CiXIV42
author: Caldwell, Robert

Ry

e,

o

Tt

e

e

e,

oo

e,

e

Fange

By

e

i

.H-M

e

b

Lol

bt

.

Sate,

vl

P

S

P

TG o £

2 P

i

Wibieg

wyd e

0.

G

Pibing,

iy

g

Ay,

Sl ol

By,

Sy,

i

g Ty

Wi,

e

i,

25

T

&

5

w4

s

Fibi,

Myt

i,

)

iy

b

g

" o

g

A,

o 04

Kg

Qs el

%

e

argh,

iy

» i

o

S

B4,

v

ot At

W

e,

g,

s

i i

—

W

g iToees

xh“?x

e

iy

b

el

- MR,

s

g

ity

i

ey

T

s

Uik

et

s

o 5

i,

VM

b Y ™

o

Ut

e,

s

.@«!}1

il

oy

",

pn

&s

kg

R

ety

5.

ey

I~

i

g

i

v

o,

i

T

i

i

e,

Rt

i

A

i

e

Ko

Uitiiyy

.fxn:ﬁ.

i,

I g

R,

b

2

ol

Hlip

e

e

Vi

Mo

iy

A

B,

S

ol

ik

N T

i

vt i

Ay

r.t P

g g

g, Wy

g

i

Ea.&ft

e,

w ..ig

C‘ilgmr

ety

Pt

el

J.fr\:

g

o

it

Ay

g

et

s

ity

i

ity

g

Si.v&n i

Wiigia

ey

bt

O

ML P

St

Yer

gy

Rk

ﬁ,a\m

&P

bz,

x,

o)

e

gy

il

by

P,

e

Eiod

!

A e

Fﬁ‘s

WL

Ly

s,

b

iy

ey

iy

2

s

mxb..eﬁ

et 2t

e

i

o iy

o

[dcigz

it

g

.

i

i

i

AN,

ﬂ‘nuw

o

g S

.

Wiy

N

g

gy

AL

ol

e,

—A.N

e

PRy

gy

PR,

gﬁ@%

Ty A

el

Le:f

e

s

mv

&ﬂvﬁmm,

£ W\?

L

iy,

e

w?fh. i&b}!r

Teba, i

s

N

i

kG,

.. Hi

o e

vy

o

e

:.;

P

;fw&.

L‘%

e g

iy

g

i

it

gﬂ.

it

4 pesng

ity

IR b ¢

o

o, Mgy

..r*&._.b

A

i

1905

Ao

e

. g

e

T,

o o

s

S, s

iy

n

et

iy,

o2 i

i

i T

il

i

kﬁé

Sy,

g

Jo

A T

b

il

Fia %&xu& iy

e

Fi,

ba

e

i

<l

gy

ity

i

fore

o

Sl

iy

il

ek,

e

b

P

il

s

bl

.@a.b?t

leg

o

g 1

e

Pta )

- f

Wi &

Vi

it

oy,

e,

|

6494/

it

Histyy

e Ay

s

P

S

3§

e,

e

b

.iw,

55

)

no

s

o s

g{%

o

g

Hp

5

g,

e

A

b

o

giﬁ.

optie,

Sty

ey

....cf.

et

e

H\y

i 5

aﬁt“w

et

A

beit

g,

i

Ehtag

g 4.?

.@mﬁﬁ.@e

e

g

el

i Ty,

kit

il

e

i o

i,

i

e

§g&f

E&Gk&

i

W,

lu"ﬁ&t

Gt

P g

Ty, N

o

R‘EN\

-

etsp,

Al

g

3

LY

i

‘wg

o

i,

Nobd

s

ok

1,

i

7

B

s

e

rriramf.

oy

e

%_lgwerx

Jvtin,rzfrix

it s L S

Bomadi

ity

o

2

w%

x&ffﬁ

Fana,

a4

B

5

g 2o

fony L

R,

it

o

't

D

sy

St

L

e

g

g by

i

o i

i

i

i

i

i

i

1593

Co

&.‘

Pyt ]

ik

s

s

5

S

o

e

Hisiay

e

&

i

e

P

SO0

o,

b

s

i

orrecnrs

%

e

443y

etz

gl

g

b

v,

s O

o

s

oty

o iy

o

i

vﬁ%

¥

g,

i

g

£

o

o

P

g3t

R0y

e

o

ot

RRe T

Py,

St

A

S

i

2

G

i

i

7

b 3 bl

e

ey,

iyl

o

1.\.».#

L,

oLl

I

-

/.

S

i

i

i

]

\n&

Sige

.

3

.

w&«.x«;ﬂ 50

i3 5054

g

b

..mw: e

ol

o

i

S

i

b

@

H~

ik

o

2

SR

et

i

55

e

b

3!

Ll

Ty,

F o

e

S

R

S

e x s

=

o

e

o

Wk

o

i

2

e

v

S

7

s

oy

0

3

s

N

A

féwuwlnv

s

i

2,

e

o

o

in?

= (A.

Tk

s

Al

e o

o,

Shre

g,

%

ST

A,

R

T8 T e

e

o

M.u

R

o

s

PR

o

&t

e

XK,

T

&

5

e

N

Ty

i

S

s

2

s

&

o #

g

o

S

G

e

o

S

e

S

It o

=5

e

o

g

mw;

2

TR

Tk

2

b

S5

e,

fovs

Sy

]

s

e

ey

o

¥

o

T

e

W'x

s

.

TR 5 e .

e 5

Foa Rk

My

o

R

o

R

0 e

Sl

PN

e v

R

2

=

o

0 o

S

o

B

i

o

S

o

o

SR

A

SR

o,

o

e

o

£

o

el

o

W i

5

o

m

i

G

=

e

e

e

v

5 e

T

A,

5,

A

e e,

oo Sk

5

o

S

s

m

e

>

o,

w

S

Sl

oy

o

e

e T e Ay

S

7

T

e Dy A

S

e,

2

i

.-v@

e A

o

S e

Mw

£

e

e A

s

S

¥t

e

e

S

e

e

s

A

e

SR

w

AR

.

Bt

s

i

W\&.

M

ﬁi

e

=

e

MVP - L o e it

N12<529065791 021

VRN ..

e

s

%

”

-

w

et

e 1

=

—

=

e

ey

T —

R

S0

Mgy,

A

COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR

OF THE

DRAVIDIAN

OR

SOUTH-INDIAN FAMILY OF LANGUAGES.

BY

Tue Rev. R. CALDWELL, B.A.,

MISSIONARY OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL IN FOREIGN PARTS, AT

EDEYENKOODY, TINNEVELLY, SOUTHERN INDIA.

LONDON :

e R RIS ON,

9.9,

P Ak B

MALL

y

1856.

PRIN

%

.

-

iy

N

)

K,

9 ghd

Y

M —

TED BY HARRISON

ST. MARTIN’S LANE

v

\

e

~

AND SONS,

S

s

-

oy

4

R AR

My

=

s

e

PREFACE.

