Substratum in Vedic Sanskrit

Retroflex phonemes are now found throughout the Burushaski,{{cite book|first=H.|last= Berger |title=Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nagar |volume =1–3 |location=Wiesbaden|publisher= Harrassowitz |date=1988}} Nuristani,{{cite book|first=G. |last=Morgenstierne |title=Irano-Dardica |location=Wiesbaden |date=1973}} Dravidian and Munda families. They are reconstructed for Proto-Burushaski, Proto-Dravidian and (to a minimal extent) for Proto-Munda,{{cite book|editor-first=Gregory D. S. |editor-last=Anderson |title=The Munda Languages |location=London and New York |publisher=Routledge |series=Routledge Language Family Series |date=2008 |isbn=978-0-415-32890-6|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K_lTPgAACAAJ }} and are thus clearly an areal feature of the Indian subcontinent. They are not reconstructible for either Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Indo-Iranian, and they are also not found in Mitanni–Indo-Aryan loanwords.

The acquisition of the phonological trait by early Indo-Aryan is thus unsurprising, but it does not immediately permit identification of the donor language. Since the adoption of a retroflex series does not affect poetic meter, it is impossible to say if it predates the early portions of the Rigveda or was a part of Indo-Aryan when the Rigvedic verses were being composed; however, it is certain that at the time of the redaction of the Rigveda (ca. 500 BCE), the retroflex series had become part of Sanskrit phonology. There is a clear predominance of retroflexion in the Northwest (Nuristani, Dardic, Khotanese Saka, Burushaski), involving affricates, sibilants and even vowels (in Kalasha), compared to other parts of the subcontinent. It has been suggested that this points to the regional, northwestern origin of the phenomenon in Rigvedic Sanskrit.{{cite journal |first=Michael |last=Witzel |title=Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rigvedic, Middle and Late Vedic) |url=http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/ejvs0501article.pdf |journal=Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies |volume=5 |issue=1 |date=1999 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206073939/http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0501/ejvs0501article.pdf |archive-date=6 February 2012 |df=dmy-all }} Bertil Tikkanen is open to the idea that various syntactical developments in Indo-Aryan could have been the result of adstratum rather than the result of substrate influences.{{rp|80–82}} However Tikkanen states that "in view of the strictly areal implications of retroflexion and the occurrence of retroflexes in many early loanwords, it is hardly likely that Indo-Aryan retroflexion arose in a region that did not have a substratum with retroflexes."{{cite book|first=Bertil|last= Tikkanen|chapter= Archaeological-linguistic correlations in the formation of retroflex typologies and correlating areal features in South Asia |editor-first=Roger |editor1-last=Blench |editor2-first=Matthew |editor2-last=Spriggs |title=Archaeology and Language |volume=4 |location=London |publisher=Routledge |date=1999 |pages= 138–148}}

Not only the typological development of Old to Middle Indo-Aryan, but already the phonological development from Pre-Vedic to Vedic (including even the oldest attested form in the Rig-Veda) has been seen as suggestive of Dravidian influence.{{cite book|last1=Ruzsa|first1=Ferenc|editor1-last=Klein|editor1-first=Jared S.|editor2-last=Yoshida|editor2-first=Kazuhiko|title=Indic across the Millennia: From the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan: 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009, Proceedings of the Linguistic Section|date=2013|publisher=Ute Hempen Verlag|location=Bremen|isbn=978-393-41060-5-5|pages=145–152|chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/472464|access-date=27 June 2014|chapter-format=PDF|chapter=The Influence of Dravidian on Indo-Aryan Phonetics}} However, Hock argues that Dravidian should not be considered as significant, but that retroflexion is, rather, the outcome of areal features cutting across language boundaries in the Northwest of the Indian subcontinent, and extending into Central Asia.{{cite journal|first=Hans Henrich |last=Hock |title=The Northwest of South Asia and beyond: The issue of Indo-Aryan retroflexion yet again|journal=Journal of South Asian Languages and Linguistics |volume=2 |issue=1 |date=2015 |pages=111–135 |doi=10.1515/jsall-2015-0005|s2cid=163969946 }}

