Munda languages
Template:Short description Template:Redirect Template:Use British English Template:Use dmy dates Template:Infobox language family
The Munda languages are a group of closely related languages spoken by about eleven million people in India, Bangladesh and Nepal.<ref name="auto">Template:Citation</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Historically, they have been called the Kolarian languages.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> They constitute a branch of the Austroasiatic language family, which means they are more distantly related to languages such as the Mon and Khmer languages, to Vietnamese, as well as to minority languages in Thailand and Laos and the minority Mangic languages of South China.<ref>Bradley (2012) notes, MK in the wider sense including the Munda languages of eastern South Asia is also known as Austroasiatic</ref> Bhumij, Ho, Mundari, and Santali are notable Munda languages.<ref name=Sealang>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name=elanguage>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="auto"/>
The family is generally divided into two branches: North Munda, spoken in the Chota Nagpur Plateau of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Odisha and West Bengal, as well as in parts of Bangladesh and Nepal, and South Munda, spoken in central Odisha and along the border between Andhra Pradesh and Odisha.<ref name=Bhattacharya>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=Languagesgulper>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="auto"/>
North Munda, of which Santali is the most widely spoken and recognised as an official language in India, has twice as many speakers as South Munda. After Santali, the Mundari and Ho languages rank next in number of speakers, followed by Korku and Sora. The remaining Munda languages are spoken by small, isolated groups, and are poorly described.<ref name="auto"/>
Characteristics of the Munda languages include three grammatical numbers (singular, dual and plural), two genders (animate and inanimate), a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural pronouns, the use of suffixes or auxiliaries to indicate tense,<ref name="Mouton de Gruyter">Template:Citation</ref> and partial, total, and complex reduplication, as well as switch-reference.<ref>Template:Citation</ref><ref name="Mouton de Gruyter"/> The Munda languages are also polysynthetic and agglutinating.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>Template:Sfnp In Munda sound systems, consonant sequences are infrequent except in the middle of a word. The Munda languages are often interpreted as prime examples of father tongues, that the languages were passed down through generations from the paternal side, rather than the mother.
OriginEdit
Many linguists suggest that the Proto-Munda language probably split from proto-Austroasiatic somewhere in Indochina.Template:Citation needed Studies by Chaubey et al. (2011), Arunkumaret al. (2015), Metspalu et al. (2018), and Tätte et al. (2019) all show that the Munda branch of the Austroasiatic family was created as the result of a male-biased linguistic intrusion into the Indian subcontinent from South-east Asia during the Late Neolithic period (Sidwell & Rau 2019 cited Tätte et al. (2019), estimate a date of formation between 3,800 and 2,000 YBPs), which carried the paternal lineage O1b1a1a into India, either from Meghalaya or from the sea.Template:Sfnp These studies and analyses confirm George van Driem's Munda Father tongue hypothesis.Template:Sfnp Paul Sidwell (2018) suggests they arrived on the coast of modern-day Odisha about 4000–3500 years ago (Template:Circa BCE) and spread after the Indo-Aryan migration to the region.<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2018. Austroasiatic Studies: state of the art in 2018. Presentation at the Graduate Institute of Linguistics, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan, 22 May 2018.</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Rau and Sidwell (2019),<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Rau, Felix and Paul Sidwell 2019. "The Maritime Munda Hypothesis." ICAAL 8, Chiang Mai, Thailand, 29–31 August 2019. {{#invoke:doi|main}}</ref> along with Blench (2019),<ref>Blench, Roger. 2019. The Munda maritime dispersal: when, where and what is the evidence?</ref> suggest that pre-Proto-Munda had arrived in the Mahanadi River Delta around 1,500 BCE from Southeast Asia via a maritime route, rather than overland. The Munda languages then subsequently spread up the Mahanadi watershed. 2021 studies suggest that Munda languages impacted Eastern Indo-Aryan languages.<ref>Ivani, Jessica K; Paudyal, Netra; Peterson, John (2021). Indo-Aryan – a house divided? Evidence for the east–west Indo-Aryan divide and its significance for the study of northern South Asia. Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, 7(2):287–326. {{#invoke:doi|main}}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
ClassificationEdit
Munda consists of five uncontroversial branches (Korku as an isolate, Remo, Savara, Kherwar, and Kharia-Juang). However, their interrelationship is debated.