It is many years since I felt convinced that much light

might be thrown on the grammar of the Tamil language, by

comparing it with that of the Telugu, the Canarese, and other

sister idioms; and on proceeding to*make this comparison, I

found, not only that my supposition was verified by the result,

but that the Tamil imparts still more light than it receives,

and also, that none of the South-Indian languages can be

thoroughly understood or appreciated without some study of

the others.

Probably many other students of the South-Indian languages

have been led to the same conclusion; but as the mission of the

English in India is one which admits of little or no literary

leisure,—as the old East, after the sleep of centuries, has begun

to wake up and to clamour for the supply of its many material

and moral wants, and as the majority of Anglo-Indians, whether

they are engaged in the work of government, or in educational

and Missionary labours, find that they have a world of work to

do, and but little time or strength for doing it, this department

of comparative philology, though peculiarly promising, has

hitherto lain almost entirely uncultivated.

Much, it is true, has been done towards the elucidation of

some of the South-Indian languages taken separately, especially

the Tamil and the Telugu. Beschi’s Grammar of the Shen-

Tamil, and Mr. C. P. Brown’s Telugu Grammar, rise far above

the level of the ordinary Grammars of the Indian vernaculars.

But the study of those languages, viewed as a whole—the inter-

S

1v

PREFACE.

comparison of their grammars—is still in its infancy; and 1t is

only when philology becomes comparative, that it becomes

scientific and progressive.

The first to break ground in the field was Mr. Ellis, a

Madras Civilian, who was profoundly versed in the Tamil lan-

guage and literature, and whose interesting but very brief com-

parison, not of the grammatical forms, but only of some of the

vocables of three Drévidian dialects, is contained in his Intro-

duction to Campbell’s Telugu Grammar.

The next attempt that was made in this direction, was by

the Rev. Dr. Stevenson, of Bombay, in some interesting papers

on the languages of the Dekhan, which appeared in the Journal

of the Bombay Asiatic Society. The main object which Dr. Ste-

venson appeared to have in view, was that of establishing the

identity of the Un-Sanscrit element which is contained in the

North-Indian vernaculars, with the grammar and vocabulary of

the Southern idioms.

He failed, as it appeared to me, to

establish that point; but many of his remarks on the characte-

ristic features of Dravidian Grammar, and on the essential unity

of the Drévidian dialects were perfectly correct; and though his

papers were of too sketchy a character to be of much permanent

philological value, they were decidedly in advance of everything

which had hitherto been published on this subject.

I was not aware of the existence of Ellis’s or Stevenson’s

contributions to Dréividian comparative philology, when my

own attention was directed to this department of study; and

when at length I made their acquaintance, I felt no less

desirous than before of going forward, for though I had lost the

satisfaction of supposing myself to be the discoverer of a new

field, yet it now appeared to be certain that the greater part of

the field still lay not only uncolonized, but unexplored.

I have not referred to Mr. Brian Hodgson’s numerous and

learned papers on the ¢ Tamulian ’ languages of India, though I

have long been acquainted with them, because I regard them

as a misnomer.

Those valuable papers treat of the Sub-Hima-

layan dialects, which are styled ‘Tamulian’ by Mr. Hodgson,

PREFACE.

v

but which might as properly, or improperly, have been styled

by any other foreign name; and though they throw much light

on the languages, the physiology, and the inter-relationship of

the aborigines of the north-eastern frontier of India, they leave

the Dravidian or Tamilian languages, properly so called, wholly

untouched.

From the commencement of my Tamil studies I felt inte-

rested also in another question—that of the ulterior relationship

of the Drividian family of languages; and before I was aware

of the opinion which Professor Rask, of Copenhagen, was the

first to express, and which has generally been adopted, I arrived

by a somewhat similar process, at the same conclusion, viz.,

that the Dravidian languages are to be affiliated, not with

the Indo-European, but with the Scythian group of tongues,

and that the Scythian family to which they appear to be most

closely allied is the Finnish or Ugrian.

General statements of the Scythian relationship of the Dré-

vidian languages, with a few grammatical illustrations, occupy

a place in Prichard’s valuable ¢ Researches,” and have been

repeated in more recent works on Comparative Philology; but as

Prichard himself did not feel satisfied with general statements,

impressions, and probabilites, and wished to see the problem

solved, and as I was convinced that it never could be definitively

solved without previously ascertaining, by a careful inter-com-

parison of dialects, what were the most ancient grammatical

forms and the most essential characteristics of the Dravidian

languages, I found myself under the necessity of working out

the entire subject for myself.

It was not till T had finished this work, and commenced to

prepare to carry it through the press, that I became acquainted

with Professor Max Miiller’s treatise, ‘On the present state of

our knowledge of the Turanian languages,” which is included in

Bunsen’s ¢ Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History.

That treatise is the most comprehensive, lucid, and scholarly

investigation of the general question which I have yet read;

and I have been gratified to find not only that many of the

Y

Vi1

PREFACE.

conclusions at which the author of that treatise has arrived, but

that many of his proofs and illustrations also, arve identical

with my own.

Notwithstanding our general agreement with respect to the

Drévidian grammatical system, and especially with respect to

its Ugrian affinities, I have not found the following work fore-

stalled by the Professor

His work is generic, mine specific

His is an admirable survey of the entire field; but he does not

profess to cultivate thoroughly any one portion of the field, or

even to prepare it for cultivation.

He does not occupy himself

in clearing away the stones, breaking up the fallow ground,

pulverising and analysing the soil, and turning up the sub-soil

to the light

Occasionally

it is true, he enters into details

but thoueh his conclusions are always correct, it is too evident

that in dealing with details he furnishes an illustration of the

principle for which, as he observes, Boehtlingk stands up, viz.,

that “it is dangerous to write on languages of which we do not

possess the most accurate knowledge

Whilst the principal

features of the Scythian relationship of the Dravidian tongues

are strongly marked, and whilst their grammatical principles

and syntactic arrangement are of too peculiar a nature to be

w7y

‘rnl*

mistaken, there is much in the phonics

tem of these languages

1 their declen-

in their dialectic interchanges and displacements,

sional and conjugational forms, and especially in the nature

uses, and changes of their formative particles, which cannot be

understood without special study.

- Dréavidian philology has recently attracted the attention of

another writer, Dr. Logan, whose elaborate contributions to the

ethnology of Eastern Asia, and of the eastern islands, form the

most valuable papers in the Journal of the Indian Archipelago.

That writer’s ethnological learning and philological acuteness

are very great, and some of his conjectures are remarkably

happy; but he is too fond of speculation, and not a few of his

oeneralisations and speculations respecting the forms and pho-

nology of the Dréavidian languages, are far a-head of his facts.

Notwithstandin

therefore, the intrinsic general value of

PREFACE.

vil

the researches of Drs. Stevenson, Max Miller, and Logan, a

work like the following still appears to be required. The Dra-

vidian languages still require to be compared and their relation-

ship to other languages investigated by some one who has made

them his special study for an adequate space of time.