In 1955 Burrow listed some 500 words in Sanskrit that he considered to be loans from non-Indo-European languages. He noted that in the earliest form of the language such words are comparatively few, but they progressively become more numerous. Though mentioning the likelihood that one source was lost Indian languages extinguished by the advance of Indo-Aryan, he concentrated on finding loans from Dravidian.{{cite book|first=Thomas |last=Burrow |title=The Sanskrit Language |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.313685 |edition=3rd |date=1955 |pages=397–8 & ch. 8|publisher=Motilal Banarsidass }} Kuiper identified 383 specifically Rigvedic words as non-Indo-Aryan – roughly 4% of its vocabulary.{{cite book|first=F. B. J. |last=Kuiper |chapter=Rigvedic loanwords|title=Studia Indologica |editor=Spies |location=Bonn |date=1955 |pages= 137–185}}{{cite book|first=F. B. J. |last=Kuiper|title=Aryans in the Rigveda |publisher=Rodopi |date=1991}} Oberlies prefers to consider 344–358 "secure" non-Indo-European words in the Rigveda.{{cite journal|first=T. |last=Oberlies |title=Review Article: F. B. J. Kuiper: Aryans in the Rigveda|journal=Indo-Iranian Journal |volume= 37 |issue=4 |date=1994 |pages= 333–349 |doi=10.1163/000000094790084162}} Even if all local non-Indo-Aryan names of persons and places are subtracted from Kuiper's list, that still leaves some 211–250 "foreign" words, around 2% of the total vocabulary of the Rigveda.{{cite web|first=Michael E. J. |last=Witzel |url=http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/IndusLang.pdf |title=The Languages of Harappa|date= 17 February 2000 |type=Preliminary version prepared for Kenoyer, J. (ed.): Proceedings of the conference on the Indus civilization, Madison 1998}}

These loanwords cover local flora and fauna, agriculture and artisanship, terms of toilette, clothing and household. Dancing and music are particularly prominent, and there are some items of religion and beliefs. They only reflect village life, and not the intricate civilization of the Indus cities, befitting a post-Harappan time frame. In particular, Indo-Aryan words for plants stem in large part from other language families, especially from the now-lost substrate languages.

Mayrhofer identified a "prefixing" language as the source of many non-Indo-European words in the Rigveda, based on recurring prefixes like ka- or ki-, that have been compared by Michael Witzel to the Munda prefix k- for designation of persons, and the plural prefix ki seen in Khasi, though he notes that in Vedic, k- also applies to items merely connected with humans and animals.{{rp|12}} Examples include:

• {{lang|vsn|काकम्बीर}} {{transl|vsn|kākambīra}} a certain tree
• {{lang|vsn|ककर्दु}} {{transl|vsn|kakardu}} "wooden stick"
• {{lang|vsn|कपर्दिन्}} {{transl|vsn|kapardin}} "with a hair-knot"
• {{lang|vsn|कर्पास}} {{transl|vsn|karpāsa}} "cotton"
• {{lang|vsn|कवन्ध}} {{transl|vsn|kavandha}} "barrel"
• {{lang|vsn|कवष}} {{transl|vsn|kavaṣa}} "straddle-legged"
• {{lang|vsn|किलास}} {{transl|vsn|kilāsa}} "spotted, leprous"
• {{lang|vsn|किमीद}} {{transl|vsn|kimīda}} "a demon", cf. {{lang|sa|शिमिदा}} {{transl|sa|śimidā}} "a demoness"
• {{lang|vsn|कीनाश}} {{transl|vsn|kīnāśa}} "ploughman"
• {{lang|vsn|कियम्बु}} {{transl|vsn|kiyāmbu}} a water plant
• {{lang|vsn|कुलाय}} {{transl|vsn|kulāya}} "nest"
• {{lang|vsn|कुलिश}} {{transl|vsn|kuliśa}} "axe"
• {{lang|vsn|कुमार}} {{transl|vsn|kumāra}} "boy"
• {{lang|vsn|कुलुङ्ग}} {{transl|vsn|kuluṅga}} "antelope"
• {{lang|vsn|कुरुङ्ग}} {{transl|vsn|Kuruṅga}} name of a chieftain of the Turvaśa.

