?t??I ' -do- '
Tel. c. memu sol?n lo Un ? amu ' -do- '
There is almost one-to-one correspondence between Urdu r?h-, Dakkhini rh?- and Telugu Un- when they occur as main verb.
2.4.0. From the above presentation and discussion it is obvious that at the secondary aspectual level in order to express a complex progressive meaning or when they occur as main verb to convey the meaning 'to stay, to reside' the Urdu r?h-, Dakkhini rh?- and Telugu Un- correspond with each other. But at the primary aspectual level to express a simple progressive meaning they show an inconsistent behaviour. Here Urdu r?h- is on one side of the fence while Dakkhini rh?- and Telugu Un- being on the other. The reason for this is that Dakkhini, though a genealogical affiliate of Urdu, has tended to conform itself to the pattern that exists in Telugu. It may be noted that in Telugu a simple progressive construction is formed by an imperfect participle followed by auxiliary. There is no aspectual verb. Dakkhini too adopted a similar structure doing away with the aspectual verb r?h- of Urdu. But at the same time r?h- has been induced to reanalyze itself as an auxiliary. In Telugu the verb Un- itself functions as an auxiliary and also as an aspectual marker. Therefore Dakkhini too followed in the foot steps of Telugu.
3.0.0. Dakkhini relative participle:
Relative participle is a fascinating structure in Dakkhini. It is this structure which explicitly sets forth the existing convergence between Dakkhini and Telugu. In Dakkhini it is formed by suffixing -so , the relative participle suffix to a finite verb. In the current day Urdu so occurs as a correlative in constructions such as- ap ne k?ha so so m??i ne kIya 'whatever you suggested me (to do), I did'. It also occurs in a few proverbs. E.g., jo k?re ga so bh?re ga 'as you sow, so you reap'. The presence of so is attested in classical Dakkhini too, sometimes as a correlative and sometimes as a relative participle and sometimes as a preceding element to the pronoun vo i.e. so vo . However in the modern Dakkhini so beyond doubt has got reanalyzed as a relative participle suffix.
Morphologically the relative participle is a simple structure in Dakkhini. Syntactically it generally recedes an NP and functions as an adjective to modify the former . It is possible to derive participle from a finite verb with the addition of suffix, -so. The general rule governing the formation of a relative participle is : finite verb + -so = the respective participle e.g. k?rt?e 'you (sg, ml.), he does/will do'+ -so = k?rtaso 'that which you (sg, ml.), he does/will do or that which is done'. A compound finite verb, that is, a finite verb followed by an auxiliary too can yield its respective relative participle with -so. e.g., khata h?e '[you (sg. ml.) or he] are/is eating' + -so = khata h?o- so 'that which [you (sg. ml.) or he] is eating or that which is being eaten'.
3.1.0. Convergence between Dakkhini and Telugu vis-à-vis relative participle:
The existing convergence between Dakkhini and Telugu and the former's departure from Urdu, its genealogical affiliate vis-à-vis the relative participle may be illustrated by considering the following examples from these languages.
Dak. 1 a. tUme jateso b?s ?j atini 'the bus which you travel by will not come today'
Tel. b. miru poye b?ssu I na ? u radu ' -do- '
Ur . c. ap jIs b?s se jate h??i vo aj n?h i aye gi ' -do- '
Notice that in both Dakkhini and Telugu there is almost one to one correspondence. Both use the relative participle with suffixes, -so and -e respectively. The former by occurring as an adjective to the following NP, ('bus' in this case) modifies the same. Urdu on the other hand as may be seen is using a relative-correlative construction in this context.
