On possible Dardic and Burushaski influence on some Northwestern Tibetan dialects

73. Balti rkat `to cut down with a sword' (Sprigg 2002: 140). Cf. PII *kart- `to cut' > OIA kr_ontati, kartati `cuts', Av. kdrdntaiti `cuts', kardta- `knife', Hindi-Urdu katta `curved knife', kattl `sword, knife, dagger', Tirahi katari `knife', Pashai katare `spear', Gawar-Bati kataro `large knife', Kalasha katar, Khowar kuter `knife, dagger', Bashkarik kater `knife', Savi katarei, Phalura katoro `dagger', Shina khataru `knife'.

74. Ladakhi sale `knitting needle' (Norman 2010: 1005). Cf. Burushaski sel `Nadel, Stecknadel' (Berger 1998b: 377). May be etymologically connected with Phalura sileni `needle' and OIA sпvyati `sews'.

75. Balti, Purik samdal `moustache', Ladakhi samdal `beard, moustache, whiskers (e.g. of a cat or otter)'. (Zemp 2018: 938; Norman 2010: 1007). Jдschke 1881: sam-dal Ld. mustaches. Cf. Burushaski (Yasin) samlatin, (Hunza) salat `Schnurrbart' (Berger 1998b: 373), Khowar, Kalasha samlat `moustache'. Balti, Purik, Ladakhi samdal < *samtal < *samlat with consonant metathesis and subsequent voicing of t after a nasal?

76. Purik sarsing, Ladakhi sarsing, sartsing, sasting `oleaster, Russian olive, Eleagnus an- gustifolia, a tree with extremely fragrant clusters of small yellow flowers, edible but unpleasant olive-shaped fruit, and silvery leaves that stay on the tree into winter' (Norman 2010: 1007). Cf. Kalasha sicin `Eleagnus' (Trail, Cooper 1999: 271), Khowar sinjur, Wakhi sisk, Shughni sпzd, Munji sijiд, Tajiki sinjid, Persian senjed id. The word seems to be a local Wanderwort. It is, however, remarkable that in the Tibetan-speaking area it is found only in Northwestern dialects. The source of the Purik and Ladakhi words may have been a Dardic form that was phonologically similar to the Kalasha one.

77. Balti, Purik, Ladakhi (Leh) shagaran `polo ground, playing field' (Norman 2010: 969). Cf. Burushaki sabaran (Hunza), sawaran (Nagir, Yasin), Shina shavarnn id.

78. Balti shang `wisdom, sense' (Sprigg 2002: 151), Purik say `consciousness' (Zemp 2018: 931), Ladakhi shang `alertness, awareness, caution, prudence' (Norman 2010: 553). The word should be separated from Old and Classical Tibetan spyang-ba, spyang-po `skill; skillful, clever' because the Old Tibetan initial cluster spy- is preserved in Balti and Purik, and changes to с- in Ladakhi (cf. Balti spyang-mo `agile' (Sprigg 2002: 159), Purik spyaymo `agile, attentive' (Zemp 2018: 928), Ladakhi changpo (cang-po) `alert, clever, sharp-witted' (Abdul Hamid 1998)). But cf. Burushaski say `awake, aware; care, heed, attention' (Lorimer 1938: 322), Shina son `care, anxiety; awake, alert' (Bailey 1924), Khowar sang `fear, suspicion' (Morgenstierne 1973), OIA Sankate `is afraid, distrusts', Sanka- `fear, distrust'.

79. Ladakhi shanti `a leafy vegetable' (Norman 2010: 975). Cf. Indus Kohistani sarп `a green vegetable with round leaves' (Zoller 2005: 378). The word seems to reflect some derivative of PII *saka- `green vegetable' (OIA saka-, Shina, Indus Kohistani sa, Phalura so, Bashkarik sa, Kashmiri hakh, Kalsha sak, Khowar sax id.).

80. Ladakhi shen (Leh dialect), sen (Shamskat dialect) `(wooden) floor' (Norman 2010: 986). Jдschke 1881: shen, sren floor of a house or room W. The word may reflect PII *Srayana- `leaning, foothold' (< *sri- `to lean', cf. OIA Sri-, Avestan sri- id.). Cf. Indo-Aryan, Dardic and Iranian words for `ladder, stair' reflecting various derivatives of the same root: Sinhalese hini, HindiUrdu, Punjabi sпrhп, Phalura suri, Pashai sur, Shumashti sпndп, Gawar-Bati sidп, Yidgha xad, Pashto sol.