Diffloth (1974)Edit
The bipartite Diffloth (1974) classification is widely cited:
- Munda
- North Munda
- South Munda
Diffloth (2005)Edit
Diffloth (2005) retains Koraput (rejected by Anderson, below) but abandons South Munda and places Kharia–Juang with the northern languages:
Anderson (1999)Edit
Gregory Anderson's 1999 proposal is as follows.<ref name="Anderson1999">Anderson, Gregory D.S. (1999). "A new classification of the Munda languages: Evidence from comparative verb morphology." Paper presented at 209th meeting of the American Oriental Society, Baltimore, MD.</ref>
- Munda
However, in 2001, Anderson split Juang and Kharia apart from the Juang-Kharia branch and also excluded Gtaʔ from his former Gutob–Remo–Gtaʔ branch. Thus, his 2001 proposal includes 5 branches for South Munda.
Anderson (2001)Edit
Anderson (2001) follows Diffloth (1974) apart from rejecting the validity of Koraput. He proposes instead, on the basis of morphological comparisons, that Proto-South Munda split directly into Diffloth's three daughter groups, Kharia–Juang, Sora–Gorum (Savara), and Gutob–Remo–Gtaʼ (Remo).<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
His South Munda branch contains the following five branches, while the North Munda branch is the same as those of Diffloth (1974) and Anderson (1999).
<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
Sora–Gorum Juang ↔ Kharia ↔ Gutob–Remo ↔ Gtaʔ{{#if:|{{#if:|}}
— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries}}
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}
- Note: "↔" = shares certain innovative isoglosses (structural, lexical). In Austronesian and Papuan linguistics, this has been called a "linkage" by Malcolm Ross.
Sidwell (2015)Edit
Paul Sidwell (2015:197)<ref>Sidwell, Paul. 2015. "Austroasiatic classification." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.</ref> considers Munda to consist of 6 coordinate branches, and does not accept South Munda as a unified subgroup.
PhonologyEdit
Consonants, vowels, and syllableEdit
The Munda languages share a similar set of consonants with the Eastern Austroasiatic languages. Inherited Austroasiatic "checked" glottalized stop (pre-glottalized articulatory) and nasalized final consonants make the Munda languages standout in South Asia. Because of South Asian areal convergence, Munda generally have fewer vowels (between 5 and 10) than comparatively the Eastern Austroasiatic languages.Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp Additionally, Sora has glottalized vowels. Like any other Austroasiatic languages, the Munda languages make extensive uses of diphthongs and triphthongs. Larger vowel sequences can be found, with an extreme example of Santali kɔeaeae meaning ‘he will ask for him’.Template:Sfnp Most Munda languages have registers but lack tones with an exception of Korku who has acquired two contrastive tones within the South Asian linguistic area: an unmarked high and a marked low.Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp The general syllable shape is (C)V(C),Template:Sfnp and the preferred structure for disyllables is CVCV. South Munda displays tendency toward initial clusters, CCVC word shape, diphthong reflexes, with best examples are manifested in the Gtaʔ case.Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp Repeating above, tonogenesis in Korku and continuous CCVC/sesquisyllabic development in Gtaʔ, both of which were unfolded inside the South Asian linguistic area, seem to have nothing related to contact-driven restructuring in the subcontinent. It is also unclear whether they were directly connected to areal convergences in the Eastern Austroasiatic languages. Munda word shape is dictated by a general phonotactical phenomenon called bimoraic constraint: it requires free-standing nominal stems to stay either disyllabic or obtain weight at the stressed syllable, that is, monosyllabic free forms of nouns have to be expanded in order to remain heavy (Anderson & Zide 2001).<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>Template:Sfnp<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> See ##Vocabulary for comparison.