Witzel remarks that these words span all of local village life. He considers that they were drawn from the lost language of the northern Indus Civilization and its Neolithic predecessors. As they abound in Austroasiatic-like prefixes, he initially chose to call it Para-Munda, but later the Kubhā-Vipāś substrate.

The Indo-Europeanist and Indologist Thieme has questioned Dravidian etymologies proposed for Vedic words, for most of which he gives Indo-Aryan or Sanskrit etymologies, and has condemned what he characterizes as a misplaced "zeal for hunting up Dravidian loans in Sanskrit". Das, while not discounting the possibility of foreign elements in Vedic, contended that there nevertheless is "not a single case" in which a {{lang|la|communis opinio}} has been found confirming the foreign origin of a Rigvedic word".{{cite journal|first=Rahul Peter |last=Das |title=The Hunt for Foreign Words in the {{IAST|Ṛgveda}}|journal=Indo-Iranian Journal |volume=38 |issue=3 |date=1995 |pages=207–238 |doi=10.1163/000000095790084530|s2cid=161421784 }} Kuiper answered that charge,{{cite journal|first=F. |last=Kuiper |title=On a hunt for "possible" objections |journal=Indo-Iranian Journal |volume=38 |issue=3 |date=1995 |pages=239–247 |doi=10.1163/000000095790084558}} on which Das then commented.{{cite book|last1=Das|first1=Rahul Peter|editor1-last=Das|editor1-first=Rahul Peter|editor2-last=Meiser|editor2-first=Gerhard|title=Geregeltes Ungestüm: Bruderschaften und Jugendbünde bei indogermanischen Völkern|date=2002|publisher=Ute Hempen Verlag|location=Bremen|isbn=3-934106-22-6|pages=139–156; see note 1|chapter-url=https://www.academia.edu/25167471|access-date=9 November 2021|chapter-format=PDF|chapter=Indra und Śiva/Rudra: Neue Erkenntnisse zur indischen Götterwelt aus einem interdisziplinären Diskurs}} Burrow in turn has criticized the "resort to tortuous reconstructions in order to find, by hook or by crook, Indo-European explanations for Sanskrit words". Kuiper reasons that given the abundance of Indo-European comparative material – and the scarcity of Dravidian or Munda – the inability to clearly confirm whether the etymology of a Vedic word is Indo-European implies that it is not.{{rp|86–88}}

Colin Masica could not find etymologies from Indo-European or Dravidian or Munda or as loans from Persian for 31 percent of agricultural and flora terms of Hindi. He proposed an origin in an unknown language "X".{{cite book|first=Colin |last=Masica |chapter=Aryan and non-Aryan elements in North Indian agriculture|editor1-first=M. |editor1-last=Deshpande |editor2-first=P. E. |editor2-last=Hook |title=Aryan and non-Aryan in India |location=Ann Arbour |publisher=Univ. of Michigan, Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies |date=1979 |pages= 55–152}} Southworth also notes that the flora terms did not come from either Dravidian or Munda. Southworth found only five terms which are shared with Munda, leading to his suggestion that "the presence of other ethnic groups, speaking other languages, must be assumed for the period in question".{{cite book|first=Franklyn |last=Southworth|chapter= Lexical evidence for early contacts between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian|editor1-first=M. |editor1-last=Deshpande |editor2-first=P. E. |editor2-last=Hook |title=Aryan and non-Aryan in India |location=Ann Arbour |publisher=Univ. of Michigan, Centre for South and Southeast Asian Studies |date=1979 |page=205}}

Terms borrowed from an otherwise unknown substrate language, sometimes called the BMAC substrate, include those relating to cereal-growing and breadmaking (“bread”; “ploughshare”; “seed”; “sheaf”; “yeast”), waterworks (“canal”; “well”), architecture (“brick”; “house”; “pillar”; “wooden peg”), tools or weapons (“axe”; “club”), textiles and garments (“cloak”; “cloth”; “coarse garment”; “hem”; “needle”) and plants (“hemp”; “mustard”; “soma plant”). Lubotsky pointed out that the phonological and morphological similarity of 55 loanwords in Iranian and in Sanskrit indicate that both share a common substratum, or perhaps two dialects of the same substratum. He concludes that the BMAC language of the population of the towns of Central Asia (where Indo-Iranians must have arrived in the 2nd millennium BCE) and the language spoken in Punjab (see Harappan below) were intimately related. However, the prevailing interpretation is that Harappan is not related, and the 55 loanwords entered Proto-Indo-Iranian during its development in the Sintashta culture in distant contact with the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex, and then many more words with the same origin enriched Old Indic as it developed among pastoralists who integrated with and perhaps ruled over the declining BMAC.{{cite book|first=D. W. |last=Anthony |title=The Horse, the Wheel and Language |date=2007 |pages= 455–456|title-link=The Horse, the Wheel and Language }}