81. Ladakhi shen-ces `to squash' (Norman 2010: 986). Cf. OIA Srnati `crushes, breaks', Khowar senik `to crush'.

82. Balti (Skardu dialect) spa `taste, tasty (neutral), (sexual) enjoyment', Purik, Ladakhi (Nubra dialect) spa `taste, flavour' (Norman 2010: 542; Sprigg 2002: 159). Jдschke 1881: dpa'(-ba) 1. bravery, strength, courage; brave, strong, courageous. 2. beauty; beautiful. 3. W. taste, agreeable taste, flavour. Contrary to Jдschke, West Tibetan words can hardly reflect Old Tibetan dpa'(-ba). Such a derivation is problematic not only for semantic but also for phonological reasons, because the regular reflexes of the Old Tibetan cluster dp in Balti and Purik are xp and sp respectively (cf. Balti xpera `talk, conversation' < Old Tibetan dpe-sgra; Purik spa(w)o, spaho `warrior' (Norman 2010: 542) < Old Tibetan dpa'-bo). But cf. OIA svada- `taste', Shina ispavu `tasty'.

83. Purik su `nose' (used as a synonym of snamtshul id. < Old Tibetan sna-mtshul) (Zemp 2018: 938). Cf. Burushaski sь єїлв `to smell (v.t.)' (Lorimer 1938: 332), Shina sь thoоki, Indus Kohistani sь karnv id. (Bailey 1924; Zoller 2005: 391).

84. Ladakhi sutun `(a child's or baby's) trousers' (Norman 2010: 1012). Cf. Waigali so(n)ta, Tirahi sdtдn, Pashai sutд'n, Phal. suthan `a kind of trousers', Indus Kohistani sutny `loose cotton trousers, shalwar' (Zoller 2005: 402), Sindhi suthana `pantaloons, drawers', Lahnda sutthan `women's drawers', Punjabi sutthan, sutthun `women's loose trousers', Hindi suthan `trousers', West Pahari (Kotgarhi) sutthan `pair of trousers', Niya Prakrit somstani ` trousers (?)'.

85. Balti (Skardu dialect) syar, Purik, Ladakhi sar `wick' (Norman 2010: 1007). Jдschke 1881: sar wick W. Cf. Burushaski (Hunza, Nagir, Yasin) sar `gedrehter Wollfaden' (Berger 1998b: 375). Berger compares this word with OIA sarika `string of pearls'.

86. Balti takalu, Ladakhi takari, takari `scales, balance' (Norman 2010: 368; Sprigg 2002: 162). Jдschke 1881: tв-ka-ri common scales, Ld. Cf. Shina зakвe, S. trakirп, Lahnda trakkarп, Punjabi takkarп, Hindi-Urdu tarakrп `pair of scales', Burushaski (loanword) jakвai `Waage' (Berger 1998b: 233). This word is etymologically connected with OIA tarka- `inquiry, conjecture', tarkayati `guesses, thinks', Proto-Iranian *tark- > Ossetic tжrxon `judgement, discussion, verdict, trial' (Abaev 1979: 275-276).

87. Purik taki, taki `flat bread' (Zemp 2018: 934), Ladakhi taki, tagi tagi `bread' (Norman

2010: 368-369). Jдschke 1881: ta-gir W. bread. Cf. Shina, Khowar tiki id., Phalura tiki `small, thick cakes of bread' Liljegren, Haider 2011), Kalasha tiki `bread made by cooking in oil' (Trail, Cooper 1999), Lahnda tikkп `food', Sindhi tikп, Gujarati tпkп, Marathi tiklп `cake', Punjabi tikkп,

Hindi tikiya `small cake'.

88. Ladakhi tak-tak (Shamskat dialect), tak-tak, (Leh dialect) `taut, stretched tight, tight (e.g. of curtain, clothing, greenhouse plastic)', Purik taqtaq `tight' (Norman 2010: 370), Balti tak-tak `hard' (Sprigg 2002: 184). Reduplicated adjectives are a well-attested phenomenon in modern Tibetan dialects (cf. Balti, Ladakhi kor-kor `concave, round', Classical Tibetan kor `root denoting anything round or concave' (Jдschke 1881: 6); Lhasa chung-chung `small', Classical Tibetan chung-ba id.). Northwestern Tibetan final k and q usually reflect earlier final g (Miller 1956). The earlier prototype for the root of the words under analysis can thus be reconstructed as *tag. This root may be borrowed from some Indo-Iranian source, where it reflects either PII tank- (> OIA tanc- `to contract, put together, coagulate, solidify', Persian tanjпdan `to squeeze; to twist, roll together; to draw tight', tang `narrow, tight', Balochi tanc- `to fasten strongly, roll strongly, squeeze', Shughni taz-/tпzd- `to pull, draw, haul, drag, stretch' More Iranian reflexes of this root see in (Cheung 2007: 377-378).) or PII *tangh- (> Proto-Iranian anj- `to pull, draw' > Avestan §anj- id., Persian sanjпdan `to measure; reflect; compare, put in balance', Ossetic tinjin `to spread, stretch out; to crucify' (Cheung 2007: 391392)). The latter root may have also reflected in Dardic (cf. Kashmiri tanz `extreme and urgent desire', Semantically cf. Russian t'aga (тяга) `pull, traction; attraction, craving, strong desire'. Khowar tonjeik `to destroy, pull down'). Absence of the nasal in the Tibetan forms may be due to its regular drop before an old voiced guttural in the donor language. A similar process is attested in Shina: agar `fire' (cf. OIA angara- `coal'), agui `finger' (cf. OIA anguli- id.).