Though I trust that the following work will help to supply

this desideratum, yet it only professes to be a contribution

I have

towards the accomplishment of the object in view.

laboured to be accurate throughout—and in a work of this kind

accuracy cannot be attained without immense labour ; but not-

withstanding my endeavours to be accurate, I am conscious of

the existence of many defects.

I trust, however, it will be

remembered that this is the only systematic treatise on this

subject which has yet appeared ; that in a first work on a new

subject errors are almost unavoidable; and that, whatever be

the defects of this work, it has at all events smoothed the way

for those who may hereafter be disposed to investigate the sub-

ject more deeply.

During the period of my residence in India the work in

which I was engaged as a Missionary was of too important a

nature to allow me to spend much of my time in book-making.

It was necessary for me to be content with jotting down occa-

sionally a few notes and illustrations, and working out conclu-

sions in my mind.

Since my return to this country for a

season, I have taken the opportunity of putting together the

notes which I had collected, and moulding them iito a syste-

matic shape; and the result is now published, in the hope that

this work will help to supply a want which I had long felt

myself, and which must, I conceived, have been felt by many

others.

I trust it will be found to contribute to a more

enlarged and scientific study of each of the Dravidian languages,

to a more accurate knowledge of their structure and vital spirit,

and to a higher estimate of their phonic beauty, their philoso-

phical organization, and their unequalled regularity.

During the period which has elapsed since the commence-

ment of this work, a period of a year and ten months, it has

viil

PREFACE.

been my lot to visit two hundred and fifty different parishes in

various parts of England, and to deliver about three hundred

and fifty lectures and addresses on India and Indian Missions.

It may therefore be concluded that the composition and prepa-

ration for the press of a work of so laborious a nature, in addi-

tion to the duties of a ¢ deputation,” have not left much scope

for the relaxation and rest which form the usual adjuncts of a

‘ furlough ;” nevertheless, if the ulterior object which I have had

in view should in any measure be accomplished—if in facilitating

a more comprehensive study of the Dréividian languages by those

Missionaries and East India Company’s Civilians who make use

of them as instruments of thought or as vehicles of expression,

the welfare of the Drévidian people should in any manner,

however indirectly, or in any degree, however small, be pro-

moted—I shall have my reward.

I beg leave thankfully to acknowledge the facilities which

have been afforded for the publication of this work by the kind-

ness of the Honourable Court of Directors of the East India

Company, in subscribing for a hundred copies, and of the

Madras, Ceylon, and Bombay Governments, in subscribing for

a hundred and twelve.

R. CALDWELL.

Office of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel,

79, Pall Mall, London, June 2nd, 1856.

—

——

e

e

P AR LT SR SRS g e SR

=y

=

- DRAVIDIAN COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR.

INTRODUCTION.

It is the object of th‘e following work to examine and compare

the grammatical principles and forms of the various Dravidian lan-

guages, in the hope of contributing to a more thorough knowledge of

their primitive structure and distinctive character.

In pursuing this

object, it will be the writer’s endeavour to ascertain the relation which

this family of languages bears to the principal families or groups into

which the languages of Europe and Asia have been divided.

Whilst the grammatical structure of each Dravidian language and

dialect will be investigated and illustrated in a greater or less degree,

in proportion to its importance and to the writer’s acquaintance with

it, it will be his special and constant aim to throw light upon the

structure of the Tamil—a language which he has for seventeen years

studied and used in the prosecution of his missionary labours, and

which is undoubtedly the oldest, richest, and most highly organized,

of the Dravidian langnages,—in many respects the representative lan-

guage of the family.

The idioms which are included in this work under the general

term ¢ Dravidian, constitute the vernacular speech of the great

majority of the inhabitants of Southern India.

With the exception

of Orissa and those districts of Western India and the Dekhan in

which the Gujarithi and the Marithi are spoken, the whole of the

peninsular portion of India;, from the Vindhya mountains and the

river Nerbudda (Narmada) to Cape Comorin, is peopled, and from

B

=

S

—

D ———

i’t

7.

=

INTRODUCTION.

the earliest period appears to have been peopled, by different branches

of one and the same race, speaking different dialects of one and the

same language—the language to which the term ¢ Drividian’ is here

applied; and scattered off-shoots from the same stem may be traced

still farther north as far as the Rajmahal hills, and even as far as the

mountain fastnesses of Beluchistan.

The Gujarathi, the Marathi (with its off-shoot the Konkani), and

the Uriya, or language of Orissa, idioms which are derived in the

main from the decomposition of the Sanscrit, form the vernacular

speech of the Hindu population within their respective limits: besides

which, and besides the Dravidian languages, various idioms which

cannot be termed indigenous or vernacular are spoken or occasionally

used by particular classes resident in Peninsular India.

Sanscrit, though it never was the vernacular language of any

district of country in the South, is in every district read and to some

extent understood by the majority of the Brahmans,—the descendants

of those Brahmanical colonists of early times to whom the Dra-

vidians are indebted for the higher arts of life and the first elements

of literary culture.

Such of the Brahmans as not only retain the

name, but also discharge the functions of the priesthood, and devote

themselves to professional studies, are generally able to converse in

Sanserit, though the vernacular language of the district in which they

reside is that which they use in their families and with which they

are most familiar.

They are styled, with reference to the language

of their adopted district, Dravida Brahmans,

Kérala Brahmans,

Karnataka Brahmans, &c.; and the Brahmans of the several langunage-

districts have virtually become distinet castes; but they are all

undoubtedly descended from one and the same stock ; and Sanscrit,

though now regarded only as an accomplishment or as a professional

acquirement, is properly their ancestral tongue.

Hindféstani is the distinctive, hereditary language of the Mahom-

medan portion of the population in the Dekhan and the southern

peninsula,—the descendants of those warlike Mahommedans from

northern India by whom the Peninsula was overrun some centuries

ago.

It may be regarded as the vernacular language in some parts

of the Hyderabad country; but generally throughout Southern India,

the middle and lower classes of the Mahommedans, who constitute

the majority, make as much use of the language of the district in

which they reside as of their ancestral tongue, and many of them are

now unable to put a single sentence together in Hind{istani.

Hebrew is used by the small but interesting colony of Jews resi-

dent in Cochin and the neighbourhood, in the same manner and for the

3

SOUTH-INDIAN

VERNACULARS.

same purposes as Sanserit is used by the Brahmans.

Gujarathl and

MarAthi are spoken by the Gujarathi bankers and the Parsi shop-

keepers who reside in the principal towns in the Peninsula: the

mixed race of ¢ country-born’ Portuguese are rapidly forgetting

(except in the territory of Goa itself) the corrupt Portuguese which

their fathers and mothers were accustomed to speak, and learning

English instead ; whilst French still retains its place as the language

of the French employés and their descendants in the settlements of

Pondicherry, Karikél, and Mahe, which still belong to France.

Throughout the territories of the East India Company, English is

not only the language of the governing race and of its ¢ East-Indian’

or ‘Indo-British’ off-shoot, but is also used to a considerable extent

by the natives of the country in the administration of justice and in

commerce ; and in the presidency of Madras and the principal towns,

it is daily winning its way to the position which was formerly occu-

pied by Sanserit, as the vehicle of all higher learning.