In both Dakkhini and Telugu a compound finite verb can yield the relative participle. Needless to say that this is not possible in Urdu. Consider the following examples:
Dak. 2 a. tUme dekte h i so b?cci b? ?i hU ? ar 'the girl which you are looking (for marriage) is very intelligent'
Tel. b. miru custa Un ? e?mmayi cala talivi ame ' -do- '
Ur . c. ap jo l? ? ki dekh r?he h??i vo b?hUt z?hin h?i ' -do- '
In both Dakkhini and Telugu relative participle may modify an adverbial, a pronoun and a quantitative adjective such as vote. This however is not possible in Urdu where the construction is of a different kind. Let us consider the following examples:
adverbs:
dak. 3 a. m??i bUlayaso xot Une ayani 'he did not turn up at that particular time
when I called him up'
Tel. b. nenu pIlcIn ?ppU ? u va ? u raledu ' -do- '
Ur . c. m??i ne jIs v?qt bUlaya vo n?h i aya ' -do- '
pronouns:
Dak. 4 a. p?ise diso Une boil to n? i 'let the lady who has given money speak'
Tel. b. ? ?bbu Iccin ame c?ppIte k?da ' -do- '
Ur . c. jIs ne p?ise dIye h? i vo k?he t?b na ' -do- '
quantitative adjective, votta:
Dak. 5 a. tUme pucheso votta dyu 'I have given (you) as much as you asked for'
Tel. b. nUvvu ? ? IgIn ?nta Icanu ' -do- '
Ur . c. ap ne jItna maga Utna dIya ' -do- '
See that in Urdu the construction in all the three cases is altogether different. Let alone the modification of an adverb, pronoun or quantitative adjective, the relative participle itself does not exist. Dakkhini and Telugu in this respect are parallel to each other. in both of them the relative participle is capable of modifying an adverb, a pronoun and a quantitative adjective though in a limited way.
Negativization of relative participle is another area where Dakkhini and Telugu go parallel to each other. Look at the following examples:
Dak. 6 a. s?lami dIyeniso valyã ku bi kahna khalao 'please serve meals to them too who did not bring any gift'
Tel. b. gIf ? u Ivv?ni va ?? ? ku gU ? a bhoj?n?m pe ?? ?n ? i ' -do- '
Ur . c. jInhõ ne tohfa n?h i dIya Unh ? bhi khana khIlaIye ' -do- '
It may be noticed that the Dakkhini relative participle is negativized by infixing a negative marker, -ni between the verb and -so. In Telugu the negative relative participle suffix is added. Though morphologically different, the relative participle of Dakkhini and Telugu are syntactically parallel to each other. The Urdu sentence, it may be seen, is altogether different.
Dakkhini and Telugu relative participle can be derived from copula verbs too by adding the suffix, -so . The following examples are illustrative:
Dak. 7 a. p?ise h i so valyã ku dIl n? i 'the persons who have money are not generous (lit. do not have heart)'
Tel. b. ? ?bbu Un ? e va ?? ? ku m?n?ssu ledu ' -do- '
Ur . c. jIn ke pas p?ise h? i Un ke pas dIl n?h i h?i ' -do- '
The inference is quite obvious.
In both Dakkhini and Telugu a compound verbal stem can yield the respective relative participle with the addition of -so. In Urdu this is not possible. The following example illustrates this:
Dak. 8 a. m??i bollalyaso kani bhir boltani 'I would not repeat the story which I have already said'
Tel b. nen ceppesIna k?tha m? ?? i cepp?nu ' -do- '
Ur . c. jo k?hani m? i ne sUnadi h?i vo dUbara n?h i sUnau ga ' -do- '
As expected the Urdu construction is a relative-correlative type. However in both Dakkhini and Telugu we have a relative participle which has a compound verb stem before-so in Dakkhini and --Ina in Telugu respectively.
One may argue that in Urdu the imperfect and perfect participles followed by hUa/hUi/hUe (e.g., b?ce hUe p?isõ se h?m ne ek q?mis x?ridli 'I purchased a shirt with the remaining amount', b?hta hUa pani pine ke lIye ? hik hota h?i 'the running water is fit for drinking') or a bare verb stem followed by r?ha/r?hi/r?he (e.g., vadi m ? c?l r?hi j?ng ?mn ke lIye x?tra h?i 'the war that is taking place in the valley is a threat for peace') do function as relative participles.