89. Balti tangka, dangga `shelter for the night, room boarded all round' (Sprigg 2002: 183, 184), Purik tangka `partially roofed daytime pen for animals; open or partially roofed courtyard on the upstairs of a house' (Norman 2010: 359). Cf. Burushaski danoo `oberirdischer Speicher, mit Tьr zum Haus' (Berger 1998b: 131), Shina dдnц `native storehouse' (Bailey 1924). But cf. also Tibetan dang-ra `stable for cattle' (Jдschke 1881).

90. Balti tek `button' (Sprigg 2002: 184). Cf. Burushaski tak, Shina tak, Indus Kohistani tiku, Khowar, Kalasha tak id.

91. Balti thing `upright, straight up' (Sprigg 2002: 184). Cf. Burushaski tip `peak (of mountain), top (of hill); stretched up, erected', Khowar thing `high place; steep slope' (Lorimer 1938: 352).

92. Balti thup `darkness' (Sprigg 2002: 166), Purik thup `dark' (Norman 2010: 435). Cf. Burushaski thap `night'; Shina (Chilasi dialect), Indus Kohistani thap<sup>h</sup> `dark; extinguished (light, fire)' (Zoller 2005: 113). Balti thap-thup `dawn, dusk, twilight' (Sprigg 2002: 184) may also belong here.

93. Balti tok `swelling, bump on the head, small hill' (Sprigg 2002: 185). Cf. Burushaski thoko `Klumpen, Ballen (von Zucker, Salz, Butter)' (Berger 1998b: 452), Shina thokь `hill' (Bailey 1924), Indus Kohistani thokh `a clod (earth, salt)' (Zoller 2005: 220).

94. Ladakhi tsapik `a little, a bit, a little while' (Norman 2010: 731). Jдschke 1881: tsa-big, tsha-big Ld. a little. Cf. Shina cap-, Indus Kohistani cap-, Gawar-Bati cep- `to bite', Pashai cip- `to bite off', Kashmiri cop `a bite'. The Dardic forms probably reflect the Proto-Indo-Iranian root *kap-/cap- `to catch, snatch, pick, pinch'. For the Iranian reflexes of this root see e.g. (Ras- torgueva, Edelman 2003: 221-226). For the semantic development in Ladakhi cf. English bit (etymologically = bite). The final element -ik is a reduced form of the numeral cik `one'.

95. Ladakhi tsele `(jocular) small, short (esp. of people).; (Shamskat dialect) a small variety of tick' (Norman 2010: 735). Cf. Burushaski chilum, pl. chiliiko, chiliiko `fein gemahlen, fein (Pulver, Mehl usw.); feinkцrnig; klein, winzig (Schriftzьge), in kleinen Buchstaben geschrieben; minderwertig, weniger gut' (Berger 1998b: 77).

96. Ladakhi tsiri `the small intestine' (Norman 2010: 733-734). Cf. Burushaski -chir (Hunza, Nagar), -cйrin (Yasin) `Darm, pl. Eingeweide' (Berger 1998b: 78), Kalasha c(i)raki, tsiraki `large intestines' (Trail, Cooper 1999: 63).

97. Ladakhi tshele `thatched roof, shade made of branches and leaves, thatched-roofed house or hut' (Norman 2010: 773), Balti tshele `hut' (Sprigg 2002: 170). Cf. Kashmiri chey `a kind of thatching grass' (Grierson 1915-1932: 1066), Lahnda, Punjabi chatt, Hindi chat `roof', OIA chadayati `covers', chadis- `cover, roof', Proto-Iranian *sad- `to cover' (cf. Pashto psoldl `to adorn' < *upa- or *pati-sad-) < PIE *sk'ed-. The source of the Ladakhi and Balti words may have been the derivative with the suffix (chadila- scadila-).

98. Ladakhi tshitu, tshitu `contamination, causing dirtiness or violation in a way that will cause illness or spiritual pollution; menstruation' (Norman 2010: 766), Purik tshe(r)tu `dirty' (Zemp 2018: 932). Cf. Kashmiri chetun `to become impure, to become unclean, to become refuse and untouchable', chetаrun `to render impure, to cause something previously pure to become impure, to defile', cheth `remnants of food, leavings of a meal' (Grierson 1915-1932: 1063, 1064). Shina usuto (usuto) `foul, unclean' and Burushaski zutu (Hunza, Nagir), zetu (Yasin) `unrein durch Pollution, Menstruation, oder wenn man nach dem Koitus nicht gebadet hat' (Berger 1998b: 486) with unexplained voicing of the initial consonant may also belong here. Turner's comparison of the Kashmiri and Shina forms with OIA ucchista- `left over, stale, spat out; leavings' (Turner 1966: 85) doesn't seem impeccable because the OIA cluster st regularly corresponds to the aspirated th in Kashmiri.