Examples:

• BMAC *{{lang|mis-142|anću}} 'soma plant (ephedra)’ → Skt. {{transl|sa|aṃśú-}}; Av. {{transl|ae|ąsu-}}
• BMAC *atʰr̥ → Skt. átharvan 'priest', Av. āθrauuan-/aθaurun- 'id.', Pehlevi āsrōn; Toch. A atär, B etre 'hero'
• BMAC *bʰiš- 'to heal' → Skt. bhiṣáj- m. 'physician'; LAv. bišaziia- 'to cure'
• BMAC *dr̥ća → Skt. dūrśa- 'coarse garment'; Wakhi δirs 'goat or yak wool', Shughni δox̆c 'body hair; coarse cloth'
• BMAC *gandʰ/t- → Skt. gandhá-; LAv. gaiṇti- 'odor'
• BMAC *gandʰ(a)rw- 'mythical beast' → Skt. gandharvá-; LAv. gaṇdərəβa-
• BMAC *indra theonym → Skt. Índra; LAv. Iṇdra daeva's name
• BMAC *išt(i) 'brick' → Skt. íṣṭakā- f. (VS+); LAv. ištiia- n., OP išti- f., Pers. xešt; Toch. B iścem 'clay'
• BMAC *ǰaǰʰa/uka 'hedgehog' → Skt. jáhakā; LAv. dužuka-, Bal. ǰaǰuk, Pers. žūža
• BMAC *jawījā 'canal, irrigation channel' → Skt. yavīyā-; OP yauwiyā-, Pers. ju(y)
• BMAC *k/ćan- 'hemp' → Skt. śaṇa; MP šan, Khot. kaṃha, Oss. gæn(æ)
• BMAC *majūkʰa 'wooden peg' → Skt. mayūkha-; OP mayūxa- 'doorknob', Pers. mix 'peg, nail'
• BMAC *nagna → Skt. nagnáhu- (AVP+) m. 'yeast'; Sogd. nɣny, Pashto naɣan, Pers. nān 'bread'
• BMAC *sćāga ~ sćaga 'billy-goat' → Skt. chāga-; Oss. sæǧ(æ), Wakhi čəɣ 'kid'
• BMAC *sikatā 'sand, gravel' → Skt. sikatā-; OP θikā 'sand', Khot. siyatā, Buddh. Sogd. šykth
• BMAC *sinšap- 'mustard' → Skt. sarṣapa; Khot. śśaśvāna, Parth. šyfš-d'n, Sodg. šywšp-δn, Pers. sipan-dān 'mustard seed'
• BMAC *(s)pʰāra 'ploughshare' → Skt. phāla-; Pers. supār
• BMAC *sūčī 'needle' → Skt. sūćī; LAv. sūkā-, MP sozan, Oss. sūʒīn ~ soʒīnæ
• BMAC *šwaipa 'tail' → Skt. śépa-, Prākrit cheppā-; LAv. xšuuaēpā-
• BMAC *(H)uštra 'camel' → Skt. úṣṭra-; Av. uštra-, Pers. šotor

