| Affix function | number of borrowed affixes |
|---|---|
Information and examples are from Mishra (1996). Only affixes for which there are indications that they are used on native stems are given in the following.
4 adjectivizers. About these four, Mishra (1996: 98) explicitly states that they are borrowed and productive, Mishra (1996: 48–51) gives many other affixes, about which this is not explicitly stated.
‑ū ‘adjectivizer’, e.g. pīṭū ‘fatal’ (from pīṭ ‘to kill’)
‑hā ‘adjectivizer’, e.g. bhūthā ‘haunted’ (from bhūt ‘ghost’)
‑yā ‘adjectivizer’, e.g. banyā ‘wild’ (from ban ‘forest’)
‑al ‘adjectivizer’, e.g. ḍubal ‘drowned’ (from ḍub‑ ‘to drown’)
1 gender marker, assuming that the following forms are phonologically conditioned allomorphs
‑ī, ‑in, ‑āin, ‑nī ‘feminine’. These are “directly borrowed from Indo‑Aryan. The suffixes are mostly added to the borrowed nouns” (Mishra 1996:96, see also 21–22), which seems to imply that they are not exclusively used on borrowed nouns (see also Abbi 1997: 142; 2001: 47–48).
2 forms deriving special numerals. The “suffixes khēp and bahrī are used to form enumerative/proportional numerals [...] the suffix ‑ō forming adjectival constructions from numerals” (Mishra 1996: 96–97). Examples of ‑khēp and ‑bahrī are given in Mishra (1996: 32), where they are also written as suffixes. Numerals one to four are indigenous Kurux (Mishra 1996: 30). There are examples of ‑ō and ‑khēp in combination with numerals lower than five, but all examples of ‑bahrī are with the borrowed numerals five or higher, therefore ‑bahrī is not included here.
‑khēp ‘enumerative/proportional numerals’, e.g. ōnd khēp ‘once’
‑ō ‘adjectives from numerals’, e.g. tin‑ō, e.g. ‘all the three’
1 passive marker
‑r/‑tār ‘passive’, e.g. cōx‑tār/cōx‑r ‘to be plucked’ (from cōx ‘to pluck’), la’ō‑tār/la’ō‑r ‘to be beaten up’ (from la’ō ‘to beat someone up’). Abbi (1997: 140) explicitly claims this form is borrowed from Indo‑Aryan. Mishra (1996: 108) discusses this form and says passive arose from contact with Indo‑Aryan, but does not say explicitly that the form ‑r/‑tār would be borrowed.
Abbi (1997: 140, 142) mentions that the two Indo‑Aryan “conjunctive participles” ‑ar and ‑ki would be used in urban Kurux. Because they are written as separate words by Abbi (1997: 140), and also because no corresponding forms were found in Mishra (1996), they are not considered here.