ERIK ANONBY

CARLETON UNIVERSITY AND UPPSALA UNIVERSITY

HASSAN MOHEBBI BAHMANI

MINAB AZAD UNIVERSITY

SHIPWRECKED AND LANDLOCKED: KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST

RÉSUMÉ Cet article présente un premier compte du kholosi, une langue parlée dans deux villages situés dans les montagnes Zagros dans l’ouest de la province d’Hormozgan, qui à son tour se trouve en Iran du sud-ouest. Après un survol de la distribution des langues dans la région, nous relatons la « découverte » et la documentation initiale de la langue kholosi. Une description de la situation linguistique est accompagnée des observations sur les origines et l’histoire de la communauté linguistique, réputée naufragée avant de s’installer dans son emplacement actuel dans les montagnes. Nous pourvoyons alors un échantillon de vocabulaire et un aperçu d’éléments sélectionnés de la structure de cette langue. Sur la base des comparaisons aux langues iraniennes environnantes ainsi que les langues indo-aryennes dans la grande région, nous démontrons que le kholosi est en fait une langue indo-aryenne qui a absorbé des traits des langues iraniennes avoisinantes en raison du contact intense et de longue date. Comme le kholosi présente des traits de chacune des langues indo- aryennes dans les données comparatives, sa position au sein de l’indo-aryen reste incertaine. L’article conclut avec des réflexions à l’importance – et à l’urgence – de la documentation linguistique dans le contexte iranien. Mots-clés : documentation linguistique, langues de l’Iran, langues indo-aryennes, Kholosi, Hormozgan, contact linguistique

ABSTRACT This paper presents a first account of Kholosi, a language spoken in two villages in the of western in south-west Iran. After

3 CAHIER DE STUDIA IRANICA XX, 2014, p. 3-xxx. 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI providing an overview of language distribution in the region, we recount the “discovery” and initial documentation of the Kholosi language. A description of the language situation is accompanied by observations relating to the origins and history of the language community, reputedly shipwrecked in past centuries before settling in its present location in the mountains. We then provide a sample of vocabulary and an overview of selected elements of the language’s structure. Through comparisons with the surrounding Southwestern as well as Indo-Aryan languages in the wider region, we conclude that Kholosi is in fact an Indo-Aryan language that has absorbed features of surrounding Iranian languages through long- standing and intense contact. Since it shows disparate similarities to each of the four Indo-Aryan languages used in the comparisons, its position within Indo-Aryan remains unclear. The article concludes with reflections on the importance – and urgency – of language documentation in the Iranian context. Keywords: language documentation, , Indo-Aryan languages, Kholosi, Hormozgan Province, language contact * * *

I. INTRODUCTION1 In Iran, a land characterized by great linguistic diversity, the Iranian, Turkic and Semitic language blocs converge and overlap, with a constellation of important consequences in each direction (Csató, Isaksson and Jahani 2005).

1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 5th International Conference on Iranian Linguistics in Bamberg, Germany, 23-25 August, 2013. Our contribution has been made possible through research-related functions of the first author’s position at Carleton University and the Uppsala University research project UFV-PA 2010/2580. We would like to thank the many people who, through their detailed and insightful comments, have greatly strengthened this paper, and in particular Salman Ahmadi, Christina van der Wal Anonby, Joan Baart, Bernard Comrie, Geoffrey Haig, Bruno Herin, Agnes Korn, Abdulaziz Lodhi and Ali Rashidi. The volume editors and two anonymous referees have also made an important contribution through their thoughtful evaluation and criticism of the manuscript. Phonological transcriptions are indicated with italics, and phonetic transcriptions appear between square brackets. Most of the symbols used in transcriptions are based on the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). There are, however, several phonological conventions drawn from area studies. The macron over a vowel symbol (e.g., ā, ē, ī) indicates length. The diacritic h, which in IPA marks aspiration, is also used here to indicate breathy articulation. The symbol for the voiced palatal implosive ʄ [ʄ] is distinct from f [f]. Other phonological symbols which require explanation, along with their IPA equivalents, are as follows: č [͡tʃ], ġ [ʁ], ḥ [ħ], j [d͡ ʒ], š [ʃ] and x [χ]. KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

Hormozgan Province of south-western Iran is no exception to this pattern of diversity of languages and interaction among them. There, the Southwestern division of Iranian is represented by the numerous Bandari dialects of the coast such as the old dialect of (Fathi 2001/1380, Sāyebāni 1997/1377, Pelevin 2002, 2010), Minābi (Skjærvø 1975, Mohebbi Bahmani 2006) and Keshmi (Anonby forthcoming) and, in the northern extension of the province (see Figure 1 below), by inland dialects which pattern with Persian varieties of Province (Skjærvø 1975, p. 113). Other Southwestern Iranian languages are found in the mountainous regions of Hormozgan: Lārestāni (or Achomi), best known from its Lāri variety in Province (Mann 1909; Eqtedāri 1955/1334, 2005/1384; Kamioka & Yamada 1979; Skjærvø 1989), extends with the Zagros mountains into western areas of Hormozgan; in the eastern mountains, toward Baluchistan Province, two distinctive dialect groups, Molki Gāl and Marzi Gāl – often grouped together in the literature as “Bashkardi” – are found (Gershevitch 1985, Mohebbi Bahmani field notes 2005, Voskanian & Boyajian-Sureniants 2007). Finally, the Lāraki dialect of Kumzāri, a language classified as Southwestern (Skjærvø 1989, p. 364) but with many basic Semitic structures (van der Wal Anonby 2013, Bayshak 2002), is spoken in a single village on Lārak Island in the (Anonby & Yousefian 2011).