99. Balti tshon `injury' (Sprigg 2002: 171). Cf. OIA ksanoti `injures, hurts', ksata- `wounded', ksataka- `wound', ksanana-, ksati- `injury, damage', Pali khanati `destroys', Khotanese vasanaurau `destructive' (Bailey 1979: 379) vi-sana-bara-, Greek`I kill' < PIE *tk'en- (LIV: 645). In “Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben” the reconstructions *tken- and *tk'en- are considered equally possible, but the single non-geminate intervocalic s in Khotanese indicates higher probability of a prototype with the PIE palatal *k'. The prototype with the plain dorsal *k, *tken- (or *kpen- in earlier reconstructions), would have reflected as *xsan- in Proto-Iranian, and the regular Khotanese continuant of its derivative *vi-xsana-bara- would have sounded **vassanaurau.

Old Tibetan mtshon `pointed or cutting instrument', proposed by Sprigg as the source of the Balti word, is semantically more distant. To the same Indo-Iranian etymon may also belong Balti tshak `rheumatism' (Sprigg 2002: 169), Purik tshaq `pain with difficulty of breathing', tshak yong `to ache', Ladakhi tshak `sprain, pulled muscle, sudden cramp, sudden sharp pain' (Norman 2010: 759-760). Etymologically = OIA ksataka-? Cf. Kashmiri chokh `wound', Khowar cay `illness' (= OIA ksati-?), chek `illness, pain'.

100. Ladakhi tso `standing on the hind legs (e.g. khi tso coduk `the dog is standing on its hind legs')' (Norman 2010: 735). Cf. Burushaski, Shina cфko `senkrecht, ansteigend, aufrecht, steil' (Berger 1998b: 90), Indus Kohistani cuk<sup>h</sup> `vertical, upright, erect' (Zoller 2005: 168).

101. Ladakhi tsolo `anus' (Norman 2010: 735). Jдschke 1881: tsho-lo W. vulgar 'phong- tshos `buttocks'. Cf. Kashmiri coth `anus, vulva', Indus Kohistani cot<sup>h</sup> `buttock' (Zoller 2005: 181), Lahnda, Punjabi cuttar, Hindi cutar `rump, buttock'. The intervocalic l in Ladakhi may reflect the retroflex r or d (< *t, cf. the Indus Kohistani form) of the donor language.

102. Ladakhi tul `powdered dung' (Norman 2010: 448). Norman proposes the earlier prototype dul. Since in the dialects of Upper Ladakh, where this word is attested, one of the sources of the initial t- is d-, Norman's proposal sounds reasonable. The prototype *dul seems to have cognates in Indo-Aryan and Dardic: OIA dhuli- `dust, powder', dhulika- `pollen, fog, mist'; Prakrit dhuli, Hindi dhul, Punjabi, Lahnda, Gujarati dhur, Sindhi dhuri, Kumauni dhuli, Bengali dhul, Marathi dhul `dust'; Nepali dhulo `dust, powder'; Tirahi "dщda", Kalasha udhru, Shina ьdu, Phalura duri `dust'; Pashai (Wegali dialect) durп `dust-storm'; Torwali dur `mist'.

103. Balti tul `to patch, mend (by sewing)' (Sprigg 2002: 172), Purik tul `to stitch a thick or hard object with many stitches', Ladakhi (Shamskat, Leh and Nubra) tur-ces `to darn, mend by stitching' (Norman 2010: 374). Jдscke 1881: tur-ba W `to darn (stockings)'. Cf. Burushaski (Hunza, Nagir) tol `awl (cobbler's)', cuk etas tol `a sewing awl' (Lorimer 1938: 355), Burushaski (Yasin) tul `Ahle' (Berger 1998b: 428).

104. Balti tyaku `branch used as a hockey stick' (Sprigg 2002: 185), Ladakhi taku, teku, taku `polo mallet, hooked stick' (Norman 2010: 368). Jдschke 1881: ta-ku W stick with a hook, hooked cane, crutch. Cf. Burushaski (Yasin) daku `Spazierstock' (Berger 1998b: 129), Burushaski (Hunza, Nagir), Shina dnko `wooden post supporting roof, pillar, tent-pole' (Lorimer 1938: 108).

