Who is the M/Other of the
Two? A Comparison of the Syntactic Systems of Punjabi and Siraiki
Junaid Hafeez
Introduction
Siraiki and Punjabi are two languages of Indo-Aryan family,
spoken in Pakistan (Shackle, 1976). According to 2008 Census of Pakistan,
44.15% of the total population speaks Punjabi. Likewise, Siraiki is the
language of at least 15 million people (Shackle, 1976). The history of the
origins of these two languages is debatable. Supporters of each language are of
the view that their language is more ancient than the other. Those who support
Punjabi do not even consider Siraiki a separate language; they take Siraiki as one
of the dialects of Punjabi spoken in the southern regions of Punjab. The given
paper is an attempt at studying syntactic systems of Siraki and Punjabi by
analyzing grammatical categories. It is hoped that this syntactic comparison
between these two languages will give us a better idea about their
origin.
Literature Review/Background
Beames (1867) argues that Punjabi is the language of the
area lying between the river Ravi and the river Bias. According to him, Punjabi
is mere a dialect of Hindi that digressed from the standard Hindi language. He
further proposes that Punjabi had been considered as a separate/autonomous
language only because of its Gurmukhi script that has been invented to document
sayings and lessons of Guru Nanak (1469-1538), the first Punjabi
reformist.
This theory is reinforced by the fact that one does not
find any mention of Punjabi in Ain-I Akbari (Blochmann, H. (tr.). 1927), a
sixteenth century document that discusses Akbar's administrative affairs in
detail. Abu'l Fazl, Akbar's vizier has documented thirteen languages spoken in
India, but he does not include Punjabi. On the other hand, it is stated by the
Punjabi language supporters that Siraiki language did not have a script before
the partition of the sub-continent. It is only after 1947 that Siraiki
developed a script for itself, and hence, its birth is recent and that too has
been fuelled by politics.
However,
Rasoolpuri (1980) argues that Siraiki has been written in Dev Nagri script in
the past times. To support his claim, he quotes a saying that has been
inscribed on the main gate of the ancient fort of Amrot in Bahawalpur district.
The inscription translates into English as: 'This fort has been occupied by Jam
Somro, and Jam Somro arranged repairs of this fort in 1491 A.D.' Abdul-Haq
(1977) contemplates that Siraiki was the lingua franca in the sub-continent. He
supports his claim by consulting Grierson's Linguistic Survey of India
(1967).
Smirnov (1975) proposes that though Siraiki is kindred to Punjabi, it
has many distinctions: Punjabi is an analytical language whereas Siraiki
contains many synthetic forms. It has also been argued by Grierson (1967) that
he collected language samples from Sindh, which share resemblances with the
language spoken in the neighborhoods of Dera Ghazi Khan. Abdul-Haq (1977)
interprets this finding to argue that Siraiki linguistics is different from
Hindi or Punjabi because its origin lies in Dravidian languages, not in
Indo-Aryan languages.
Present
Study
The
present research studies the syntactic systems of Punjabi and Siraiki
languages. As it has been documented in literature review the origin of these
two languages is controversial for political reasons. They share many
similarities and differences in terms of grammatical categories. The given
study would help the readers in getting a fresh insight into the syntaxes of
these two languages. It is by looking at the syntactic systems that one can
formulate a hypothesis about their origin.
The
original plan to collect data was to record Punjabi and Siraiki utterances by
three informants. Three informants studying Siraiki literature at Bahauddin
Zakariya University were chosen. The other three informants were studying
Punjabi literature for Civil Service Exam. Two informants from each group were
native speakers of their respective mother tongues (Siraiki/Punjabi), while the
remaining two were Urdu speakers. When the researcher approached the
informants, they were somehow hesitant to record their voices. All efforts to
convince them of the privacy of these conversations went futile. So, an
alternative strategy had to be developed. The informants were asked to discuss
grammar in an informal manner. Following the research ethics, the conversation was
not recorded, though the informants allowed the researcher to take notes. They
discussed various grammatical categories of both the languages.
Significance and Delimitation:
Previously, a large amount of work has been done to trace out the
evolution and history of Punjabi and Siraiki languages. The work is
appreciable, but its nature is more evaluative than scientific. Owing to the
politics involved, the scholars in the past have exaggerated the status of
their respective languages by coining hyperbolic statements in their favor, and
simultaneously passing derogatory understatements about the 'rival' language,
or the language of their 'opponents' (See Abdul-Haq's Siraiki Zaban aur Us Ki
Hamsaya Ilaqai Zabanain). The present study is aimed at studying the syntactic
systems of the two languages without declaring one superior to the other.
As a
linguist, the researcher believes in equality of languages and believes in the
scientific study of language, which is free of human biases and emotions. It is
hoped that the given study would encourage the research scholars to follow the
same scientific spirit of descriptive linguistics in the perusal of
regional/national/international languages.
