A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko Panjabi

Elena Bashir and Thomas J.
Conners
with Brook Hefright
A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki
Mouton-CASL Grammar Series
Series editors
Anne Boyle David
Claudia M. Brugman
Thomas J. Conners
Amalia E. Gnanadesikan
Volume 4
Elena Bashir and Thomas J. Conners
with Brook Hefright
A Descriptive Grammar
of Hindko, Panjabi,
and Saraiki
Series editor responsible for this volume

This material is based upon work supported, in whole or in part, with funding from the United States
Government. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Maryland, Col-
lege Park and/or any agency or entity of the United States Government. This material is being made
available for personal or academic research use. If the intention is to use it for commercial reasons,
please contact University of Maryland’s Office of Technology Commercialization at [email protected] or
(301) 405-3947.
ISBN 978-1-61451-296-7
e-ISBN (PDF) 978-1-61451-225-7
Library of Congress Control Number 2019945531
Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed
bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2019 University of Maryland. All rights reserved.

Cover photo: A Panjabi phulkari dupatta, or floral embroidered scarf. Photo by
Gitanjali Gnanadesikan.
Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck
www.degruyter.com
|
Elena Bashir dedicates her work on this book to the memory of her late husband,
Muhammad Bashir, who was a proud and eloquent speaker of his mother tongue, Pan-
jabi, and the inspiration for her enduring interest in this language and the other lan-
guages of Pakistan.
Thomas Conners and Brook Hefright dedicate their work on this book to their col-
leagues at CASL, past and present, whose commitment to scholarship—often in the
face of unique challenges—has been inspirational.
Foreword
It is remarkable that, in this age of unprecedented global communication and interac-
tion, the majority of the world’s languages are as yet not adequately described. With-
out basic grammars and dictionaries, these languages and their communities of speak-
ers are in a real sense inaccessible to the rest of the world. This state of affairs is anti-
thetical to today’s interconnected global mindset.
This series, undertaken as a critical part of the mission of the University of Mary-
land Center for Advanced Study of Language (CASL), is directed at remedying this
problem. One goal of CASL’s research is to provide detailed, coherent descriptions
of languages that are little studied or for which descriptions are not available in En-
glish. Even where grammars for these languages do exist, in many instances they are
decades out of date or limited in scope or detail.
While the criticality of linguistic descriptions is indisputable, the painstaking work
of producing grammars for neglected and under-resourced languages is often insuffi-
ciently appreciated by scholars and graduate students more enamored of the latest the-
oretical advances and debates. Yet, without the foundation of accurate descriptions of
real languages, theoretical work would have no meaning. Moreover, without profes-
sionally produced linguistic descriptions, technologically sophisticated tools such as
those for automated translation and speech-to-text conversion are impossible. Such
research requires time-consuming labor, meticulous description, and rigorous analy-
sis.
It is hoped that this series will contribute, however modestly, to the ultimate goal
of making every language of the world available to scholars, students, and language
lovers of all kinds. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the linguists at CASL
and around the world who subscribe to this vision as their life’s work. It is truly a noble
endeavor.
Richard D. Brecht
Founding Executive Director
University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language
Series Editors’ Preface
This series arose out of research conducted on several under-described languages at
the University of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language. In commencing
our work, we were surprised at how many of the world’s major languages lack ac-
cessible descriptive resources such as reference grammars and bilingual dictionaries.
Among the ongoing projects at the Center is the development of such resources for
various under-described languages. This series of grammars presents some of the lin-
guistic description we have undertaken to fill such gaps.
The languages covered by the series represent a broad range of language families
and typological phenomena. They are spoken in areas of international significance,
some in regions associated with political, social, or environmental instability. Provid-
ing resources for these languages is therefore of particular importance.
However, these circumstances often make it difficult to conduct intensive, in-coun-
try fieldwork. In cases where such fieldwork was impractical, the authors of that gram-
mar have relied on close working relationships with native speakers, and, where pos-
sible, corpora of naturalistic speech and text. The conditions for data-gathering—and
hence our approach to it—vary with the particular situation.
We found the descriptive state of each language in the series to be different from
that of the others: in some cases, much work had been done, but had never been col-
lected into a single overview; in other cases, virtually no materials in English existed.
Similarly, the availability of source material in the target language varies widely: in
some cases, literacy and media are very sparse, while for other communities plentiful
written texts exist. The authors have worked with the available resources to provide
descriptions as comprehensive as these materials, the native speaker consultants, and
their own corpora allow.
One of our goals is for these grammars to reach a broad audience. For that reason
the authors have worked to make the volumes accessible by providing extensive ex-
emplification and theoretically neutral descriptions oriented to language learners as
well as to linguists. All grammars in the series, furthermore, include the native orthog-
raphy, accompanied where relevant by Romanization. While they are not intended as
pedagogical grammars, we realize that in many cases they will supply that role as well.
Each of the grammars is presented as a springboard to further research, which
for every language continues to be warranted. We hope that our empirical work will
provide a base for theoretical, comparative, computational, and pedagogical develop-
ments in the future. We look forward to the publication of many such works.
Claudia M. Brugman
Thomas J. Conners
Anne Boyle David
Contents | xi
Contents
Foreword | vii
Series Editors’ Preface | ix
1 About this Grammar | 1

1.1 Introduction | 1
1.2 Scope of the present work | 1
1.3 Past work and references consulted | 2
1.4 Sources | 2
1.5 Acknowledgements | 3
1.6 Chapter organization | 3
1.7 Examples | 3
1.8 Glossing and formatting conventions | 4
1.9 List of abbreviations and symbols | 4
2 Linguistic Context | 9
2.2 The language names | 10
2.3 The languages and their speakers | 11
2.3.1 Hindko | 13
2.3.2 Panjabi | 14
2.3.3 Saraiki | 14
2.3.4 Other related languages | 15
2.3.4.1 Pothwari | 15
2.3.4.2 Dogri | 15
2.4 Historical background | 15
2.5 Writing systems | 18
3 Phonology and Orthography | 19

3.2 Transcription: Definitions and conventions | 19
3.3 Segments | 20
3.3.1 Consonants | 21
3.3.1.1 Hindko consonants | 26
3.3.1.2 Sound correspondences between Hindko and Panjabi | 26
3.3.1.3 Saraiki consonants | 28
xii | Contents
3.3.2 Vowels | 33
3.3.2.1 Hindko vowels | 33
3.3.2.2 Panjabi vowels | 35
3.3.2.3 Saraiki vowels | 36
3.3.3 Diphthongs | 38
3.3.3.1 Hindko diphthongs | 39
3.3.3.2 Panjabi diphthongs | 39
3.3.3.3 Saraiki diphthongs | 41
3.4 Suprasegmentals | 43
3.4.1 Suprasegmentals affecting vocalic segments and syllables | 43
3.4.1.1 Nasalization | 43
3.4.1.1.1 Nasalization in Hindko | 44
3.4.1.1.2 Nasalization in Panjabi | 45
3.4.1.1.3 Nasalization in Saraiki | 46
3.4.1.2 Tone | 46
3.4.1.2.1 Tone in Hindko | 47
3.4.1.2.2 Tone in Panjabi | 48
3.4.1.2.3 Tone in Saraiki | 49
3.4.1.3 Stress | 49
3.4.1.3.1 Stress in Hindko | 49
3.4.1.3.2 Stress in Panjabi | 50
3.4.1.3.3 Stress in Saraiki | 52
3.4.2 Suprasegmental features affecting consonants: Gemination | 53
3.4.2.1 Gemination in Hindko | 53
3.4.2.2 Gemination in Panjabi | 53
3.4.2.3 Gemination in Saraiki | 55
3.5 Phonotactics | 55
3.5.1 Hindko phonotactics | 56
3.5.1.1 Hindko syllable types | 56
3.5.1.2 Hindko consonant clusters | 56
3.5.2 Panjabi phonotactics | 56
3.5.2.1 Panjabi syllable types | 56
3.5.2.2 Panjabi consonant clusters | 58
3.5.3 Saraiki phonotactics | 59
3.5.3.1 Saraiki syllable types | 59
3.5.3.2 Saraiki consonant clusters | 60
3.6 Orthography | 60
3.6.1 Segments in orthography | 64
3.6.1.1 Consonants in orthography | 64
3.6.1.2 Vowels in orthography | 67
3.6.2 Suprasegmentals in orthography | 71
3.6.2.1 Gemination in orthography | 71
Contents | xiii
3.6.2.2 Nasalization in orthography | 71

3.6.2.3 Stress and tone in orthography | 72
3.6.3 Additional diacritics and spelling conventions | 74
3.6.4 Hindko orthography | 76
3.6.5 Saraiki orthography | 77
4 Nouns | 79
4.1 The lexicon | 79
4.1.1 Persian loans | 80
4.1.2 Words incorporating Arabic definite articles | 80
4.2 Derivational morphology | 80
4.2.1 Suffixal elements | 81
4.2.1.1 Agent noun-forming suffixes (Indo-Aryan) | 81
4.2.1.2 Abstract noun-forming suffixes (Indo-Aryan) | 82
4.2.1.3 Abstract noun-forming suffixes (Perso-Arabic) | 85
4.2.1.4 Diminutives | 86
4.2.2 Persian compounding elements | 86
4.2.2.1 Agent-noun forming | 87
4.2.2.2 Locative-noun forming | 87
4.2.3 Persian and Arabic conjunctive elements | 88
4.2.3.1 ‫ و‬/-o-/ ‘and’ | 89
4.2.3.2 The enclitic /e/ ‘izāfat’ | 89
4.3 Nominal categories | 90
4.3.1 Number | 90
4.3.1.1 Persian and Arabic plural suffixes | 91
4.3.1.1.1 /-æn/ Arabic dual ending | 91
4.3.1.1.2 /-īn/Arabic plural | 91
4.3.1.1.3 ‫ ات‬/-āt/ Arabic plural | 91
4.3.1.2 Arabic broken plurals | 92
4.3.2 Gender | 92
4.3.2.1 Semantic criteria | 93
4.3.2.2 Morphological criteria | 94
4.3.3 Case | 96
4.3.3.1 Direct | 97
4.3.3.2 Oblique | 97
4.3.3.3 Vocative | 97
4.3.3.3.1 Hindko vocative case endings | 97
4.3.3.3.2 Panjabi vocative case endings | 98
4.3.3.3.3 Saraiki vocative case endings | 99
4.3.3.4 Vocative particles | 102
4.3.3.4.1 Hindko vocative particles | 102
4.3.3.4.2 Panjabi vocative particles | 102
xiv | Contents
4.3.3.4.3 Saraiki vocative particles | 102

4.3.3.5 Ablative | 103
4.3.3.6 Locative | 104
4.4 Declension classes and paradigms | 106
4.4.1 Hindko | 108
4.4.1.1 Hindko declension classes | 108
4.4.1.2 Hindko noun paradigms | 108
4.4.1.2.1 Masculine nouns (Classes I and II) | 108
4.4.1.2.2 Feminine nouns (Classes III, IV, V, and VI) | 110
4.4.1.2.3 Class VI Hindko nouns (masculine and feminine) | 112
4.4.2 Panjabi | 113
4.4.2.1 Panjabi declension classes | 113
4.4.2.1.1 Marked masculine (Class I) | 113
4.4.2.1.2 Unmarked masculine (Class II) | 114
4.4.2.1.3 Feminine (Classes III and IV) | 115
4.4.2.2 Panjabi noun paradigms | 115
4.4.2.2.1 Marked masculine nouns (Class I) | 115
4.4.2.2.2 Unmarked masculine nouns (Class II) | 116
4.4.2.2.3 Feminine nouns (Classes III and IV) | 117
4.4.2.2.4 Panjabi Inflectional paradigms | 119
4.4.2.2.5 Some morphophonemic changes | 120
4.4.3 Saraiki | 121
4.4.3.1 Saraiki declension classes | 121
4.4.3.2 Saraiki noun paradigms | 122
4.4.3.2.1 Masculine nouns (Classes I, II, VIII) | 123
4.4.3.2.2 Saraiki masculine noun paradigms | 123
4.4.3.2.3 Saraiki feminine noun paradigms | 126
4.4.3.2.4 Class VII (feminine) noun paradigm | 127
4.4.3.2.5 Class VIII (masculine) noun paradigm | 128
5 Adjectival and adverbial modification | 129

5.1 Adjectives and adjectival expressions | 129
5.1.1 The adjectival lexicon: sources and derivation of adjectives | 129
5.1.1.1 Indo-Aryan suffixal element: ‫ وا‬/-vāḷā/∼ /-vālā/;
‫ آ‬/āḷā/ ∼ /ālā/ | 129
5.1.1.2 Suffixal elements: Persian | 131
5.1.1.2.1 ‫ ی‬/-ī-/ | 131
5.1.1.2.2 ‫ آ‬/ānā/ | 131
5.1.1.2.3 ‫ ک‬/-nāk/ and /-gīn/ | 132
5.1.1.2.4 ‫ دار‬/-dār/; ‫ آوار‬/-āvār/, ‫ وار‬/-vār/, ‫ ور‬/-var/; and /-mand / ∼ ‫و‬
/-vand/ Sr | 132
Contents | xv
5.1.1.2.5 The exclamation/exhortation ‫ د‬/-bād/ ‘let it be, so be it’ | 133