Neither the English, however, nor any other foreign tongue, has

the slightest chance of becoming the vernacular speech of any portion

of the inhabitants of Southern India.

The indigenous Dravidian

languages, which have maintained their ground for more than two

thousand years against Sanscrit, the language of a numerous, powerful,

and venerated sacerdotal race, may be expected successfully to resist

the encroachments of every other tongue.”

-

* T admit with Sir Erskine Perry (see his valuable paper in the Journal of

the Royal Asiatic Society), that English, the language of the governing race,

should be employed as the language of public business in every part of British

India; and I am certain that this end could be attained in a very short time by

simply requiring every candidate for government employment, from the highest

to the lowest, to pass an examination in English.

The natives would everywhere

adapt themselves to this arrangement, not only without reluctance, but with

alacrity and pleasure ; and English schools and other facilities for the acquisition

of English would multiply apace, as soon as it was found that the new rule eould

not be evaded.

I do not think, however, that English can ever become the

vernacular language of any class of the Hindus, nor even that it is likely to be

used to any considerable extent as a lingua franca beyond the circle of govern-

Before we can reasonably anticipate the employment of English

ment employés.

as a conventional language, like Latin in the middle ages, or French in the more

modern period, the number of the English resident in India should bear a much

larger proportion to the mass of the inhabitants.

That proportion is at present

infinitesimally small : e. g. the population of the two Collectorates, or provinces,

in Southern India with which I am best acquainted—Tinnevelly and Madura,

amounts in round numbers to three millions: the number of Englishmen (and

Americans) resident in those two provinces is considerably under a hundred and

fifty ! and that number includes the judges and magistrates who administer justice

in those provinces, the officers of a single regiment of sepoys, the men belonging

to a small detachment of foot artillery, a few cotton planters and merchants, and

Including women and

the missionaries belonging to three missionary societies !

children, the number is about three hundred, with which handful of English

people we have to contrast three millions of Hindus !

B2

3 |

INTRODUCTION.

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

|

i

The idioms which 1 designate as ¢ Dravidian,” are nine in number,

exclusive of the Rajm

ah

il

al, the Uraon, and the Brahui.

They are as

follows : —

1. The Tamil, by the earlier Europeans erroneously termed ¢the

Malabar.”*

The proper spelling of the name is ¢ Tamir; but through

the dialectic changes of r into 1, it is commonly pronounced Tamil,

This

and is often erroneously written ‘Tamul’ by FKuropeans.

language being the earliest cultivated of all the Dravidian idioms,

the most copious, and that which contains the largest portion and the

richest variety of indubitably ancient forms, it is deservedly placed at

the head of the list.

It includes two dialects, the classical and the

colloquial, or the ancient and the modern, called respectively the

Shen-Tamil* and the ¢ Kodun-Tamil,” which differ one from the other

so widely that they might almost be regarded as different langnages.

The Tamil language is spoken throughout the vast plain of the

Carnatic, or country below the Ghauts, from Pulicat to Cape Como-

rin, and from the Ghauts, or central mountain range of Southern

India, to the Bay of Bengal.

It is also spoken in the southern part

of the Travancore country on the western side of the Ghauts, from

Cape Comorin to the neighbourhood of Trivandrum; and in the

northern and north-western parts of Ceylon, where Tamilians com-

menced to form settlements prior even to the Christian era, and from

whence they have gradually thrust out the Singhalese. All throughout

Ceylon the coolies in the coffee plantations are Tamilians; the

majority of the money-making classes even in Colombo are Tamilians ;

and ere long the Tamilians will have excluded the Singhalese from

The

almost every office of profit and trust in their own island.

majority of the domestic servants of Europeans and of the camp-

followers in every part of the presidency of Madras being Tamil

people, Tamil is the prevailing language in all military cantonments

in Southern India, whatever be the vernacular language of the district.

Hence, at Cannanore in the Malayila country, at Bangalore in the

Canarese country, at Bellary in the Telugu country, and at Secunder-

abad, where Hind{istin] may be considered as the vernacular, the

* Tt is singular that so able and accurate a scholar as Dr. Max Miiller should

have supposed the Malabar to be a different language from the Tamil: nor did

he confound it, as would have been natural enough, with the Malayilam, for he

gives a distinct place (especially in his ‘list of pronouns’) to each of the

Dravidian dialects which actually exist, including the MaliayAlam, and thereto he

adds the Malabar, on the authority, I presume, of some grammar of the last

century, in which the Tamil was called by that name.

5

NUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

Janguage which most frequently meets the ear in the bazaars is the

Tamil

The majority of the Klings (‘ Kalingas®), or Hindus, who are found

in Pegu, Penang, Singapore, and other places in the further east, are

Tamilians

the coolies who have emigrated in such numbers to the

Mauritius and to the West Indian colonies are mostly Tamilians

1B

short, wherever money is to be made, wherever a more apathetic or a

more aristocratic people is waiting to be pushed aside, there swarm

the Tamilians, the Greeks or Scotch of the east, the least scrupulous

and superstitious, and the most enterprising and persevering race of

Hindus

Including Tamilians resident in military stations and distant

colonies, and the Tamilian inhabitants of South Travancore, and

Northern Ceylon, and excluding not only Mahommedans, &e., but

also Brahmans and people of Telugu origin who are resident in the

Tamil country, and who form at least ten per cent. of the whole

population, the people who speak the Tamil language may be esti-

mated at about ten millions

2. The Telugu, in respect of antiquity of culture and glossarial

copiousness, ranks next to the Tamil in the list of Dravidian idioms;

but in point of euphonic sweetness it claims to occupy the first place.

The Telatru called also the Telingu, or Telungu (nasalised from Telugu),

is the ¢ Andhra’ of Sanscrit writers, a name mentioned by the Greek

geographers as the name of a nation dwelling on or near the Ganges.

This language was sometimes called by the Europeans of the last

generation the ° Gentoo,” from the Portuguese word for heathens, or

¢ Gentiles

The Telugu is spoken all along the eastern coast of the

Peninsula, from the neighbourhood of Pulicat, where it supersedes the

Tamil, to Chicacole, where it begins to yield to the Uriya ; and inland

it prevails as far as the eastern boundary of the Maratha country and

the Mysore; including within its range the ‘Ceded districts’ and

Kurnool, the greater part of the territories of the Nizam, or the

Hyderabad country, and a portion of the Nagpore country and Gond-

wana

Formerly Telugu appears to have been spoken as far north as

the mouths of the Ganges

This appears both from the geographical

limits which are assigned by the Greeks to the territory of the Andhras,

4

or northern Telugus, and from many of the names of places mentioned

by Ptolemy as far as the mouths of the Ganges being found to be

[

id

Telugu

The Telugu people, though not the most enterprising or

16

migratory, are undoubtedly the most numerous branch of the Dravidian

3

e

race

Including the Naiks or Naidoos (‘ Nayakas’), Reddies, and other

Telugu tribes settled in the Tamil country, who are chiefly the

6

INTRODUCTION.

descendants of those soldiers of fortune by whom the Péandiya and

Chola kingdoms were subverted, and who number not much less than

a million of souls; and including also the Telugu settlers in Mysore

and the indigenous Telugu inhabitants of the Nizam’s territory and

other native states, the people who speak the Telugu language may be

estimated as amounting to at least fourteen millions.