Overview of language distribution in Hormozgan Province, south-west Iran: Fig. 1 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI

The Northwestern Iranian language Balochi is represented in Hormozgan by two different varieties: Southern Balochi dialects, transitional to Bandari, extending from the border of Baluchistan all the way to the outskirts of ; and Koroshi, first reported from camel herders of (Windfuhr 1989, p. 248; Salami 2005/1383) but also spoken in Hormozgan in villages between Minab and Bandar Abbas (Nourzaei et al. forthcoming). The Semitic language is likewise represented by two different dialect types: Gulf Arabic, spoken for the most part in villages along the western coast of Hormozgan Province; and Shihhi Arabic, native to the Musandam Peninsula of Arabia (van der Wal Anonby & Anonby forthcoming) but spoken on Lārak Island alongside Kumzari (Anonby & Yousefian 2011, p. 43-44). The influence of Arabic on the Iranian languages of coastal Hormozgan has in many cases been direct and intense: for example, both Keshmi (Bandari) and Lāraki (Kumzāri) contain emphatic (i.e., pharyngeal and/or pharyngealized) consonants (Anonby 2011b; Anonby & Yousefian 2011, p. 151; Anonby forthcoming). Until now, the Indo-Aryan branch of Indo-Iranian languages has not figured prominently in accounts of the linguistic landscape of Iran (for examples, see “Kholosi in comparative perspective” below), and none have documented these languages in Hormozgan Province. But crucially, this situation may not reflect facts of language distribution; rather, it appears to be due to incomplete documentation. In the present article, we relate the “discovery” and first documentation of Kholosi, an apparently Indo-Aryan language spoken in two villages in the Zagros Mountains of western Hormozgan Province. A description of the language situation is accompanied by observations on the origins and history of the language community. We then provide a sample of vocabulary and an overview of selected elements of the language’s structure. Data from Kholosi show structures which are typical of Southwestern Iranian languages in general, and some which are similar to specific features of the neighbouring Southwestern languages in Hormozgan Province. However, there are numerous structures, including a large proportion of basic vocabulary and important phonological features, which are unfamiliar from the Southwestern branch of Iranian. An examination of selected Indo- Aryan languages, initiated based on speakers’ own stories of their origins in India, reveals that most differences from Iranian languages can in fact be related to structures in the Indo-Aryan family, even though Kholosi is hundreds of kilometers away from any other known Indo-Aryan language. Weighing these data against a typology of language contact and the little that is known about the history of the language community, we suggest that KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

Kholosi is an Indo-Aryan language that has absorbed features of surrounding Southwestern Iranian languages through long-standing and intense contact.

II. THE KHOLOSI LANGUAGE: DISCOVERY AND DOCUMENTATION Little documentation exists for the languages of western Hormozgan Province. Early linguists travelling in south-western Iran (Zhukovskij, Mann, Gershevitch) documented dialects in neighbouring regions, but passed by the foothills of the Zagros Mountains in this particular area. More recently, a modest amount of work on language in the area has appeared, especially on the dialects of (Bastaki 1980/1359) and Buchir (Rashidi 2008). These sources demonstrate that dialects current in inland areas of western Hormozgan are varieties of Lārestāni (locally known as Achomi). There is, however, one variety which stands apart from all the others in the area: Kholosi. The Kholosi language was first brought to our attention by Ali Rashidi, a graduate in linguistics from the University of Sistan and Baluchistan. Ali has written an M.A. thesis (Rashidi 2008) on Buchiri, his native Achomi dialect, spoken in Buchir village in western Hormozgan. We first met Ali within the context of a research project on language distribution and use on Lārak Island (Anonby & Yousefian 2011). In our discussions of language distribution in Hormozgan Province as a whole, Ali mentioned that there was a language completely different from other languages of the province, spoken only in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains, in the villages of Kholos and Gotāw. In addition to knowing about the existence of the Kholosi language, Ali remembered two Kholosi words he had learned from speakers of the language: puni ‘water’, and sap ‘snake’. Given that there is little variation in these two items in the Iranian languages of the region – ‘water’ consistently being some variation of āb (āp, āw, aw, haw, ow, etc.), and the word for snake (mār) also being fairly stable (Anonby & Mohebbi Bahmani, field notes), our interest was immediately aroused. It did not work out to visit the Kholosi language area along with our research trip to Lārak Island in 2009, but we immediately set in motion a plan to document the language. In 2011, Mohebbi Bahmani first made contact with a Kholosi speaker attending university in Minab. At this time, he gathered an initial Kholosi wordlist: it showed that the language is clearly different from other languages in Hormozgan Province and that it may not, in fact, belong to the Iranian family of languages. 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI

Mohebbi Bahmani was able to visit the language area in 2012. He then confirmed and augmented the language data he had collected, and gathered additional information relating to the social context of the language.

III. LANGUAGE SITUATION The villages of Kholos and Gotāw are located in a trough in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains of south-western Iran. The villages are 35 km from the coast in a direct line, but because of the ribbed form of the mountains, the coast is over 100 km away by road. Administratively, Kholos and Gotāw are located in the Kukherd District (Persian=P. baksh) of Bastak Region (P. shahrestān) in the western part of Hormozgan Province, . The nearest towns are Jenāh (pop. 7169, 11 km to the south), Kukherd (pop. 3839, 17 km to the east) and Bastak (pop. 9225, 23 km from Kholos by road to the north). The nearest large city is Bandar Abbas (pop. 435,000), which is over 250 kilometers away by road (all population figures ISC 2011). The Iranian national census of 2011 (ISC 2011) counts 1147 inhabitants for Kholos, and 558 for Gotāw. Excluding a small number of government service providers from elsewhere, Kholosi is the unique mother tongue of the inhabitants of these two villages. There are also a number of Kholosi- speaking families living outside the villages, in Jenāh, Bastak, , Bandar Abbas, and . Given these considerations, we estimate that that there are about 1800 speakers of the language in total. Interview respondents indicated that within the villages, people speak Kholosi almost exclusively. Although there are only minor differences in pronunciation and vocabulary between the villages, people in each village refer to their way of speaking based on the name of the village: Kholosi and Gotāwi respectively. Kholosi speakers are typically multilingual: outside of their own villages, they speak Lārestāni, which is the language of the surrounding villages, Bandari, and Standard Persian; people involved in international trade also speak Arabic. In addition to demographic and language use data, we asked about the origins of the language community. Speakers of Kholosi present a collective understanding that their ancestors came from India originally. They do not, however, see any connection between their own group and the “gypsy” (P. koli, luti, mehtar, jāt, etc.) communities found in many parts of Iran, even though these communities are also commonly considered to have their KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3 distant origins in the Indian subcontinent. So what are the circumstances of their appearance in the region? In the first of two interviews, which took place with a single young speaker outside of the language area, the respondent told us: Our people came from India. Some years ago, there was a ship in the sea that capsized, and there were a few people that stayed alive, and they settled in the direction of Bastak. From that ancient time, they have been living there – for two hundred, three hundred years, maybe even more. The second interview took place with a group of four men within the language area, in the village of Kholos. These respondents stated that they did not know when or how the language community migrated to Iran, and that their parents had not known either. An older respondent asserted that the younger generation, which he said is “looking for an identity”, maintain that they were shipwrecked and had no way of returning to India. These accounts leave many questions unanswered. What are the ultimate origins of the Kholosi language community: if in India, where? When did they arrive in Iran? If they were shipwrecked, how and why did they become “landlocked”, travelling inland when they settled? And how they have maintained a separate language community over a period of centuries? Although speakers did not mention other possibilities, two additional hypotheses have emerged in our subsequent research and reflection: first, that the Kholosi language community could be descended from one of the pre-colonial “Bāni” merchant communities from India that were active in past centuries in Iran (see Hājiānpur & Dehqān 2008/1387); and secondly, that the ancestors of the community could have been brought to the area in past centuries to serve regional khans, such as those in Bastak to the north. A systematic historical and cultural study should be done in order to investigate each of these possibilities.