5.1.1.3 Prefixal elements – Indo-Aryan ‫ ا ∼ ان∼ اݨ‬/a/ ∼ /aṇ/ ‘not’ | 133
5.1.1.4 Prefixal elements – Perso-Arabic | 134
5.1.1.5 Persian past participles | 135
5.1.1.6 Classes of adjectives | 135
5.1.1.6.1 Marked (“black”) adjectives | 136
5.1.1.6.2 Unmarked (“red”) adjectives | 138
5.1.1.6.3 Saraiki stem-vowel alternating (“unfast”) adjectives | 139
5.1.2 Adjectives in construction with nouns | 139
5.1.2.1 Hindko example | 139
5.1.2.2 Panjabi example | 140
5.1.2.3 Saraiki examples | 141
5.1.3 Comparative and superlative constructions | 142
5.1.3.1 Morphological comparison | 142
5.1.3.2 Syntactic comparison | 143
5.1.3.3 Demonstrative, relative, and interrogative elements | 147
5.1.3.3.1 Demonstrative adjectives | 147
5.1.3.3.2 Relative adjectives | 148
5.1.3.3.3 Interrogative adjectives | 149
5.1.3.3.4 Adjectival-adverbial, declarative, interrogative, and
relative sets | 151
5.1.3.4 Quantifiers | 155
5.1.3.4.1 Hindko quantifiers | 155
5.1.3.4.2 Panjabi quantifiers | 155
5.1.3.4.3 Saraiki quantifiers | 156
5.1.3.5 Indefinite adjectival expressions | 156
5.1.3.5.1 Indefinite adjectives – Hindko | 158
5.1.3.5.2 Indefinite adjectives – Panjabi | 159
5.1.3.5.3 Indefinite adjectives – Saraiki | 160
5.1.3.6 Reflexive adjectives | 160
5.1.3.6.1 Reflexive adjective – Hindko | 161
5.1.3.6.2 Reflexive adjective – Panjabi | 161
5.1.3.6.3 Reflexive adjective – Saraiki | 162
5.1.4 Numbers | 162
5.1.4.1 Common features | 162
5.1.4.1.1 Large numbers | 163
5.1.4.1.2 Fractional numbers | 164
5.1.4.2 Cardinal numbers | 166
5.1.4.2.1 Hindko cardinal numbers | 166
5.1.4.2.2 Panjabi cardinal numbers | 167
5.1.4.2.3 Saraiki cardinal numbers | 169
5.1.4.3 Ordinal numbers | 172
xvi | Contents
5.1.4.3.1 Hindko ordinal numbers | 173

5.1.4.3.2 Panjabi ordinal numbers | 174
5.1.4.3.3 Saraiki ordinal numbers | 174
5.1.4.4 Indefinite numerical expressions | 176
5.1.4.5 Totalizing (aggregating) suffixes | 176
5.2 Adverbs and adverbial expressions | 178
5.2.1 Hindko adverbs and adverbial expressions | 179
5.2.1.1 Simple adverbs – Hindko | 179
5.2.1.1.1 Quantity | 179
5.2.1.1.2 Time | 179
5.2.1.1.3 Place | 179
5.2.1.1.4 Reason | 180
5.2.1.1.5 Manner | 180
5.2.1.2 Oblique noun phrases – Hindko | 180
5.2.1.3 Indefinite adverbials – Hindko | 180
5.2.2 Panjabi adverbs and adverbial expressions | 181
5.2.2.1 Simple adverbs – Panjabi | 181
5.2.2.1.1 Quantity | 181
5.2.2.1.2 Time | 181
5.2.2.1.3 Place | 182
5.2.2.1.4 Reason | 183
5.2.2.1.5 Manner | 183
5.2.2.2 Indefinite adverbials – Panjabi | 183
5.2.3 Saraiki adverbs and adverbial expressions | 185
5.2.3.1 Simple adverbs – Saraiki | 185
5.2.3.1.1 Quantity | 185
5.2.3.1.2 Time | 186
5.2.3.1.3 Place | 186
5.2.3.1.4 Reason | 186
5.2.3.1.5 Manner | 187
5.2.3.2 Indefinite adverbials – Saraiki | 187
6 Pronouns | 189
6.1.1 Person and number | 189
6.1.2 Case | 190
6.2 Personal pronouns | 191
6.2.1 Hindko personal and third person pronouns | 191
6.2.2 Panjabi personal and third person pronouns | 193
6.2.3 Saraiki personal and third person pronouns | 197
6.3 Reflexive pronouns | 199
6.3.1 Hindko reflexive pronoun | 200
Contents | xvii
6.3.2 Panjabi reflexive pronouns | 201

6.3.3 Saraiki reflexive pronouns | 202
6.4 Reciprocals | 203
6.4.1 Hindko reciprocal pronouns | 203
6.4.2 Panjabi reciprocal pronouns | 204
6.4.3 Saraiki reciprocal pronouns | 206
6.5 Interrogative pronouns | 207
6.5.1 Hindko interrogative pronouns | 207
6.5.2 Panjabi interrogative pronouns | 209
6.5.3 Saraiki interrogative pronouns | 211
6.6 Indefinite pronouns | 212
6.6.1 Hindko indefinite pronouns | 213
6.6.2 Panjabi indefinite pronouns | 214
6.6.3 Saraiki indefinite pronouns | 216
6.7 Relative pronouns | 217
6.8 Pronominal suffixes | 218
6.8.1 Pronominal suffixes in Saraiki | 219
6.8.2 Pronominal suffixes in Panjabi | 226
6.8.3 Pronominal suffixes in Hindko | 237
6.8.4 Comparison of functions of pronominal suffixes | 240
7 Postpositions | 243
7.1 Layer II postpositions | 243
7.1.1 Grammatical postpositions | 243
7.1.1.1 Hindko grammatical postpositions | 244
7.1.1.2 Panjabi grammatical postpositions | 245
7.1.1.3 Saraiki grammatical postpositions | 246
7.1.2 Adjectival postpositions | 248
7.1.2.1 The genitive postposition | 248
7.1.2.2 ‫ وا ∼ آ‬/-ālā ∼ -vālā ∼ -vāḷā ∼ -āḷā/ | 249
7.1.2.3 /jogā/ Hk, Pj ; /joɠā/ Sr ‘capable of, worthy of’ | 250
7.1.2.4 /jiā́/; ‫ ں ∼ ں‬/jehā̃ ∼ jheā̃/ ‘like, similar to’ | 251
7.1.2.5 ‫ ور‬/vargā/ ‘like’ Pj | 252
7.1.2.6 Other adjectival postpositions | 253
7.2 Layer III and complex postpositions | 253
7.2.1 Sources of derived postpositions | 253
7.2.2 Locative relations – spatial and temporal | 254
7.2.2.1 Locative postpositions – Hindko | 254
7.2.2.2 Locative postpositions – Panjabi | 256
7.2.2.3 Locative postpositions – Saraiki | 257
7.2.3 GOAL and direction of motion | 259
7.2.3.1 Goal and direction of motion – Hindko | 259
xviii | Contents
7.2.3.2 Goal and direction of motion – Panjabi | 261

7.2.3.3 Goal and direction of motion – Saraiki | 261
7.2.4 SOURCE (Ablative) | 263
7.2.4.1 Ablative relations – Hindko | 263
7.2.4.2 Ablative relations – Panjabi | 265
7.2.4.3 Ablative relations – Saraiki | 267
7.2.5 Spatial/temporal postpositions – Comparison | 268
7.2.6 Accompaniment, instrument, cause, manner | 269
7.2.6.1 Accompaniment, instrument, cause, manner – Hindko | 269
7.2.6.2 Accompaniment, instrument, cause, manner – Panjabi | 270
7.2.6.3 Accompaniment, instrument, cause, manner – Saraiki | 271
7.2.7 Purpose, reason, and cause | 273
7.2.7.1 Purpose, reason, and cause – Hindko | 273
7.2.7.2 Purpose, reason, and cause – Panjabi | 273
7.2.7.3 Purpose, reason, and cause – Saraiki | 274
7.2.8 Similarity | 275
7.2.8.1 ‫∼ وا ں‬ ‫ وا‬/vāng ∼ vāngū̃/ Pj / ‫ وا ں‬/vāngõ/ Sr ‫ و‬/vangaṛ/ Hk
‘like’ | 276
7.2.8.2 Genitive or oblique + ‫ ح‬/tara/ ‘like, similar to’ | 277
8 Verbs | 279
8.1 Verbal categories and terminology | 279
8.2 The four basic non-finite verb forms | 281
8.3 Hindko verbs | 281
8.3.1 Overview | 281
8.3.1.1 Stem formation | 284
8.3.1.1.1 Simple stem | 284
8.3.1.1.2 First causative stem | 284
8.3.1.1.3 Double causative stem | 284
8.3.1.1.4 Passive stem | 284
8.3.1.2 Non-finite forms | 285
8.3.1.2.1 Infinitive | 285
8.3.1.2.2 Conjunctive participle | 285
8.3.1.2.3 Imperfective participle | 285
8.3.1.2.4 Perfective participle | 286
8.3.1.2.5 Stative perfective participle | 286
8.3.1.3 Finite forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 287
8.3.1.3.1 Present forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 287
8.3.1.3.2 Negative present forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 288
8.3.1.3.3 Future forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 289
8.3.1.3.4 Simple perfect forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 290
Contents | xix
8.3.1.3.5 Past forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 290

8.3.1.3.6 Negative past forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 291
8.3.1.3.7 Subjunctive forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 292
8.3.1.4 The verb /thī-/ ‘become’ | 293
8.3.1.5 Forms constructed on the stem | 293
8.3.1.5.1 Imperatives | 294
8.3.1.5.2 Subjunctive | 295
8.3.1.5.3 Perfect irrealis I | 296
8.3.1.5.4 Future | 296
8.3.1.5.5 Continuous tenses II | 298
8.3.1.6 Forms constructed on the imperfective participle | 299
8.3.1.6.1 Present imperfect | 300
8.3.1.6.2 Present imperfect-habitual | 303
8.3.1.6.3 Past imperfect | 303
8.3.1.6.4 Past imperfect-habitual | 304
8.3.1.6.5 Imperfect subjunctive | 305
8.3.1.6.6 Future imperfect | 306
8.3.1.6.7 Present continuous I formation | 307
8.3.1.6.8 Past continuous I | 308
8.3.1.7 Verb forms constructed on the perfective participle | 309
8.3.1.7.1 Simple perfect | 309
8.3.1.7.2 Present perfect | 310
8.3.1.7.3 Present perfect-stative | 312
8.3.1.7.4 Past perfect | 313
8.3.1.7.5 Perfect irrealis II | 315
8.3.1.7.6 Future perfect | 316
8.4 Panjabi verbs | 318
8.4.1 Overview | 318
8.4.2 Non-finite forms | 321
8.4.2.1 Stem | 321
8.4.2.2 Infinitive | 322
8.4.2.3 Conjunctive participle | 322
8.4.2.4 Imperfective participle | 323
8.4.2.5 Perfective participle | 324
8.4.3 The verb /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 327
8.4.3.1 Present tense of /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 327
8.4.3.2 Past tense of /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 328
8.4.3.3 Subjunctive of /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 329
8.4.3.4 Future of /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 329
8.4.4 Verb forms constructed on the stem | 331
8.4.4.1 Imperative | 331
8.4.4.1.1 Informal imperative | 331
xx | Contents
8.4.4.1.2 Polite/formal imperative | 332

8.4.4.2 Subjunctive | 332
8.4.4.3 Future | 335
8.4.4.4 Continuous tenses | 335
8.4.4.4.1 Present continuous II | 336
8.4.4.4.2 Past continuous II | 337
8.4.4.4.3 Past continuous II – habitual | 338
8.4.4.4.4 Continuous II – subjunctive | 339
8.4.4.4.5 Future continuous II | 340
8.4.4.4.6 Continuous II – irrealis | 341
8.4.5 Verb forms constructed on the imperfective participle | 342
8.4.5.1 Bare imperfective participle | 342
8.4.5.1.1 Irrealis II | 342
8.4.5.1.2 Imperfective participle as attributive adjective | 343
8.4.5.2 Imperfective tenses | 343
8.4.5.2.2 Present continuous I | 344
8.4.5.2.3 Present imperfect – habitual | 344
8.4.5.2.5 Past imperfect – habitual | 346
8.4.5.2.8 Imperfect irrealis | 349
8.4.6 Verb forms constructed on the perfective participle | 350
8.4.6.1 Bare perfective participle | 350
8.4.6.1.1 Simple perfect | 350
8.4.6.1.2 Perfective participle used adjectivally | 351
8.4.6.2 Present perfect | 352
8.4.6.3 Present perfect-stative | 353
8.4.6.4 Past perfect | 354
8.4.6.5 Past perfect-stative | 355
8.4.6.6 Perfect subjunctive | 355
8.4.6.7 Future perfect | 356
8.4.6.8 Perfect irrealis | 357
8.4.7 Form constructed on the oblique infinitive: Continuous III | 358
8.5 Saraiki verbs | 360
8.5.1 Saraiki stem types | 364
8.5.1.1 Simple stem | 364
8.5.1.2 Basic intransitive and transitive pairs | 364
8.5.1.3 First causative/derived transitive stem | 364
8.5.1.4 Second / double causative stem | 364
8.5.1.5 Passive stem | 365
Contents | xxi
8.5.1.6 Present-future stem | 365