Word prominenceEdit
Template:Harvtxt posited overarching assumptions that all Munda languages have completely redesigned their word prosodic structure from proto-Austroasiatic rising intonation, iambic and reduced vowel, sesquisyllabic structure to Indic norms of trochaic, falling rhythm, stable or assimilationist consonants and harmonised vowels, making them oppose to Eastern Austroasiatic languages at almost every level. Template:Harvtxt criticized Donegan & Stampe, pointing out that the overall picture appears much more complicated and diverse, and that generalizations of Donegan & Stampe are not supported by the instrumental data of the various Munda languages.Template:Sfnp Template:Harvtxt describes word-rising contour in monosyllables and second syllable prominence in Kharia content words. The presence of clitics and affixes even does not drive Kharia word prosodic structure to that of a trochaic and falling system. Template:Harvtxt reports final syllable stress in all but CVC.CV stems in Mundari.Template:Sfnp Template:Harvtxt, Horo (2017) and Template:Harvtxt found that the Sora disyllables are always iambic, reduced first syllable vowel space, and second syllable prominence.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Even CV.CCə words show final syllable prominence. Template:Harvtxt note that the Sora vowels of the first syllables are “centralized” while vowels in the second syllables are more representative of the canonical vowel space. Template:Harvtxt describes the Santali prosody that “stress is always released in the second syllable of the word regardless of whether it is an open or a closed syllable.”Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp His analysis was confirmed by Template:Harvtxt, whose acoustic data clearly shows that the Santali second syllable is always the prominent syllable with greater intensity of stress and a rising contour.<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> Template:Harvtxt reports that in Korku, the final syllable is heavier than the initial syllable, and within a disyllable, stress is preferentially released at the final syllable.Template:Sfnp The analyses inferred from databases demonstrate that despite exhibiting some variants, Munda prominence alignments are majority in line with other Austroasiatic languages, with predictable final syllable prominence in a prosodic word. Again, Template:Harvtxt claim on rhythmic holism does not conform with data presented by individual Munda languages.Template:Sfnp
MorphologyEdit
Morphologically, both North and South Munda subgroups mainly focus on the head or the verb, thus they are primarily head-marking, in contrast to dependent-marking Indo-European and Dravidian families.Template:Sfnp As a result, nominal morphology is less complex than verbal morphology.Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp Case markers on nominals to show syntactic alignments, i.e. nominative-accusative, ergative-absolutive, are largely absent or not systematically developed among the Munda languages except Korku. Relation between subject and object in clause is mainly conveyed through verbal referent indexation and word order. At clause/sentence level, Munda languages are head-final, but internally head-first in referent indexation, compounds, and noun incorporation verb complexes.Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp Munda head-first, bimoraic constraint-free noun incorporation is also found in Khasian, Nicobaric, and other Mon-Khmer languages.Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp In word derivation, besides their own innovative methods, the Munda languages maintain Austroasiatic methods in forms of reduplication, compounding, and derivational infixation and prefixation.Template:Sfnp
North MundaEdit
The North Munda subgroup is split between Korku and the fourteen Kherwarian languages.
Kherwarian languagesEdit
Kherwarian is a large language continuum with speakers extending west to east from the Indian states of Uttar Pradesh to Assam, north to south from Nepal to Odisha. They include fourteen languages: Asuri, Birhor, Bhumij, Koda, Ho, Korwa (Korowa), Mundari, Mahali, Santali, Turi, Agariya, Bijori, Koraku, and Karmali, with the total number of speakers surpassing ten million (2011 census). The Kherwarian languages are often highlighted due to their elaborate and complex templatic and pronominalized predicate structures are so pervasive that it is obligatory for the verb to encode TAM, valency, voices, possessive, transitivity, clear distinction between exclusive and inclusive first persons, and index with both two arguments, including outside arguments like possessors.
Noun incorporation is often described as an ancestral Munda morphological feature and is essential to the grammar of other South Munda languages such as Sora, but the Kherwarian languages appear to have lost noun incorporation altogether. Nevertheless, rare instances of noun incorporation could be found in some archaic Kherwarian registers and oral literature.
