Page:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu/17

 If so, they can only have immigrated from the east. At all events they must have been settled in India from a very early period. The Sabaras, the ancestors of the Savaras, are already mentioned in old Vedic literature. The Mundā languages seem to have been influenced by Dravidian and Aryan forms of speech. In most characteristics, however, they differ widely from the neighbouring tongues.

The Mundā languages abound in vowels, and also possess a richly developed system of consonants. Like the Dravidian languages, they avoid beginning a word with more than one consonant. While those latter forms of speech shrink from pronouncing a short consonant at the end of words, the Mundās have the opposite tendency, viz. to shorten such sounds still more. The usual stopped consonants—viz. k, c (i.e. English ch), t and p—are formed by stopping the current of breath at different points in the mouth, and then letting it pass out with a kind of explosion. In the Mundā language this operation can be abruptly checked half-way, so that the breath does not touch the organs of speech in passing out. The result is a sound that makes an abrupt impression on the ear, and has been described as an abrupt tone. Such sounds are common in the Mundā languages. They are usually written k’, c’, t’ and p’. Similar sounds are also found in the Mōn-Khmēr languages and in Indo-Chinese.

The vowels of consecutive syllables to a certain extent approach each other in sound. Thus in Khērwārī the open sounds å (nearly English a in all) and ä (the a in care) agree with each other and not with the corresponding close sounds o (the o in pole) and e (the e in pen). The Santālī passive suffix ok’ accordingly becomes åk’ after ä or å; compare sän-åk’, go, but dal-ok’, to be struck.

Words are formed from monosyllabic bases by means of various additions, suffixes (such as are added after the base), prefixes (which precede the base) and infixes (which are inserted into the base itself). Suffixes play a great rôle in the inflexion of words, while prefixes and infixes are of greater importance as formative additions. Compare Kurku k-ōn, Savara ōn, son; Kharia ro-mong, Kherwārī mū&#x0303;, nose; Santāli bor, to fear; bo-to-r, fear; dal, to strike; da-pa-l, to strike each other.

The various classes of words are not clearly distinguished. The same base can often be used as a noun, an adjective or a verb. The words simply denote some being, object, quality, action or the like, but they do not tell us how they are conceived.

Inflexion is effected in the usual agglutinative way by means of additions which are “glued” or joined to the unchanged base. In many respects, however, Mundā inflexion has struck out peculiar lines. Thus there is no grammatical distinction of gender. Nouns can be divided into two classes, viz. those that denote animate beings and those that denote inanimate objects respectively. There are three numbers—the singular, the dual and the plural. On the other hand, there are no real cases, at least in the most typical Mundā languages. The direct and the indirect object are indicated by means of certain additions to the verb. Certain relations in time and space, however, are indicated by means of suffixes, which have probably from the beginning been separate words with a definite meaning. The genitive, which can be considered as an adjective preceding the governing word, is often derived from such forms denoting locality. Compare Santālī hår-rä, in a man; hår-rän, of a man.

Higher numbers are counted in twenties, and not in tens as in the Dravidian languages.

The pronouns abound in different forms. Thus there are double sets of the dual and the plural of the pronoun of the first person, one including and the other excluding the person addressed. The Rev. A. Nottrott aptly illustrates the importance of this distinction by remarking how it is necessary to use the exclusive form if telling the servant that “we shall dine at seven.” Otherwise the speaker will invite the servant to partake of the meal. In addition to the usual personal pronouns there are also short forms, used as suffixes and infixes, which denote a direct object, an indirect object, or a genitive. There is a corresponding richness in the case of demonstrative pronouns. Thus the pronoun “that” in Santālī has different forms to denote a living being, an inanimate object, something seen, something heard, and so on. On the other hand, there is no relative pronoun, the want being supplied by the use of indefinite forms of the verbal bases, which can in this connexion be called relative participles.

The most characteristic feature of Mundā grammar is the verb, especially in Kherwārī. Every independent word can perform the function of a verb, and every verbal form can, in its turn, be used as a noun or an adjective. The bases of the different tenses can therefore be described as indifferent words which can be used as a noun, as an adjective, and as a verb, but which are in reality none of them. Each denotes simply the root meaning as modified by time. Thus in Santālī the base dāl-ket’, struck, which is formed from the base dal, by adding the suffix ket’ of the active past, can be used as a noun (compare dal-ket’-ko, strikers, those that struck), as an adjective (compare dal-ket’-hår, struck man, the man that struck), and as a verb. In the last case it is necessary to add an a if the action really takes place; thus, dal-ket’-a, somebody struck.