3. The next place is occupied by the Canarese, properly the

Kannadi, or Karnataka,* which is spoken throughout the plateau of

Mysore and in some of the western districts of the Nizam’s territory,

as far north as Beder : it is spoken, also, (together with the Malayalam,

the Tuluva, and the Konkani, but more extensively than any of them)

in the district of Canara, on the Malabar coast, a distriet which

originally coustituted the Tuluva country, but which was subjected

for centuries to the rule of Canarese princes, and hence acquired the

name by which it is at present known.

Under the denomination of

Canarese many include the Coorg or Kodaga, an idiom which is spoken

by the inhabitants of the small principality of Coorg on the Western

Ghauts, and which has generally been considered rather as an ancient

and uncultivated dialect of the Canarese, modified by the Tulu, than

as a distinet language.

The Rev. Mr. Migling, a German missionary,

who has recently settled amongst the Coorgs, and who is our only

reliable anthority on the subject of their language, now states that

Coorg is more closely allied to the Tamil and Malayéla than to the

Canarese.

The speech of the Badagars (‘people from the north’),

* <Karpftaka’ is not a Drévidian, but a Sanserit word, and is properly a

It is defined to mean primarily ‘a

generic name for both Telugu and Canarese.

species of dramatic musie,” or ‘comedy :’ it is used secondarily in Telugu as an

adjective to signify ‘native,’ ‘aboriginal,’ e.gy. ‘Karnitaka mélam,” Tel. ‘native

music:’ it then became the common designation of the Telugu and Canarese, or

‘native’ languages: and, finally, was restricted still further, and became the

distinctive appellation of the Canarese alone.

I should not have nsed the word ¢ finally, for ¢ Karnataka’ has now got into

the hands of foreigners, who have given it a new and more erroneous application.

When the Mahommedans arrived in southern India, they found that part of it

with which they become first acquainted—the country above the Ghauts, including

Mysore and part of Telingdna — called ‘ the Karnitaka country.’

In course of time,

by a misapplication of terms, they applied the same name, ‘the Karnatak,’ or

‘ Carnatie,” to designate the country below the Ghaats, as well as that which was

above.

The English have carried the misapplication a step further and restricted

the name to the country below the Ghauts, which has no right to it whatever.

Hence the Mysore country, which is properly the Carnatic, is no longer called by

that name by the English, and what is now geographically termed ‘the Carnatic’

ig exclusively the country below the Ghauts, on the Coromandel coast, including

the whole of the Tamil country and the district of Nellore in the Telngu country.

The word °Karnitaka’ was further corrupted by the Canarese people

themselves into ‘Kannada’ or ‘Kannara;’ from which the language is styled

¢ Kannadi, and by the English, ‘Canarese.” A province on the Malabar coast is

called ¢ Canara,” properly ‘Kannadiyam,” in consequence of having long heen

subjected to the government of Karnitaka princes,

—

—

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

7

commonly called Burghers, the most numerous class of people inhabiting

the Nilgherry hills, is undoubtedly an ancient Canarese dialect. The

Canarese, properly so called, includes, like the Tamil, two cultivated

dialects, the ancient and the modern ; of which the former differs from

the latter, not—as classical Telugu and Malayalam differ from the

colloquial dialects of those languages—by containing a larger infusion

of Sanscrit derivatives, but by the use of different inflexional termina-

tions.

The dialect called ¢ Ancient Canarese’ is not to be confounded

with the character which is denoted by that name, and which is found

in many very ancient inscriptions in the Maratha country as well as in

Mysore.

The language of all really ancient inscriptions in the ‘ Hala

Kannada,” or Ancient Canarese character, is Sanscrit, not Canarese.

The people that speak the Canarese language, including the

Coorgs, &c.. may be estimated at five millions : but, in the case of both

the Canarese and the Telugu, the absence of a trustworthy census of

the inhabitants of native states, requires all such estimates to be con-

sidered as mere approximations.

In the Nizam’s territory four

languages—the Canarese, the Marathi, the Telugu, and the Hindustani

—are spoken by different classes or in different districts; but it is

impossible to ascertain the proportionate prevalence of each with any

degree of certainty.

This

4. The Malayalam, or ‘Malayarma, ranks next in order.

language is spoken along the Malabar coast, on the western side of the

Ghauts, or ¢ Malaya’ range of mountains, from the vicinity of Man-

galore, where it supersedes the Canarese and the Tulu, to Trivandrum,

where it begins to be superseded by the Tamil.

The people by whom

this language is spoken in the native states of Travancore and Cochin,

and in the East India Company’s districts of Malabar and Canara, may

be estimated at two and a half millions.

All along the Malabar coast

Tamil is rapidly gaining upon the Malayalam. Though that coast was

for many ages more frequented by foreigners than any other part of

India; though Phenicians, Greeks, Jews, Syrian christians, and Arabs,

traded in succession to the various ports along the coast; and though

permanent settlements were formed by the three last classes ; yet the

Malayéla people continue to be of all Drividians the most exclusive

and superstitious, and shrink most sensitively from contact with

Hence ‘the lines and centres of communication’ have

foreigners.

been seized, and the greater part of the commerce and public business

of the Malabar states has been monopolized, by the less scrupulous and

more adroit Tamilians, whose language bids fair to supersede the

MalayAlam, or at least to confine it within the limits of the hill-country

and the jungles.

o

e

——

INTRODUCTION:

5. Last in the list of cultivated Drividian tongues is the Tuiu, or

Tuluva; an idiom holding a position midway between the Canarese

and the Malayé&lam, but more nearly resembling the Canarese.

This

language was once generally prevalent in the district of Canara, but

is now spoken only in a small tract of country in the vicinity of

Mangalore, by not more than a hundred or a hundred and fifty

thousand souls.

It has been broken in upon by many other languages,

and is likely soon to disappear.

The four languages which follow differ from those that have been

mentioned in that they are entirely uncultivated, destitute of written

eharacters, and comparatively little known.

6. The Toda, properly the Tuda, or Tudava ; the language of the

Tudavars, a primitive and peculiarly interesting tribe inhabiting the

Nilgherry hills, practising quasi-Druidical rites, and commonly believed

to be the aboriginal inhabitants of those hills.

Their number could

not at any time have exceeded a few thousands ; and at present,

through opium-eating and polyandria, and through the prevalence

amongst them at a former period of female infanticide, they do not, it

is estimated, number more than from three to five hundred souls.

7. The Kota ; the language of the Kotars, a small tribe of Helot

——

craftsmen inhabiting the Nilgherry hills, and numbering about a

thousand souls.