105. Balti zanzos, dzanzos (Turtuk dialect), Purik zanzos `wife; family' (Norman 2010: 842; Sprigg 2002: 180). Norman derives this word from Persian zan `woman'. Her etymology cannot be discarded because massive borrowing from Persian into Muslim Tibetan dialects (directly and through Urdu) is an established fact. This process took place at a comparatively recent date and was mainly mediated through written language. That being said, it seems somewhat strange that the word in question is preserved only as a part of a fossilized compound, the second component of which cannot be identified with certainty. Norman mentions the hypothetical variant dzantshos in the Turtuk dialect of Balti. If such a form really exists, the second part of the compound may be compared with Tibetan tshos `color'. The original meaning of the word in this case should be something like `female appearance'. It is, however, possible that the element (d)zan-, being etymologically related to the above-mentioned Persian lexeme, was adopted from some other Indo-Iranian source. Cf., e.g. Phalura jeeni `female person' (Liljegren, Haider 2011: 76), Kashmiri zrn', Sindhi, Lahnda, Punjabi janп `woman', Bash- karik jin kar- `to marry', Indus Kohistani zhal `marriage' (Zoller 2005: 202), OIA jani-, Av. faini- `woman, wife'. The initial dz in Balti may point to the initial affricate of the donor language.

106.

Data interpretation, conclusions and issues for future research

The above list contains a hundred-plus probable loanwords. They can be classified on the basis of their dialectal distribution, as well as of their etymological sources. If the former criterion is applied, the greater part of the list may be subdivided into two groups, i.e. lexical items found in the whole area and those peculiar to Muslim dialects (Balti and Purik). These groups include 35 (circa 33.3%) and 37 (circa 35.2%) words respectively. In addition, 11 words (circa 10.5%) are attested in Ladakhi and Purik only, and 22 (circa 21%) are peculiar to Ladakhi.

Etymologically, the list is far from homogeneous. Words of Burushaski and Indo-Iranian origin seem to be almost equally numerous. The delimitation of these two strata, however, poses a problem. Some Indo-Iranian languages were and still are in close contact with Buru- shaski. Since a considerable part of modern Indo-Iranian vocabulary remains unetymologized, the direction of borrowing is not clear in all cases. For this reason, at the current state of our knowledge the most accurate etymological classification should include the following classes:

1) words with parallels in Burushaski only;

2) words with both modern Indo-Iranian and Burushaski parallels, not etymologizable in Indo-Iranian (possible Burushaski loanwords in Indo-Iranian);

3) words with both modern Indo-Iranian and Burushaski parallels, etymologizable in Indo-Iranian (possible Indo-Iranian loanwords in Burushaski);

4) words with parallels in Indo-Iranian only.

These classes comprise 11 (circa 10.5%), 38 (circa 36.2%), 19 (circa 18%) and 37 (circa 35.2%) words on the list respectively.

The most intriguing conclusions can, however, be drawn if the two classifications are “superimposed” on each other, i.e. if we try to establish the distribution of loanwords belonging to the four above etymological classes, in different dialects. Out of 37 words, attested only in Balti and/or Purik, 6 belong to class 1, 15 belong to class 2, 7 belong to class 3, 9 belong to class 4. That is to say, the majority (circa 57%) of loanwords peculiar to Muslim dialects are unquestionable or probable borrowings form Burushaski. In the light of this fact, Zemp's claim that “... the deepest mark on Purik appears to have been left by Burushaski” (Zemp 2018: 4) should be considered realistic. A totally different picture emerges based on the etymological analysis of lexical items peculiar to Ladakhi. In this group the predominace of Indo-Iranian borrowings is quite evident, 16 words (circa 73%) belonging to classes 3 and 4. A somewhat similar distribution show the words, attested in Ladakhi and Purik only. Classes 3 and 4 cover 3 (circa 27%) and 4 (circa 36%) of such words respectively, their total number being 11. Among the borrowings common to all the analyzed dialects, i.e. Ladakhi and Muslim varieties, Bu- rushaski and Indo-Iranian loans are numerically almost equal, classes 1 and 2 comprising 18 words (circa 51%), classes 3 and 4 -- 17 words (circa 49%) out of 35.

The situation just described looks somewhat confusing and needs some explanation. To explain it in full, copious additional lexical material on Ladakhi, Purik and Balti will, no doubt, be necessary. Nevertheless, some preliminary hypotheses may already be proposed. Dissimilarity in distribution of loanwords between Indo-Iranian and Burushaski strata in different Northwestern Tibetan dialects may well have been caused by local differences in ethnic and linguistic composition in the pre-Tibetan period. If this be the case, it should be assumed that the pre-Tibetan population of the present-day Kargil and Skardu districts spoke some form of Burushaski, while in Ladakh the predominant language was Indo-Iranian. This is, howerver, a somewhat simplistic scheme, and the true picture of language contact in the region seems to be more intricate. The route of Tibetan migration to the present-day Muslim areas must undoubtedly have passed through Ladakh. This fact explains why a large percentage of the loanwords that are common for Ladakhi and Muslim dialects is of Indo-Iranian origin. On the other hand, the presence of numerous Burushaski loans in Ladakhi is also a certainty. It cannot be ruled out that some of them were not borrowed directly but rather came via Balti or Purik. In this regard, it is worth noting that a number of such words are attested only in the Shamskat and Nubra dialects, spoken in Northern Ladakh and staying in close contact with Purik and Balti. Yet one should bear in mind that Indo-Iranian languages were not autochthonous in the region, even though they seem to have been spoken there before the spread of Tibetan. The pre-Indo-Iranian inhabitants of Ladakh may well have been speakers of some local variety of early Burushaski. It implies the possibility that the Burushaski elements in Ladakhi may, at least partly, have been adopted via some pre-Tibetan Indo-Iranian dialect from this earlier substrate language.