It has already been remarked that the cases of the direct and indirect object are indicated by adding forms of the personal pronouns to the verb. Such pronominal affixes are inserted before the assertive particle a. Thus the affix denoting a direct object of the third person singular is e, and by inserting it in dal-ket’-a we arrive at a form dal-ked-e-a, somebody struck him. Similar affixes can be added to denote that the object or subject of an action belongs to somebody. Thus Santālī håpån-iñ-e dal-ket’-tako-tiñ-a, son-my-he struck-theirs-mine, my son who belongs to me struck theirs.

In a sentence such as har kōrā-e dal-ked-e-a, man boy-he struck him, the man struck the boy, the Santals first put together the ideas man, boy, and a striking in the past. Then the e tells us that the striking affects the boy, and finally the -a indicates that the whole action really takes place. It will be seen that a single verbal form in this way often corresponds to a whole sentence or a series of sentences in other languages. If we add that the most developed Mundā languages possess different bases for the active, the middle and the passive, that there are different causal, intensive and reciprocal bases, which are conjugated throughout, and that the person of the subject is often indicated in the verb, it will be understood that Mundā conjugation presents a somewhat bewildering aspect. It is, however, quite regular throughout, and once the mind becomes accustomed to these peculiarities, they do not present any difficulty to the understanding.

.—Max Müller, Letter to Chevalier Bunsen on the Classification of the Turanian Languages. Reprint from Chr. K. J. Bunsen, Christianity and Mankind, vol. iii. (London, 1854), especially pp. 175 and sqq.; Friedrich Müller, Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft, vol. iii. part i. (Wien, 1884), pp. 106 and sqq., vol. iv. part i. (Wien, 1888), p. 229; Sten Konow, “Mundā and Dravidian Languages” in Grierson’s Linguistic Survey of India, iv. 1 and sqq. (Calcutta, 1906).

 MUNDAY (or ), ANTHONY (c. 1553–1633), English dramatist and miscellaneous writer, son of Christopher Monday, a London draper, was born in 1553–1554. He had already appeared on the stage when in 1576 he bound himself apprentice for eight years to John Allde, the stationer, an engagement from which he was speedily released, for in 1578 he was in Rome. In the opening lines of his English Romayne Lyfe (1582) he avers that in going abroad he was actuated solely by a desire to see strange countries and to learn foreign languages; but he must be regarded, if not as a spy sent to report on the English Jesuit College in Rome, as a journalist who meant to make literary capital out of the designs of the English Catholics resident in France and Italy. He says that he and his companion, Thomas Nowell, were robbed of all they possessed on the road from Boulogne to Amiens, where they were kindly received by an English priest, who entrusted them with letters to be delivered in Reims. These they handed over to the English ambassador in Paris, where under a false name, as the son of a well-known English Catholic, Munday gained recommendations which secured his reception at the English College in Rome. He was treated with special kindness by the rector, Dr Morris, for the sake of his supposed father. He gives a detailed account of the routine of the place, of the dispute between the English and Welsh students, of the carnival at Rome, and finally of the martyrdom of Richard Atkins (? 1559–1581). He returned to England in 1578–1579, and became an actor again, being a member of the Earl of Oxford’s company between 1579 and 1584. In a Catholic tract entitled ''A True Reporte of the death of——M. Campion'' (1581), Munday is accused of having deceived his master Allde, a charge which he refuted by publishing Allde’s signed declaration to the contrary, and he is also said to have been hissed off the stage. He was one of the chief witnesses against Edmund Campion and his associates, and wrote about this time five anti-popish pamphlets, among them the savage and bigoted tract entitled A Discoverie of Edmund Campion and his Confederates——whereto is added the execution of Edmund Campion, Raphe Sherwin, and Alexander Brian, the first part of which was read aloud from the scaffold at Campion’s death in December 1581. His political services against the Catholics were rewarded in 1584 by the post of messenger to her Majesty’s chamber, and from this time he seems to have ceased to appear on the stage. In 1598–1599, when he travelled with the earl of Pembroke’s men in the Low Countries, it was in the capacity of playwright to furbish up old plays. He devoted himself to writing for the booksellers and the theatres, compiling religious works, translating Amadis de Gaule and other French romances, and putting words to popular airs. He was the chief pageant-writer for the City from 1605