striking and most obvious grammatical similarities among these language. Even greisens mentions about the existence of a Kherwari tribe, the grammatical peculiarities of whose language have very much in common with those of the above languages. As such, he includes the existing Kherwari also in this sub-family. However, the treatment of Santhali as the closest representative of proto-Kherwari by Grierso is not validated by any comparative study and as such may not be accepted.

A summary of grammatical sketch of Mundari is available in LSI. Among the earlier grammars, mention may be made about "An Introduction to the Mundari Language" by Rakhal Das Haldar, published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol. XL, Pt, i. 1971and also about Rudiments of Mundari Grammar (Calcutta, 1891) by J. De Smet. Almost contemporarily to the LSI, Rew. Paul Wagner published English translation of A Nottrott's Grammar of the Kol Language (Ranchi 1905). However, the most important work in Mundari Grammar was completed by Rev. J. Hoffmann in 1903 and to this day it is held as an authoritative source.

In collaboration with Dr. Norman H. Zide of the Chicago Univerisity, the present work was taken up in 1962 by the present author in India. Recently Dr. W.A. Cook submitted a dissertation to the George Town University entitled " A Descriptive Analysis of Mundari: A study of the Structure" for his Ph.D. degree in 1965.

The phonology and morphology of the present work were completed by 1966, but for syntax, the author made another field trip in 1972 as part of the Tribal and Border Languages Project of the CIIL.

The necessity of bringing out this descriptive grammatical work may be spelt out here. Rev. Hoffmann's Mundari Grammar, no doubt, is very comprehensive as far as morphology is concerned but syntex is rudimentary and a part of phonology is missing.

Even morphology has been treated in the traditional frame work

and it needs to be re-written on the basis of formal analysis, even if not much can be added to it. Perhaps these facts induced Dr. Cook to write a descriptive grammar of Mundari, employing modern techniques. In most cases, however, he has used the data

collected by Rev. Hoffmann and has given his own interpretations. Unfortunately, several of his conclusions are disputable, but as the book is not yet published, it is not intended here to give a critical review of it. This fact as well as the fact taht it is not available to the general readers justify the publishing of the present grammar. This grammar is to serve as a base for writing a pedagogical grammar of Mundari in future in order to be used for teaching Mundari as a first or second language.

Mundari has two major dialects, the area of which is divided by Ranchi-Chaibasa Road. The eastern side used Hasada dialect and the western side Naguri dialect. In the knowledge of the present author only one work, by Dr. D. Terne Langendoen of

the Ohio State University, has been done on Naguri. Both Rev. Hoffmann and Dr. Cook have written on Hasada. The present work also is based on the same dialect, as spoken in Murhu, some 40 Km south of Ranchi, and a place very close to Sarwada, where Rev. Hoffmann had spent some twenty years writing his Mundari Grammar and Encyclopedia Mundarica.

Mundari population is concentrated in Ranchi and Chaibasa districts of the State of Bihar. Making these places as the nuclei, the Mundari population is scattered around the neighboring areas in the States of Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh in diminishing density. Some Mundari population migrated to Assam tea gardens early in this century and therefore in that state also there is some concentration. Total population of Mundari speakers would come to around one million, out of which more than seven lakhs is in the State of Bihar only. Ranchi district alone has more than five lakhs of Mundari speakers.

An all India map of population concentration for Mundari people is attached. Unfortunately, it is based on 1961 Census, as district-wise details are not yet available from 1971 Census.