Strong arguments may be adduced against this line of thought. These Urdu participles in their function as relative participles are not as productive as the Dakkhini relative participle is. That is, many finite verbs can yield their respective relative participle with-so in Dakkhini. This however is not possible in Urdu.
Secondly as has been observed earlier the Dakkhini relative participle may occur in predicate position [e.g., ? ebUl po si pen gIryaso (gIryaso being focus of emphasis) 'it is the falling of pen from the table']. But this is simply not possible in Urdu. e.g., * ? ebUi se pen gIra hUa. The ungrammaticality may be noticed. Thirdly the Dakkhini relative participle can be negativized. e.g., k?reniso kam 'the work that has not been done'. But the Urdu participles can not be negativized. Notice the ungrammaticality in the following phrases *n?h i b?ce hUe p?ise or *b?ce hUe n?h i p?ise;*n? b?hta hUa pani or b?hta hUa n? pani; n?h i c?l r?hi jUng or*c?l r?hi n?h i jUng.
Many more arguments can be put forth against treating the Urdu participles as relative participles. But due to limitations of the present study we do not want to go into. Hence it is better to treat the Urdu participles as participles only.
4.0.0. K?rko complement construction:
The k?rko complement construction is one of the types of complement constructions that the Dakkhini syntax has. It is characterized by the occurrence of k?rko as complementizer in it. This complementizer is morphologically the past adverbial participle of verb k?r 'to do'. The literal meaning of k?rko is 'having done'. However when used as a complementizer it must semantically be differentiated from the lexical k?rko 'having done'. The following pair of constructions elucidate the difference of meaning:
mozUrã kam sob k?rko c?le g?e 'the labourers finished off all labourers work all done having walked went the work and left'(comp. verb)
mozUrã kam n? i k?rko c?le g?e 'the labourers left as there labourers work no COM walked went (comp. verb) was no work'
In Dakkuni k?rko is a finite complementizer. Syntactically it occurs at the end of a finite embedded class which is part of a larger k?rko construction. By 'finite embedded clause' we mean a clause which is characterized by the occurrence of a finite verb in it. The finite verb generally is the last item of the clause. In other words the complementizer, k?rko generally but not necessarily occurs postposed to the finite verb in an embedded clause. Further in a Dakkhini k?rko construction while the embedded clause generally precedes the k?rko complementizer the one that follows the latter is matrix clause. That is, the one that is always at the left hand side of k?rko is the embedded clause and the one that is at right hand side is the matrix clause. The matrix clause in a k?rko construction is also characterized by the occurrence of a finite verb. A k?rko construction schematically shown below captures the essence of the discussion presented above.
[tUmara x?t aye k?rko ] post mas ? ?r bole
 your letter come has post master said (hon. sg.)
 finite verb complementizer finite verb
  embedded clause matrix clause
A Dakkhini k?rko construction is amenable to extraposition. To illustrate the phenomenon let us consider a construction as the following one:
[Une d? ? a k?rt?e k?rko ] m?je p?helec malum 'I knew (it) earlier itselfhe(rem.)deceipt do will he COM me to prior know that he would deceive'
Now the embedded clause, [Une.........k?rko] can be moved leftwards without affecting the grammaticality of the construction:
m?je p?helec malum [Une d? ? a k?rt?e k?rko ]
Further the grammaticality of the construction is intact even when the subject, m?je of the matrix clause, [m?je.........malum] is moved to the extreme left as follows:
m?je [Une de ? a k?rt?e k?rko ] p?helec malum
Although the general syntactic function of the Dakkhini k?rko is that of a complementizer depending upon the type of finite verb it follows or the other item it follows it performs a variety of syntactico-semantic functions. They are as an assumption clause marker, a simple fact clause marker, a direct speech quotative, a purpose clause marker, a reason clause marker, a name or label indicating entity, an extreme desire indicating clause marker, a deliberateness indicting clause marker, an emphasis laying entity, a question indicating entity and an onomatopoeia indicating entity. Below we give examples one in each case to illustrate these functions:
1. as an assumption clause marker:
[m? i pas hojatu le k?rko ] Une kItaba bec dalya
I pass happen will clitic COM he (rem.) books sell put(past)
'assuming that he would pass (the exam) he sold away the books'
2. as a simple fact clause marker:
[tUme h?mma ku palt? i k?rko ] p?tyara n? i
you (sg. hon. or pl.) we (to) to look after will (lit.rear) COM trust no
'we do not trust that you (pl.) would look after us'
3. as a direct speech quotative:
[Use ao k?rko ] bolo
him(rem.)to please come COM please tell (imp. hon.)