8.5.2 Other non-finite forms | 366
8.5.2.1 Infinitive | 366
8.5.2.2 Gerundive | 366
8.5.2.3 Imperfective participle | 367
8.5.2.4 Perfective participle | 367
8.5.2.5 Stative perfective participle | 368
8.5.2.6 Linking participles | 368
8.5.2.6.1 Catenative participle | 369
8.5.2.6.2 Conjunctive participle (“absolutive,” “converb”) | 369
8.5.2.6.3 Connective participle | 369
8.5.3 Finite forms | 369
8.5.3.1 The verb ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 369
8.5.3.1.1 Present tense of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 370
8.5.3.1.2 Past tense of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 372
8.5.3.1.3 Past negative tense of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 373
8.5.3.1.4 Future forms of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 375
8.5.3.1.5 Subjunctive forms of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 375
8.5.3.2 The verb ‫ݨ‬ /thīvaṇ/ ‘to become’ | 376
8.5.4 Verb forms built on the stem | 377
8.5.4.1 Imperative | 377
8.5.4.2 Future | 378
8.5.4.3 Subjunctive | 379
8.5.4.4 Irrealis I | 380
8.5.5 Morphological passive forms | 381
8.5.6 Verb forms built on the imperfective participle | 386
8.5.6.1 Bare participial forms: Irrealis II | 386
8.5.6.2 Imperfect tenses | 386
8.5.6.2.2 Present imperfect-habitual | 387
8.5.6.2.4 Past imperfect-habitual | 389
8.5.6.2.7 Imperfect irrealis I | 392
8.5.6.3 Continuous tenses | 393
8.5.6.3.1 Present continuous I | 394
8.5.6.3.2 Past continuous I | 395
8.5.6.3.3 Future continuous I | 396
8.5.6.3.4 Continuous I subjunctive | 397
8.5.7 Verb forms built on the perfective participle | 398
8.5.7.1 Simple perfect | 398
xxii | Contents
8.5.7.2 Present perfect | 399

8.5.7.3 Present perfect-stative | 402
8.5.7.4 Present perfect-habitual | 405
8.5.7.5 Past perfect | 406
8.5.7.6 Past perfect-stative | 408
8.5.7.7 Past perfect-habitual | 409
8.5.7.8 Future perfect | 411
8.5.7.9 Future perfect-stative | 412
8.5.7.10 Perfect subjunctive | 414
8.5.7.11 Perfect-stative subjunctive | 415
8.5.7.12 Perfect irrealis I | 418
8.5.7.13 Perfect-stative irrealis I | 419
9 Sentential syntax | 421

9.1 Simple sentences | 421
9.1.1 Word order | 421
9.1.1.1 Default word order in simple sentences | 421
9.1.1.1.1 Scrambling | 424
9.1.1.1.2 Cleft constructions | 425
9.1.1.2 Word order in the noun phrase | 425
9.1.1.3 Status of the existential verb and copula | 427
9.1.1.4 Omission of subject and object pronouns | 428
9.1.1.4.1 Subject marked on verb | 428
9.1.1.4.2 Omission of repeated identical subjects, objects, or verbs | 430
9.1.2 Agreement | 431
9.1.2.1 Adjective agreement | 431
9.1.2.2 Verb agreement: split ergativity | 431
9.1.2.3 Verb agreement with coordinated nouns | 435
9.1.2.3.1 Verb agreement with compound subjects | 436
9.1.2.3.2 Verb agreement with compound objects | 439
9.1.3 Subject and agent marking | 441
9.1.3.1 The split-ergative system | 441
9.1.3.2 Grammatical and semantic subjects: “dative subjects” | 445
9.1.3.2.1 Dative subject – Hindko | 446
9.1.3.2.2 Dative subject – Panjabi | 447
9.1.3.2.3 Dative subject – Saraiki | 449
9.1.4 Object marking | 450
9.1.5 Negation | 453
9.1.5.1 Hindko negation | 455
9.1.5.2 Panjabi negation | 456
9.1.5.3 Saraiki negation | 459
9.1.6 Questions | 460
Contents | xxiii
9.1.6.1 Yes-no questions | 460

9.1.6.2 Constituent questions: Wh-phrases | 463
9.2 Compound (coordinate) sentences | 466
9.2.1 Compound (coordinate) sentences – Hindko | 466
9.2.2 Compound (coordinate) sentences – Panjabi | 466
9.2.3 Compound (coordinate) sentences – Saraiki | 467
9.3 Complex sentences | 468
9.3.1 Finite subordinate clauses | 468
9.3.1.1 Nominal clauses | 468
9.3.1.1.1 Finite nominal clauses – Hindko | 469
9.3.1.1.2 Finite nominal clauses – Panjabi | 469
9.3.1.1.3 Finite nominal clauses – Saraiki | 471
9.3.1.2 Relative clauses | 471
9.3.1.2.1 Adjectival relative clauses | 472
9.3.1.2.2 Adverbial relative clauses | 475
9.3.1.3 Conditional clauses | 479
9.3.1.3.1 Realis conditionals | 479
9.3.1.3.2 Irrealis conditionals | 482
9.3.2 Non-finite subordinate clauses | 488
9.3.2.1 Infinitive clauses | 488
9.3.2.1.1 Infinitive clause as subject | 488
9.3.2.1.2 Infinitive clause as (direct) object | 489
9.3.2.2 Oblique infinitive + ‫ آ‬، ‫ وا‬/vāḷā, āḷā/ | 496
9.3.2.3 Conjunctive participial clauses in Hindko and Panjabi | 500
9.3.2.4 Saraiki catenative, conjunctive, and connective participles | 501
9.3.2.5 Imperfective participial phrases | 504
9.3.2.6 Perfective participial phrases | 505
10 Morphosemantics | 507
10.1 Complex predicates | 507
10.1.1 Conjunct verbs, or N/ADJ - V, light verb constructions | 507
10.1.2 Compound verbs, or V-V light verb constructions | 509
10.1.2.1 Compound verbs – Hindko | 509
10.1.2.1.1 Vector /jul-/ ‘go’ | 509
10.1.2.1.2 Vector /pæ-/ ‘fall, lie’ | 510
10.1.2.1.3 Vector ‫ڑ‬ /choṛ-/ ‘leave, let go’ | 511
10.1.2.1.4 Vector /kìn-/ ‘take’ | 512

10.1.2.1.5 Vector ‫ ر‬/rakh-/ ‘put/keep’ | 513
10.1.2.1.6 Vector /saṭ-/ ‘throw’ | 513
10.1.2.2 Compound verbs – Panjabi | 514
10.1.2.2.1 Vector /jā-/ ‘go’ | 514
xxiv | Contents
10.1.2.2.2 Vector ‫ او ∼ آ‬/au- ∼ ā-/ ‘come’ | 515

10.1.2.2.3 Vector /bǽ-/ ‘sit’ | 516
10.1.2.2.4 Vector /pæ-/ ‘fall, lie’ | 517
10.1.2.2.5 Vector ‫ دے‬/de-/ ‘give’ | 517
10.1.2.2.6 Vector /læ-/ ‘take’ | 518
10.1.2.2.7 Vector /suṭṭ- ∼ saṭṭ/ ‘throw’ | 518
10.1.2.2.8 Vector ‫ ر‬/rakh-/ ‘keep, put’ | 519
10.1.2.2.9 Vector ‫ ر‬/mār-/ ‘beat, kill’ | 519
10.1.2.2.10 Vector /chaḍḍ-/ ‘leave, let go’ | 519
10.1.2.3 Compound verbs – Saraiki | 520
10.1.2.3.1 Vector ‫ و‬/vãʄ-/ ‘go’ | 520
10.1.2.3.2 Vector ‫ آ‬/ā-/ ‘come’ | 520
10.1.2.3.3 Vector /po-/ ‘fall, lie’ | 521
10.1.2.3.4 Vector /bah-/ ‘sit’ | 522
10.1.2.3.5 Vector /ghin-/ ‘take’ | 522

10.1.2.3.6 Vector ‫ ݙے‬/ɗe-/ ‘give’ | 523
10.1.2.3.7 Vector ‫ ر‬/rakh-/ ‘put, keep’ | 523
10.1.2.3.8 Vector ‫ ڑ‬/choṛ-/ ‘leave’ | 524
10.1.2.3.9 Vector /ghat-/ ‘throw, cast’ | 524
10.1.2.3.10 Vector /saṭ-/ ‘throw’ | 524
10.1.3 The invariant form /cā/ ‘lift, raise’ | 525
10.1.3.1 Hindko /cā-/ ‘lift, raise’ | 525
10.1.3.2 Saraiki /cā-/ ‘lift, raise’ | 527
10.2 Complex durative verbal constructions | 529
10.2.1 Forms using the imperfective participle | 529
10.2.1.1 Imperfective participle + ‘remain’ | 529
10.2.1.2 Imperfective participle + ‘go’ or ‘come’ | 530
10.2.1.3 Imperfective participle + both ‘remain’ and ‘go’ | 532
10.2.2 Forms using the perfective participle: Perfective participle + /karnā/
‘to do’ | 532
10.2.3 Stem + /-ī/ + ‘go’, ‘remain’, or ‘keep’ | 534
10.2.4 Main verb + ‘do’ in the same TAM form | 535
10.3 Causativization and intransitivization: transitivity sets | 536
10.4 Passive constructions | 539
10.4.1 Passive construction – Hindko | 540
10.4.2 Passive constructions – Panjabi | 541
10.4.3 Passive constructions – Saraiki | 542
10.4.3.1 Saraiki morphological passive | 543
10.4.3.2 Saraiki periphrastic passive | 544
10.5 Deontic and epistemic modality | 545
Contents | xxv
10.5.1 Ability | 545

10.5.1.1 The verb ‘to be able’ | 545
10.5.1.2 Other intransitive abilitative constructions | 546
10.5.1.3 Ability to perform learned skills: the verb ‘to come’ | 549
10.5.2 Desirability or advisability | 549
10.5.2.1 Vestigial morphological passive | 549
10.5.2.2 The verb ‘to be wanted’ | 550
10.5.3 Prospective meanings: Weak obligation, need, desire, intended or ex-
pected activity | 552
10.5.3.1 Weak obligation, etc.– Hindko | 553
10.5.3.2 Weak obligation, etc.– Panjabi | 554
10.5.3.3 Weak obligation, etc.– Saraiki | 556
10.5.4 Presumption (epistemic modality) | 558
10.5.5 Strong obligation or compulsion | 559
10.5.5.1 Strong obligation or compulsion – Hindko | 560
10.5.5.2 Strong obligation or compulsion – Panjabi | 560
10.5.5.3 Strong obligation or compulsion – Saraiki | 561
10.5.6 Infinitive/gerundive as distanced (softened) imperative | 562
10.5.6.1 Hindko and Panjabi infinitive/gerundive as distanced (softened) im-
perative | 562
10.5.6.2 Saraiki gerundive as imperative | 563
10.6 Referentiality: Definiteness, indefiniteness, genericity | 564
10.7 Evidentiality and mirativity | 566
10.8 Expression of “possession” | 568
10.8.1 Inalienable possession | 568
10.8.2 Alienable possession | 569
10.8.3 Abstract “possession” | 570
10.9 Causal relations | 571
10.9.1 Expressions of reason/cause (SOURCE) | 571
10.9.2 Expressions of purpose (GOAL) | 573
10.10 Reduplicative processes | 577
10.10.1 Full reduplication | 577
10.10.1.1 Reduplication of nouns | 577
10.10.1.2 Reduplication of adjectives | 580
10.10.1.3 Reduplication of adverbs and postpositions | 582
10.10.1.4 -o- reiteration | 584
10.10.1.5 Reduplication of participial forms | 585
10.10.2 Partial reduplication | 587
10.10.2.1 Echo formations | 587
10.10.2.2 Stem-vowel alternation | 588
10.10.2.3 Alliterative partial reduplicates | 588
10.10.2.4 Rhyming partial reduplicates | 589
xxvi | Contents
10.10.3 Semantic reduplication | 591

10.10.3.1 Same or similar meanings | 591
10.10.3.2 Intransitive-causative participial doublets | 593
10.10.3.3 Different or opposite meanings | 594
10.11 Discourse particles | 595
10.11.1 Emphatic or exclusive particle | 595
10.11.2 Inclusive particle | 596
10.11.3 Topic marker | 597
References Cited or Consulted | 599

Index | 605
List of Tables | xxvii
List of Figures
1.1 In-line text example | 4
1.2 Interlinear example | 4
2.1 Map of Pakistan and environs with political boundaries | 11