Another fact yet to be explained is the considerable number of Indo-Iranian borrowings attested in Muslim dialects only. They make up circa 43% of loanwords peculiar to Balti and Purik. It seems quite possible that some of them are in fact present in Ladakhi, too, but for some reasons were not included in Norman's dictionary. A certain part of such words, however, may belong to dialects other than those of Skardu and Kargil and stem from their substrate languages, which could have been Indo-Iranian rather than Burushaski. Unfortunately, this hypothesis can hardly be tested because of an extreme lack of data. The situation may change in the future, provided field linguistic research in the region makes more progress.

The above wordlist raises a number of issues for further research. For example, it still remains unclear whether Indo-Iranian words in it were borrowed from a single source or several sources. If there were more than one donor languages, were they all substrata for the Tibetan dialects or at least some of them were adstrata? Which branches of Indo-Iranian do they represent? All these questions will remain unanswered as long as the historical-phonological peculiarities of the Indo-Iranian lexical items on the list remain unclear. This problem will be addressed at length in a separate article. Here I will limit myself to several most conspicuous features.

Some loanwords in Ladakhi show devoicing of historical voiced stops (cf., e.g. kit-ces `to catch, seize, capture' PII grbh-ta-; pat, paddi, patsi `totally, completely' PII *baddha- badh-ta-). This phonological change affected also the inherited vocabulary of several Ladakhi dialects including the dialect of Leh. Since in more cases Indo-Iranian word-initial voiced consonants are preserved, it may be hypothesized that the process of borrowing started before devoicing and finished after it had already taken place. A synchronically similar, but probably historically different phenomenon can be seen in loans form Burushaski, where voiceless and voiceless aspirated consonants sometimes correspond to voiced ones in the donor language: Balti kфdos `rounded stone, cobble-stone' (cf. Burushaski guyos `grinding-stone'), Balti, Purik payu `salt' (cf. Burushaski bayu), Balti phada `bald' (cf. Burushaski bata), Balti tyaku `branch used as a hockey stick', Ladakhi taku, teku, taku `polo mallet, hooked stick' (cf. Burushaski daku `Spazierstock'). As is evident from the above examples, this type of sound correspondence is not confined to Ladakhi but found also in Balti and Purik, where Old Tibetan root-initial voiced stops were in most cases not devoiced. The cause of this phenomenon is not quite clear, but most likely it has something to do with the fact that in Burushaski itself many roots with initial mediae have variants with aspirated and unaspirated tenues. These variants often appear after prefixes.

Another noteworthy historical-phonological feature of Indo-Iranian loanwords is the den- talization of old palatal affricates: Ladakhi tsapik `a little, a bit, a little while' (cf. Shina cap- `to bite' (cap-),³² Balti (d)zanzos, Purik zanzos `wife; family' (cf. OIA jani-, Av. faini- `woman, wife'). This change, however, is not observed in some borrowings from Burushaski: Ladakhi c(h)ancil `the green outer shell or fruit of walnut' (cf. Burushaski c(h)anjil), Balti, Ladakhi cha `millet' (cf. Burushaski cha).

The central question arising in the context of Indo-Iranian loanwords in Northwestern Tibetan dialects is certainly that of the exact position of the donor language(s) in the Indo-Iranian subfamily. In the present article I confine myself to making just a few points in this connection. First of all, in the above material there is not a single example of typically Iranian phonological development. ³³ The presence of phonological innovations peculiar to Indo-Aryan is highly questionable, the only possible example being perhaps the change of PIE *sk' to palatal aspirated affricate ch with subsequent dentalization (cf. Ladakhi, Balti tshele `hut', etymologically connected with OIA chad- `to cover' < PIE *sk'ed-). This example is, however, hardly indicative because the change *sk' > ch is attested in a number of Dardic languages where it is an independent development of Proto-Dardic *sc (Kogan 2005).

