LOANWORDS IN SANSKRIT 378 was wrongly assigned to the Munda or Kolanian family. Examination of the material provided by the Linguistic Survey itself rendered this assertion extremely doubtful, and recent field researches, by greatly increasing the material available, have made it clear that Nahali is the last surviving remnant of what must originally have been a quite independent family. Yet others may have existed of which nothing is now known, and the possibility that Sanskrit (and also later Indo- Aryan) has drawn on such sources is always to be borne in mind. Remains of an ancient language of India have been unearthed in the Indus cities of the third millennium b.c. So far no serious progress has been made in its decipherment, since no key to the solution is available. There is at present no means of knowing what kind of language is represented in these documents, which might be connected with one of the linguistic groups known in India, or be something quite different. Nor is there any means of knowing whether or not Sanskrit may have been influenced from this. There is only the possibility that some day, with the discovery of further information, a new chapter may be con- tributed to the linguistic history of India. From this brief survey it is clear that there are two practical sources where the origin of the non-Aryan element in Sanskrit may be sought, namely the Munda and Dravidian languages, and in both these directions progress has been made. As far as the Munda languages are concerned the main difficulty is that many of them have been inadequately explored. A necessary basis for the study of their influence on Sanskrit is a proper comparative study of the languages themselves, but this cannot be undertaken until adequate grammars and dictionaries exist for all the independent members. At present the most detailed information exists for the Northern group (San tali, Mundari, etc.) but this happens to be the one which has been most pro- foundly influenced by Indo- Aryan. Consequently in the absence of full comparative evidence it is often difficult to decide which way the borrowing has taken place. There^isTitso the question of the relation of Munda and Mon-Khmer. The evidence of this is clear enough to be decisive, but it has not been worked out in proper detail. This will eventually be necessary both for the comparative study of the Munda languages themselves, and for the special question under discussion, their influence on Indo- Aryan.
