# Panjabi: Number names 2,12, 22 et



## Pvitr

The names for units (1-9) usually carry on when used for larger numbers (11-99), but something different happens with 2, 12, 22 etc. Does anyone know the reason? 
For example:
7 - sat
17 - sataraan
27 - sataaii
37 -sentii
So some variation, but recognisable as being seven+something

But
2 - do
12 - baaraan
22 - baaii
32 - batii

So these numbers change from 'do' to starting with 'ba/baa'. 

Hope that makes sense. Thanks for reading.


----------



## Alfaaz

Relevant quote from _Urdu zabaan kii qadiim taariix_:


> گنتی کے لحاظ سے منڈاری اور سندھی دونوں میں دو کے ہندسے کے لیے "با" کا لفظ مشترکہ طور پر مستعمل ہے۔ پنجابی اور اردو میں بارہ، بیس اور بائیس وغیرہ ہندسوں میں "ب" کا حرف اسی "با" بمعنی دو کی ترجمانی کرتا ہے جیسے کہ بانوے - با - نوے یعنی دو اور نوے۔
> 
> اسی طرح منڈاری زبانوں میں کوڑی بمعنی بیس گنتی کی اکائی کے طور پر مروج ہے۔ منڈاری لفظ "کر" بمعنی ہاتھ اس کی اصل ہے۔ کوڑی لفظ "کر" کی جمع ہے جس کے معنی دونوں ہاتھ اور دونوں پاوں کا مجموعہ یعنی بیس انگلیاں۔ غالباً قدیم سے ہی منڈا قبائل ہاتھوں اور پاوں کی انگلیوں کی تعداد کو گنتی کی اکائی کے طور پر استعمال کرتے ہوں گے۔ آج بھی پنجاب کے دیہات میں یہی اکائی عام مروج ہے جیسے کہ سو کو وہ پنج ویہیاں (پانچ بیسے) اور ایک سو تیس کو چھ ویہیاں تے دس یعنی چھ بیسے اور دس کہتے ہیں۔
> 
> 
> منڈاری گنڈا چار کی اکائی انہی معنوں میں پنجابی میں بھی مستعمل ہے۔ اسی قسم کی اور مثالیں بھی ملتی ہیں جیسے کہ منڈاری کوس (تقریباً تین میل کا فاصلہ) ، اردو کوس، پنجابی کوہ۔ منڈاری میں وقت کے اندازے کے لیے ڈانگ بمعنی لاٹھی استعمال ہوتی ہے یعنی سورج ایک ڈانگ یا دو ڈانگ نکل آیا ہے جیسے اردو میں تیزہ کا پیمانہ مشہور ہے جیسے سورج کا سوا نیزے پر آ جانا۔ پنجابی میں بھی یہی ڈانگ کا پیمانہ انہی معنوں میں مستعمل ہے جیسے "سورج اجے ڈانگ بھر نکلیا سی"۔
> 
> از اردو زبان کی قدیم تاریخ - صفحہ ۱۰۸ - ہڑپے سے پہلے : پیمانے
> مصنف: عین الحق فرید کوٹی​


Transliteration:

_gintii ke liHaaz se munDaari aur sindhii donoN meN do ke hindase ke liye "baa" kaa lafz mushtarakah taur par musta3mal hai. panjaabii aur urduu meN baarah, biis, aur baa'iis waGhairah hindasoN meN "b" kaa Harf isii "baa" ba-ma3naa do kii tarjumaanii kartaa hai jaise keh baanve - baa - navve ya3nii do aur navve. _​​_isii tarH munDaarii zabaanoN meN koRii ba-ma3naa biis gintii kii ikaa'ii ke taur par murawwaj hai. munDaarii lafz "kar" ba-ma3naa haath is kii aSl hai. koRii lafz "kar" kii jam3 hai jis ke ma3naa donoN haath aur donoN paa'oN kaa majmuu3ah ya3nii biis ungliyaaN. Ghaalib-an qadiim se hii munDaa qabaa'il haathoN aur paa'oN kii ungliiyoN kii ta3daad ko gintii kii ikaa'ii ke taur par isti3maal karte hoN ge. aaj bhii panjaab ke diihaat meN yehii ikaa'ii 3aamm murawwaj hai jaise keh sau ko woh panjj vehaiyyaaN (paanch biise) aur ek sau tiis ko chhe vehaiyyaaN te das ya3nii chhe biise aur das kehte haiN._​​_munDaarii ganDaa chaar kii ikaa'ii inhii ma3noN meN panjaabii meN bhii musta3mal hai. isii qism kii aur misaaleN bhii miltii haiN jaise keh munDaarii kos (taqriib-an tiin miil kaa faaSilah), urduu kos, panjaabii koh. munDaarii meN waqt ke andaaze ke liye Daang ba-ma3naa laaThii isti3maal hotii hai ya3nii soraj ek Daang nikal aayaa hai jaise urduu meN nezah kaa paimaanah mash_huur hai jaise soraj kaa savaa neze par aa jaanaa. panjaabii meN bhii yehii Daang kaa paimaanah inhii ma3noN meN musta3mal hai jaise "soraj ajje Daang bhar nikleyaa sii". _​​_az Urdu kii qadiim taariix - SafHah 108 - haRappe se pahle: paimaane_​_muSannif: Ain-ul-Haqq Farid Koti_​