2.2 Language varieties of the Punjab region | 13
List of Tables
3.1 Consonants of Hindko (IPA representation) | 22
3.2 Consonants of Panjabi (IPA representation) | 23
3.3 IPA representation and transcription of consonant sounds | 25
3.4 Correspondences between /v/ and /b/ in Panjabi and Hindko | 26
3.5 Correspondences between /kh/ and /x/ in Panjabi and Hindko | 27
3.6 Correspondences between word-initial vowel or /s/, and /h/ in Pan-
jabi and Hindko | 27
3.7 Consonants of Saraiki | 30
3.8 Vowels of Hindko, adapted from Varma (1936) | 33
3.9 Centralized and peripheral vowels | 34
3.10 Vowels of Hindko, adapted from Rashid and Akhtar (2012) | 34
3.11 Centralized and peripheral vowels | 35
3.12 Centralized and peripheral vowels of Panjabi (IPA representations) | 35
3.13 Vowels in transcription | 36
3.14 Saraiki vowels | 37
3.15 Diphthongs of Panjabi | 40
3.16 Tone comparison in Hindko, Panjabi, Saraiki, and Urdu | 47
3.17 Summary of Panjabi stress placement | 51
3.18 Letters of the Perso-Arabic script, as used for Hindko, Panjabi, and
Saraiki | 62
3.19 Consonant sounds in orthography | 64
3.20 Centralized vowel diacritics | 67
3.21 Representation of peripheral (long) vowels using diacritics | 68
3.22 Symbol-sound correspondences in writing without vowel diacritics | 71
3.23 Representation of Panjabi tones: historic voiced aspirated plosives | 73
3.24 Representation of Panjabi tones: the segment /h/ | 74
4.1 Hindko vocative case endings | 98

xxviii | List of Tables
4.2 Panjabi vocative case endings | 99

4.3 Saraiki common noun vocative case endings | 100
4.4 Saraiki proper name vocative case endings | 101
4.5 Locative endings in Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki | 104
4.6 Comparison of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki declension classes | 107
ُ
4.7 Marked masculine, ‫ ا‬/-ā/ -final (Class I) noun /bū́ā/ ‘door’ | 109
ُ
4.8 Unmarked, vowel-final masculine noun ‫ آ‬/ālū/ ‘potato’ (Class II) | 109
ُ
4.9 Unmarked, consonant-final masculine noun /puttar/ ‘son’ (Class
II) | 110
4.10 Unmarked, consonant-final (Class II) masculine noun ‫ ر‬/kā̀r/ ‘house,
home’ (∼ /kàr/) | 110
ُ
4.11 Marked feminine, unstressed /-ī/-final noun ‫ی‬ /kuṛī/ ‘girl’ (Class
III) | 111
4.12 Consonant-final feminine noun ‫ اگ‬/agg/ ‘fire’ (Class V) | 111
4.13 Kinship noun ‫ ں‬/mā̃/ ‘mother’ (Class VI) | 112
4.14 Kinship noun /tı̄̀/ ‘daughter’ (Class VI) | 112
ُ
4.15 Panjabi marked masculine noun ‫ ا‬/mũḍā/ ‘boy’ (Class I) | 116
4.16 Paradigm for /pāṇı̄/ ‘water’ (Class II) | 116
4.17 Paradigm for ‫ دن‬/din/ ‘day’ (Class II) | 117
ُ
4.18 Paradigm for ‫ ی‬/kuṛī/ ‘girl ’ (Class III) | 117
4.19 Paradigm for ‫ د‬/tùpp/ ‘sunshine’ (Class IV) | 118
4.20 Paradigm for ‫ ا‬/havā/ ‘wind’ (Class IV) | 118
4.21 Inflectional endings for marked masculine nouns (Class I) | 119
4.22 Inflectional endings for unmarked masculine nouns (Class II) | 119
4.23 Inflectional endings for Panjabi feminine nouns (Class III and Class
IV) | 120
Feminine nouns in /-ā̃/ /-ā́/ (Class IV) | 120
ُ
4.24
4.25 Saraiki masculine noun ending in -ā, /cūhā/ ‘rat’ (Class I) | 124
4.26 Saraiki masculine noun ending in a non-/ā/ vowel, /pyū/ ‘father’
(Class II) | 124
4.27 Saraiki consonant-final masculine noun /ghar/ ‘house, home’ (Class

II) | 125
َ
4.28 Saraiki consonant-final masculine noun /chuhar/ ‘boy’ (Class
VIII) | 125 ّ
4.29 Saraiki /-ī/-final feminine noun, ِ /ɓillī/ ‘cat’ (Class III) | 126
4.30 Saraiki /-ā/-final feminine noun, /mā/ ‘mother’ (Class IV) | 126
4.31 Saraiki consonant-final feminine noun /chatt/ ‘roof’ (Class IV) | 127
4.32 Saraiki feminine noun /bheṇ/ ‘sister’ (Class VII) | 127
ُ
4.33 Saraiki feminine noun ِ /chuhir/ ‘girl’ (Class VII) | 128
List of Tables | xxix
5.1 Marked Hindko adjective ‫ ا‬/nikkṛā/ ‘small’ | 136

5.2 Marked Panjabi possessive adjective ‫‘ ا‬my, mine’ | 137
5.3 Nasal /-ā̃/-ending adjective ‫ اں‬/navā̃/ ‘new’ Hk, Pj, Sr | 137
5.4 Marked Saraiki (“black”) adjective /kālā / ‘black’ | 138
5.5 Marked Saraiki (“black”) adjective with nasalization and stem-vowel
alternation ‫ں‬ /kehā̃ / ‘what kind of’ | 138
5.6 Saraiki stem-vowel alternating (“unfast”) adjectives | 139
5.7 Unmarked adjective with marked (Class I) noun (Hindko) | 140
5.8 Panjabi modified masculine noun | 140
5.9 Panjabi modified feminine noun | 141
5.10 Saraiki modified feminine noun | 141
5.11 Saraiki modified masculine noun | 142
5.12 Comparative and superlative marking postpositions | 147
5.13 Demonstrative adjectives - Hindko, Panjabi, Saraiki | 148
5.14 Relative adjectives - Hindko, Panjabi, Saraiki (masculine forms) | 149
5.15 Interrogative adjectives - Hindko, Panjabi, Saraiki | 150
5.16 Hindko demonstrative, interrogative, relative forms | 152
5.17 Panjabi demonstrative, interrogative, relative forms | 153
5.18 Saraiki demonstrative, interrogative, relative forms | 154
ٔ
5.19 Non-specific indefinite adjective ∼ ٔ /kuī/ ∼ /koī/ ‘a, any, some’ | 157
5.20 Indefinite adjective /kúj/ ∼ /kujh/ ‘some (quantitative)’– Hindko,

Panjabi, Saraiki | 158
5.21 Large numbers | 163
5.22 Special fractional numbers terms – Hindko, Panjabi, Saraiki | 165
5.23 ‘half’, ‘third’, ‘quarter, fourth’– Hindko, Panjabi, Saraiki | 166
5.24 Hindko cardinal numbers | 167
5.25 Panjabi number names 1–10 | 168
5.26 Panjabi cardinal numbers 11–100 | 169
5.27 Saraiki cardinal number names 1–10 | 170
5.28 Saraiki cardinal number names 11–100 | 170
5.29 Hindko ordinal numbers | 173
5.30 Saraiki ordinal numbers | 175
5.31 Saraiki totalizing/aggregative forms of numbers 2–10 | 178
5.32 Interrogative-indefinite adverbs – Hindko | 181
5.33 Interrogative, indefinite, relative spatial and temporal adverbs – Panjabi | 184
5.34 Interrogative, indefinite, relative adverbs – Saraiki | 188
6.1 Hindko personal pronouns | 191

6.2 Hindko possessive pronouns | 193
6.3 Panjabi direct, oblique, and ablative case forms of personal pronouns | 194
xxx | List of Tables
6.4 Genitive forms of pronouns, Panjabi | 197

6.5 Saraiki personal pronouns | 198
6.6 Hindko interrogative pronoun /kɔṛ̃/ ‘who’ | 208
6.7 Hindko interrogative pronoun /ke/ ‘what’ | 208
6.8 Interrogative pronouns ‫ن‬ /kauṇ ∼ kɔṇ/ ‘who’ and /kı́/̄
ِ
∼
‘what’ | 210
6.9 Interrogative pronoun ‫ ن‬/kon (∼kaon)/ ‘who’ | 211
6.10 Interrogative pronoun /kyā/ ‘what’ | 211
ُ
6.11 Indefinite pronoun/adjective ٔ /kuī/ ‘a, some, any’ | 213
ٔ
6.12 Saraiki indefinite pronoun /kuī/ ‘someone, anyone’ | 216
6.13 Relative pronoun /jo/ ‘who, which’ in Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki | 218
6.14 Saraiki pronominal suffixes | 220
6.15 Pronominal suffixes found in Lahore Panjabi | 226
6.16 Pronominal suffixes found in Saraiki, Panjabi, and Hindko | 240
6.17 Functions of pronominal suffixes in Saraiki, Panjabi, and Hindko | 241
7.1 Dative-accusative and ergative postpositions in Hindko, Panjabi, and

Saraiki | 247
7.2 Complex Panjabi postpositions with ‫ وں‬/-õ/ | 267
7.3 Some basic spatial-temporal postpositions in Hindko, Panjabi, and
Saraiki | 268
8.1 Overview of Hindko verb forms | 282

8.2 Irregular perfective participles: ‫ ا‬/pæṛ̃ā/ ‘to fall’ and ‫ا‬ /julṛ̃ā/ ‘to
go’ | 286
8.3 Present tense forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 288
8.4 Negative present forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 289
8.5 Future forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 289
8.6 Simple perfect forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 290
8.7 Past tense of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 291
8.8 Negative past of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 292
8.9 Subjunctive forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 293
8.10 Imperatives of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 294
8.11 Personal endings of Hindko subjunctive | 295
8.12 Subjunctive of ‫ آ ا‬/āṛ̃ā/ ‘to come’ | 296
ُ
8.13 Subjunctive of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 296
8.14 Future of ‫ آ ا‬/āṛ̃ā/ ‘to come’ | 297
ُ
8.15 Future of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 297
8.16 Present continuous II of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 298
8.17 Past continuous II of ‫ دوڑ‬/dauṛnā/ ‘to run’ | 299
List of Tables | xxxi
8.18 Present imperfect of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ (actual forms) | 301

8.19 Present imperfect of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ (hypothesized underlying forms) | 302
8.20 Present imperfect-habitual of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 303
ُ
8.21 Past imperfect of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 304
ُ
8.22 Past imperfect-habitual of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 305
8.23 Imperfect subjunctive of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 306
8.24 Future imperfect of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 307
8.25 Present continuous I of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go (actual forms)’ | 308
8.26 Past continuous I of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 309
8.27 Simple perfect of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 310
8.28 Simple perfect of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 310
8.29 Present perfect of ‫ا‬ /julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 311
8.30 Present perfect of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 312
ُ
8.31 Present perfect-stative of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 313
ُ
8.32 Past perfect of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 314
8.33 Past perfect of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 315
ُ
8.34 Perfect irrealis II of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 315
8.35 Perfect irrealis II of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 316
ُ
8.36 Future perfect of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ | 317
8.37 Future perfect of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 317
8.38 Overview of Panjabi verb forms | 319
8.39 Verb stems—transitivity sets | 321
8.40 Suffixes of the imperfective participle | 324
8.41 Masculine singular perfective participles from regular and irregular
perfective stems | 324
8.42 Suffixes of the perfective participle | 325
8.43 Present tense of /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 328
8.44 Past tense of /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 328
8.45 Subjunctive of /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 329
8.46 Future of /hoṇā/ ‘to be’ | 330
8.47 Panjabi imperative endings | 332
8.48 Personal endings of the subjunctive | 333
8.49 Subjunctive of /bolṇā/ ‘to speak’ | 333
8.50 Subjunctive of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 334
8.51 Subjunctive of /læṇā/ ‘to take, get, buy’ | 334
8.52 Future of /bolṇā/ ‘to speak’ | 335
8.53 Present continuous II of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 337
8.54 Past continuous II of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 338
8.55 Past continuous II-habitual of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 339
xxxii | List of Tables
8.56 Continuous II-subjunctive of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 340

8.57 Future continuous II of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 341
8.58 Continuous II-irrealis of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 342
8.59 Simple irrealis II of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 343
8.60 Present imperfect of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 344
8.61 Present imperfect-habitual of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 345
8.62 Past imperfect of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 346
8.63 Past imperfect-habitual of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 347
8.64 Imperfect subjunctive of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 348
8.65 Future imperfect of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 349
8.66 Imperfect irrealis of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 350
8.67 Simple perfect of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 351
8.68 Simple perfect of /karnā/ | 351
8.69 Present perfect of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 352
8.70 Present perfect-stative of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 353
8.71 Past perfect of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 354
8.72 Past perfect-stative of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 355
8.73 Perfect subjunctive of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 356
8.74 Future perfect of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 357
8.75 Perfect irrealis of /jāṇā/ ‘to go’ | 358
8.76 Present continuous III /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 359
8.77 Overview of Saraiki verb forms | 361
8.78 Present tense of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 371
8.79 Syntactically negated present tense of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 371
8.80 Morphological negative present of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 372
8.81 Past tense of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 373
8.82 Long form of negative past tense of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 374
8.83 Fused negative past forms of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 374
8.84 Future forms of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 375
8.85 Subjunctive forms of ‫ وݨ‬/hovaṇ/ ‘to be’ | 376
ُ
8.86 Imperative forms of ‫ ݨ‬/ṭuraṇ/ ‘to walk, go’ | 377
8.87 Future of the verbs ‫و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ (intransitive) and ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/
‘to do’ (transitive) | 379
8.88 Subjunctive personal endings | 379
8.89 Subjunctive of the verbs ‫ آوݨ‬/āvaṇ/ ‘to come’ (intransitive), ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/
‘to go’ (intransitive), and ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ (transitive) | 380
8.90 Irrealis I of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 381
List of Tables | xxxiii
ُ
8.91 Comparison of simple, causative, and passive future forms of /suṇ-
/ ‘hear’ | 382
8.92 Present imperfect of /marīj-/ ‘be killed, beaten’ | 383
8.93 Past imperfect of /marīj-/ ‘be killed, beaten’ | 384
8.94 Future imperfect of /marīj-/ ‘be killed, beaten’ | 384
8.95 Subjunctive of /marīj-/ ‘be killed, beaten’ | 385
8.96 Irrealis I of /marīj-/ ‘be killed, beaten’ | 385
8.97 Present imperfect of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 387
8.98 Present imperfect-habitual of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 388
8.99 Past imperfect of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 389
8.100 Past imperfect-habitual of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 390
8.101 Future imperfect of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 391
8.102 Imperfect subjunctive of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 392
8.103 Imperfect irrealis I of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 393
8.104 Present continuous I of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 395
8.105 Past continuous I of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 396
8.106 Future continuous I of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 397
8.107 Continuous I subjunctive of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 398
8.108 Simple perfect of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 399
8.109 Simple perfect of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 399
8.110 Present perfect of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 400