4. as a purpose clause marker:
[sima ?a k ? ?r b?nna k?rko ] b? ? a p? ? ti h?e
Seema doctor become should COM big studying is
'Seema is studying hard as she intends to become a doctor'
5. as a reason clause marker:
[ye sal ?cche b?rsatã p? ? e k?rko ] f?slã ?cche hoe
this year good rains fell COM crops good happened
'this year as there were good rains, (we had) good crops'
6. as a name or label indicating entity:
[dev?l k?ne ram?yya k?rko ] yek mI ? h?ig?r h?e
temple near Ramayya COM one sweet-meat-seller is
'there is a sweet-meat-seller by name Ramayya near the temple'
7. as an extreme desire indicating clause marker:
[bh?vã be ? e m? i m?r ga to b?s k?rko ] h i
daughters-in-law sons I die went if enough COM are
'the daughters-in-law and the sons wish (intensely) I die'
8. as a deliberateness indicating clause marker:
[ma ? bul hona k?rko ] galyã dIya
Maqbul needed COM abuses gave
'Maqbul hurled abuses deliberately'
9. as an emphasis laying entity:
[tUme k?rko ] m??ge bhIr Us k?ne
you (sg. hon. or pl.) COM asked(something) again him with (lit. near)
'it is only (a despicable person like) you who could have asked him again'
10. as a question indicating entity:
[sadi k?b k?rko ] boli Une
marriage when COM told she(rem.)
'what did she say as to when the marriage will take place?'
11. as an an onomatopoeia indicating entity:
[u u k?rko ] b?cce roe
u u COM children cried
'the children cried with the noise u u'
4.1.0. Convergence between Dakkhini and Telugu vis-à-vis k?rko complement construction:
On the basis of scant evidence available right now (i. e. as we have in Urdu construction viz., h?mare p? ? os m ? l?ll?n k?rke ek b? ? h?i r?hta h?i 'there is a carpenter by name Lallan in our neighbourhood'; see foot note on p.15) and on the pasts of classical Dakkhini data provided by Harbir (1986 see fot note on p. 12) it may be said that during the evolutionary process Urdu at some stage might be using k?rke/k?rk?r. Further might be, the syntactic distribution of the embedded and matrix clause was to the right side and left side respectively (as is pattern in today's Urdu) of k?rke/k?rk?r. Dakkhini with slight change in the form not only retained k?rke/k?rk?r but ameliorated it by reanalyzing it in many ways. Further it remodeled the syntactic distribution of the embedded and matrix clauses too. Such reanalysis of the complementizer and also the remodeling however has been shaped by the system prevalent in Telugu vis-à-vis complementation. In the following lines we would elucidate the kind of convergence that has set in between Dakkhini and Telugu vis-à-vis k?rko complement construction thereby departing Dakkhini from Urdu, its genealogical affiliate. This we would do in two parts as follows. But before proceeding it must be clarified that the Dakkhini k?rko has its equivalence in -?ni of Telugu and ke of Urdu.
4.1.1. Convergence vis-à-vis syntactic distribution of embedded clause and matrix clause in a k?rko complement construction:
Consider the following constructions from Dakkhini, Telugu and Urdu:
Dak. 1 a. {kã g?e the mã k?rko} be ? i puci 'the girl asked the mother as to,[embedded clause] [matrix clause] where she had gone'
Tel. b. {yekk? ? a poIn ? iv ?mma ?ni } papa? ? igIndi ' -do- '[embedded clause] [matrix clause]
Ur . c. be ? i ne pucha { ke ?mma ap k?hã g?yi thi}[matrix clause] [embedded clause]
It may be noted that there is one to one correspondence between Dakkhini and Telugu. In both of them the embedded clause syntactically occurs to the left of the complemntizer and the matrix clause to the right. Further in both of them the complementizer is post-sentential. As opposed to this in Urdu the order is reverse; further the complementizer is pre-sentential.