{{ see also | Meluhha }}

Witzel initially used the term "Para-Munda" to denote a hypothetical language related but not ancestral to modern Munda languages, which he identified as "Harappan", the language of the Indus Valley civilization. To avoid confusion with Munda, he later opted for the term "Kubhā-Vipāś substrate". He argues that the Rigveda shows signs of this hypothetical Harappan influence in the earliest level and Dravidian only in later levels, suggesting that speakers of Harappan were the original inhabitants of Punjab and that the Indo-Aryans encountered speakers of Dravidian not before middle Rigvedic times. Krishnamurti deems the evidence too meagre for this proposal. Regarding Witzel's methodology in claiming Para-Munda origins, Krishnamurti states: "The main flaw in Witzel's argument is his inability to show a large number of complete, unanalyzed words from Munda borrowed into the first phase of the Ṛgveda... It would have been better if [Witzel] said we did not know the true source of 300 or so early borrowings into the Ṛgveda."{{cite book|first=Bhadriraju |last=Krishnamurti |title=Dravidian Languages|publisher=Cambridge University Press |date=2003 |page=38 }} This statement, however, confuses Proto-Munda and Para-Munda and neglects the several hundred "complete, unanalyzed words" from a prefixing language, adduced by Kuiper and Witzel.

A concern raised in the identification of the substrate is that there is a large time gap between the comparative materials, which can be seen as a serious methodological drawback. One issue is the early geographical distribution of the South Asian languages. It should not be assumed that the present-day northern location of Brahui, Kurukh, and Malto reflects the position of their ancestor languages at the time of Indo-Aryan development. Another problem is that modern literary languages may present a misleading picture of their prehistoric ancestors.{{cite web|first=Hans Henrich |last=Hock |url=http://www.ciil.org/Main/Announcement/MBE_Programme/images/paper%20-%20hans.pdf |title=The Problem of Time in South Asian Convergence |series=Prof. M. B. Emeneau Centenary International Conference on South Asian Linguistics |publisher=Central Institute of Indian Languages |location=Mysore |access-date=2 August 2007 |url-status=unfit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101217033240/http://www.ciil.org/Main/Announcement/MBE_Programme/images/paper%20-%20hans.pdf |archive-date=17 December 2010 }} The first completely intelligible, datable, and sufficiently long and complete epigraphs that might be of some use in linguistic comparison are the early Tamil Brahmi inscriptions starting in the 2nd century BCE,{{cite book|first=Kamil |last=Zvelebil |title=Dravidian Linguistics: An Introduction|publisher=Pondicherry Institute of Linguistics and Culture|date= 1990}}{{cite book|last=Mahadevan |first=I |title=Early Tamil epigraphy from the earliest times to the sixth century A.D |location=Chennai|publisher= Cre-A|series=Harvard Oriental Series |date=2003}} and the Tamil inscriptions of the Pallava dynasty of about 550 CE. Similarly there is much less material available for comparative Munda and the interval in their case is at least three millennia. However, reconstructions of Proto-Dravidian and Proto-Munda now help in distinguishing the traits of these languages from those of Indo-European in the evaluation of substrate and loan words.

There are an estimated thirty to forty Dravidian loanwords in Vedic.{{cite book|first1=J. P. |last1=Mallory |first2=D. Q. |last2=Adams |title= Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture |url=https://archive.org/details/EncyclopediaOfIndoEuropeanCulture |date=1997|page=308}} Those for which Dravidian etymologies are proposed by Zvelebil include {{lang|vsn|कुलाय}} {{transl|vsn|kulāya}} "nest", {{lang|vsn|कुल्फ}} {{transl|vsn|kulpha}} "ankle", {{lang|vsn|दण्ड}} {{IAST|daṇḍa}} "stick", {{lang|vsn|कूल}} {{transl|vsn|kūla}} "slope", {{lang|vsn|बिल}} {{transl|vsn|bila}} "hollow", {{lang|vsn|खल}} {{transl|vsn|khala}} "threshing floor".{{Cite book |last=Allan R. Bomhard |url=http://archive.org/details/zvelebildravidianlinguisticsanintroduction1990 |title=Zvelebil - Dravidian Linguistics - An Introduction (1990) |language=English}}{{rp|81}} However, Witzel finds Dravidian loans only from the middle Rigvedic period, suggesting that linguistic contact between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers only occurred as the Indo-Aryans expanded well into and beyond the Punjab.