8.111 Present perfect of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 401
8.112 Negative forms of present perfect of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ with oblique
pronominal suffixes | 401
8.113 Present perfect of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ with oblique pronominal suf-
fixes | 402
8.114 Present perfect-stative of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 403
8.115 Present perfect-stative of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 404
8.116 Present perfect-habitual of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 405
8.117 Present perfect-habitual of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 406
8.118 Past perfect of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 407
8.119 Past perfect of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 407
8.120 Past perfect-stative of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 408
xxxiv | List of Tables
8.121 Past perfect-stative of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 409

8.122 Past perfect-habitual of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 410
8.123 Past perfect-habitual of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 410
8.124 Future perfect of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 411
8.125 Future perfect of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 412
8.126 Future perfect-stative of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 413
8.127 Future perfect-stative of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 413
8.128 Perfect subjunctive of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 414
8.129 Perfect subjunctive of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 415
8.130 Perfect-stative subjunctive of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 416
8.131 Perfect-stative subjunctive of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 417
8.132 Perfect irrealis I of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 418
8.133 Perfect irrealis I of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 419
8.134 Perfect-stative irrealis I of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 420
8.135 Perfect-stative irrealis I of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 420
10.1 ADJ - V conjunct verbs | 508

10.2 N - V conjunct verbs | 508
10.3 Derived intransitives | 538
1 About this Grammar
1.1 Introduction
This book describes the grammar of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki, three Indo-Aryan
languages of Pakistan, treating their phonology, orthography, morphology, and syn-
tax. The grammar is descriptive, not pedagogical or prescriptive. It is presented in a
theory-neutral way to the greatest extent possible. The three languages described here
represent closely related, geographically contiguous language varieties. In some cases,
it may be hard to determine, for example, where one type of Panjabi ends and Hindko
begins. As they share many common features, we have decided to present them to-
gether in a single work where general patterns that hold for all three can be described
in detail and then language-specific patterns can be added to the general description.
This kind of approach further recommends itself as many potential users of the cur-
rent work with an interest in Hindko or Saraiki will already be familiar with Panjabi;
so comparing this with the description of the other varieties will hopefully make them
more accessible.
This grammar may be used in several ways:
• as a reference tool for understanding the major grammatical constructions in Hind-

ko, Panjabi, and Saraiki;
• as a linguistic record of documentation of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki;
• as a template for writing similar grammars of other languages;
• as a resource which is easily converted into computational tools.
While Panjabi is a major language as measured by number of speakers—having per-

haps the world’s twelfth-highest number of first-language speakers—published gram-
matical descriptions of it are surprisingly few, and those that do exist are often out of
date. References for the related Hindko and Saraiki languages are even fewer. We hope
that, with this grammar, we have made a contribution to the description of Hindko,
Panjabi, and Saraiki. This is also the first major English-language grammar to provide
exemplification of these languages in Perso-Arabic script.
1.2 Scope of the present work

This Descriptive Grammar of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki focuses, where possible, on
the variety of Hindko spoken in Abbottabad, the variety of Panjabi spoken in Lahore,
and the variety of Saraiki spoken in Multan—all in Pakistan. It covers the orthography,
phonology, morphology, and syntax of the languages. It is meant as a reference tool;
however, the coverage of grammatical constructions is by no means exhaustive. As
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512257-001
2 | About this Grammar
noted in Chapter 2, there is significant variation from dialect to dialect and even from
speaker to speaker within dialects. The current work does not attempt to describe the
full range of variation, but rather presents a necessarily simplified “snapshot” of par-
ticular instantiations of each named variety.
Since Lahore is the largest urban center of Punjab, it has attracted people from
all parts of Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, though relatively fewer from Sindh and
Balochistan. Thus the Panjabi of Lahore, in addition to being subject to heavy Urdu
and English influence, also contains elements of varieties from farther west or south,
usually associated with Hindko or Saraiki. It is by no means a monolithic or “pure”
variety.
1.3 Past work and references consulted

The current work has consulted several published studies of Panjabi, including refer-
ence materials such as Malik (1995), Gill and Gleason (1969), Bhatia (1993), and Cum-
mings and Bailey (1912). For Hindko, the following sources were consulted: Hallberg
and O’Leary (1992); Rensch, Hallberg, and O’Leary (1992); Shackle (1980); Shackle
(1983); Varma (1936); Bahri (1962); and Bahri (1963). For Saraiki, the main published
sources referenced are Shackle (1976) and Zahoor (2009).
Pedagogical materials have also been consulted, including Bhardwaj (1995), Ah-
mad (1992), Shackle (1972), and Kalra, Purewal, and Tyson-Ward (2004 [1999]).
Additionally, we have made use of the following dictionaries: Bashir and Kazmi
(2012), Khan (2009), and Advanced Centre for Technical Development of Punjabi Lan-
guage (2012). For Hindko, the Sakoon (2002) dictionary has been helpful; and for Sa-
raiki, we have consulted Mughal (2010).
Linguistic work on the languages covered here is sparse. A few further publica-
tions are mentioned in the “References Cited or Consulted” section.
1.4 Sources
Each example is labeled with the language illustrated: Hk for Hindko, Pj for Panjabi,
and Sr for Saraiki. The source of each example is indicated in parentheses following
the example.
Each of the authors has made different contributions to the grammar. Thomas Con-
ners and Brook Hefright wrote the draft chapters on Panjabi. These chapters were re-
viewed and edited by Elena Bashir. Elena Bashir wrote the sections on Hindko and
Saraiki. These were reviewed and edited by Thomas Conners. Elena Bashir’s collected
field notes and knowledge represent a significant source that has been relied upon as
a reference for the present work, including the source of some examples. Examples
provided by her are marked with (EB).
Examples | 3
Additionally, Elena Bashir conducted field work for four months in 2015 specif-
ically working on data collection for the Hindko and Saraiki sections of the current
work. During this time, she worked with two native speakers, Abdul Wajid Tabassum
for Hindko and Umaima Kamran for Saraiki. Examples that are due to them are marked
(AWT) and (UK), respectively. Additionally, the entire manuscript was reviewed by
Nasir Abbas Syed. Without their significant contributions, the coverage of Hindko and
Saraiki would not have been possible.
The authors take collective responsibility for all aspects of the grammar.
1.5 Acknowledgements
Elena Bashir would like to acknowledge the informal but extensive contributions of
Nasir Abbas Syed and Ali Hussain Birahimani on Saraiki, and of Maqsood Saqib on
Panjabi during the course of the writing of this book.
Thomas Conners and Brook Hefright have benefited from the insight of their co-
author, Elena Bashir, and the assistance provided by a number of colleagues at the Uni-
versity of Maryland Center for Advanced Study of Language. In particular, they would
like to thank Mohini Madgavkar, with whom they studied and analyzed Panjabi and
Urdu; Michael Maxwell, Aric Bills, Evelyn Browne, Shawna Rafalko, and Nathaniel
Clair, who dedicated many hours preparing the manuscript; and Karen Fisher-Nguyen
who played a large role in providing their original understanding of Panjabi—we thank
them all.
The authors also thank Amalia Gnanadesikan for her dedication and attention to
detail as the Series editor overseeing this volume.
1.6 Chapter organization

Each chapter of the current work covers in detail a specific aspect of the grammar of
Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki, such as Phonology or Nouns. The initial section in each
chapter discusses features common to Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki. After this, differ-
ences among the languages are discussed. In cases where we do not have sufficient
information, a note is added.
1.7 Examples
In this grammar, we make use of both in-line text examples and interlinear text ex-
amples. In-line text examples are used when a single form is being referenced or ex-
plicated in the text. The format is as follows: the first section is in Perso-Arabic script,
the second section renders it in phonemic transcription (between slashes), and the
third section provides an English gloss (in single quotation marks). This is illustrated
in Figure 1.1.
Perso-Arabic
script Gloss
/mũḍā/ ‘boy’
Phonemic
transcription
Figure 1.1: In-line text example
The format for an interlinear example is as follows: the first line is in Perso-Arabic
script, the second line renders it in phonemic transcription, the third line provides a
morpheme-by-morpheme gloss (including any grammatical category labels) and the
fourth line gives a free translation into English.
Perso-Arabic script
Phonemic transcription mæ̃ katāb nū̃ vekh-iā e

Gloss I book[F] ACC see-PP.SG.M be.PRES.3SG
Free translation ‘I have seen the book.’
Figure 1.2: Interlinear example
1.8 Glossing and formatting conventions

Where possible, we have followed the Leipzig Glossing Conventions, which can be
found at http://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php.
The following formatting conventions are used throughout the grammar:
Simple italics are used to indicate emphasis, often when contrasting two or more
technical points.
Bold is used in the transcription and gloss lines to draw attention to the grammat-
ical form being illustrated.
1.9 List of abbreviations and symbols

Commonly used abbreviations and symbols in this grammar include the following:
List of abbreviations and symbols | 5
* ungrammatical form
∼ variation in forms
- morpheme boundary in a transcription or gloss-line; indicates joining

direction for Perso-Arabic character
. a period indicates a mismatch between the number of

Hindko/Panjabi/Saraiki elements and the number of elements in the
English gloss
// phonemic transcription
[] phonetic transcription
<> transliteration
() marginal phoneme or morphological form
ˈ stress on following syllable
ˊ high tone
ˋ low tone
1 first person
2 second person
3 third person
ABL ablative
ACC accusative
ALLIT alliterative element
C consonant
CAT catenative participle
CONN connective participle
CONT continuous
CP conjunctive participle
CS causative
DAT dative
DIR direct
DIST distal
ECHO echo word
EMPH emphatic
ERG ergative
EZ ezafat
F feminine
FUT future
GEN genitive
GRDV gerundive
HON honorific
HORT hortative
IMP imperative
INF infinitive
IP imperfective participle
LOC locative
M masculine
NEG negative
NMLZ nominalizer
OBL oblique
ONOM onomatopoetic
P perfective
PASS passive
PF present-future stem
PL plural
List of abbreviations and symbols | 7
POL polite
PP perfective participle
PRES present
PS pronominal suffix
PST past
REDUP reduplication
REFL reflexive
REL relative marker
RHYM rhyming
SBJV subjunctive
SG singular
STAT stative particle
Tnnn reference to entry in Turner (1962–1966)
TOP topicalizer
TOT totalizing (aggregating)
V vowel
2 Linguistic Context
2.1 Introduction
The question of whether a particular speech form constitutes a “dialect” or a “lan-
guage” is deeply fraught, not only in the context of South Asia or Pakistan. We fol-
low Joseph (1982) in treating the terms “dialect” and “language” as social facts, rather
than linguistic ones; where it is useful to distinguish characteristic linguistic regulari-
ties, we prefer the terms “language variety” or “variety”. Important social facts about
the terms “dialect” and “language” in the South Asian context are that “dialect” is of-
ten used negatively to describe unstandardized or non-standard varieties, while “lan-
guage” is often used positively to describe standard varieties that are used or recog-
nized by government authorities. Given the social fact that speakers of varieties of
Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki are increasingly aware of and describe their speech vari-
eties as languages, we think it is appropriate to do so in this work as well.
We feel that the current book addresses a real need. There are so far no comprehen-
sive descriptive English-language grammars of contemporary (2018) Hazara Hindko,
Lahore Panjabi, or Multan Saraiki. Important existing grammars of Majhi Panjabi are
mostly based on the Ludhiana or Amritsar dialects as they were before 1947. Bhatia
(1993), for instance, is “primarily based on the Majhi dialect spoken in Lahore (Pak-
istan) and Amritsar, and the Gurdaspur district of the state of Punjab, India, as it was
before the partition of the Indian subcontinent in 1947” (p. xxxii). Bahl (1969) is based
on the Majhi dialect of Amritsar (pre-partition). Malik (1995) is “based mainly on the
Majhi dialect spoken in the districts of Amritsar, Lahore, and Gurdaspur which consti-
tuted the central districts of [...] unpartitioned Panjab” (p. viii). Interestingly, of major
published works, Cummings and Bailey (1912), though based on Bailey (1904b), which
is subtitled “A brief grammar of Panjābī as spoken in the Wazīrābād District”, comes
closer to describing contemporary Lahore Panjabi (minus the heavy Urdu influence)
than the other works mentioned. Perhaps this is because Lahore Panjabi is now a con-
siderably mixed variety, and Wazirabad Panjabi of 1904 fell into that class of varieties
considered by Bahl (1970) as extensive transitional areas between Lahnda in the west
and Panjabi.
Although Peshawar Hindko has a better-established written literary tradition, Haz-
ara Hindko has been chosen for treatment here because the largest number of Hindko
speakers speak this cluster of varieties. “Hindko is most widely used in Hazara Divi-
sion. [...] Abbottabad district in particular is heavily weighted toward Hindko, with
more than 176,000 (92.31 percent) households speaking it as a first language. Mansehra,
the other district in Hazara Division, also has a large Hindko population, account-
ing for 73,500 (46.8 percent) households and representing the largest single linguis-
tic group” (Addleton 1986: 38). Also, it is more different from Lahore Panjabi than
is Peshawar Hindko, which, like Lahore Panjabi, shows some characteristics of “big
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512257-002
10 | Linguistic Context
city” speech—that is, speech which draws its features from a variety of sources.¹ Also,
while there are at least two English-language discussions of Peshawar Hindko avail-
able (Shackle 1980 and Toker 2014), there is as yet, to our knowledge, no such pub-
lished description of Hazara Hindko.
The Saraiki of Multan belongs to Shackle’s Central Saraiki classification. Central
Saraiki varieties are spoken in Districts Multan and Muzaffargarh, and northern Dera
Ghazi Khan and Bahawalpur (Shackle 1976: 6). It has been chosen for renewed atten-
tion here because it is the major vehicle of literary expression in Saraiki. Multan is also
the home of important Saraiki literary and cultural organizations, like the Saraiki Ad-
abi Board. Shackle’s 1976 grammar is comprehensive and authoritative, but it does not
include analyzed and glossed examples of Saraiki written in Perso-Arabic script.
2.2 The language names