4.1.2. Convergence vis-à-vis extraposability:
To prove the convergence vis-à-vis extraposability again let us consider the above Dakkhini construction viz., 'kã g?e the mã k?rko be ? i puci'. The syntactic options available here in Dakkhini are:
. [kã g?e the mã k?rko ] be ? i puci
. be ? i puci [kã g?e the mã k?rko ]
. be ? i [kã g?e the mã k?rko ] puci
The typical order is as we find in no.1 Constructions with order no.2 and no.3 are grammatical and do occur in the language though infrequently.
In Telugu:
. [yekk? ? a poIn ? iv ?mma ?ni ] papa ? ? igIndi
. papa ? ? igIndi [yekk? ? a poIn ? iv ?mma ?ni ]
. papa [yekk? ? a poIn ? iv ?mma ?ni ] ? ? igIndi
In Urdu:
. be ? i ne pucha [ ke mma ap k?hã g?yi thi]
. * [ ke mma ap k?hã g?yi thi] be ? i ne pucha
. * be ? i ne [ ke mma ap k?hã g?yi thi] pucha
It may be noticed that there is one to one correspondence between Dakkhini and Telugu. Within the gambit of permitted syntactic rules whichever way the items are extraposed the grammaticality of the construction in both the languages is intact. As a contrast with extraposition the grammaticality of Urdu complement construction is affected.
4.1.3. Convergence by way of reanalysis of the complementizer, k?rko:
In almost all the syntactico-semantic functions of k?rko that we have dealth with in sec. 4. 0. 0. the k?rko seems to have been influenced by the Telugu system. In the following lines we by way of discussing a few, though not all, functions of k?rko would elucidate the reanalysis and consequentially convergence that has set in thereby departing Dakkhini from Urdu.
1. as a direct speech quotative:
Let us consider the following construction from Dakkhini, Telugu and Urdu.
Dak. 2 a. [Use ao k?rko ] bolo 'please tell him to come'
him to please come COM tell (sg. hon. or pl.)
Tel. b. [va ? i ki r?mm ?ni ] cepp?n ? i ' -do- '
him to please come COM tell(sg. hon. or pl.)
Ur . c. Us se k?ho [ ke vo ae] ' -do- '
him with tell(informal hon.) COM he may he come
In the above construction the Dakkhini ao and Telugu r?mm(u) 'please come' are being quoted in direct speech. Thus there is one to one correspondence. In Urdu construction however the speech is indirect and further the verb form too is an optative form.
. as a reason clause marker:
Dak. 3 a. [ye sal ?cche b?rsatã p? ? e k?rko ] f?sla ?cche hoe
this year good rains fell COM crops good happened
Tel. b. [i s?mv?ts?r?m m?nci v?rsalu p? ?? a (y) ?ni ] p?n ? ?lu baga ?inæi
this year good rains fell COM crops good happened
Ur . c. Is sal ?cchi barI ? hUi Is lIye fasl ?cchi hUi
this year good rain happened this for crop good happened
'this year as there were good rains, (we had) good crops'
It may be noticed that the Dakkhini k?rko and Telugu ?ni both are functioning as reason clause markers and are thus parallel to each other. On the other hand it may be noticed that Urdu construction has turned out to be other than a complement construction with ke.