KorkuEdit
Unlike the Kherwarian languages with their complex verbal morphology, the Korku verb is moderately simple with modest amount of synthesis.Template:Sfnp Korku lacks person/number indexing of subject(s)/actor (except third persons of locative copulas and nominal predicates in the locative case) and independent present/future tense markers.Template:Sfnp Korku present/future tenses rely on the finitizer suffix -bà.Template:Sfnp Present/Future tense negation can be located in either preverbal or post-verbal, but past tense negation is marked by suffix -ᶑùn.Template:Sfnp
Many Korku auxiliary verbs are borrowed from Indo-Aryan. The auxiliary predicate will take TAM, voice, finiteness suffixes for the verb. Such an example would be ghaʈa- meaning 'to manage to, to find a way to' serves as the acquisitive.Template:Sfnp
South MundaEdit
Compared to North Munda, the South Munda languages are even more divergent with fewer shared morphological traits. Even the classification of Munda languages figures out that South Munda does not seem to exist as a valid taxon. However, South Munda languages retain many notable characteristics of the original proto-Munda such as prefix slots, scope-ordering of referent indexation, thus they represent the less restructured morphology of Munda, reflecting the older proto-Munda as well as proto-Austroasiatic structures.Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp
KhariaEdit
In Kharia, subject markers index not only dual/plural exclusive/inclusive but also honorific status. Objects are not marked in the verb in per se. They are marked, instead, by oblique case =te.
There is a reduplicated free-standing form of each finite verb that behaves differently from simple verb stem. In the predicate, reduplicated free-standing form never marks TAM and person. Because of this, the free-standing form is used in subordination, an attributive function corresponding more or less to relative clauses. The infinitive verb form is marked by =na. The infinitive can serve as nominalizer, too: jib=na=te ‘touching’.
| Simple verb root | Free-standing form | |
|---|---|---|
| live | borol | borol |
| open | ruʔ | ruʔruʔ |
| see | yo | yoyo |
Similar to Hindi and Sadani, Kharia has made a calque to form sequential converbs (conjunctive participles) kon (derived from ikon, ‘do’). They denote the completion of an action before another begins.
The negation particle um attaches or fuses person/number/honorific of the subject argument.
JuangEdit
Juang exhibits nominative-accusative alignment with unmarked subject/agents and marked objects or patients.
Being a pro-drop language, Juang verbs can index both two core arguments in a transitive predicate, but not frequently. If the arguments are not omitted, referent indexation is largely optional. Juang has a fairly complex TAM system that is often divided into two sets: I for transitive verbs and II for intransitive verbs. The verb ‘be’ usually does not show up in the present tense and with the presence of a predicate adjective in sentences.
There are two types of negation markers: Pronominal negation markers are specific for person/number of subject or object arguments. General negation markers, such as -jena, supplant lack of first person singular negative. Negatives are ambifixative but prefer to precede the verb stem. There are double negations, i.e. combinations of two negatives. The negated verb may reduplicate itself.
Noun incorporation is fossilized in lexical compounds and words like body parts being combined with the verb ‘wash’. Notice that the head precedes the incorporated object, as opposed to head-final position in normal clauses.
Gtaʔ-Remo-GutobEdit
The Southernmost Gtaʔ and Remo-Gutob subgroups of South Munda exhibit significant morphological convergence towards Dravidian languages. Auxiliary verb constructions are heavily employed. Doubly inflected AVCs are common in Gutob as well Gorum, reflecting Dravidian influence. Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob apparently have lost or not developed object indexation altogether.Template:Sfnp Negation in Gutob is the most complex among the Munda languages. Like other Munda languages, Gtaʔ-Remo-Gutob have lexical noun incorporation; Gtaʔ retains some instances of unproductive incorporation of body parts to the verb ‘wash’ like Juang which may fit Mithun (1984)'s type II of incorporation.
Sora-GorumEdit
The Sora-Gorum languages consist of Sora, Gorum, and the lesser known Juray.Template:Sfnp Sora-Gorum languages display many features that are considered to be archaic that can be dated to proto-Munda. For mainstream South Asian languages like Indo-Aryan and Dravidian, the latter are exclusively suffixing, prefixes and infixes are unusual but pretty common in Austroasiatic languages, and Sora-Gorum whose prefix domain can host several pre-stem markers. The indexation paradigm in Sora and Gorum renders the fullest form of proto-Munda predicate structure as well as syntax. In practice, Sora is inclined to index only one argument. Within a transitive predicate, the object argument is ranked higher than subject; pronouns are required.