While Dravidian languages are primarily confined to the South of India today, there is a striking exception: Brahui (which is spoken in parts of Baluchistan). It has been taken by some as the linguistic equivalent of a relict population, perhaps indicating that Dravidian languages were formerly much more widespread and were supplanted by the incoming Indo-Aryan languages. Certainly some Dravidian place-names are found in now Indo-Aryan regions of central India, and possibly even as far northwest as Sindh. However, it is now argued by Elfenbein that the Brahui could only have migrated to Balochistan from central India after 1000 CE, because of the lack of any older Iranian (Avestan) loanwords in Brahui. The main Iranian contributor to Brahui vocabulary, Balochi, is a western Iranian language like Kurdish, and moved to the area from the west only around 1000 CE.{{cite journal|first=J. H. |last=Elfenbein|title= A periplous of the 'Brahui problem'|journal=Studia Iranica |volume=16 |issue=2|date=1987 |pages=215–233 |doi=10.2143/si.16.2.2014604}}

As noted above, retroflex phonemes in early Indo-Aryan cannot identify the donor language as specifically Dravidian. Krishnamurti argues the Dravidian case for other features: "Besides, the {{IAST|Ṛg}} Veda has used the gerund, not found in Avestan, with the same grammatical function as in Dravidian, as a nonfinite verb for 'incomplete' action. {{IAST|Ṛg}} Vedic language also attests the use of {{transl|vsn|iti}} as a quotative clause complementizer." However, such features are also found in the indigenous Burushaski language of the Pamirs and cannot be attributed only to Dravidian influence on the early Rigveda.{{cite journal|first=Bertil |last=Tikkanen |title=The Sanskrit gerund: A synchronic, diachronic and typological analysis |journal=Studia Orientalia |volume=62 |date=1987}} A quotative{{transl|vsn|uiti}} is also seen in Avestan.

Kuiper identified one of the donor languages to Indo-Aryan as Proto-Munda. Munda linguist Gregory D. Anderson states: "It is surprising that nothing in the way of quotations from a Munda language turned up in (the hundreds and hundreds of) Sanskrit and middle-Indo-Aryan or "Indic" texts.{{refn|group=note|In modern and colloquial context, the term "Indic" also refers more generally to the languages of the Indian subcontinent, thus also including non-Indo-Aryan languages. See e.g. {{cite book|last1=Reynolds |first1=Mike |chapter=Indic languages |date=2007 |chapter-url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/language-in-the-british-isles/indic-languages/8343FABC094E91986DBD68A492FFEA1B |title=Language in the British Isles |pages=293–307 |editor-last=Britain |editor-first=David |place=Cambridge |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-79488-6 |access-date=2021-10-04 |last2=Verma |first2=Mahendra}}}} There is also a surprising lack of borrowings of names of plants/animal/bird, and so forth into Sanskrit (Zide and Zide 1976). Much of what has been proposed for Munda words in older Indo-Aryan (e.g. Kuiper 1948) has been rejected by careful analysis. Some possible Munda names have been proposed, for example, Savara (Sora) or Khara, but ethnonymy is notoriously messy for the identification of language groups, and a single ethnonym may be adopted and used for linguistically rather different or entirely unrelated groups".

• Harappan language
• Pre-Greek substrate
• Vedda language
• Indo-Aryan loanwords in Tamil
• Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni

{{reflist|group=note}}

{{Lacking ISBN|date=April 2016}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

• Pooth, Roland A. "[https://ia902607.us.archive.org/11/items/on-converse-lability-and-its-declin/On_converse_lability_and_its_declin.pdf On converse lability and its decline from Vedic to Epic Sanskrit: The verb juṣ-‘to enjoy’and ‘to please’]." Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting. Vol. 7. No. 1. Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu, 2021.
• {{cite book |last=Witzel |first=Michael |chapter=Early Loan Words in Western Central Asia: Indicators of Substrate Populations, Migrations, and Trade Relations |title=Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World |editor-first=Victor H. |editor-last=Mair |location=Honolulu |publisher=University of Hawaii Press |date=2006 |pages=158–190 |doi=10.1515/9780824841676-009|isbn=9780824841676 }}

{{Eurasian languages}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Substratum In Vedic Sanskrit}}

Category:Sanskrit

Category:Linguistic history of India

Category:Pre-Indo-European languages

Category:Language contact

Category:Linguistic strata