IV. KHOLOSI IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE Even from the two Kholosi words initially brought forward by Ali – puni ‘water’ and sap ‘snake’ – the possibility emerges that Kholosi is an Indo- Aryan language; and Kholosi speakers’ consciousness that they originate from India lends further credence to the idea. In order to evaluate the hypothesis of Kholosi as an Indo-Aryan language, we will compare it with a selection of Indo-Aryan languages for which a possible historical connection exists. We will also compare Kholosi with Persian and other neighbouring Southwestern Iranian varieties in the vicinity as a methodological control, and as a means of better understanding the 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI language situation. It is beyond the scope of the present article to establish the precise genetic position of Kholosi in relation to these other languages, but it provides a context within which systematic comparative work can begin.

Comparison with Indo-Aryan languages There are no Indo-Aryan languages spoken in the vicinity of Kholosi. However, several such languages for which a historical connection could be explored are spoken in the wider region of south-. Four Indo- Aryan languages that we have selected for an initial comparison are therefore as follows: Domāri, Romāni, Sindhi and Kacchi. Given the Ethnologue’s (2013) listing of 1.3 million speakers of Domāri in Iran, this language seems an obvious candidate for comparison. However, as Herin has recently pointed out (2012, p. 4), the last actual record of Domāri speakers accompanied by language data dates back to a wordlist collected in in 1812 (Ouseley 1823 in Groome 1891). Still, Domāri- speaking groups did pass through Iran over a period of many centuries (Matras 2012, p. 20-27), so it is worthwhile to examine a possible relationship between Kholosi and Domāri. The Domāri data here, representing the northern dialect spoken in and neighbouring areas, have been provided by Bruno Herin (pers. comm., 2013). In another study, Baghbidi (2003, p. 34) states that the only “truly” Indo- Aryan language spoken in Iran is in fact the Romāni dialect Zargari, similar to Balkan Romāni, and known from four settlements in northern Iran, in the provinces of Qazvin, Khorasan and the recently created to the west of . As for all other “Gypsy” languages of Iran, Baghbidi maintains that they “are merely jargons based on the languages spoken by the people among whom the Gypsies live, and ... only a few original Indo- Aryan words can be traced in them.” Because Romāni-speaking peoples also passed through Iran in past centuries, and because Baghbidi’s Romāni data come from within Iran – albeit about 1000 kilometers to the north – we have included them in comparisons with Kholosi. Notwithstanding Baghbidi’s claim that there is no other Indo-Aryan language spoken in Iran, Grierson (1919) and, more recently, Behrooz Barjasteh Delforooz (2008) pointed out that Jadgāli – itself a member of the Sindhi group of Northwest Indo-Aryan – is spoken not only in (present-day) Pakistan, but also as part of a separate language community in the south- eastern corner of Iranian Balochistan: currently, there about 10,000 speakers within Iran. Since the linguistic structure of Jadgāli is not well researched, the data we will be using for comparison are taken from “Central” Sindhi. KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

We have selected Sindhi for two additional reasons. First, at a distance of about 600 kilometres in a direct line from Kholosi, the Jadgāli variety of Sindhi is geographically much closer than known Domāri and Romāni varieties. Second: like Sindhi, Kholosi appears not to be a “gypsy” language (as mentioned in section III above). Finally, upon the suggestion of Dr. Abdulaziz Lodhi of Uppsala University, specialist in the languages of the western Indian Ocean, we have added Kacchi (= Kutchi), an Indo-Aryan language transitional between Sindhi and Gujarati, because of the historical involvement of Kacchi people in the region’s maritime trade (Lodhi 2000, p. 4.4.7, 2005), and the reputed origin of the Kholosi community as shipwrecked sailors (see section III above). Whether or not the basis for this possible connection will hold under further historical investigation, the addition of a fourth Indo-Aryan language has, as the comparisons below confirm, filled in some gaps pertaining to structures shared between Kholosi and other Indo-Aryan languages.

Comparison with Southwestern Iranian languages In addition to comparing Kholosi with these Indo-Aryan languages, we will compare it with the surrounding Southwestern Iranian languages. There are three reasons for this: first, because a Southwestern identity would be the natural assumption if the data did not indicate otherwise, making it important to show ways in which Kholosi stands apart from these Southwestern Iranian languages; second, to act as a methodological control, since some structures shared between Kholosi and other languages (whether Indo-Aryan or Iranian) may be due to common Indo-Iranian inheritance rather than a close genetic relationship; and third, to help ascertain to what degree, and in what ways, the languages surrounding Kholosi have influenced it. Because Standard Persian is well-known and well-described, we will use it as a representative of Southwestern Iranian; however, where data are available from other Southwestern varieties in the immediate and wider region (Lārestāni; Bandari dialects Keshmi and Minābi; Bushehri; Luri) that show specific similarities to Kholosi not attested in Standard Persian, we will refer to these data (Anonby 2003b; Anonby field notes).

V. INITIAL COMPARISONS An initial comparison of Kholosi with the languages specified above shows three important trends: 1) a high degree of similarity with Indo-Aryan languages; 2) a significant proportion of structures shared with neighbouring 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI

Iranian languages as well; and 3) a number of features which appear to be distinctive to Kholosi. Before proceeding to the comparisons, we underline once more the preliminary nature of this documentation and, consequently, the tentative nature of some aspects of the analysis. While we affirm the overall reliability of the lexical content in the wordlist, transcription has proven more difficult and there are a number of structures for which further phonological analysis is needed. These include, among other things: vowel length, which does not pattern uniformly in various word and phrase positions; and aspiration, whose phonological status (phonemic or allophonic) is ambiguous in the data even though it is unquestionably relevant to the questions posed in the present study. Some aspects of variability also seem to be due to diachronic instability in the language itself, with varying forms attested among speakers and even in the speech of a single speaker. Examples of these are the quality of the low vowel symbolized here as ā ([aː] ~ [ɑː] ~ [ɒː]) and the pronunciation of stops and (see section V.2, “Structures shared with Iranian languages” below).