3. as an emphsis laying entity:
Dak. 4 a. [tUme k?rko ] m??ge bhIr Us k?ne
you (sg. hon or pl.) COM asked(something) again him with (lit. near)
Tel. b. [mir ?ni ] ? ? igæru m? ?? i va ? deggIra
you(sg. hon or pl.) COM asked(something) again him with (lit. near)
Ur . c. ap h?i jo Us ke pas dobara ma?gne c?le g?ye
You(hon.) are who him of near second time ask to walked went
'it is only (a despicable person like) you who could have asked him again'
The Dakkhini and Telugu constructions are parallel in the sense that the Dakkhini tUme 'you (hon. sg. or pl.)' and Telugu miru 'you (hon. sg. or pl,) are emphasized due to the presence of k?rko and ?ni respectively. The Urdu construction just as the preceding one has turned out to be other than a complement construction.
On the basis of the evidences presented above and the discussion thereof it may be said that Dakkhini has moved closer to Telugu and has converged to it. Whether it is the auxiliary verb rh?-, relative participle or for that matter k?rko complement construction Dakkhini has departed a great deal from Urdu. Given the fact that Dakkhini and Urdu have the same familial affiliations and that once upon a time they were one and the same entity, this is quite fascinating.
As stated elsewhere the present paper is based on the data of Dakkhini as spoken in Rayalseema region of Andhra Pradesh, more specifically the dialect that is spoken in and around Chittoor district. Telugu data in the paper is also drawn from Chittoor district and represents a variety of Telugu as spoken there informally. The current author is at ease with both the languages. He acquired the former as his mother-tongue while the latter informally as a second language after his childhood.
The Urdu data presented represents a variety of Urdu which is spoken informally in places like Delhi , Aligarh , Meerut etc and may be taken as a frame of reference for fixing standard. The present author has spent considerable time at these places at one stage or the other of his life and is thus at ease with Urdu too as a spoken at this places. Therefore while put fort6h certain hypotheses or drawing certain conclusions he has been influenced by his own speech and competence in these languages].
REFERENCES
Andhra Pradesh District Profile, 1991
Arora, Harbir. 1986. Some Aspects of Dakkhini Hindi-Urdu syntax with special reference to convergence. Ph. D., Dissertation, Delhi University
_____________ & Subbarao, K.V. 1988. On extreme convergence : The case of Dakkhini Hindi-Urdu , IL , Vol. 49, no. 1-4.
____________ & ____________ 1989. Convergence and syntactic reanalysis : The case of so in Dakkhini, Studies in Linguistic Sciences, Illinois
Beg, M. K. A. 1988. Urdu Grammar-History and structure, Bahri Publications, New Delhi .
Census of India , 1991. Series 1 - India Part IV (B) (i) (b) - c series, Bilingualism and Trilingualism.
Dil, Anwar S. 1969. 'Linguistic Studies in Pakistan '. In Current trends in Linguistics ed., by Thomas A. Sebeok, vol. 5, The Hague
Dasgupta, Probal. 1982. On Conceiving of South Asia as a Linguistic Area, IL, Vol. 43. no. 3-4.
Husain, Mazhar. 2003. Perspectives on Urdu language and Education in India, Social Scientist, Vol. 31, no. 5-6
Kachru, Yamuna. 1986. 'The Syntax of Dakkhini : A study in Language variation and Language Change'. In Bh. Krishnamurti (ed.) South Asian Languages- Structure, Convergence and Diglossia, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi
Karnataka District Profile, 1991.
Khan, I. H. & Mustafa, K. S. 1984. Simple finite verbs in Dakkhini , IL , Vol. 45, no. 1-4
Khubchandani, Lachman M. 1989. India as a Socio-linguistic Area, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla.
___________________________. 2004. 'Urdu as a Pan-Indian languages : Issues of Identity and communication of a linguistic Minority'. In The Problems concerning the Teaching of Urdu language and Literature in the South (ed.) Prof. Absus Sattar Dalvi, The Deccan Muslim Education & Research Institute, Pune.
Mustafa, K. S. 1981. 'Some aspects of phonological and grammatical convergence of Dakkhini and Telugu'. In proceedings of the seminar on Convergence, pidginization and simplification. CIIL, Mysore .