On the other hand, there are several reasons to believe that the souce language of at least some of the words on the list may have belonged to the Dardic group. In this regard, one fact is remarkable. In Indo-Iranian loanwords we find two different coorespondences to OIA cluster ks, i.e. tsh (voiceless dental aspirated affricate) and ch (voiceless palatal aspirated affricate). Cf., e.g. Balti tshon `injury', tshak `rheumatism', Purik tshaq, Ladakhi tshak `sharp pain' (= OIA ksanoti `injures, hurts', ksataka- `wound'); Balti, Purik chal `overflow, spill over', Ladakhi chal-ces `to splash, to spill over' (= OIA ksarati, ksalati `flows, trickles', ksalayati `washes'). Iranian etymological parallels to these two words do not show uniformity of correspondences too (cf. Proto- Iranian *vi-sana-bara- `destructive' > Khotanese vasanaurau; Proto-Iranian *xsar- `to flow' > Ossetic дxsдrdzдn `waterfall'). This picture clearly shows that we are dealing here with the re- flexation of two different old consonant groups. Iranian is known to preserve the distinction between Proto-Indo-European clusters containing palatal dorsal consonants (i.e. *k's, *tk' etc.) and those containg plain or labial dorsals (i.e. *ks, *gs, *kws, *gws and some others), the reflexes being *s and *xs respectively, while in Indo-Aryan the merger took place. Dardic in this respect is somewhat close but not identical to Iranian. Here the reflexes did not merge, and clusters of the two aforesaid types developed in two divergent ways, i.e. to palatal ch and to cerebral ch (Kogan 2005).³⁴ As we can see, this Dardic reflexation is not only very similar to the one detected in the above-metioned Nothwestern Tibetan words, but may well represent the earlier stage of the latter. The dental voiceless aspirate tsh may have evolved from palatal ch in the wake of dentalization, and the cerebral ch may have been decerebralized into palatal ch.³⁵ Summing up, the system of reflexes of the Indo-European clusters under analysis in the two Indo-Iranian loanwords on our list, being totally different from both Indo-Aryan and Iranian, is at the same time derivable from the Proto-Dardic one. It can, howerver, be stated with certainty that the source of these loans cannot be any of the present-day Dardic languages spoken adjacent to Balti, Ladakhi and Purik, i.e. Brokskat, Shina and Kashmiri. All these languages belong to the Eastern Dardic subgroup, where the earlier ch and ch have merged word-initially (Kogan 2016).

Thus, historical phonology gives us some evidence in favor of Francke's hypothesis. Nonetheless, as noted above, this hypothesis is undoubtedly unacceptable in its original version and should be reformulated. The pre-Tibetan population of Ladakh may well have been linguistically Dardic but its language could in no way have been an early form of Brokskat. What this language really was is an interesting problem in itself. It is hoped that further study will throw some light on it.

Abbreviations for language names

Av -- Avestan; OIA -- Old Indo-Aryan; PIE -- Proto-Indo-European; PII -- Proto-Indo-Iranian

tibetan language india controlled

References

1. Abaev, Vasily I. 1979. Istoriko-etimologicheskij slovar' osetinskogo jazyka. Tom III. Leningrad: Nauka.

2. Abaev, Vasily I. 1989. Istoriko-etimologicheskij slovar' osetinskogo jazyka. Tom IV. Leningrad: Nauka.

3. Abdul Hamid. 1998. Ladakhi-English-Urdu dictionary with an English-Ladakhi index. Leh: Melong Publications.

4. Bailey, T. Grahame. 1924. Grammar of the Shina Language ("Royal Asiatic Society, Prize Publication Fund”, vol. VIII). London: Royal Asiatic Society.

5. Bailey, Harold W. 1979. Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge University Press.

6. Berger, Hermann. 1998a. Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager. Teil I. Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

7. Berger, Hermann. 1998b. Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager. Teil III. Wцrterbuch Burushaski-Deutsch, Deutsch-Burushaski. Unter Mitarbeit von Nasiruddin Hunzai. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

8. Cheung, Johnny. 2007. Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

9. Forssman, Bernhard. 1980. Hethitisch kurka-Comm. `Fohlen'. Zeitschrift fьr vergleichende Sprachforschung 94(1/2): 70-74.

10. Francke, August H. 1905. The eighteen songs of the Bono-na festival (Dard text, with translation, notes and vocabulary). The Indian Antiquary XXXIV: 93-110.

11. Francke, August H. 1906. The Dards at Khalatse in Western Tibet. Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 1(19): 413-419.

12. Francke, August H. 1907. A history of Western Tibet: one of the unknown empires. London: S. W. Partridge & Co.

13. Grierson, George A. 1915-32. A Dictionary of the Kashmiri Language. Vol. I-IV (“Bibliotheca Indica”. Work No. 229). Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal.

14. Grierson, George A. 1919. Linguistic Survey of India. Vol. VIII, pt. 2. Specimens of the Dardic or Pisдca Languages (including Kвshmпrп). Calcutta: Superintendent Goverment Printing, India.