In his Linguistic Survey of India (1919), Grierson used the term Lahnda, ‘west’, to re-
fer to the languages spoken to the west of Panjabi, including those today referred to as
(varieties of) Hindko and Saraiki, as well as some still referred to by their local names—
for example, Riyasati for the speech of Bahawalpur. No speakers of these varieties re-
ferred to their own languages as Lahnda; rather, they used names referring to local
communities—for example, Awankari, the language of the Awan tribe, Shahpuri, the
language of the town of Shahpur (near Sargodha), or Multani, the language of Multan
(today’s Saraiki). Grierson (and others among his contemporaries) considered these
language varieties as constituting a group called Lahnda, and considered it clearly dif-
ferent from Panjabi. Some of these are now simply classified as Panjabi. Even District
Gujranwala in Grierson’s day was considered a partially Lahnda-speaking area.
The name Panjabi (also Punjabi) derives from the name of the geographical area
in which it has traditionally been spoken, the (Persian) panj-āb ‘[land of] five waters’—
that is, the five tributaries of the Indus that flow through modern-day northwest India
and eastern Pakistan.² Hindko contains the element hind-, cognate with sind- ‘river’,
as in Hindustan. It is thought to have originally designated the languages of the Indus
Valley, as opposed to Iranian languages like Pashto.
The preferred spelling for the name of the language of southern Punjab in Pak-
istani universities today is Saraiki (originally Siraiki, also Seraiki).³ Two etymologies
are proposed for this name. The first derives it from siro ‘a name for Upper Sindh’, and
1 “Big city speech” is discussed for German dialects in Leopold (1968).

2 In this book, the name of the language is consistently spelled Panjabi, while the spelling
Punjabi refers to political or administrative units or to institutions related to such units; for
example, Punjab Province or Punjab University.
3 Comparison of these three spellings using Google’s Ngram viewer yields a picture of the
historical trends in their use.
The languages and their speakers | 11
the second from the ancient city name Sauvira. It is possible that the first derivation
is relevant for the variety of Siraiki spoken in northern Sindh, and the second for the
Saraiki language of southern Punjab to which it is now applied. Grierson explained
the ambiguity present in the word Siraiki as follows. “From ‘Siro’ is derived ‘Siraiki’,
which thus means ‘the language of the upstream country’. It is evident that this can
have two meanings. Either it may mean ‘the Sindhi spoken in Upper Sindh,’ or it may
mean ‘the Lahnda spoken higher up the Indus than Sindh,’ and, as a matter of fact, it is
used in Sindh in both these senses (1894–1928: 9)”. Raza (2016) advocates the second
explanation, arguing for a derivation sauvira > sauvira + the language-name suffix -ki >
saraiki (by simplification). Whatever the origin of the name, today in 2019, the current
name, Saraiki, clearly designates the language of the middle Indus Valley or southern
Punjab. It was adopted in the 1960s as a result of cultural activities initiated by Riaz
Anwar, a lawyer from Muzaffargarh (Rahman 1995).
2.3 The languages and their speakers
Figure 2.1: Map of Pakistan and environs with political boundaries

The languages in the Hindko-Panjabi-Saraiki (H-P-S) language area share many lin-
guistic features, and are mutually intelligible to a greater or lesser degree. In addi-
tion to contact phenomena involving these languages, they have also undergone in-
tensive contact from superstratal languages for many centuries, particularly Persian
and, more recently, Urdu and English. Given this degree of language convergence, it
would be difficult to delineate clear dividing lines between varieties of Panjabi and
other languages spoken in adjacent regions.
Shackle (1979) discusses the complexities of language classification in Punjab.
The term Hindko, for example, is applied variously to the Indo-Aryan language spo-
ken in parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (the former North West Frontier Province), the
Potohar Plateau, and Hazara District, as well as, occasionally, to what is now usually
referred to as Saraiki (Grierson 1968[1916]). There are, in fact, many varieties of Hindko.
Shackle (1980) describes differences between the Hindko spoken in non-urban areas
in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, especially Kohat city, and that of Peshawar. (See also Lothers
and Lothers 2010 for detailed discussion of other varieties.)
Boundaries between the H-P-S area, however, and Dardic languages to the north,
Pashto to the west, and Sindhi and Balochi to the south and southwest are relatively
clear (Shackle 2003: 583). Its southeastern boundary is somewhat less clear, as H-P-S
forms the northwestern part of a linguistic continuum which includes Urdu, the central
Indic varieties from Bihar to Rajasthan collectively referred to as Hindi, and some of
the closely related languages of northern India, such as Gujarati and Marathi.
Panjabi is spoken in both Pakistan and India (See Figure 2.1). Saraiki is spoken in
the central Indus Valley, in southern Punjab; and Hindko is found to the north and
west of Panjabi extending as far west as Peshawar (See Figure 2.2).⁴
4 In places, Panjabi, Hindko, and Pashto border on Gujari-speaking areas (Hallberg and O’Leary
1992: 90).
The languages and their speakers | 13
Figure 2.2: Language varieties of the Punjab region
2.3.1 Hindko
In this work, Hindko refers to the language varieties spoken mostly in the Mansehra,
Abbottabad, Haripur, Peshawar, Kohat, and Dera Ismail Khan Districts of Khyber Pakh-
tunkhwa and in the Attock and Rawalpindi Districts of Punjab (Rensch, Hallberg, and
O’Leary 1992: 7). The majority of Hindko-speakers live in Abbottabad and Mansehra
Districts of Hazara; we therefore focus here on Hazara Hindko.
In the 1981 census Saraiki and Hindko were listed for the first time as separate cate-
gories; in previous censuses, both had been included together with Punjabi (Addleton
1986: 35). According to this census, 2.43 percent of Pakistani households listed Hindko
as the primary language spoken. In the 1998 census, however, Hindko speakers were,
once more, not counted separately (Pakistan, Government of 2001: 339). Lewis, Si-
mons, and Fennig (2015) gives a 1993 estimate of about three million total Hindko
speakers in Pakistan.
Currently, the Gandhara Hindko Board and Gandhara Hindko Academy, based in
Peshawar (http://www.gandharahindko.com), are active in organizing cultural events
and conferences promoting the recognition and use of the Hindko language.
2.3.2 Panjabi
In Pakistan, there are some 77 million speakers of Panjabi, where it is by far the most
widely spoken first language. The varieties of Panjabi spoken in Pakistan are collec-
tively referred to as Western or Pakistani Panjabi. According to 1998 census figures, 44.1
percent of Pakistanis speak Panjabi as their first language, making it the most widely
spoken first language. In India, Panjabi is the official language of the state of Punjab,
and also one of the national languages recognized in the Eighth Schedule of the Indian
Constitution. Large numbers of Panjabi speakers also live in the neighboring states of
Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, as well as the cities of Delhi and Chandigarh. In to-
tal, there are some 33 million Panjabi speakers in India. There are also large Panjabi-
speaking expatriate and diasporic communities in the United Kingdom, Canada, and
the United States, as well as throughout the Persian Gulf.
2.3.3 Saraiki
Saraiki is spoken mainly in and around the cities of Multan, Muzaffargarh, Mianwali,
Rahimyar Khan, and Bahawalpur in the southern region of Pakistani Punjab, and in
District Dera Ismail Khan in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Since Independence, Pakistan has
held six official censuses—in 1951, 1961, 1972, 1981, 1998, and 2017. Saraiki was in-
cluded with Panjabi in the 1951, 1961 and 1971 (held in 1972) counts, and only became
an independent option in the 1981 census. According to the 1998 national census, it is
spoken as a first language by around eleven million people, or 10.5 percent of respon-
dents, in Pakistan as a whole, making it the fourth most widely spoken first language in
Pakistan. The 1998 Punjab Population Census Report lists Saraiki as the first language
of 17.4 percent of respondents in Punjab (Javaid 2004: 46). In the 2017 census, Saraiki
is listed as mother tongue by 12.19% of the population on the national level and by
20.68% of the population in Punjab Province (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/census-
2017-language-data.560777/). Since the 1960s a Saraiki nationalist movement has been
active in Pakistani politics (Rahman 1995: 4; Javaid 2004).
Historical background | 15
2.3.4 Other related languages
Although in this work we focus on Hazara Hindko, Lahore Panjabi, and Multan Saraiki,
it is worth noting several other closely related varieties which, for reasons of space,
time, and available data, we have not addressed in this work.
2.3.4.1 Pothwari
Pothwari (also spelled Pothohari)-Pahari refers to a complex continuum of varieties
spoken from the Potohar Plateau in western Punjab to Jhelum District and north to the
Rawalpindi and Murree Districts, as well as in Mirpur, in Pakistan-controlled Kashmir.
This hyphenated term reflects the fact that it covers numerous varieties spread over a
wide area; some people, especially those in the Murree hills, refer to their language
as “Pahari” (‫ ڑی‬/pahāṛī/ ‘mountain language’), while varieties found in the Poth-
war Plateau are often called “Pothwari” or other local names like “Ghebi”. Estimates
put the total number of Pothwari speakers at around 2.5 million in Pakistan, with an
additional half million outside of Pakistan (Lothers and Lothers 2010: 9).
2.3.4.2 Dogri
In 2001 there were approximately 2.3 million speakers of Dogri in India (Census of India
2001).⁵ In India, where Dogri enjoys a vibrant literary and cultural scene, it is the main
language of Jammu Province. Like Panjabi, Dogri has phonemic tone. It is also spoken
in some parts of northern Punjab in Pakistan, but the number of speakers is difficult to
estimate, since there is no separate category for Dogri on the Pakistani census forms,
and it would fall into the “others” category.
2.4 Historical background