----------



## Pvitr

Alfaaz said:


> Relevant quote from _Urdu zabaan kii qadiim taariix_:
> 
> Transliteration:
> 
> _gintii ke liHaaz se munDaari aur sindhii donoN meN do ke hindase ke liye "baa" kaa lafz mushtarakah taur par musta3mal hai. panjaabii aur urduu meN baarah, biis, aur baa'iis waGhairah hindasoN meN "b" kaa Harf isii "baa" ba-ma3naa do kii tarjumaanii kartaa hai jaise keh baanve - baa - navve ya3nii do aur navve.
> 
> isii tarH munDaarii zabaanoN meN koRii ba-ma3naa biis gintii kii ikaa'ii ke taur par murawwaj hai. munDaarii lafz "kar" ba-ma3naa haath is kii aSl hai. koRii lafz "kar" kii jam3 hai jis ke ma3naa donoN haath aur donoN paa'oN kaa majmuu3ah ya3nii biis ungliyaaN. Ghaalib-an qadiim se hii munDaa qabaa'il haathoN aur paa'oN kii ungliiyoN kii ta3daad ko gintii kii ikaa'ii ke taur par isti3maal karte hoN ge. aaj bhii panjaab ke diihaat meN yehii ikaa'ii 3aamm murawwaj hai jaise keh sau ko woh panjj vehaiyyaaN (paanch biise) aur ek sau tiis ko chhe vehaiyyaaN te das ya3nii chhe biise aur das kehte haiN.
> 
> munDaarii ganDaa chaar kii ikaa'ii inhii ma3noN meN panjaabii meN bhii musta3mal hai. isii qism kii aur misaaleN bhii miltii haiN jaise keh munDaarii kos (taqriib-an tiin miil kaa faaSilah), urduu kos, panjaabii koh. munDaarii meN waqt ke andaaze ke liye Daang ba-ma3naa laaThii isti3maal hotii hai ya3nii soraj ek Daang nikal aayaa hai jaise urduu meN nezah kaa paimaanah mash_huur hai jaise soraj kaa savaa neze par aa jaanaa. panjaabii meN bhii yehii Daang kaa paimaanah inhii ma3noN meN musta3mal hai jaise "soraj ajje Daang bhar nikleyaa sii".
> 
> az Urdu kii qadiim taariix - SafHah 108 - haRappe se pahle: paimaane
> muSannif: Ain-ul-Haqq Farid Koti_


Any chance of a summary in English please? Tried Google translate but its unclear.


----------



## Alfaaz

Brief summary: 

_The usage of "baa" is common in both the Mundari and Sindhi languages for "two". In Punjabi and Urdu, the "b" in baarah, biis, baa'iis, etc. is representative of that very "baa" meaning "two". For example, baanave - baa - navve = two and ninety. _​​_Similarly, koRii (plural form of "kar" - hand) meaning "twenty" was used as a counting unit in the Mundari languages. Most probably, the Munda tribes might have used the quantity of phalanges as a unit of counting since ancient times. This unit is commonly used even today in the villages of Punjab. For example, "hundred" is referred to as "panjj vehaiyyaaN" (five twenties). ...etc. etc._​​_The Mundari "ganDaa" (unit of four) is also used in Punjabi. There are many other examples as well, such as Mundari kos, Urdu kos, Punjabi koh. Mundari "Daang" was used for the approximation of time, just as "nezah" is popular in Urdu. That very unit of "Daang" is used with the same meaning in Punjabi as well. _​


----------



## Pvitr

Thankyou Alfaaz Ji. 