In Sora, noun incorporation is a valency-reducing effort, close to what described by Mithun's type III incorporation. Each noun has a combining form (CF), which is a compact, compressed monosyllabic form of free-standing noun that has been stripped of its functional morphology (weak suppletion) and does not adhere to bimoraic constraint. Only CFs are allowed to be in compounds with the verb stem. The resulted verb-noun incorporated compound is syntactically distinct from phrases.Template:Sfnp Unlike North Munda where it is restricted to oral literature, Sora noun incorporation is in fact pervasive in daily conversations, with every noun except loan words has a possible CF to create sequences of complex verb phrases.
While the most salient effect of object noun incorporation in most polysynthetic languages is lowering the scope of the verb and turning transitive verbs into intransitive, incorporation of transitive subject/agent is considered atypical and occupies at the lowest position of the hierarchy. Because of this, the incorporation of transitive subjects had been once surmised as theoretically impossible by some linguists. Among all languages, there are few exceptional attested cases that permit such type of incorporation including some Athabaskan languages like Koyukon and South Slavey, and indeed, Sora.Template:Sfnp
Munda lexicon and lexical relation with other Indian language familiesEdit
Despite some influence from neighboring languages, the Munda languages generally maintain a solid Austroasiatic and Munda base vocabulary.Template:SfnpTemplate:Sfnp The most extreme case is Sora which has zero foreign phonemes.Template:Sfnp Agricultural-related words from proto-Austroasiatic are widely shared (Zide & Zide 1976). Words for domesticated animal and plant species like dog, millet, chicken, goat, pig, rice are shared or semantically alternated. There are even specific terms for husked uncooked rice vs cooked rice vs rice (tree), as well as shared words used in rice production and processing like 'mortar', 'pestle', 'paddy', 'sow', 'grind/ground'. The majority of loan words from Indo-Aryan to Munda are quite recent and mostly came from Hindi. The Southern languages like Gutob have received considerable Dradivian lexical influence. A very small number of lexemes seem to be shared between Munda and Tibeto-Burman, probably reflecting earlier contact between two groups.Template:Sfnp
It is clear that hundreds of non-Indo-European words in Vedic Sanskrit that Kuiper (1948) attributed to Munda have been rejected through careful analysis.Template:Sfnp There is a surprising absence of Ancient Sanskrit and Medieval Indian borrowings of animal & plant names from Munda. Scholars believe that the Munda tribes typically occupied a marginalized and lowly socioeconomic position in the Hinduized society of Vedic South Asia, or did not participate in the Hindu caste system and had barely any contacts with Hindus at all. Template:Harvtxt and Southworth (2005) proposed that the early non-Indo-European words with prefixes k-, ka-, ku-, cər- in Vedic Sanskrit belonged to a hypothetical 'Para-Munda substratum' that they believed to be part of the Harappan language.<ref>Template:Cite journal cf. reprint in: Template:Cite journal</ref> This would imply that Austroasiatic speakers might have penetrated as far as the Panjab and Afghanistan in the early second millennium BC, whereas Osada (2009) refuted Witzel that those words might have been, in fact, Dravidian compounds.