The Tuda language may be considered as the indi-

genous speech of the Nilgherries; the Kota as a very old and very

rude dialect of the Canarese, which was carried thither by a persecuted

low-caste tribe at some very remote period. Besides those two, two

other languages are vernacular on the Nilgherry hills; viz., the dialect

which is spoken by the Burghers or Badagars, an ancient but organized

dialect of the Canurese, and the rude Tamil which is spoken by the

Trulars (¢ people of the darkness’) and Curbs or Curubars (Tam.

“ Kurumbar,” ‘nomade shepherds’), who are occasionally stumbled

upon by adventurous sportsmen in the denser, deeper jungles, and the

smoke of whose fires may occasionally he seen rising {rom the lower

gorges of the hills.

8. The Gond or Goand ; the language of the indigenous inhabitants

of the northern and western parts of the extensive hill country of

Gondwana, of the northern portion of Nagpore and of the greater part

of the Saugor and Nerbudda territories.

9. The Khond, Kund, or more properly the Ku ; the language of

the people who are commonly called Khonds, but who call themselves

Kus—a primitive race, who are supposed to be allied to the Gonds;

who inhabit the eastern parts of Gondwana, Goomsur, and the hilly

P

ranges of Orissa ; and who have acquired a bad notoriety through their

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES

9

horrid practice of stealing the children of their neighbours and offering

them up in sacrifice

I am unable to form a probable estimate of the numbers of the

people by whom the Gond and the Ku are spoken, I think, however,

that they cannot safely be estimated under half a million of souls

The proportionate numbers of the several races by whom the

languages and dialects mentioned above are spoken appear to be as

follows :—

Tamil

°

10,000,000

Telucu

14,000,000

5,000,000

Canarese

2,500,000

Malayalam

Tulu

150,000

Tuda

T O Ov i W N =

Kota

500,000

o]

Gond

©

K

——

32,150,000

According to this estimate the Dravidian race numbers upwards of

thirty-two millions of souls

There cannot be any doubt of their

numbers amounting to at least thirty millions ; of whom about twenty

millions are British subjects, and the remainder belong to the native

the

states of Hyderabad, Nagpore,* Mysore, Travancore, and Cochin

gross population of which, including all races, is estimated at twenty

millions, but is probably much greater

In this enumeration of the Dravidian languages I have not

included the idioms of the Ramusies, the Korawars, the Lambédies,

the Vedars, the Male-arasars, and various other wandering, predatory

or forest tribes

The Lambédies, the Gipsies of the Peninsula, speak

a dialect of the Hindustani

the Ramisies and the majority of the

Korawars, a patois of the Telugu

the tribes inhabiting the hills and

forests, corrupted dialects of the languages of the contiguous plains

None of these dialects is found to differ essentially from the speech of

The

the more cultivated classes residing in the same neighbourhood.

Male-arasars, ¢hill-kings’ (in Malay&lam, Mala-araans), the hill tribe

inhabiting the southern Ghauts, speak corrupt Mala,ydldm in the

northern purt of the range, where the MalayAlam is the prevailing

language, and corrupt Tamil in the southern, in the vicinity of

Tamil-speaking districts

* Since the above was written Nagpore has been incorporated with the British

territories

10

NTRODUCTION

In the above list of Dravidian languages I have not included the

idioms of certain rude tribes of Central India and the north-eastern

frontier, which have sometimes of late been included under the general

term ¢ Tamulian

I refer to the languages of the Koéls and Suras

the neighbours of the Gonds and Kunds towards the north, which

might naturally be supposed to be allied to the Gond or the Ku, and

consequently of Dravidian origin ; but which, though they contain a

few Dravidian words, belong to a totally different family of languages

Without the evidence of similarity in grammatical structure, the

discovery of a few similar words proves only local proximity, or the

existence of mutual intercourse at an earlier or later period,—not the

original relationship either of races or of languages

I leave also out of account the languages of the north-eastern

frontier of India, which are spoken by the Bddos, Dhiméls, and other

tribes inhabiting the mountains and forests between Kumaon and

Assam

These are styled ¢ Tamulian’ by Mr. Hodgson, of Nepaul

on the supposition that all the aborigines of India, as distinguished

from the Aryans, or Sanscrit-speaking race and its offshoots, belong to

one and the same stock; and that of this aboriginal race, the Tamilians

of Southern India are to be considered as the best representatives

But as the relationship of those north-eastern idioms to the languages

of the Dravidian family is a supposition which is unsupported by the

evidence either of similarity in grammatical structure or of a similax

vocabulary, and is founded only on such general grammatical ana-

logies as are common to the whole range of the Scythian group of

languages, it seems to me as improper to designate those dialects

¢ Tamulian

or

¢ Dravidian

as it would be to designate them

¢ Turkish’ or ‘Tungusian

Possibly they form a link of connection

between the Indo-Chinese, or Tibetan family of tongues, and the Kol

but even this is at present a hazardous assumption.

Prof. Max Miiller

proposes to call all the Non-Aryan languages of India, including the

Sub-Himalayan, the K6l and the Tamilian families, ¢ Nishada-lan-

guages,” the ancient aborigines being often termed ¢ Nishadas’ in the

Vedalec writings

Philologically I think the wuse of this common

term is to be deprecated, inasmuch as the Dravidian languages are

radically different from the others, as the Professor himself appears to

have perceived. For the present I have no doubt that the safest

common appellation is the negative one, ‘Non- Aryan

or

¢ Un-

Sanseritie.’

The brief vocabulary of the tribe inhabiting the Rajmahal hills in

Central India, contained in the Asiatic Researches, vol. v., and the

fuller list of words belonging to the language of the same people,

DRAVIDIAN IDIOMS NOT MERELY PROVINCIAL DIALECTS. 11

contained in Mr. Hodgson’s collections, prove that the Rajmahal idiom

is in the main Dravidian.

The proof of this fact will be exhibited in

the sequel. This language is not to be confounded with its neighbour,

the speech of the Santls, a branch of the extensive Kol family

inhabiting the Bhaugalpore range of hills, whose language belongs to

a totally different stock.

The Brahui, the language of the mountaineers in the khanship of

Kelat in Beluchistan, contains, not only some Dravidian words, but

a considerable infusion of unquestionably Dravidian forms and idioms ;

in consequence of which this language has a much better claim to be

regarded as Dravidian or Tamulian than any of the languages of the

Nipal and Bhutin frontier, which had been styled ‘Tamulian’ by

Mr. Hodgson.

I have not included, however, the Brahui, or the

Rajmahal and Uraon, in the list of Drividian languages which are

to be subjected to systematic comparison (though I shall give some

account of them in the sequel, and shall refer to them occasionally for

illustration), because the Dravidian element contained in those lan-

guages bears but a small proportion to the rest of their component

elements.

Tae DRAVIDIAN IDIOMS NOT MERELY PROVINCIAL DIALECTS OF THE

SAME LANGUAGE.

Though I have described the nine vernacular idioms mentioned in

the foregoing list as dialects of one and the same original Dra-

vidian language, it would be erroneous to consider them as dialects’

in the popular sense of the term,—viz., as provincial peculiarities or

varieties of speech.

Of all those idiomg no two are so nearly related

to each other that persons who speak them can be mutually under-

stood.