So 2 in Sindhi is baa according to omniglot website (perhaps an implosive b, whatever that sounds like). Does this mean that Panjabi had the same and 'do' was adopted from elsewhere? Presumably this is more likely than all ba- words being adopted.

Regarding the phalanges, aren't these the sections of the fingers? So we get 3 per finger/15 per hand? I have seen this, and adopted it myself - it's really useful. Not sure how it relates to the point about five twenties though.

All in all an interesting excerpt.


----------



## Qureshpor

Pvitr said:


> The names for units (1-9) usually carry on when used for larger numbers (11-99), but something different happens with 2, 12, 22 etc. Does anyone know the reason?
> For example:
> 7 - sat
> 17 - sataraan
> 27 - sataaii
> 37 -sentii
> So some variation, but recognisable as being seven+something
> 
> But
> 2 - do
> 12 - baaraan
> 22 - baaii
> 32 - batii
> 
> So these numbers change from 'do' to starting with 'ba/baa'.
> 
> Hope that makes sense. Thanks for reading.


I don't know if Sanskrit has a word/prefix "ba/baa" meaning two but in English we use words such as bicycle, bisect, bilateral where "bi" is from the Latin "bis" meaning two.


----------



## Au101

Qureshpor said:


> I don't know if Sanskrit has a word/prefix "ba/baa" meaning two but in English we use words such as bicycle, bisect, bilateral where "bi" is from the Latin "bis" meaning two.





> *Etymology*
> 
> An adverb for _*du*is_, from _duo_ (“two”), as /b/ is often interchanged with /du/ in word-initial position in Latin (in the same way as _*du*ellum_ for _*b*ellum_ (“war”), _*du*onus_ for _*b*onus_ (“good”), etc.). Before that, from Proto-Indo-European *_dwís_ (“in two, twice, doubly”), from *_dwóh₁_ (“two”); compare Ancient Greek δίς (_dís_, “dis”), Sanskrit द्विस् (_dvis_).
> 
> 
> bis - Wiktionary



The source may be Wiktionary but the essential point appears to be correct: the _b _in _bi-, bis-_ is a Latin alteration of earlier _du _corresponding to Sanskrit _dvi-_ and Punjabi/Hindi/Urdu _do_


----------



## Pvitr

Au101 said:


> The source may be Wiktionary but the essential point appears to be correct: the _b _in _bi-, bis-_ is a Latin alteration of earlier _du _corresponding to Sanskrit _dvi-_ and Punjabi/Hindi/Urdu _do_


How does this lead to the difference between 2=_do _and 12/22/32 etc = _ba-_? Or is that question unanswerable?


----------



## Au101

Pvitr said:


> How does this lead to the difference between 2=_do _and 12/22/32 etc = _ba-_? Or is that question unanswerable?


I'm afraid I don't know sir, though I would be interested to learn the answer too.

I was replying specifically to Qureshpor's post about a possible Sanskrit origin. And what I was saying is that Latin _bi-, bis-_ do not appear to correspond to any Sanskrit word/prefix beginning with _b_. I do not believe the _b_ is Sanskrit.

However, Platts traces Hindi/Urdu _bārah _directly back to Sanskrit _dvādaśa(n)-_ (A dictionary of Urdu, classical Hindi, and English.). This is certainly way out of my area of expertise but with the alteration between _v_ and _b_ we find in many modern Indian languages (including Punjabi I understand) I find it eminently plausible that _dv_ could become _b_, either directly, or by loss of initial _d_ and then _v_ becoming _b_ as it so often does. So interestingly this could actually be analogous to the process that took place in Latin, a kind of convergent evolution I suppose, but I do not believe it took place in Sanskrit, nor does it seem that the Sanskrit cognate of _bi-, bis-_ begins with a _b_.


----------



## Alfaaz

Pvitr said:
			
		

> So 2 in Sindhi is baa according to omniglot website (perhaps an implosive b, whatever that sounds like). Does this mean that Panjabi had the same and 'do' was adopted from elsewhere? Presumably this is more likely than all ba- words being adopted.
> 
> Regarding the phalanges, aren't these the sections of the fingers? So we get 3 per finger/15 per hand? I have seen this, and adopted it myself - it's really useful. Not sure how it relates to the point about five twenties though.