These languages were much more different from each other in the past than they are
today (2019). Several earlier writers have noted this. For instance, according to the Ain-
i-Akbari, in the time of the Mughal emperor Akbar I (“Akbar the Great”), who ruled
from 1556 to 1605, the languages of Delhi and Multan were not mutually intelligible
(Bahawalpuri and Bashir 1981: 3). Jukes (1900: v) noted that “The Western Punjabi or
Jatki language is quite a different language from that spoken in the Eastern Punjab.”
Grierson (1915: 226) said: “The whole Panjab is the meeting ground of two entirely dis-
tinct languages, viz., the Piśâcha parent of Lahndâ which expanded from the Indus
Valley eastwards, and the old Midland language, the parent of the modern Western
5 http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/
Statement5.aspx. Figures from the 2010–2011 Census are not yet available.
Hindî, which expanded from the Jamna Valley westwards. In the Panjâb they over-
lapped.” Grierson grouped Lahnda and Sindhi together as Northwestern Indo-Aryan
languages, in contrast to Panjabi, which he considered a Central Indo-Aryan language.
In 1979, Shackle found “a maximal contrast between Siraiki, which has the typi-
cal complexities of conservatism, and Panjabi (closely allied to Pothohari), which has
many innovating simplifications, with Hindko occupying an intermediate position”
(Shackle 1979: 203). Today these languages continue to converge, and there is consid-
erable mutual intelligibility among them, the degree varying with the degree of edu-
cation and exposure to other languages of the individual speakers involved. For ex-
ample, most speakers of Multan Saraiki can understand most of Lahore Panjabi, and
most speakers of Lahore Panjabi can understand some Multan Saraiki.
As long ago as 1962, Hardev Bahri foresaw the developments that are reflected in
this book: “Although Sir George Grierson has rightly excluded a part of Montgomery
and Gujranwala and whole of Lahore and Sialkot Districts from the Lahndi tract, the
time is not far off when these areas will be totally affected by Lahndi dialects lying to
their west. The migration of population since the partition of India and the formation
of West Pakistan into a single unit are some of the factors which are bound to shift the
eastern boundary of Lahndi to the political border. For centuries, it has been noted,
eastern Punjabi has pushed Lahndi further to the west, but the events since 1947 have
not only stopped that encroachment by eastern Punjabi, but given Lahndi a chance
to retrieve its position in the eastern districts of West Pakistan which has now no com-
munication with the Indian tracts where eastern Punjabi is vastly spoken” (Bahri 1962:
x).
The linguistic situation in Lahore is particularly complex because of the massive
migration which took place in 1947, when the partition of British India split the province
of Punjab between India and Pakistan. Nearly 12.5 million people in and outside of Pun-
jab were displaced as a result of the partition, with many Muslim Punjabis relocating
from India to Pakistan and many Sikh and Hindu Punjabis moving from Pakistan to
India.
Contemporary (2019) Lahore Panjabi has diverged considerably since 1947 from
the Panjabi spoken in India, so that the speech of Lahore is now quite different from
that of Amritsar and Gurdaspur, all three of which were formerly considered together
as the Majhi variety (Malik 1995: viii). The varieties on the Indian side of the border
have come under the heavy influence of Hindi and Sanskrit, while Lahore Panjabi and,
to a somewhat lesser extent, Hindko and Saraiki, have been influenced by Urdu. Ad-
ditionally, since Lahore is the major urban center of Punjab Province in Pakistan, fea-
tures of varieties spoken farther west and south of Lahore have entered the language.
Lahore Panjabi thus displays typical features of “big city speech”.
Panjabi and Saraiki literary languages can be traced through a continuous literary
tradition dating back to the twelfth century. There is a long and rich tradition of Mus-
lim Sufi literature and poetry in Panjabi and Saraiki that extends to the present day.
Beginning in the sixteenth century, Sikhism developed in the Punjab, and much of the
Historical background | 17
Sikh canon, including the Adi Granth, is written in an early form of a mixed language
which includes elements of Panjabi, Khari Boli, and what has become today’s Saraiki.
Shackle (1983: ii) stresses the mixed character of the language, as the Adi Granth scrip-
tures contain many archaic forms and draw on a number of local languages; these are
discussed in detail in Shackle (1977) and Shackle (1978).
Today (2019) Panjabi has a robust literary life in India, but this has been less so
in Pakistan. The first Panjabi-language newspaper, Sajjan, survived only from Febru-
ary 1989 to September 1990. Recently, some online Panjabi-language newspapers have
appeared; these include Bhulekha, with a presence on Facebook and Lokaai (http://
lokaai.com). At present, only Khabran, based in Lahore, appears to have a print edi-
tion.⁶ The website apnaorg.com publishes a quarterly Panjabi magazine Sānjh, with
identical content in Gurmukhi and Perso-Arabic versions. Saraiki, despite its smaller
number of speakers, has a relatively large literary production and three regularly pub-
lished newspapers: Kook (Karachi), Jhok (Multan, and with a Facebook presence) and
Al-Manzoor (Taunsa Sharif). Peshawar Hindko is used in The Hindkowan, The Gand-
hara Voice, Sarkhail, and a children’s magazine Tarey. Abbottabad Hindko so far has
less published literature or journalism.
Prior to Partition, colonial policy in the Punjab promoted the use of Persian and,
later, Urdu in official contexts (Mir 2010: passim). After Partition, Urdu became even
more closely associated with Muslim identity, and specifically with South Asian Islam.
Despite being the most widely spoken language in Pakistan, Panjabi has no official
status there. Historically relegated to use in informal, personal contexts, Panjabi and
other local languages began to gain support during the administration of Prime Min-
ister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (1973–1977). Bhutto, who came from Sindh, promoted local
vernaculars, including Panjabi. During this period, the state established regional liter-
ary boards including the Pakistan Punjabi Adabi Board, and the University of Punjab
established a Department of Punjabi. However, this period came to an end following
the coup that brought General Zia ul-Haq to power in 1977, and many Punjabi writers
and film makers saw their works censored or banned. Since the mid-1980s, however,
Panjabi literature and film and the valorization of Punjabi identity have begun to re-
vive in Pakistan (Ayres 2009: passim).
Nevertheless, Panjabi itself continues to be absent from official discourse. Urdu
is the only national language of Pakistan, as decreed in the Constitution, although
both Urdu and English can be used for official purposes.⁷ Urdu and English remain the
prestige languages of the Pakistani elite (Ayres 2009: 73).
6 See http://www.dawn.com/news/632447/another-daily-in-punjabi for historical discussion

of Panjabi-language journalism in Pakistan.
7 The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Chapter 4, Section 251, Clause 1–2
stated that both Urdu and English could function as official languages, but that English was to be
phased out within fifteen years. In response to complaints that English was still being
predominantly used in official matters, a Supreme Court of Pakistan decision ruled on September
2.5 Writing systems

In India, Panjabi is written in Gurmukhi (‘speech of the mouth of the Guru’) script,
which ultimately derives from the Brahmi script. Gurmukhi has been in use since pos-
sibly the eleventh century, but came to be standardized in the sixteenth century by the
second Sikh guru, or teacher, Guru Angad Dev Ji. Sikhs consider learning Gurmukhi a
religious duty, as it enables them to read the Sikh holy text, the Adi Granth (Rahman
2007: 28).
In Pakistan, Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki are all written in a modified Perso-Arabic
script, preferably in the Nastaʿlīq calligraphic style, which is sometimes called “Shah-
mukhi” or ‘speech of the mouth of the king’, a name modeled on “Gurmukhi” ‘mouth
of the Guru’. Muslim writers of Panjabi have been using this script since the seven-
teenth century. In most respects, it is identical to the script used to write Urdu; some
writers, however, have tried to introduce conventions to capture phonological con-
trasts not present in Urdu (see Malik 1995). Panjabi spelling in Perso-Arabic has not
yet been entirely standardized (Shackle 2003: 598) (See Section 3.6 for more detailed
discussion). Orthographic conventions for Saraiki are more firmly established than
those of Hindko. While representation of most Saraiki consonant sounds is identical
to that of Panjabi, Saraiki writers have adopted an additional five distinct, non-Urdu
letters to represent the four implosive consonants and the retroflex nasal (see Section
3.6.5 on Saraiki orthography). Orthographic conventions for Hindko are less standard-
ized; most Hindko writers use the same set of letters used in Urdu and Panjabi to repre-
sent their language, but there is considerable variation in spelling, especially of vowel
sounds (see Section 3.6.4 on Hindko orthography).
8, 2015 that Section 251 should be implemented with all possible speed and English be replaced
with Urdu for all official functions.
3 Phonology and Orthography
3.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the phonology, or sound patterns, of Hindko, Panjabi, and Sa-
raiki; defines the transcription, in letters familiar to readers of English in the Roman
script that is used in this grammar; and relates the sounds and their transcription to
the orthography, or writing system used to represent these languages. In Pakistan, all
three languages are written in the Perso-Arabic script, originally used to represent Ara-
bic, expanded with additional letters to accommodate the sounds of Persian, and then
further modified to represent sounds and phonological contrasts present in Urdu. Writ-
ers of Panjabi have mostly continued to use the unmodified Urdu script, though there
is concern in some circles that two of the salient sounds of Panjabi are not represented
in Urdu script—that is, retroflex /ɳ/ and /ɭ/, which we represent in this grammar as
/ṇ/ and /ḷ/. This is less of a concern for Hindko, whose writers do represent retroflex
/ṇ/ as a nasalized retroflex /ṛ̃/, and not at all for Saraiki, since the Saraiki-speaking
community has developed and adopted unique letters to represent the sounds of their
language.
3.2 Transcription: Definitions and conventions

In this grammar, we provide all words and example sentences in both Perso-Arabic
orthography (described in Section 3.6) and in a Roman transcription. Transcription is
distinct from transliteration. Transcription is a way of representing the sounds¹ of a
language using a single letter or pair of letters for each; we have chosen letters that
are likely to guide readers familiar with English to an approximation of the pronunci-
ation of these languages, with some additions from the International Phonetic Alpha-
bet (IPA). Transliteration, by contrast, is a way of representing the letters of one lan-
guage’s writing system using the letters of another language’s writing system. The goal
of transliteration is to simplify the representation of written text of one language using
the writing system of another language, preferably in a way that allows knowledgeable
readers to recover the original written version. The goal of transcription, however, and
the goal of this grammar, is to help the reader understand how words and sentences
are pronounced, regardless of how they may be written. To assist the reader in this, we
have normalized the romanization of examples taken from secondary sources to the
system used in this grammar.
1 In this book, we use a phonemic transcription, which represents the sounds that distinguish
meaning in these languages, rather than a more fine-grained, phonetic transcription, which
captures objective differences between sounds that may not be used to distinguish meaning in
them.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781614512257-003
20 | Phonology and Orthography
Two aspects of these languages make transcription preferable to transliteration.

First, due to inheritance of letters from Arabic and Persian for sounds which are not
part of the phonology of Indo-Aryan languages like Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki, in
several cases there are multiple letters for one sound—four characters for the sound
/z/, three for /s/, and two for /h/ and for /t/. Therefore, any transliteration system for
these languages that would allow readers to recover the original text would also have
to assign multiple Roman letters to the same sound. We feel that if the goal is to pro-
nounce and understand the spoken language, such transliterations would not be help-
ful. Second, the orthography of these languages—like most orthographies based on
the Perso-Arabic writing system—marks centralized, or “short,” vowels only sporadi-
cally. By providing both Perso-Arabic orthography and a transcription for each word
and example sentence, we can present the languages as they are normally written in
Perso-Arabic script, without centralized vowel symbols, while fully representing cen-
tralized vowels in the transcription.
In this grammar, material transcribed from Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki is placed
in slanting brackets, like this: /transcription/. In cases where it is necessary to empha-
size a difference between our transcription and the orthography, we place a translit-
eration in angled brackets, like this: <transliteration>. In cases where it is necessary
to emphasize a difference between our transcription and a word’s pronunciation, the
pronunciation is given in square brackets, like this: [pronunciation].
• ‫‘ ر‬live.PP.SG.M’
Transcription: /ryā́/
Transliteration: <rahiyā>
Pronunciation: [ryā́]²
3.3 Segments
In phonology, a segment is understood as a discrete unit that is clearly identifiable in a
linear sequence of sounds and thus separable for purposes of analysis and discussion.
We first discuss consonantal segments, and then vowels and diphthongs.
2 The transcription and the pronunciation in this example use the acute accent to mark high
tone. See Section 3.4.1.2 on tone in Panjabi and Hindko and Section 3.6.2.3 on the historical
spellings that indirectly indicate tone.
Segments | 21
3.3.1 Consonants
Observations in this section are relevant for the consonant systems of all three lan-
guages, both individually and from a comparative perspective. The consonant systems
of Panjabi and Hindko are quite similar, but that of Saraiki is significantly different.
The following tables present the consonant segments that are contrastive in Hindko
and Panjabi—that is, sounds that distinguish one word from another. In traditional
linguistic terminology, these are the phonemes of the language. Table 3.1 and Table
3.2 present the consonants in terms of places and manners of articulation for all three
languages—that is, the parts of the mouth (and/or nose or throat) where the sounds are
produced, and how they are produced—whether, for example, by stopping the airflow
(as in a plosive) or by causing turbulence in the airflow (as in a fricative). For Saraiki
consonants, see Table 3.7 below. In these three tables, the sounds are represented ac-
cording to the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA).
Symbols in parentheses represent sounds that are marginal in the Hindko, Pan-
jabi, and Saraiki sound systems. In Panjabi and Saraiki, the fricatives /x/ and /ɣ/ and
the voiceless uvular plosive /q/ occur only in words originating in Arabic and Persian,
while the fricatives /f/, /ž/, and /z/ also occur, increasingly frequently, in English loans
as well as in words of Perso-Arabic origin. Most urban language users have no prob-
lem in pronouncing /f/, which can also merge with or be pronounced as /pʰ/, or in pro-
nouncing /z/, which can also merge with /ʤ/. For those Panjabi and Saraiki speakers
unfamiliar with Urdu, however, /x/ tends to be pronounced as /kʰ/ and /ɣ/ as /g/. For
practically all speakers of these languages, original /q/ is pronounced as /k/ (Shackle
2003: 589; Bhatia 1993: 331). In this grammar, each of these sounds is represented ac-
cording to the normal educated pronunciation—i.e., we retain /x/ and /ɣ/ in transcrip-
tions of Perso-Arabic ‫ خ‬and ‫ غ‬if if they are really pronounced in that way, but use
<kh> or <g> if the words are pronounced with these sounds. On the other hand, we rep-
resent orthographic /‫ق‬/ as /k/, as it is always pronounced. This reflects the historical
origin of the lexical items in which they appear, their representation in present-day
orthography, and their actual pronunciation.
22
Bilabial Labiodental Dental Retroflex Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal
| Phonology and Orthography

Plosive voiceless unaspirated p t̪ ʈ k q
voiceless aspirated pʰ t̪ʰ ʈʰ kʰ
voiced b d̪ ɖ g
Nasal m n̪ ɽ̃
Tap or Flap ɾ ɽ
Fricative voiceless f s ʃ x
voiced z (ʒ) ɣ ɦ
Affricate voiceless unaspirated ʧ
voiceless aspirated ʧʰ
voiced ʤ
Approximant ʋ j
Lateral l
approximant
Table 3.1: Consonants of Hindko (IPA representation)