1. A high degree of similarity with Indo-Aryan languages Because we used a wordlist as the primary tool for our initial documentation of the language, it follows that many of the similarities we observed are lexical; and these are frequent. Even with our limited sample of languages in comparison, Indo-Aryan cognates can be readily identified for well over half of the Kholosi items in the wordlist. Here is a sample of these cognate sets, with Persian items included for the sake of contrast:

Persian Kholosi Sindhi2 Kacchi Domāri Romāni ‘ear’ guš kān kanu kān kān ‘stomach šekam pēt pēʈ pēʈ pētˤ per (belly)’ ‘throat’ galu nāɽi naɽī ‘long nəɽī qandī — tube’ (T) ‘neck’ gardan gēči ɠičī, ɠātō kand gər(ək) — ‘blood’ xun rāt ratu rat rat — ‘urine’ edrār, šāš meter muʈru (T) mutar mutur miter

2 Data sources for the wordlists are as follows: Sindhi: IAL 2012 and Turner 1962- 1966 (marked “(T)”); Kacchi: Abdulaziz Lodhi, pers. comm. 2012; Domāri: Bruno Herin, pers. comm. 2012; Romāni: Baghbidi 2003. KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

‘maternal dāi momo māmo (T) māmā mām — uncle’ ‘dog’ sag kotoro kutō kottrō snōta jukle ‘tail’ dom pēč pučʰu pučʰ(ɽi) panč(ək) kuyruka ‘snake’ mār sap nā̃gu sap sap — ‘meat’ gušt māz gūšt gōs māsī mās ‘egg’ toxme āɳo bēdō īnō āna vānvro morġ ‘dirt’ xāk māti miʈī maʈī dūl — ‘water’ āb puni pāɳī pāɳī pānī pāni ‘rain’ bārān meh mīh̃ ã βarsād wārsīnda beršundo ‘old (thing)’ kohne peroɳo purāɳō, junō, pnāra pʰuro pōɽʰō purānō ‘heavy’ sangin gāwro ɠarō bʰāɽi grāna — ‘dry’ xošk sako sukal sukō, — sukʰo sukelō ‘black’ syāh kāro kārō kārō qāla kālo, qālo Table 1: Indo-Aryan vocabulary in Kholosi

Typically, even when cognates are shared between Iranian and Indo- Aryan, the phonological trajectory of Kholosi is aligned with Indo-Aryan (see Sims-Williams 1998, p. 125-126).

Persian Kholosi Sindhi Kacchi Domāri Romāni ‘hand’ dast hāt hatʰu hatʰ xašt vāst ‘tooth’ dandān dānd ᶑãdu dəndʰ dānd dānd ‘fish’ māhi māči mačʰī məčʰī mačča maččʰo ‘star’ setāre taro tārō tārō yēldəz — ‘three’ seh tereda ʈī trē trən terin ‘round’ gerd golāndo gōl gōl čōrm- — ‘say’ goftan vetai čaβaɳ čōnũ ft- pʰen- ‘this’ in he hī hī hā ā- Table 2: Kholosi Indo-Iranian vocabulary aligned with Indo-Aryan sound changes

In the word ‘hand’, for example, where Iranian d corresponds to Indo- Aryan h, and the final st cluster has been reduced to t in Indo-Aryan, Kholosi clearly shares the characteristically Indo-Aryan phonological innovations. Another example is the word ‘star’, where the initial cluster has likewise been reduced in Kholosi, as in Indo-Aryan (Masica 1993, p. 171ff.), but not in Persian. On the other hand, Kholosi does not share in the typically Iranian 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI innovations that resulted in h in ‘fish’ and s in the word ‘three’ (Windfuhr 2009, p. 18-21). In terms of phonological inventory, a prototypically Indo-Aryan feature which appears to be contrastive in Kholosi is that of retroflexion (or, alternatively, postalveolar articulation; see Cardona & Jain 2003, p. 28-31 and Masica 1993, p. 94) as found above in the items nāɽi ‘throat’ and peroɳo ‘old (thing)’. This feature does not, however, appear to extend to stops; cognates which contain retroflex stops in Indo-Aryan languages contain simple alveolar stops in Kholosi. Examples of such correspondences include māti (cf. Kacchi=Ka. maʈī) ‘earth (material)’, vāt (Ka. βaʈ) ‘path’, dad- (Ka. ɖō) ‘ten’, and vazzo (Ka. βaᶑō) ‘big’. As in many Indo-Aryan languages, vowel nasalization is phonetically salient in Kholosi. While nasalization is phonologized in some Indo-Aryan languages, especially Northwest and Central languages (e.g., Sindhi and respectively: Khubchandani 2003, p. 632; Shapiro 2003, p. 258), it is allophonic in others (Masica 1993, p. 117-118). Kholosi appears to pattern with the latter group: nasalized vowels are found word-finally and before consonants, where they most likely represent sequence of a vowel followed by the n, for example, pēn [pē̃] ‘younger sister’, zemesān [zemesā̃] ‘winter’. Although this sort of allophonic nasalization is also found in Southwestern Iranian languages in the central Zagros Mountains to the north-west, especially those of the Luri group (Lorimer 1922, p. 17-18; Anonby 2003a, p. 77), it is not to our knowledge attested from the Southwestern languages in the vicinity of Kholosi: Lārestāni (Achomi) and Bandari. Parallels between Kholosi and the Indo-Aryan family extend beyond lexicon and phonology. Even from the limited data we have gathered, some important grammatical similarities between Kholosi and languages of the Indo-Aryan family emerge. The following Kholosi data set shows two grammatical features which bring to mind Indo-Aryan languages rather than the surrounding Southwestern Iranian languages: grammatical gender, and the marking of grammatical roles with case markers (or postpositions, depending on the ultimate analysis of the data) (Masica 1993, p. 217-248). These two features are marked together here in a portmanteau following the possessor noun in genitive constructions, analogous to what is found in both Sindhi (Khubchandani 2003, p. 642-643) and Kacchi (Abdulaziz Lodhi, pers. comm. 2012). (1) šēx ‘chief (man or woman)’ chief KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

gēči šēx-jo ‘chief’s (m.) throat’ throat chief-of(m.) gēči šēx-ji ‘chief’s (f.) throat’ throat chief-of(f.)