Please excuse the confusion caused. It should have been _10 fingers and 10 toes_. 

The etymology experts could shed more light on the other topics. 

It is mentioned one page 103 in the book that _there had been a trend to label pretty much everything as derived from Sanskrit. However, researchers are beginning to consider the effects local languages, etc. might have had on Sanskrit as well. _One example given is "aag" in Urdu and Hindi, which is present in Sanskrit (_agan_?). However, there are similar words present in _aryaa'ii guroh kii zabaaneN_. Examples: _ogone (ruusii), ugnis (luthvaanii), and ignis (laatiinii), etc._​


----------



## Pvitr

Alfaaz said:


> Please excuse the confusion caused. It should have been _10 fingers and 10 toes_.
> 
> The etymology experts could shed more light on the other topics.
> 
> It is mentioned one page 103 in the book that _there had been a trend to label pretty much everything as derived from Sanskrit. However, researchers are beginning to consider the effects local languages, etc. might have had on Sanskrit as well. _One example given is "aag" in Urdu and Hindi, which is present in Sanskrit (_agan_?). However, there are similar words present in _aryaa'ii guroh kii zabaaneN_. Examples: _ogone (ruusii), ugnis (luthvaanii), and ignis (laatiinii), etc._​


Thank you for the clarification.

Regarding the idea of local languages influencing Sanskrit, well yes that seems plausible - but Urdu-Hindi? Could this happen? As isn't there a gap of many centuries between the use of Sanskrit and the rise of HU?


----------



## Alfaaz

Pvitr said:
			
		

> Regarding the idea of local languages influencing Sanskrit, well yes that seems plausible - but Urdu-Hindi? Could this happen? As isn't there a gap of many centuries between the use of Sanskrit and the rise of HU?


As mentioned before, the etymology experts could provide better answers. 

The author seems to be suggesting that the influence (_baa_ for _two_) might be from the Mundari language. Qureshpor and Au101 were discussing Latin above. The Mundari language might have been affected by Latin, etc. in some manner...?! Or there might have been a _dv_ to _b_ change as mentioned by Au101 above for the potential Sanskrit root...?! Who knows...?!


----------



## desi4life

Alfaaz said:


> One example given is "aag" in Urdu and Hindi, which is present in Sanskrit (_agan_?). However, there are similar words present in _aryaa'ii guroh kii zabaaneN_. Examples: _ogone (ruusii), ugnis (luthvaanii), and ignis (laatiinii), etc._



I don’t quite follow the line of thought in this example. The etymon of Hindi/Urdu “aag”, via Prakrit, is Sanskrit “agni” (“agan” is an ardha-tatsama form found in Rajasthani, and sometimes used in Hindi/Urdu and other languages as well). This cannot have anything to do with local unrelated languages like Mundari. The other Indo-European words listed are cognates of Sanskrit “agni”. 

P.S. I think in Urdu the correct spelling is “aaryaa’ii” and not “aryaa’ii”.



Alfaaz said:


> The author seems to be suggesting that the influence (_baa_ for _two_) might be from the Mundari language. Qureshpor and Au101 were discussing Latin above. The Mundari language might have been affected by Latin, etc. in some manner...?! Or there might have been a _dv_ to _b_ change as mentioned by Au101 above for the potential Sanskrit root...?! Who knows...?!



I don’t see how Mundari could be affected by Latin. And as for numbers such as “baarah” and “baanve”, they have clear Indo-Aryan etymologies, with Sanskrit “dv” sometimes becoming “b” (alternatively, dv > v > b, or dv > db > b) in Prakrit/MIA as shown by Turner:

6658 dvāˊdaśa ʻ twelve ʼ RV. 2. duvāˊdaśa RV.
1. *Pa. dvādasa, bārasa,* Aś.shah. badaya (Hultsch badaśa), gir. dbādasa, NiDoc. dvadaśa, badaśa, Pk. bārasa, bāraha, Ash. bäis, bās, Wg. bāš, Niṅg. bas, Dm. báš, Tir. bọ̈̄, Niṅg. bas, Shum. bās, Woṭ. bārō̃, Gaw. bāš, Bshk. bāh, Sv. bā̆š, Phal. bāš, bōš, Sh. bāĭ (→ Ḍ. baī), K. bāh, S. ḇārãhã (ḇāraho m. ʻ the figure 12 ʼ < Pk. bārasaya -- n.), L. bār(h)ã, khet. bārhā̆, P. bārã̄, bhaṭ. bārā, WPah. bhad. bāhrē, bhal. bāre, pāḍ bārah, paṅ. cur. bāhrā, Ku. N. A. B. Or. bāra, Mth. bārah, Bhoj. bārē, Aw.lakh. bārā, H. bārah, bārā, OMarw. bārā, G. bār, M. Ko. bārā, Md. bāra.
2. Aś.man. duvaḍaśa, kāl. duvāḍasa, jau. duvadasa, dh. duvādasa, Pk. duvālasa, Kt. dyīċ, Pr. wṳ̄zu, üz, Paš. duwāˊi, Tor. duāš, Kand. dwālaš, Mai. dwālaš, ky. duwāˊleš, Si. doḷasa, doḷaha, Md. doḷos.


----------



## Alfaaz

desi4life said:
			
		

> I don’t quite follow the line of thought in this example.


If you're able to read Urdu, you can click on the link provided in post #2 and read through the relevant pages of the book. I might not have understood, interpreted and summarized the information accurately, which was the reason for repeatedly stating in posts above that forum members who have greater familiarity with etymology could provide better answers.


----------



## aevynn

UH aag is unambiguously of Indo-European origins, and Ain-ul-Haqq Farid Koti says this in his book too. See the bold sentences in my transliteration below. Hopefully I haven't made too many typos...


> ab ham lisaanii pahluu kii taraf rujuu3 karte haiN. lekin qabal is_ke ki(h) ham aage baRheN hamaare liye chand-ek Haqaa'iq kaa zehn-nishiin kar lenaa zaruurii hai taaki(h) zer-e-Gaur mauzuu3 ke afhaam-o-tafhiim meN aasaanii rahe. ye(h) amr bi'lkul waazeH hai ki(h) jab do qaumoN kaa aapsii men Takraa'o hotaa hai to un_ke tahziib-o-tamaddun, rasm-o-riwaaj, aur bol_chaal ek duusre se mutaasir hu'e baGair nahiiN rah sakte. agarcheh maxSuuS Haalaat ke taHat un_meN kamii-beshii kaa ehtimaal zaruur hai ya3nii/yaanii ek qaum z(i)yaadaa/h gahre taur par mutaasir hogii aur duusrii kam. misaal ke taur par 3arboN ke futuuHaat ke natiije meN 3arbii zubaan ne shimaalii afriiqii kii qubtii aur qadiim barbarii zubaanoN ko qariib-qariib nest-o-naabuud kar_ke un_kii jagah x(w)ud le lii lekin us_ke bar_3aks iiraan, afGaanistaan, aur bar-SaGiir-e-paak-o-hind ke lisaanii DhaaNche ko buniyaadii taur par zaraa bhii mutaasir na(h) kar sakii siwaa'e is_ke ki(h) un_ke sarmaayaa/h-e-alfaaz par ma3muulii Had tak asar andaaz hu'ii. isii taraH jab aaryaa'ii qabaa'il barSaGiir meN waarid hu'e to un_kii zubaan muqaamii 3anaaSir se mutaasir hu'e baGair na(h) rah sakii. misaal ke taur par go laatiinii, yuunaanii, faarsii aur sanskrit chaaroN kii chaaroN aaryaa'ii giroh se ta3lluq rakhtii haiN lekin muqaamii 3anaaSir ke asaraat kii badaaulat ek duusrii se muxtalif nazar aatii haiN. agar ye(h) asaraat maujuud na(h) hotii to un_ke darmiyaan ko'ii wajah-e-imtiyaaz baaqii na(h) rahtii aur un_meN aaps meN shammaa/h bhar bhii farq na(h) hotaa.
> 
> aaj tak ye(h) nazariyaa/h ek faishan ke taur par maujuud rahaa ki(h) jahaaN bhii muqaamii zabaanoN aur sanskrit ke taqaabulii mutaal3e kaa waqt aayaa to sanskrit ko hii tamaam tar mushtarkaa/h sarmaayaa/h-e-alfaaz ka mamba3-o-sarchashmaa/h qaraar de diyaa gayaa aur sanskrit par muqaamii asaraat ke tasawwur ko bhii qaabil-e-iltifaat na(h) samjhaa. lekin ab ahl-e-nazar ne un farsuudaa/h ta3SSubaat se baalaatar rah_kar Haqaa'iq ko un_ke SaHii(H) pas_manzar meN dekhnaa shuruu kar diyaa hai.
> 
> apne matmaH-e-nazar kii maziid wazaahat ke liye maiN urduu zabaan ke do 3aam-faham alfaaz aag aur paanii kii misaal pesh kartaa huuN. ye(h) donoN alfaaz unhiiN ma3noN meN agni aur paaniiya(h) kii Suurat meN sanskrit meN maujuud haiN aur us_ke saath hii ye(h) alfaaz barSaGiir kii qadiim zubaanoN ya3nii/yaanii draaviRii aur munDaa meN bhii musta3mal haiN. zaahir hai ki(h) ye(h) alfaaz ek ne duusre se must3aar liye haiN lekin kis_ne must3aar liye is_kaa faiSlaa/h karne ke liye ham taqaabulii jaa'ize se madad lete haiN. *aag kaa lafz aaryaa'ii giroh kii duusrii zabaanoN meN bhii 3umuumiyat ke saath musta3mal hai maslan ruusii "ogone," lithuuaanii "ignis," aur laatiinii "ugnis," waGairah. zaahir hai ki(h) ye(h) lafz aaryaa'ii al-aSl hai, muqaamii zubaanoN ne aaryaa'ii qabaa'il se must3aar liyaa hai.* is_ke bar_3aks paanii lafz sanskrit ke 3alaawaa/h aaryaa'ii giroh kii aur kisii bhii zubaan meN nahiiN miltaa lekin munDaa giroh kii zubaanoN maslan baaorii, tariimuukii, گہوری, aur بھٹوئی waGairaa/h meN murawwaj hai. zaahir hai ki(h) ye(h) lafz go sanskrit ke sarmaayaa/h-e-alfaaz kaa HiSSaa/h zaruur hai lekin phir bhii aaryaa'ii al-aSl nahiiN hai, balki(h) muqaamii zabaanoN se must3aar liyaa gayaa hai. yahii Suurat mushtarkaa/h sarmaayaa/h-e-alfaaz ke ek baRe HiSSe kii hai.