15. Hegedьs, Irйn. 2002. Proto-Nuristani *kurka `young of an animal'. In: Fabrice Cavoto (ed.). The Linguist's Linguist. A Collection of Papers in Honour of Alexis Manaster Ramer. Mьnchen: Lincom Europa.

16. Jдschke, Heinrich A. 1881. A Tibetan-English dictionary with special reference to the prevailing dialects. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

17. Jettmar, Karl. 1975. Die Religionen des Hindukusch (= Die Religionen der Menschheit. Bd. 4, 1). Mit Beitrдgen von Schuyler Jones und Max Klimburg. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag.

18. Kogan, Anton I. 2005. Dardskie yazyki. Geneticheskaya kharakteristika. Moskva: Vostochnaya literatura.

19. Kogan, Anton I. 2016. Problemy sravnitel'no-istoricheskogo izuchenija jazyka kashmiri. Moskva: “Fond razvitija funda- mental'nyx lingvisticheskix issledovanij”.

20. Kogan, Anton I., Mikhail E. Vasilyev. 2013. K voprosu o vostochnodardskoj jazykovoj obshchnosti. Journal of Language Relationship 10: 149-178.

21. Liljegren, Henrik, Naseem Haider. 2011. Palula vocabulary. Islamabad: Forum for Language Initiatives.

22. Livshits, Vladimir A. 2003. Drevneje nazvanije Syrdarji. Vestnik drevnej istorii 1(244): 3-10.

23. Lorimer, David L. R. 1939. The Burushaski language. Vol. III. Vocabularies and index. Oslo: H. Aschehoug & Co. (W. Ny- gaard).

24. Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1992. Etymologisches Wцrterbuch des Altindoarischen. I Band. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitдtsverlag

25. Miller, Roy Andrew. 1956. Segmental diachronic phonology of a Ladakh (Tibetan) dialect. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlдndischen Gesellschaft 106(2): 345-362.

26. Morgenstierne, Georg. 1940. Notes on Bashkarik. Acta Orientalia XVIII(3/4): 206-257.

27. Morgenstierne, Georg. 1941. Notes on Phalura, an Unknown Dardic Language of Chitral. Oslo: J. Dybwad.

28. Morgenstierne, Georg. 1967. Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages. Vol. III. The Pashai Language. 1. Grammar. Oslo: Univer- sitetsforlaget.

29. Morgenstierne, Georg. 1973. Sanskritic Words in Khowar. In: Georg Morgenstierne. Irano-Dardica: 256-272. Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag.

30. Norman, Rebecca. 2010. A Dictionary of the Language Spoken by Ladakhis. Ms. (unpublished draft).

31. Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wцrterbuch. Bern / Mьnchen: Francke Verlag.

32. Rastorgueva, Vera S., Dzhoy I. Edelman. 2003. Etimologicheskij slovar' iranskix jazykov. T. 2 (b--d). Moskva: «Vostochnaja literatura» RAN.

33. Rastorgueva, Vera S., Dzhoy I. Edelman. 2007. Etimologicheskij slovar' iranskix jazykov. T. 3 (f--h). Moskva: «Vostochnaja literatura» RAN.

34. Shaw, R. B. 1878. Stray Aryans in Tibet. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal XLVII/I: 26-62.

35. Sloan, Mohammad Ismail. 1981. Khowar-English dictionary. Peshawar: Printing Corporation of Frontier Ltd.

36. Sprigg, Richard K. 2002. Balti-English, English-Balti dictionary. New York / London: Routledge.

37. Steblin-Kamenskiy, Ivan M. 1999. Etimologicheskij slovar' vaxanskogo jazyka. Sankt-Petersburg: Peterburgskoje vostokovedenije.

38. Strand, Richard F. 2006. Khowar lexicon. Available online: (accessed 27.11.2019).

39. Trail, Ronald L., Gregory R. Cooper. 1999. Kalasha Dictionary with English and Urdu compiled by Ronald L. Trail, Gregory R. Cooper. Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, Quaidi-Azam University, Summer Institute of Linguistics.

40. Turner, Ralph L. 1966. A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. Oxford University Press.

41. Zeissler, Bettina. 2004. Relative tense and aspectual values in Tibetan languages. A comparative study. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

42. Zeissler, Bettina. 2010. East of the moon and West of the sun? Approaches to a land with many names, North of Ancient India and South of Khotan. The Tibet Journal XXXIV (3/4) / XXXV (1/2): 371-463.

43. Zemp, Marius. 2006. Synchronic and diachronic phonology of the Tibetan dialect of Kargil. Lizentiatsarbeit im Fach Historisch Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Bern.

44. Zemp, Marius. 2018. A grammar of Purik Tibetan. Leiden / Boston: Brill.

45. Zoller, Claus P. 2005. A Grammar and Dictionary of Indus Kohistani. Volume 1: Dictionary. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Размещено на Allbest.ru