2. A significant proportion of structures shared with neighbouring Iranian languages Although the data presented in the preceding discussion give the impression of a thoroughly Indo-Aryan language, Kholosi also shares a significant proportion of its structures with the surrounding Southwestern Iranian languages. As explained earlier, we use Persian to represent these languages in our comparisons; however, when data from other languages in the vicinity show resemblances to Kholosi that are not found in Persian or are less clear there, we make reference to these languages. The following table provides a selection of Kholosi vocabulary shared with Southwestern Iranian languages. As in in the previous section, many of the items in this list are basic vocabulary. The proportion of “Iranian” vocabulary relative to the “Indo-Aryan” vocabulary in the previous lists – about half as much – reflects the proportion of these items in the wordlist as a whole.

Persian Kholosi Sindhi Kacchi Domāri Romāni ‘head’ sar, kalle kallo matʰō matʰō sər šoru ‘nose’ bini, damāġ domāġ panu pan nāk nāk ‘bone’ ostoxān assaxān haɖō həɖ xar(ək) qoqālā ‘leaf’ barg barg panu pan kāġatˤ yārpaki ‘root’ riše rišo pāɽa mūɽ — — ‘dust’ gard gard dʰuɽ rajj, dʰuɽ ġabare — ‘cloud’ abr awr jʰuɽ, βəɖar ġēm boluti kakar ‘summer’ tābestān tābesān hāɽu (T) ūnārō awasār — ‘winter’ zemestān zemesān siāro (T) siyārō slāla — ‘iron’ āhan āhan lohu (T) lō ḥadīd — ‘think’ fekr kard feker kai sōčaɳ sōčiɳũ fikr kar- — Table 3: Iranian vocabulary in Kholosi

An assortment of items which suggest the local character of “Iranian” vocabulary, since they resemble nearby Southwestern Iranian varieties rather than Standard Persian, is as follows (data from Anonby 2003b and Anonby field notes 2000-2001, 2009): 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI

Persian Kholosi ‘scorpion’ aġrab akrab cf. Lārestani (), Keshmi akrab ‘cloud’ abr awr cf. Bushehri, Keshmi, S. Luri awr ‘sand’ šen, māse lamer cf. Lārestani (Lār) lamr ‘chicken’ morġ čūki cf. Lārestani (Lār) čikala ‘whistling’ sut fitak, sūt cf. Bandari () fike, Keshmi fištak Table 4: Words illustrating the local character of Iranian vocabulary in Kholosi

There are also several systemic phonological features in which Kholosi is aligned with Iranian rather than Indo-Aryan, even in words which appear to be otherwise typically Indo-Aryan: a. Lack of contrastive aspiration on stops. Stops which in the Indo-Aryan languages are aspirated or breathy (although not in Domāri, and not consistently in Romāni) correspond to non-aspirated counterparts in Kholosi.

Persian Kholosi Sindhi Kacchi Domāri Romāni ‘tall’ boland taɽgo ɖrigho (T) lamō, dərga, — dʰərgō drōnga ‘skin’ pust xāl kʰala, čam, qal — čamɽī čamɽi ‘cold’ sard tāzo tʰādʰō tʰādʰō sīlda tatto, tatʰo ‘weave’ bāft sībai uɳaɳu (T) sibʰīnũ sīw- kʰuv- ‘hand’ dast hāt hatʰu hatʰ xašt vāst ‘tail’ dom pēč pučʰu pučʰ, panč(ək) kuyruka pučʰɽi ‘fish’ māhi māči mačʰī məčʰī mačča maččʰo Table 5: Lack of contrastive aspiration on stops in Kholosi

b. Appearance of a full series. In contrast to Iranian languages, Indo-Aryan languages do not generally contain the fricatives f, z and x in inherited lexical items (Masica 1993, p. 98-108). However, these sounds are not uncommon in Kholosi. This ties into the previous paragraph because, as evident in the data there (specifically the items ‘skin’ and ‘cold’), some fricatives in Kholosi correspond to wider Indo-Aryan aspirated stops. Further examples of Kholosi words in which fricatives correspond to stops elsewhere in Indo-Aryan are as follows:

Persian Kholosi Sindhi Kacchi Domāri Romāni ‘all’ hame sāf sabʰai marē, sa hāmi, sir KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

mərē ‘grass’ alaf xāz gāhu gā gās kʰās (/giyāh) ‘ant’ murče moxoro makoɽo (T) mākuɽō mōrī, kʰiri, giri mˤōri ‘big’ bozorg vazzo βaᶑō βaᶑō drōnga tʰevro ‘near’ nazdik vāzo βējʰō bājūme čanč- bāšu Table 6: A full fricative series in Kholosi

c. Lack of an implosive series. Kholosi lacks the implosive series found in Indo-Aryan languages to the east: Sindhi and neighbouring languages including Kacchi. This can be seen in the item ‘big’ from the previous table, as well as these additional words:

Persian Kholosi Sindhi Kacchi Domāri Romāni ‘heavy’ sangin gāwro ɠarō bʰāɽi grāna — ‘neck’ gardan gēči ɠičī, ɠātō kand gər(ək) — ‘two’ do bāro ɓa bə dī, dədī duy ‘buy’ xarid genai ɠinhaɳu ɠəɳnũ pār- l- (T) ‘swell’ motavarrem sojo suʄaɳ soʄnũ — — šod Table 7: Lack of an implosive series in Kholosi

d. Weakening of intervocalic stops. This feature of Kholosi phonology is not typical of Standard Persian; it is, however, shared with Southwestern Iranian languages elsewhere in the wider region (especially the Luri language group in the central Zagros: see Lorimer 1922, p. 53-63; Anonby 2003a, p. 51-58; Windfuhr 2005), where voiced stops are weakened intervocalically. (2) ‘older sister’ dedā [deđɑː] cf. S. Luri dada [dađa] ‘summer’ tābesān [tɑːβesɑ̃ː] cf. P. tābestān In Kholosi, this process extends to voiceless stops as well. (3) ‘dog’ kotoro [koθoro] cf. Kacchi kottrō ‘ant’ moxoro [moxoro] cf. Kacchi mākuɽō (Note that whereas the intervocalic weakening is allophonic in the first three examples here, it may be phonologized in the last example, since in Kholosi x likely contrasts with k in initial position: kotoro ‘dog’ vs. xāz ‘grass’.) 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI

Beyond lexicon and phonology, one morphosyntactic feature for which Kholosi resembles Iranian languages is that of complex predicates (verb- predicate compounds; see Karimi Doostan 1997). While complex predicates do occur in Indo-Aryan languages (Butt 1993), they are probably less common there than in Iranian languages such as Persian, where they are in turn abundant, and most often based on the light verbs ‘do’ or ‘make’, ‘take, ‘give’, ‘hit’ and ‘become’, among others. Here is a selection from among the examples in Kholosi:

Persian Kholosi Sindhi Kacchi Domāri Romāni ‘walk’ ġadam zad vāt viyo halaɳ halnũ raw- — ‘stand up’ boland šod bolan to bīhaɳ uʈʰinũ, št- — ubʰotʰīnũ ‘lie down’ derāz kešid sɑ̄ to halaɳ halnũ — — ‘fly’ parvāz pall uᶑraɳ, uɖnũ fər- — kard kerɑmai ūᶑaɳ ‘swim’ šenā kard šenow kai taraɳ βenjinũ, — nan- tar karīnũ Table 8: Complex predicates in Kholosi

While some of these items, such as ‘stand up’ and ‘swim’ – and possibly even ‘fly’ – may be directly borrowed into Kholosi through contact with Iranian, the items ‘walk’ (lit. ‘way-go’) and ‘lie down’ (lit. ‘(?)lying- become’) show that complex predicate constructions have been extended to non-Iranian lexical material.

3. Distinctive structures in Kholosi We have shown important parallels between Kholosi and Indo-Aryan languages on the one hand, and ways in which it is aligned with Iranian languages on the other hand. From a comparative perspective, what are some ways in which Kholosi is distinctive? As we have done for the previous sections, we will start with lexicon here as well, since distinctive vocabulary can be easily identified. However, since our knowledge of Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages is (of course) incomplete, there are likely some items in this list which readers can relate to other languages in these families. Still, the distinctive nature of the vocabulary is clear. A list of some of the items for which we ourselves (along with a number of colleagues) have not found obvious cognates in Indo-Aryan or Iranian languages are as follows:

KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

Persian Kholosi Sindhi Kacchi Domāri Romāni ‘hair’ mu lō βāra βāɽ wāl — ‘mouth’ dahān, vāt muhũ mō məh muy dahan ‘knee’ zānu āɽak gōᶑō gū̃nʈʰō lūlək døbiki ‘man’ mard kozoro maɳʰū̃ bʰāi māɽū, mnəs murš marad ‘child’ bače viyow ɓāru bačō qər, putr tinčʰā, čʰā ‘stone’ sang rōxo paʈʰar paʈʰar, wāʈ bār paʈʈʰar ‘fire’ āteš mangal bāhi ʈānɖʰō āg yag ‘small’ kuček nōko nanɖʰō nənɖʰo qətˤka čʰā ‘full’ por dang bʰaryal bʰarelō, bardˤa — pūrō, saʄō ‘one’ yek poko hik akro yēka, yōka yekʰ, yek ‘tie (v.tr.)’ bastan pālai ɓadʰaɳ bandʰinũ — — Table 9: Distinctive Kholosi vocabulary

A number of phonological questions are unresolved, but some of these relate to distinctive aspects of the language’s structure. For example, concerning the variable quality of the long vowel we transcribe as ā (mentioned near the beginning of “Initial comparisons” above): are there two contrastive long low vowels, one of which is a front vowel ǣ and the other of which is a back vowel ā? ; are all realizations of long low vowels ([aː] ~ [ɑː] ~ [ɒː]) allophones of a single vowel phoneme? ; or given the dual Indo- Aryan / Iranian nature of the language, are there two (partially or completely) independent systems in operation? ; given the inevitability of contact between Kholosi and the surrounding Iranian languages, is there phonological movement taking place in this direction? What appears to be a simple phonological problem necessitates a complex and holistic investigation. Another distinctive phonological characteristic of Kholosi, possibly unique among the languages of south-west Asia, and which merits a separate study of its own, concerns pitch-related phonological word demarcation. Prototypically, Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages mark word boundaries with stress, although the factors in stress placement and realization can be complex (Masica 1993, p. 121-122; Windfuhr 2009, p. 21-22). However, as we discovered when transcribing the wordlist, Kholosi words do not seem to be marked with stress, or at least stress which is signalled acoustically on specific syllables. Nor is Kholosi is a tone language, with lexical (and often 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI grammatical) distinctions marked on equivalent word shapes with contrastive word-level melodies: this is not beyond the realm of possibility, since tone systems have been documented from a number of Indo-Aryan languages, especially those in north-western and northern areas in proximity to the prototypically tonal Tibeto-Burman linguistic area (Masica 1993, p. 118-121; Baart 2003). However, since equivalent word types in Kholosi do not bear lexically contrastive pitch, our previous work on tone languages (Anonby 2011a) leads us to exclude this possibility. Rather, it appears to us that word demarcation in Kholosi is signalled through a pitch-accent system (Hyman 2006; Yip 2002, p. 258-260), where words of a specific phonological shape (and, possibly, morphological class) carry a specific, uniform, melody; in the case of Kholosi, this melody is distributed over the whole word. For example, on 1-syllable nouns, there is a [HL] (high-low) melody, realized as a falling pitch over the whole syllable. (1) kān ‘ear’ On 2-syllable nouns with a short vowel in the first syllable, there is also a HL melody, and this is realized as [H.HL]: a high pitch on the first syllable and a falling pitch on the second syllable. (2) domāġ ‘nose’ But on 2-syllable nouns with a long vowel in the first syllable, there is a [LH.HL] melody: LH on the first syllable, and HL on the second. (3) dāno ‘seed’ If we were to insist on a stress-related interpretation, it would be difficult to assign stress to a specific syllable, since the high pitch is distributed over two syllables.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND REFLECTION In this paper, we have related our “discovery” and initial documentation of Kholosi, a previously undocumented language in south-west Iran. The Kholosi data we have presented reveal a language with clear similarities to the Indo-Aryan family in its lexicon, phonology, and grammar. Still, there are also many important parallels between Kholosi and neighbouring Southwestern Iranian languages in each of these areas. And Kholosi exhibits KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3 some distinctive structures of its own, as we have shown in a discussion of elements of its lexicon and phonology. How should these data be interpreted? Since there is no other Indo-Aryan player in Kholosi’s immediate language situation, it is improbable that Kholosi is an Iranian language whose Indo-Aryan structures have arisen through contact. We propose that the most straightforward way of accounting for our findings is to view Kholosi as an Indo-Aryan language which has been separated from other Indo-Aryan languages for some centuries, evolving independently from them and progressively adapting itself to the surrounding Iranian languages as a result of intense language contact. This interpretation accords with speakers’ own awareness of their provenance in India and their arrival in Hormozgan a few centuries ago. It also validates the moderate time depth apparent from the data, where significant structural shifts toward the surrounding languages have taken place, but not so much as to obscure the Indo-Aryan character of the language. Because of its independent evolution, Kholosi could hold some important answers for a comparative understanding of wider Indo-Aryan. This brings us to a central question which we expected to address in the course of our research, but which still remains unclear: the position of Kholosi in relation to other Indo-Aryan languages. Of the four languages we have chosen for comparison, Kholosi is analogous to Domāri and Romāni in that, as a language spoken outside the Indo-Aryan “homeland”, it exhibits evidence of contact-induced change in all domains of the language. However, even though many of the changes that have taken place in Domāri and Romāni are also due to contact with Iranian languages, the specific changes that have taken place in Kholosi are in most cases different. As for Sindhi and Kacchi: there are many similarities between Kholosi and these two languages, but also many differences, and there is no clear-cut evidence linking Kholosi more closely to either of the two languages. The same is true for which, although it was not included in the comparisons, shares with Kholosi a number of lexical items which are not found in Sindhi or Kacchi. The sporadic nature of these similarities suggests that they are the result of shared retentions rather than shared innovations. To gain a more complete picture of the Kholosi language, and of its place within the Indo-Aryan family, additional research from several directions is necessary: an improved understanding of the phonology and morphology and an augmented lexicon, supported by analysis of texts; systematic historical/comparative analysis; and an investigation of the language community’s history and present-day language practices. Are Kholosi speakers descended from the Indian merchant communities known from 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI

Iran’s history? And can the answer to this question shed further light on the precise origins of the language community, and the genetic position of the language within Indo-Aryan? To conclude, the present study is a modest contribution to the documentation of the languages of Iran. It has as its primary goal an initial presentation of the Kholosi language along with general observations on its structure and genetic affiliation. It also highlights the diversity of the language situation in Iran, and the incompleteness of the documentation that has taken place until now. If one language, distinct from all surrounding languages, has pass unnoticed by researchers over more than a century of linguistic description, how many more such languages might there be? And will these languages still be spoken by the time researchers arrive to document them, or will they have given way to the waves of which rise with each passing day?

Erik Anonby Ottawa, Canada

Hassan Mohebbi Bahmani Minab, Iran

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anonby 2003a E. Anonby, A phonology of Southern Luri, Munich, 2003. Anonby 2003b E. Anonby, “Update on Luri: How many languages?”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 13.2, 2003, p. 171-197. Anonby 2011a E. Anonby, A grammar of Mambay, an Adamawa language of Chad and Cameroon, Köln, 2011. Anonby 2011b E. Anonby, “Illustrations of the IPA: Kumzari”, Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 41.3, 2011, p. 375-380. Anonby (forthcoming) E. Anonby, “The Keshmi (Qeshmi) dialect of Bandari: A first account”, Studia Iranica, forthcoming. Anonby & Yousefian 2011 E. Anonby and P. Yousefian, Adaptive multilinguals: A survey of language on [Studia Iranica Upsaliensia, 16], Uppsala, 2011. Available online: http://www.diva- portal.org/smash/ get/diva2:458175/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Baart 2003 J. Baart, “Tonal features in languages of northern Pakistan”, in: J. Baart and Gh. H. Sindhi (eds.), Pakistani languages and society: Problems and prospects, Islamabad, 2003, p. 132-144. KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

Bastaki 1980 H. A. Akbar, Farhang-e Bastaki [Bastaki dictionary], Tehrān, 1980(/1359). Baghbidi 2003 H. R. Baghbidi, “The Zargari language: An endangered European Romani in Iran”, Romani Studies, 5.13.2, 2003, p. 123-148. Bayshak 2002 M. S. Bayshak, “Hal aṯarat as-Sāsāniyah fī lisān al-Šuḥūḥ wa hal al-Kamzāriyah min awjuh ḏalik? Al-lahjat al-Šiḥḥiyah fī ḍaw’ ʕilm al-luġāt” [Are there traces of Sassanian in the language of the Shihuh, and is Kumzari among the affected varieties? The Shihhi dialect in the light of linguistic science], Al-Khaleej (Arabic), 8541, 17 October 2002, p. 12. Barjasteh Delforooz 2008 B. Barjasteh Delforooz, “A sociolinguistic survey among the Jadgal of Iranian Balochistan”, in: C. Jahani, A. Korn and P. Titus (eds.), The Baloch and Others: Linguistic, historical and socio-political perspectives on pluralism in Balochistan, Wiesbaden, 2008, p. 23-43. Butt 1993 M. Butt, The structure of complex predicates in Urdu (Ph.D. dissertation), Stanford, 1993. Csató, Isaksson & Jahani 2005 É. Csató, B. Isaksson and C. Jahani, Linguistic convergence and areal diffusion: Case studies from Iranian, Semitic, and Turkic, London and New York, 2005. Eqtedāri 1955 A. Eqtedāri, Farhang-e Lārestāni [Lārestāni dictionary], Tehran, 1955(/1334). Eqtedāri 2005 A. Eqtedāri, Zabān-e Lārestāni [The Lārestāni language]. Tehran, 2005(/1384). Fathi 2001 A. Fathi, “Verb stucture in the Bandari dialect”, Nakhostin hamandeshi-ye guyeshshenāsi-ye Irān [First seminar on Iranian dialectology], Iranian Academy of Persian Language and Literature, Tehran, April 2001. Gershevitch 1985 I. Gershevitch [N. Sims-Williams (ed.)], Philologica Iranica, Wiesbaden, 1985. Grierson 1919 G. A. Grierson, Linguistic survey of India VIII/I: Indo-Aryan family, North-Western group – Specimens of Sindhi and Lahndā, Calcutta, 1919. Groome 1891 F. H. Groome, “Persian and Syrian Gypsies”, Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society 2, 1891, p. 21-27. Hājiānpur & Dehqān 2008 M. Hājiānpur and M. Dehqān, “Bāniān az didgāh-e safarnāmehhā-ye ’Asr-e Safavi” [The Bāni from the perspective of the travel writings of Asr-e Safavi], Faslnāmeh- 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI

ye tārix-e eslām [Periodical on the history of Islam], 9.33/34, 2008(/1387), p. 77-108. Herin 2012 B. Herin, “The Domari language of Aleppo (Syria)”, Linguistic Discovery, 10.2, 2012, p. 1-52. Hyman 2006 L. Hyman, “Word-prosodic typology”, Phonology, 23, p. 225- 257. IAL 2012 Institute of Applied Linguistics (IAL) Trust, Swadesh wordlist for the languages of Pakistan, Karachi, 2012. Online address: http://ialtrust.com/swadeshlanguagelist/. ISC 2011 Iranian Statistics Centre (ISC). Saršomāri-ye omumi-ye nafus o mosakkan 1390 [Public census of population and habitation 2011], Tehran, 2011(/1390). Kamioka & Yamada 1979 K. Kamioka and M. Yamada, Larestani studies 1: Lāri basic vocabulary, Tokyo, 1979. Karimi Doostan 1997 G.-H. Karimi Doostan, Light verb constructions in Persian and Kurdish (Ph.D. dissertation), Colchester, 1997. Khubchandani 2003 L. Khubchandani, “Sindhi”, in: G. Cardona and Dh. Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, London and New York, 2003, p. 622-658. Lodhi 2000 A. Lodhi, Oriental elements in Swahili: A study in language and culture contacts, Gothenburg, 2000. Lodhi 2005 A. Lodhi, “Convergence of languages on the East African coast”, in: É. Csató, B. Isaksson and C. Jahani (eds.), Linguistic convergence and areal diffusion: Case studies from Iranian, Semitic, and Turkic, London and New York, 2005, p. 349-364. Lorimer 1922 D. L. R Lorimer, The phonology of the Bakhtiari, Badakhshani, and Madaglashti dialects of modern Persian, with vocabularies, London, 1922. Available online: http://ia600307.us.archive.org/ 18/items/phonologyofbakht06loriuoft/phonologyofbakht06lori uoft.pdf. Mann 1909 O. Mann, ”Lârî“, Kurdisch-persische Forschungen 1: Die Tâjîk-Mundarten der Provinz Fârs, Berlin, 1909, p. 127-131. Masica 1993 C. Masica, The Indo-Aryan languages, Cambridge, 1993. Matras 2012 Y. Matras, A grammar of Domari, Berlin, 2012. Mohebbi Bahmani 2006 H. Mohebbi Bahmani, Barresi va tawsif-e zabānšenāxti-ye guyeš-e Minābi [A linguistic study and description of the Minabi dialect], Tehran, 2006. KHOLOSI, AN INDO-ARYAN LANGUAGE IN SOUTH-WEST IRAN 3

Nourzaei, Jahani & Anonby (forthcoming) M. Nourzaei, C. Jahani and E. Anonby, Koroshi Balochi: A corpus based grammatical description [Studia Iranica Upsaliensia, 13], Uppsala, forthcoming. Pelevin 2002 M. Pelevin, “Bandari”, Encyclopædia Iranica, New York, 2002. Available online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bandari-the-dialect- spoken-by-the-native-population-of-bandar-abbas. Pelevin 2010 M. Pelevin, “Materials on the Bandari Dialect”, Iran and the , 14.1, 2010, p. 57-78. Rashidi 2008 A. Rashidi, Barresi-ye sākhtāri-ye guyesh-e Buchiri [Structural study of the Buchiri dialect] (unpublished MA thesis). , 2008(/1387). Sāyebāni 1997 A. Sāyebāni, Az Bandar Jerun tā Bandar Abbās [From Bandar Jerun to Bandar Abbas], Bandar Abbas, 1997(/1377). Salāmi 2005 A.-N. Salāmi “Barresi-ye ejmāli-ye guyeš-e Koroši” [A brief study of the Koroshi ], Majalle-ye guyeššenāsi [Journal of Dialectology (Iran)], 1.3, 2005(/1383), p. 39-56. Shapiro 2003 M. C. Shapiro, “Hindi”, in: G. Cardona and Dh. Jain (eds.), The Indo-Aryan languages, London and New York, 2003, p. 250-285. Sims-Williams 1998 N. Sims-Williams “The Iranian languages”, in: A. Giacalone Ramat and P. Ramat, The Indo-European languages, London and New York, 1998, p. 125-153. Skjærvø 1975 P. O. Skjærvø, “Notes on the Dialects of Minab and Hormoz”, Norwegian Journal of Linguistics (NTS), 29, 1975, p. 113-128. Skjærvø 1989 P. O. Skjærvø, “Languages of Southeast Iran: Lārestānī, Kumzārī, Baškardī”, in: R. Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989, p. 363-369. Turner 1962-1966 R. L. Turner, A comparative dictionary of Indo-Aryan languages, London, 1962-1966. Voskanian & Boyajian-Sureniants 2007 V. Voskanian and V. Boyajian-Sureniants, “Lexical gleanings from Bašākard”, Iran and the Caucasus, 11.1, 2007, p. 121- 125. van der Wal Anonby 2013 C. van der Wal Anonby, “Traces of Arabian in Kumzari”, Paper presented at the Seminar for Arabian Studies, British Foundation for the Study of Arabia, London, July 26-28, 2013. 2 E. ANONBY & H. MOHEBBI BAHMANI van der Wal Anonby & Anonby (forthcoming) C. van der Wal Anonby and E. Anonby, “Language in the Musandam Mountains of ”, in: J. Watson (ed.), Atlas of the mountains of Oman, Muscat, forthcoming. Windfuhr 1989 G. Windfuhr, “New Iranian languages: Overview”, in: R. Schmitt (ed.), Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989, p. 246-262. Windfuhr 2005 G. Windfuhr, “The Baḵtīārī dialect”, Encyclopædia Iranica, 3.5, 2005, p. 558-560. Available online: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/baktiari-tribe#pt2. Windfuhr 2009 G. Windfuhr, “Dialectology and topics”, in: G. Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, London and New York, 2009, p. 5-42. Yip 2002 M. Yip, Tone, Cambridge, 2002.