Bilabial Labiodental Dental Retroflex Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal
Plosive voiceless unaspirated p t̪ ʈ k (q)
voiceless aspirated pʰ t̪ʰ ʈʰ kʰ
voiced b d̪ ɖ g
Nasal m n̪ ɳ
Tap or Flap ɾ ɽ
Fricative voiceless f s ʃ (x)
voiced z (ʒ) (ɣ) ɦ
Affricate voiceless unaspirated ʧ
voiceless aspirated ʧʰ
voiced ʤ
Approximant ʋ j
Lateral l ɭ
approximant
Segments |
Table 3.2: Consonants of Panjabi (IPA representation)
23
Retroflex /ṇ/ and /ḷ/ (/ɳ/ and /ɭ/ in IPA) contrast with dental /n/ and /l/ in Lahore
Panjabi, although this distinction is weakening with the younger generation of urban
speakers. In this grammar we represent the retroflexion of nasals and laterals, while
bearing in mind that in the current Panjabi orthography /ṇ/ is represented only spo-
radically, and /ḷ/ is not represented at all. Retroflexes in Hindko and Panjabi, as well
as Saraiki, are not as strongly retroflexed as those in Hindi or the Dravidian languages.
Certain consonants have predictable variant pronunciations, or allophones, when
they co-occur with other consonants. The dental nasal /n/ may be realized as a velar
nasal [ŋ] when it occurs before velar plosives /k/, /kh/ or /g/, or as a palatal nasal [ɲ]
when it occurs before palatal affricates /c/, /ch/, and /j/ (Shackle 2003: 590; Bhatia
1993: 333–334). Similarly, the voiceless palatal fricative /š/ may be realized as a voice-
less retroflex fricative [ʂ] in clusters with the voiceless retroflex plosive /ṭ/ (Shackle
2003: 590), although this particular cluster is rare, occurring mostly in learned or East-
ern Panjabi words. See also the discussion of consonant clusters in Section 3.5.
• ‫‘ ر‬color’
Transcription: /rang/
Pronunciation: [rɑŋg] before another vowel, [raŋ] in isolation
ُ
• ‘beak’
Transcription: /cúnj/
Pronunciation: [cúɲj]
• ‫ا‬ ‘rogue, hoodlum’

Transcription: /mašṭanḍā/
Pronunciation: [maʂʈanɖā]
In the text of this grammar, the consonants of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki are tran-
scribed using the Roman letters and combinations of letters shown in Table 3.3.
Segments | 25
Sound in IPA Transcription Sound in IPA Transcription
p p ɳ ṇ
pʰ ph ɽ̃ ṛ̃
b b ɽ ṛ
ɓ ɓ ɭ ḷ
m m ʄ ʄ
f f ʃ š
ʋ v ʒ ž
t̪ t ʧ c
t̪ʰ th ʧʰ ch
d̪ d ʤ j
n̪ n j y
ɾ r k k
s s kʰ kh
z z g g
l l ɠ ɠ
ʈ ṭ x x
ʈʰ ṭh ɣ ɣ
ɖ ḍ q q
ɗ ɗ ɦ h
Table 3.3: IPA representation and transcription of consonant sounds

3.3.1.1 Hindko consonants

The only two analyses of Hindko phonology available to us are separated from today’s
(2018) Hazara Hindko by either time (Varma 1936) or space (Rashid and Akhtar 2012).
Therefore, any statements about Hazara Hindko phonology made here must be under-
stood as tentative. Clearly, instrumental study and both phonetic and phonological
analysis are needed for (all varieties of) Hindko.
The consonant phonemes of Abbottabad Hindko are mostly the same as those of
Panjabi, and are represented by the same Perso-Arabic letters that are used for Pan-
jabi. However, the voiceless velar fricative /x/ appears to have become a native sound
in Hindko, since in Hindko /x/ spontaneously appears in words which in Panjabi or
Urdu have /kh/ (see Table 3.3). The retroflex /ṇ/ sound is perceived by many as a nasal-
ized retroflex /ṛ̃/ and spelled by most writers of Abbottabad Hindko as (as is done in
some areas for Pashto and Peshawar Hindko).³ However some (for example, Sakoon
2002) use the character ‫ ݨ‬, which is regularly used for Saraiki retroflex /ṇ/. There is
no retroflex /ḷ/ in Hazara Hindko.
3.3.1.2 Sound correspondences between Hindko and Panjabi

There are some regular sound correspondences between Panjabi and Hindko. For ex-
ample, many words which have /v/ in Panjabi have /b/ in Hindko (Table 3.4).
Gloss Panjabi Hindko
‫وچ‬
‘in’
vic bic
‫وی‬
‘also’
vī bī
‫و‬
‘hours, o’clock’
vaje baje
‫∼ وو‬ ‫و‬
‘bride’
vɔ́ ṭī bɔ́ ṭī
Table 3.4: Correspondences between /v/ and /b/ in Panjabi and Hindko
3 Shackle (1980: 500) cites the form ‫ ا ا‬/apṛā/ ‘one’s own’, which occurs in Abbottabad Hindko,
as an instance of loss of nasalization from phonetic [ṛ̃].
Segments | 27
Aspirated /kh/ in Panjabi often corresponds to /x/ in Hindko in word-medial posi-

tion following a stressed vowel. ⁴ The words in Table 3.5, in which the stressed syllables
are in boldface type, illustrate this.
‫و‬ ‫د ا‬
‘to see, look at’
vekhṇā dexṛ̃ā
‫ر‬ ‫ر ا‬
‘to place, put, keep’
rakhṇā raxṛ̃ā
‫آ‬ ‫آ ا‬
‘to say’
ākhṇā āxṛ̃ā
Table 3.5: Correspondences between /kh/ and /x/ in Panjabi and Hindko
Word-initial /h/ in Hindko frequently corresponds to Panjabi /s/ or ∅, as exemplified

in Table 3.6.
‫اک‬
‘one’
ikk hikk
‫ا‬
‘to be able’
sakṇā hakṇā
Table 3.6: Correspondences between word-initial vowel or /s/, and /h/ in Panjabi and Hindko
4 Varma (1936: 77) discusses the /kh/ > /x/ change, but mentions this change only before
plosives; e.g. /likh ke/ ∼ /lix ke/ ‘having written’ (Varma 1936: 82), /ˈākhda/ ∼ /āxda/‚ ‘saying’,
or /likh ca/ ∼ /lix ca/ ‘just write’. Perhaps this change has expanded its scope in Hindko since
Varma’s time. Nasir Abbas Syed (p.c.), hereafter abbreviated as NAS, comments that this does
not happen in Multan Saraiki.
3.3.1.3 Saraiki consonants

There are significant differences between Saraiki phonology and that of Hindko and
Panjabi. In the consonant system, shown in Table 3.7, the main points of difference
are:
1. Saraiki has four voiced implosive stops: bilabial /ɓ/, alveolar /ɗ/, palatal /ʄ/,
and velar /ɠ/. The pronunciation of implosives involves the larynx being low-
ered, creating negative pressure in the mouth, and the breath being very briefly
drawn in before being released (Catford 1982: 73–77). None of these implosive
stop consonant sounds occur in either Panjabi or Hindko, and since they are
difficult for non-Saraiki speakers to pronounce they are the primary shibboleth
for Saraiki, and are a major focus of many accounts of the language by Saraiki
writers.
2. Retroflex /ḷ/ is not found in Saraiki.
3. Aspiration of voiced consonants (also known as “breathy voice”) has not been
lost in Saraiki, as it has in Hindko and Panjabi, and even the nasals, laterals,
and semivowels have aspirated : unaspirated pairs. Aspiration in Saraiki shows
many interesting features, including the loss of historical aspiration without the
development of tone after a preceding aspirate, e.g. /ṭhaḍhā/ > /ṭhaḍḍā/ ‫ا‬
‘cold (adj.)’; occasional spontaneous loss of historical aspiration, e.g. /caṛhaṇ/
> /caṛaṇ/ ‫‘ ݨ‬to climb’; and a tendency to transfer /h/ to adjacent voiced conso-
nants to form voiced aspirates, e.g. /pandrãh/ > /pandhrã/ ‫اں‬ ∼ ‫‘ ر ں‬15’
(Shackle 1976: 30–36).⁵
4. Retroflex /ṇ/ is robustly present and is now represented consistently in the or-
thography with ‫ ݨ‬which emphasizes the phonemic contrast with ‫ ن‬rather than
representing the phonetic nature of /ṇ/ as [ṛ̃], that is, a nasalized retroflex /ṛ/.
Some earlier writers represented this phoneme by using the digraph , but this
practice has lost ground to the use of ‫ݨ‬.
According to Shackle (1976: 18), Shackle (2003: 590), Latif (2003: 94–95), and Syed
and Aldaihani (2014), palatal and velar nasals are distinct phonemes in Saraiki. Con-
trastive pairs supporting this analysis include: velar vs. alveolar nasal, ‫ ر‬/raŋ/ ‘color’
vs. ‫ رن‬/ran/ ‘woman, wife’; palatal vs. velar nasal, /vãʄ-/ ‘go’ vs. ‫ وا‬/vāŋu/ ‘like,
similar to’. Compare also ‫ وڄ‬/vaʄ-/ ‘strike’. This point has been debated among Sa-
raiki writers, but the view advocating separate letters for these two sounds has not
prevailed, and the currently accepted orthography does not include separate letters to
5 Shackle presents this as /pandhrã/, but Mughal (2010: 233) and Zahoor (2009: 79) give it as
‫ ر ں‬/pandarhā̃/
Segments | 29
represent the palatal and velar nasals (see Shackle 2003: 598 for some of the proposed
characters). This has resulted in some (according to the analysis in Shackle 1976, for
example) phonologically inaccurate but forced spellings, e.g. the spelling of the stem
of the verb ‘go’ as ‫ و‬/vãʄ-/, with the implosive palatal fricative, rather than as ‫ و‬rep-
resenting actual /vãj-/ with a nasalized /a/ and the palatal fricative (in the absence of
a unique character for the palatal nasal). This question is still not settled, but could
perhaps be resolved by instrumental studies.
30
Table 3.7: Consonants of Saraiki, adapted from Shackle (1976) and Syed and Aldaihani (2014) (IPA representations)
| Phonology and Orthography

Bilabial Labiodental Dental Alveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar Glottal
Plosive voiceless unaspirated p t̪ ʈ c k
voiceless aspirated pʰ t̪ʰ ʈʰ cʰ kʰ
voiced b d̪ ɖ ɟ g
voiced aspirated bʰ d̪ ʰ ɖʰ ɟʰ gʰ
Implosive unaspirated ɓ ɗ ʄ ɠ
Nasal unaspirated m n ɳ ɲ ŋ
aspirated mʰ nʰ ɳʰ
Fricative voiceless f s ʃ x
voiced ʋ z ʒ ɣ ɦ
voiced aspirated ʋʰ
Flap or Trill unaspirated r ɽ
aspirated rʰ ɽ̣ʰ
Lateral unaspirated l
aspirated lʰ
Approximant j
Segments | 31

A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko Panjabi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko Panjabi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Descriptive Grammar of Hindko Panjabi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elena Bashir and Thomas J.

Series editor responsible for this volume

Library of Congress Control Number 2019945531

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek

© 2019 University of Maryland. All rights reserved.

1 About this Grammar | 1

3 Phonology and Orthography | 19

3.6.2.2 Nasalization in orthography | 71

4.3.3.4.3 Saraiki vocative particles | 102

5 Adjectival and adverbial modiﬁcation | 129

5.1.1.2.5 The exclamation/exhortation ‫ د‬/-bād/ ‘let it be, so be it’ | 133

5.1.4.3.1 Hindko ordinal numbers | 173

6.3.2 Panjabi reﬂexive pronouns | 201

7.2.3.2 Goal and direction of motion – Panjabi | 261

8.3.1.3.5 Past forms of ‫ ا‬/hoṛ̃ā/ ‘to be’ | 290

8.4.4.1.2 Polite/formal imperative | 332

8.5.1.6 Present-future stem | 365

8.5.7.2 Present perfect | 399

9 Sentential syntax | 421

9.1.6.1 Yes-no questions | 460

10.1.2.1.4 Vector /kìn-/ ‘take’ | 512

10.1.2.2.2 Vector ‫ او ∼ آ‬/au- ∼ ā-/ ‘come’ | 515

10.1.2.3.5 Vector /ghin-/ ‘take’ | 522

10.5.1 Ability | 545

10.10.3 Semantic reduplication | 591

References Cited or Consulted | 599

2.1 Map of Pakistan and environs with political boundaries | 11

4.1 Hindko vocative case endings | 98

4.2 Panjabi vocative case endings | 99

4.27 Saraiki consonant-ﬁnal masculine noun /ghar/ ‘house, home’ (Class

5.1 Marked Hindko adjective ‫ ا‬/nikkṛā/ ‘small’ | 136

5.20 Indeﬁnite adjective /kúj/ ∼ /kujh/ ‘some (quantitative)’– Hindko,

6.1 Hindko personal pronouns | 191

6.4 Genitive forms of pronouns, Panjabi | 197

7.1 Dative-accusative and ergative postpositions in Hindko, Panjabi, and

8.1 Overview of Hindko verb forms | 282

8.18 Present imperfect of ‫ ا‬/julṛ̃ā/ ‘to go’ (actual forms) | 301

8.56 Continuous II-subjunctive of /karnā/ ‘to do’ | 340

8.110 Present perfect of ‫ و‬/vãʄaṇ/ ‘to go’ | 400

8.121 Past perfect-stative of ‫ݨ‬ /karaṇ/ ‘to do’ | 409

10.1 ADJ - V conjunct verbs | 508

• as a reference tool for understanding the major grammatical constructions in Hind-

• as a linguistic record of documentation of Hindko, Panjabi, and Saraiki;

• as a template for writing similar grammars of other languages;

• as a resource which is easily converted into computational tools.

While Panjabi is a major language as measured by number of speakers—having per-

1.2 Scope of the present work

1.3 Past work and references consulted

1.6 Chapter organization

Figure 1.1: In-line text example

Phonemic transcription mæ̃ katāb nū̃ vekh-iā e

Figure 1.2: Interlinear example

1.8 Glossing and formatting conventions

1.9 List of abbreviations and symbols

- morpheme boundary in a transcription or gloss-line; indicates joining

. a period indicates a mismatch between the number of

() marginal phoneme or morphological form

ˈ stress on following syllable

ALLIT alliterative element