The most nearly related are the Tamil and the Malayalam ;

and yet it is only the simplest and most direct sentences in the one

language that are intelligible to those who speak only the other.

Involved sentences in either language, abounding in verbal and

nominal inflections, or in conditions and reasons, will be found by

The

those who speak only the other language to be unintelligible.

Tamil, the Malayalam, the Telugu, and the Canarese, have each a

distinet and independent literary culture ; and each of the three

former—the Tamil, the Malayilam, and the Telugu—has a system

The Canarese character has

of witten characters peculiar to itself.

been borrowed from that of the Telugu, and differs bnt slightly from

I

it ; but the Canarese language differs even more widely from the

Telugu than it does from the Tamil ; and the ancient Canarese

character is totally unconnected with the character of the Telugu.

9

INTRODUCTION.

The Malayalam being, as I conceive, an ancient offshoot of the

Tamil, differing from it chiefly by the disuse of the personal termina-

tions of the verbs,* it might, perhaps, be regarded rather as a very

ancient dialect of the Tamil than as a distinct language.

Its separa-

?

tior from Tamil evidently took place at a very early period, before

the Tamil was cultivated and refined. Through the predowinance of

Brahmanical influence in the Malayala country, the Malayalam has

not been cultivated ab intra to any considerable extent ; and the infu-

sion into it of a large proportiou of Sanscrit words is almost the only

refinement which it has received. The proportion of Sanscrit words

which has been adopted by the Drividian languages is least in

Tamil, most in Malayélam ; and the modern Malayala character

has been borrowed with but little alteration from the Grantham—

the character in which Sanscrit is written in the Tamil country,

and which corresponds to the Déva-nagari of Northern India.

In

consequence of these things, the difference between the Tamil and

the Malayélam, though originally slight, has progressively increased ;

and hence the claim of the Malay&lam to be considered, not merely as

a dialect of the Tamil, but as a sister language, or at least as a very

ancient and much altered offshoot, cannot now be called in question.

The Tulu has been represented by Mr. Ellis as a dialect of the

Malayalam ; but although Malayéla characters are ordinarily employed

in writing Tulu, in consequence of the prevalence of Malayilam in

the vicinity, and the literary inferiority of the Tulus, it appears to me

capable of the clearest proof that the relation of the Tulu to the

It differs

Canarese 1s nearer than its relation to the Malayalam.

* The derivation of the Malaydlam from the Tamil is well illustrated by the

word which is used by it to signify < Bast.’

It is ‘Kirakka,” meaning ‘beneath,’

or ‘downwards,’ which is properly a Tamil word, and corresponds to that which

isused to denote ¢ West,—viz., ‘Merku,” ‘above’ or ‘upwards; both of which

words necessarily originated in the Tamil country, or the country on the eastern

side of the Ghauts; where a lofty range of mountains rises everywhere to the

westward, and where, consequently to go westward is to go ‘upwards;’ whilst

to the eastward the country slopes ‘downwards’ to the sea.

The configuration

of the Malayila country is directly and strikingly the reverse of this,— the moun-

tain range being to the eastward, and the sea to the westward. Notwithstanding

this, the Malayila word for ‘East’ is ¢ Kirakka, ** downwards,” identical with

the Tamil word ‘Kirakku,-—a clear proof that the Malayilam is an offshoot from

the Tamil, and that the people by whom it is spoken were originally a colony of

Tamilians. It is evident that they entered the Malayala country through the

Paul ghaut Gap, and from thence spread themselves along the coast, northward

to Mangalore, and southward to Trivandrum. Throughout the Malayala gram-

mar I have noticed only two forms which are not contained either in the collo-

quial or in the high dialect of the Tamil: those two forms are'a dative in ‘a,’

which is used in some instances after ‘n,’ instead of the more usual sign of the

m

dative, ‘kka; and a plural suffix of the second person of the imperative,—viz.

in; which is peculiar to this language,—except, indeed, it is derived from the

high Tamil ‘min.’

RUDER DRAVIDIAN

TONGUES.

13

widely and essentially from the Tamil; and hence the tradition which is

mentioned by Mr. Taylor, that the ancient * Kurumbars,” or ‘ nomadie

shepherds,” in the neighbourhood of Madras were expelled and their

lands seized upon by Vellalars from Tuluva, appears to be highly

improbable.

The colloquial Tamil of the neighbourhood of Madras is

characterized by an infusion of the peculiarities, not of the Tulu, but

of the Telugu

Of the five cultivated Drividian dialects mentioned above—the

Tamil, the Telugu, the Canarese, the Malayala, the Tulu, —the farthest

removed from each other are the Tamil and the Telugu.

The great

majority of the roots in both languages are, it is true, identical ; but

they are often so disguised in composition by peculiarities of inflexion

and dialectic changes, that not one entire sentence in the one language

is intelligible to those who are acquainted only with the other.

The

various Drividian idioms, though sprung from a common origin, are

therefore, to be considered not as mere provincial dialects of the same

They are as

speech, but as distinet though affiliated languages.

distinet one from the other as the Spanish from the Portugu:se, the

Irish from the Welsh, the Hebrew from the Aramaic, the Hindi from

the Bengéli.

If the cultivated Dravidian idioms differ so materially

from each other, it will naturally be supposed that the uncaltivated

idioms— the Tuda, the Kota, the Gond, and the Ku—must differ still

more widely both from one another and from the cultivated languages.

This supposition is in accordance with facts.

So many and great are

the differences and peculiarities which are observable amongst these

rude dialects, that it bas seemed to me to be necessary to prove, not

that they differ, but that they belong, notwithstanding their differ-

<o

ences, to the same stock as the more cultivated tongues, and that they

have an equal right to be termed ¢Dravidian.’

Evipence tHAT THE TupA, Kora, Gonp, AND KU, ARE REALLY

DrAvIDIAN ToNGUES.

It is unnecessary to state in this general introduction, the parti-

culars in which the cultivated Dravidian idioms agree with one another,

Sy e AR T P e eogdes T

and the evidences of their essential unity even in minor matters and

of their common origin : but the Tuda, Kota, Gond, and Ku being

rude uncultivated dialects, and little known, it appears to be desirable

D u — SRS -

at the outset to furnish the reader with proofs of the assertion that

=~

<

those languages belong to the same Dravidian stock as the Tamil and

=

the Telugu.

Their Dravidian character and connections will appear

=

from the following statement of particulars, which I have ascertained

concerning each of them respectively.

14

INTRODUCTION.

(1.) Tuba.—Tt is a favourite opinion with many persons in India that the

language of the Tudars is altogether sui generis, or at least that it is unconnected

with any of the languages of the Drividian races of the neighbouring plains. In

adopting the conclusion that the Tuda language belongs to the Drividian stock,

and justly claims to be regarded as a Drividian dialect, the evidence on which

I place most reliance is that of a list of words and short sentences which was

kindly communicated to me by the Rev. Mr. Metz, German missionary at Kaity,

on the Nilgherry hills. Mr. Metz’s acquaintance with the language of the Tudars,

is believed to be more accurate than that which has been acquired by any other

European ; and though his knowledge is confessedly defective in the department

of verbal modifications and syntax, his list of vocables may be fully depended

upon : and inasmuch as 4is knowledge of the Tuda has been acquired through

the medium of the language of the Badagars, a language with which he is inti-

mately acquainted, it cannot be supposed in his case (as was supposed by some

persons with respect to the Rev. Dr. Schmid’s inquiries), that he may have

accepted Badaga words for Tuda, through ignorance of the dialectic peculiarities

of the old Canarese idiom which is spoken by the Badagars.