The gist of what he's saying is that some Sanskrit words originate from Proto-Indo-European (as can be ascertained from the presence of cognates in other Indo-European languages), and some Sanskrit words originate in Southasian substrate languages (as can be ascertained from the absence of cognates in other Indo-European languages and the presence of cognates in extant descendents of substrate language families).

This seems like a somewhat reasonable heuristic, but I don't know if his application of this heuristic to the two-related ba-/baa- words in Panjabi and HU really checks out. Turner's etymology quoted by @desi4life (ie, @Au101's "convergent evolution" etymology) seems quite reasonable too.


----------



## yashs21

Pvitr said:


> The names for units (1-9) usually carry on when used for larger numbers (11-99), but something different happens with 2, 12, 22 etc. Does anyone know the reason?
> For example:
> 7 - sat
> 17 - sataraan
> 27 - sataaii
> 37 -sentii
> So some variation, but recognisable as being seven+something
> 
> But
> 2 - do
> 12 - baaraan
> 22 - baaii
> 32 - batii
> 
> So these numbers change from 'do' to starting with 'ba/baa'.
> 
> Hope that makes sense. Thanks for reading.



I have thought about this a little too, and I have a hypothesis. My suspicion is that 'do' in Hindi/Punjabi comes from Sanskrit 'dʋau' (the masculine nominative), which would give 'dʋo' in early Middle Indo-Aryan. The rounded vowel o would trigger the deletion of ʋ - I think it seems natural for ʋ to delete before a round vowel, giving do. When this dʋ was not followed by a rounded vowel (as in dʋaadasha '12' etc), the ʋ didn't delete and dʋ>b.

It is interesting that the two languages whose word for 2 starts with b rather than d (Sindhi and Gujarati) are the ones where the following vowel is not -o. Gujarati 'be' probably comes from the Sanskrit neuter nominative 'dʋe'. Less sure about Sindhi 'ba'.

To the east (Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Bengali etc), we get reflexes of neuter nominative 'duʋe' (which is an alternative pronunciation of 'dʋe') - these reflexes are typically 'dui' or 'du'.


----------