______________. 1999. 'Urdu in Science and Technology : Then and Now'. Linguistics Today, Vol. III, no.2
______________. 2000. A Descriptive Grammar of Dakkhini. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi .
_____________. 2004. 'Relativization in Dakkhini with special reference to convergence', ISDL, Vol.xxxiii, no.2
Pandit, P. B. 1972. India as a Socio-linguistic area. University of Pune .
Tamil Nadu District Profile, 1991.
. It was not known by the name Urdu then.
Henceforth only Dakkhini.
Mirza Khaleel A. Beg., 1977. Review of Dakkhini Hindi ka Udbhava aur Vikas by Shriram Sharma IL, vol. 38 p. 257 (cf. Mustafa, op. cit. p. 1)
Ruth Laila Schmidt, 1981. Dakhini Urdu-History and Structure p.2 (cf. Mustafa. 2000. op. cit., p.2)
Beg., op. cit. p. 256 (df. Mustafa op. cit. p. 24)
Census of India 1991, Series 1-India Part IV B (i) (b) - C series, Bilingualism and trilingualism, Dr. M. Vijayannuni
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu District profiles 1991.
Census of India 1991, Series 1-India Part IV B (i) (b) - C series, Bilingualism and trilingualism, Dr. M. Vijayannuni
kachru (1973, 1978) treats the Dakkhini so as a correlative. Her hypothesis has been convincingly countered by Harbir and Subbarao and thus repudiated (see Harbir and Subbarao 1989).
See Harbir Arora and K.V. Subbarao 1989 :12
Following Verma (1971) Harbir (1986) calls the relative participle suffix, -so an adjectivalizer.
Not all the finite verbs yield the respective relative participle with the suffix, -so. Thus with the imperative e.g., c?lo 'you (pl or hon. Sg.) move' ? *c?loso
Not all compound finite verbs can yield the relative participles. Thus for example with Dakkhini hortative-dekhige 'let us see' + -so = * dekhi geso.
In Dakkhini only pronouns Ine/Ino 'he (prox.)/they (prox)' and Une/Uno 'he (rem.)/they (rem.)' are capable of being modified by the preceding relative participle, but not others e.g. * p?ise dIyaso tu bolya to n??i? Further Ine/Ino or Une/Uno are capable of being substituted suitably by vala/vali/vale. Thus p?ise diso vali boli to n??i? 'let the lady who has given money speak'. A note of caution however. In Dakkhini the use of vala/vali/vale again is reanalyzed. Here we do not have an Urdu vala/vali/vale type phrase such as ane-vala 'about to come (ml.)', k?rne-vali 'about to do (fn.)' etc. Nor we have phrase like - m?ndIr vali g?li 'the lane in which temple is located', m??he?ge vale jute 'expensive shoes' etc. But there are certain nouns expressive of possession such as pan-vala 'betel
leaf seller', dud-vali 'milkmaid' etc.
In contrast to bolyaso.
In contrast to ceppIna
One may find k?r/k?rk?r, a parallel predecessor of k?rko in classical Dakkhini texts occurring as a postposed complementizer. e.g.,
From Sabras:
xUda h?i k?r bolya jata h?i 'it is said that God is there'
God is COM said going (impfect) is
(quoted by Harbir 1986:115)
Dakkhini text of 1700-1900 century:
?pne u ? ka p?ta mIle ga k?rk?r a k?r kya dekta h?i ke.....
his camel of information get will COM having what sees is that
'having thought that he would get the trace of his camel he came and saw that..........
(quoted by arbir 1986:117)
The current author has happened to notice a parallel construction with k?rke as complementizer in colloquial Urdu spoken in Aligarh, Lucknow and Delhi. e.g., h?mare p? ? os m ? l?ll?n k?rke ek b? ? h?i r?hta h?i 'there is a carpenter by name Lallan in our neighbourhood'. Albeit a rare and isolated occurrence, this lends evidence to believe that the Dakkhini k?rko historically evolved from k?rke (given above) of Urdu and in course of time in a different environment got reanalyzed to perform a variety of new functions.
Regrettably the current author has not been able to glance through classical Dakkhini literature with regard to the occurrence of concerned item.
|