In determining the limits of the study, the first delimiting factor is
the number of participants. Since the number of informants is limited, it would
not be possible to cover all the grammatical categories of these two languages.
Also, all the informants are not equally trained in linguistic knowledge of
grammar. Four of the informants--whose mother tongue is either Pujnabi or
Siraiki--have been explaining grammatical rules on intuition. The remaining two
Urdu speakers only have the course textbooks at their disposal to explain
regularities and irregularities of Siraiki and Punjabi.
Results
and Discussion
The
results and disuccsion based on the notes jotted down during the conversations
can be summarized as follows:
Word
Order
Both
Punjabi and Siraiki follow the same word order of SOV (subject-object-verb).
Punjabi:
Aslam (S) khana (O) khanda (V) piya hai.
Siraiki: Aslam (S) khana (O) kh'nda (V) paey.
Aslam is
having his meal.
Sometimes,
the word order might be changed in both the languages for the purpose of
stress.
So, the
sentence may start with an object (O) or a verb (V) as follows:
Punjabi:
khana (O) khanda (V) piya hai Aslam! (S)
Siraiki:
khana (O) kh'nda (V) paey Aslam! (S)
Punjabi:
khanda (V) piya hai khana (O) Aslam! (S)
Siraiki:
kh'nda (V) paey khana (O) Aslam! (S)
Postpositions
Both
Punjabi and Siraiki have postpositions instead of prepositions. Notice the
position of 'preposition' that is connecting two nouns in the following
examples:
Punjabi: Kitaab maiz tay (postpoistion) pai ay.
Siraiki:
Kitaab maiz tay (postposition) laa'thi ay.
It would now be clear to the readers that why connecting words like
'tay' are called postpositions in Siraiki and Punjabi. Compare the above
utterances with the following English translation for a clear understanding of
preposition and postposition. Unlike Siraiki and Punjabi, here the preposition
'on' is positioned between two nouns for establishing a relationship between
them:
The book is lying on the table.
Sounds
Siraiki possesses some specific phonetic sounds which are not present in
Punjabi. After the partition of India, Punjabi has been written in Urdu script
in Pakistan, and hence the Urdu alphabets are considered sufficient for writing
Punjabi. However, for Siraiki, we need to add five (5) extra alphabets to the
Urdu script. These sounds are closer to the Urdu sounds of | b |, | j |, | d |,
| g |, and | n | with the difference that the Urdu sounds are exhaled and the
Siraiki sounds are inhaled.
Gender
Punjabi and
Siraiki distiguish two genders: masculine and feminine. In case of Punjabi, the
masculine nouns end in unaccented ā, the feminine nouns end in ī. For example,
khotā, khotī (male donkey, female donkey); kuttā, kuttī, (dog, bitch) etc. In
Siraiki, the second last alphabet of a masculine noun is characterized by a
'paish', and by a 'zair' in case of a feminine noun. For example,
Chohor
ku'n khana diyo. (Give food to the boy.)
Chohir ku'n khana diyo. (Give food to the girl.)
The same
rule applies to the words borrowed by Saraiki from other languages. For
example, have a look at the treatment of an Urdu word 'bay sharam' (shameless)
in Siraiki language:
Bay
sharom, roti kha ghin! [Shameless (boy), have your food!]
Bay
sharim, roti kha ghin! [Shameless (girl), have your food!]
Number
Siraiki
and Punjabi share two numbers: singular and plural. Both the languages share
many common rules of making plurals. For example, in both languages, the
masculine singular nouns ending in 'a' can be made plural by adding 'ay':
gorrha/ghorrhay (horse/horses), banda/banday (man/men), larka/larkay (boy/boys)
etc. Similarly, the feminine singular nouns of both the languages ending in 'i'
can be made plural by adding 'yan': chachi/chachiyan (aunt/aunts), dhi/dhiyan
(daughter/daughters), nani/naniyan (grand-mother/grand-mothers) and so
on.
However,
there is another rule in Siraiki language for making plurals. It has been
discussed earlier that a masculine singular noun in Siraiki is characterized by
a 'paish' on its second last alphabet while a feminine singular noun by a
'zair'. A masculine singular noun can be made a plural masculine noun by
replacing its 'paish' with 'zabar' while a feminine singular noun can be made a
plural feminine noun by adding 'ain' at the end of singular while maintaining
the 'zair' on its second last alphabet. Hence, 'chohor' (singular) becomes
'chohar' (plural), and 'chohir' would become 'chohirain.'
Ay chohor kon hey? (Who is this boy?)
Ay chohar kon hin? (Who are these boys?)
Ay chohir
kon hey? (Who is this girl?)