VocabularyEdit
| gloss | Santali | Mundari | Ho | Korku | Kharia | Juang | Sora | Gorum | Remo | Gutob | Gtaʔ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| "hand" | ti | tīi | tī | ti | tiʔ | iti | sʔi | siʔi | titi | titi | tti, nti |
| "foot" | janga | janga | – | nanga | -dʒuŋ | idʒiɲ/ŋ | ɟʔeːŋ | dʒiʔiŋ | tiksuŋ | susuŋ | nco |
| "eye" | mɛd | mɛˀd | med | mɛd | mɔiˀɟ | ɔmɔr/d | mʔod, amad | mad | mɔd | mɔd, ̀mɔʔ | m-mwaʔ |
| "water" | daˀk | daʔ | daʔ | daʔ | daʔ | dag | ɖaʔa | ɖaʔ | ɖaʔ | ɖaʔ | nɖiaʔ |
| "child" | hon | hon | hon | kon | kɔnɔn | konon | oʔon | anon | oʔon | oʔon | – |
| "bear" | bana | bana | bana | bana | bane/ai | banae | kəmbud | kibud | gibɛ | gubɔn | gbɛ |
| "tiger" | kul | kula | kula | kula | kiɽo(g) | kiɭɔg | kɨna | kul(a) | kilɔ | gikil, kilɔ | ŋku |
| "dog" | seta | seta | seta | sita | soloʔ | sɛlog | kənsod | kusɔd | gusɔd | gusɔʔ | gsuʔ |
DistributionEdit
| Language name | Number of speakers (2011) | Location |
|---|---|---|
| Korwa | 28,400 | Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand |
| Birjia | 25,000 | Jharkhand, West Bengal |
| Mundari (inc. Bhumij) | 1,600,000 | Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar |
| Asur | 7,000 | Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Odisha |
| Ho | 1,400,000 | Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal |
| Birhor | 2,000 | Jharkhand |
| Santali | 7,400,000 | Jharkhand, West Bengal, Odisha, Bihar, Assam, Bangladesh, Nepal |
| Turi | 2,000 | Jharkhand |
| Korku | 727,000 | Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra |
| Kharia | 298,000 | Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh |
| Juang | 30,400 | Odisha |
| Gtaʼ | 4,500 | Odisha |
| Bonda | 9,000 | Odisha |
| Gutob | 10,000 | Odisha, Andhra Pradesh |
| Gorum | 20 | Odisha, Andhra Pradesh |
| Sora | 410,000 | Odisha, Andhra Pradesh |
| Juray | 25,000 | Odisha |
| Lodhi | 25,000 | Odisha, West Bengal |
| Koda | 47,300 | West Bengal, Odisha, Bangladesh |
| Kol | 1,600 | West Bengal, Jharkhand, Bangladesh |
ReconstructionEdit
{{#invoke:Labelled list hatnote|labelledList|Main article|Main articles|Main page|Main pages}} The proto-forms have been reconstructed by Sidwell & Rau (2015: 319, 340–363).<ref name="SidwellRau2015">Sidwell, Paul and Felix Rau (2015). "Austroasiatic Comparative-Historical Reconstruction: An Overview." In Jenny, Mathias and Paul Sidwell, eds (2015). The Handbook of Austroasiatic Languages. Leiden: Brill.</ref> Proto-Munda reconstruction has since been revised and improved by Rau (2019).<ref>Rau, Felix. (2019). Advances in Munda historical phonology. Zenodo. {{#invoke:doi|main}}</ref><ref>Rau, Felix. (2019). Munda cognate set with proto-Munda reconstructions (Version 0.1.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. {{#invoke:doi|main}}</ref>
Writing systemsEdit
The following are current used alphabets of Munda languages.
- Mundari Bani (Mundari alphabet)<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}</ref>
- Ol Chiki (Santali alphabet)<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}</ref>
- Ol Onal (Bhumij alphabet)<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}</ref>
- Sorang Sompeng (Sora alphabet)<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}</ref>
- Warang Citi (Ho alphabet)<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation
|CitationClass=web }}</ref>
See alsoEdit
ReferencesEdit
NotesEdit
Additional notesEdit
General referencesEdit
Further readingEdit
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite encyclopedia
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite journal
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Template:Cite book
- Historical migrations
External linksEdit
- SEAlang Munda Languages Project
- Donegan & Stampe Munda site
- Munda languages at Living Tongues
- bibliography
- The Ho language webpage by K. David Harrison, Swarthmore College
- RWAAI (Repository and Workspace for Austroasiatic Intangible Heritage)
- http://hdl.handle.net/10050/00-0000-0000-0003-66EE-3@view Munda languages in RWAAI Digital Archive
Template:Authority control Template:Austro-Asiatic languages