Ay chohirain kon hin? (Who are these girls?)
Person
Seraiki and Punjabi, like English language, have three persons: first
person, second person, third person. Like Urdu, Seraiki and Punjabi do not have
gender discrimination in the grammatical category of persons. For example, 'o'
is used for singular/plural third person regardless of masculine or feminine
noun.
Punjabi:
O khana khandi pai hai. (She is having her meal.)
Punjabi: O khana khanda piya hai. (He is having his meal.)
Punjabi: O khana khanday pai nay. (They are having their meals.)
Same is
the case for Seraiki language.
Case
Seraiki and
Punjabi have five cases for the persons mentioned above: direct,
oblique,possessive, locative and instrumental. In Seraiki, for second person
singular, they can berepresented as tuun, taiku'n', taida, tai'n which and
tai'n kanu'n respectively. In Punjabi, direct and oblique cases are common
while the rest are employed rarely. Theinstrumental case is used in the plural
form of some nouns like hatthīṃ meaning hatthāṃ nāl (with hands or using
hands). Examples of plural locative forms are piṇḍīṃ (in villages) from piṇḍ
(village).
Suffixes
Seraiki has
unqiue feature of suffixes which perform multiple functions of subject and
object. They can even change the tense and type of sentence. This feature is
not found in Punjabi. Have a look at the following examples:
Siraiki:
Maray'sin'is. (They would beat him.)
Punjabi: oh ono maran gay.
Siraiki: Maray'sin'ain. (They would beat them.)
Punjabi:
oh ona nu'n maran gay.
Siraiki: Maray'sway. (They would beat you.)
Punjabi: oh thuwano maran gay.
Siraiki:
Maray'sum. (They would beat me.)
Punjabi:
oh mainu maran gay.
Siraiki: Maray'sin'ya! (Beware, they would beat him!)
Punjabi:
Khabardar, oh ono maran gay!
Siraiki:
Maray'sum's. (I would beat him.)
Punjabi: main ono maran ga.
Those who
argue that Siraiki does not belong to Indo-Aryan languages put forward this
particular aspect of Siraiki to support the claim that Siraiki belong to
Dravidian family of languages and hence is much older than Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi
or any other languages invented upon the arrival of Aryans to the
sub-continent.
Conclusion
The given linguistic study was conducted in order to have a better insight
into the syntactic systems of Punjabi and Siraiki. As it has been documented,
Siraiki and Punjabi show resemblances in their syntactic patterns, yet, each
language has its own canon of exceptions and norms when grammatical categories
are explored. The given study strengthens the concept of universal grammar
i.e., all the languages of the world have something common in their structures.
The similarities shared by both the languages in their syntax can be related to
the fact that lingual habits of speech communities living together influence
each other. Though the origin of both the languages is debatable, it is a
historical fact, that the Punjabi and Siraiki speakers have been living
together and trading with each other for centuries. Sharing the common climate,
geography, material/non-material culture, and means of production definitely
produces a common worldview of the members speech communities to the extent
that it is visible at the level of syntax. It is hoped that the linguists would
further explore these two languages in future with the linguistic spirit of
neutrality.
References
Abdul-Haq,
M. (1984). Siraiki Zaban day Qaiday Qanoon, Multan: Siraiki Adbi Board.
Abdul-Haq,
M. (1977). Siraiki Zaban aur Us Ki Hamsaya Ilaqai Zabanain, Multan: Siraiki
Adbi Board.
Blochmann,
H. (tr.). (1927). The Ain-I Akbari by Abu'l Fazl Allami, Calcutta: The Asiatic
Society
Beames,
J. (1867). Outlines of Indian Philology with A Map Showing the Distributionof
Indian Languages, Calcutta: Wyman Bros.
(2008).
Census of Pakistan retrieved from http:// statpak.gov.pk on June 22,
2012.
Grierson,
G. A. (1967). Linguistic Survey of India, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
5 of 6
2/8/2019, 10:47 AM
EBSCOhost
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.uwaterloo.ca/ehost/delivery?sid=e4...
Rasoolpuri,
M. A. (1980). Siraiki Zaban, Unda Rasmulkhat Te Awazan.
Smirnov,
U. A. (1975). The Lahndi Language, Moscow: Nuka Publishing House.
Shackle,
C. (1976). The Siraiki Language of Central Pakistan: A Reference Grammar,
London.
Wagha, A.
(1980). The Siraiki Language: Its Growth and Development, Islamabad: Dderawar
Publications.
Junaid
Hafeez, B.A. (Hons.), M.Phil. Scholar Department of English, Bahauddin Zakariya
University, Multan, Pakistan, proem86@hotmail.com
(Published in “Language in India”, Dec 2012, Vol. 12, Issue
12, p72-79)