The following words—* prerogative instances, as they would be called by

Abel Remusat—prove the Drividian character of the Tuda language.

Tupa.

Hicua Tamrn, &ec.

an*

yan ; 4n, Ancient Can.

we

om

yam, 6m

thou

ni

ni

you

nima

nim, Ancient Can.

my

en

en

thy

nin

nin

he (proximate)

ivan

ivan

they (ditto)

ivar

ivar

he (remote)

avan

avan

avar

they (ditto)

avar

three

mitdu

mdu, Tel.

four

nanku

ningn

SIX

an

Aru

ten

poth’

pattu

hundred

nfir

nfiru

a person

al

al

father

af)pam

abpan

mother

avva

avva, ‘grand-mother’ in Tel.

son

mach

mag-an

hand

kai

kei

foot

kal

kal

eye

kannu

kan, kannu

mouth

bai

val

ear

kevi

kevi, Can.

moon

tiggalu

tingal

sky

bén

vin-am

day

nal

ill

nil.

night

irul, ¢ darkness’ in Tamil

water

nir

nir

£

fire

nebbu

il

nippu, Tel.

* In the Tuda language 4 is pronounced broad like aw in fawn.”

iUDER

DRAVIDIAN

TONGUES.

15

The Tuda words given above scarcely at all differ from their Tamil, Canarese,

i»

and Telugu equivalents.

In many cases, however, the word, though undoubtedly

Dravidian, can scarcely be recognised in its Tuda shape.

The following are

examples of this:—

Tupa

Tawmin, &ec.

tooth

pal

parsh

tiger

puli, pili

pirsh

veyil

birsh

sun, or sunlight

finger

viral

bolh

belly

vayaru

bir

fruit

param

vom

In the above examples the regular change of I into rsh is especially deserving

of notice.

In some cases the Tuda words correspond to the Telugu rather than the

Tamil, e. g.

TAMIL.

TELUGU

TuDA.

tree

maram

méinu

maeéna

fire

neruppu

nippu

nebbu

Sometimes the Tuda corresponds with the Canarese, rather than with either

the Telugu or the Tamil, e. g.

TAMIL.

TELUGU.

CANARESE.

TupA.

small

s'inna

chinna

kinna

kin

ear

sevi

chevi

kevi

kevi

The Tuda generally agrees more exactly with the Tamil than with the Telugu,

the Canarese, or any other Drividian idiom.

In many particulars so close is this

agreement that the Tuda might be considered as merely a corrupt patois of the

Tamil, were it not that in a still larger number of instances it differs, not only from

the Tamil, but also from every other Dravidian dialect, pursuing a course of its own

with a vocabulary of its own; in consequence of which it must be regarded as a

On an examination of the Tuda words contained

distinet member of the family.

in the lists in my possession, exclusive of pronouns and numerals (which are

throughout Drividian), forty per cent. are found to be allied to Drividian words

belonging to the languages of the adjacent plains, whilst sixty per cent. appear

to be either independent of those languages or to be so greatly corrupted and

disguised that their relationship cannot now be ascertained.

The following comparison of the forms of the present and future tenses of

the substantive verb in Tuda with those of the Tamil will illustrate the verbal

The root of the substantive verb in Tamil and in

inflexions of this language.

Canarese is ‘ir

In Tuda the corresponding root is ‘ers,” ‘etars,” or ‘esh.’

TAMIL.

TupA.

I am

yan irukkirén

4n eshken

thou art

ni irukkirai

ni etersbi

he is

avan irukkirin

avan etarji

we are

Am etarsbimi

yam irukkirdm

ye are

nir irukkirir

nima etarshi

avar irukkirfr

avar etarshi

they are

16

INTRODUCTION.

TAMIL

TuDA.

I shall be

yan iruppén

an ersbini

I -

thou wilt be

nf iruppai

ni ersbi

he will be

avan iruppan

avan ersje

we shall be

Am ershimi

yam irupp'Gm

ye will be

nir iruppir

nima ersshi

avar ersshi

they will be

avar iruppir

It is evident that the third person singular and plural of each

of the Tuda

tenses is destitute of personal terminations.

This is in accordance in part with

the usage of the Canarese, and still more with that of the Telugu.

i

The Tuda language contains exceedingly few words of Sanscrit origin, and

those few have evidently been derived from the intercourse of the Tudars with

their neighbours the Badagars, colonists from the Canarese country,—e.g.,

‘der, God, from the Canarese ‘dévar, and the Sanserit ‘déva;’ and ‘budi,

wisdom, from ‘buddhi,’ the Sanscrit word for wisdom adopted in the Canarese.

The substantial agreement of the Tuda with the other Drividian languages in

its pronouns, its numerals, the first and second persons of its verbal inflections,

[

and in forty per cent. of its stock of ordinary vocables, proves beyond all doubt

[4

the propriety of considering it as a Drividian dialect; and it seems scarcely less

il

certain that of all the Drividian idioms the Tamil is that to which it is most

i,

fh

nearly allied. Sixty per cent. of its words appear, indeed, to be unconnected

la

with the vocabularies of the other dialects; but those words are chiefly such as

T P VB i g e 1 A

are remote from the daily business of life, and which are therefore of all words

il

the most apt to become corrupted by a barbarous, isolated tribe.

It is also to be

I

|

remembered that each of the cultivated Drividian languages contains a consider-

al

able number of roots of this secondary, fleeting class, which are not found in any

10

other dialect of the family. Such words do not necessarily belong to an Extra-

Dravidian source ; for no one language of any fam'ly whatever is in possession of

all the roots which originally belonged to the parent stem. Rach dialect of the

I

Sanserit, of the Classical, and of the Germanic families of tongues is found to have

retained a certain number of roots which the other dialects have suffered to

[{

80

become obso'ete.

Whilst the language and customs of the Tudars have always

Ig;

(2.) Kora.

10

been regarded with peculiar interest, the Kotars (a tribe of craftsmen, residing

%&j

tho

from an unknown antiquity on the Nilgherry hills), being exceedingly filthy in

{hy

their habits, and addicted Leyond all other low caste tribes to the eating of

iy

carrion, have generally becn shunned by Europeans ; and, in consequence, their

language is less known than that of the Tudars. Notwithstanding this, the

it}

following paradigm of the Kota pronouns and of the present tense of its verb,

which was furnished me by the Rev. Mr. Biihler, of Kaity, will show that the

Iy

language of this degraded tribe is essentially Drividian :—

i} I

Kora.

AncrENT CANARESE.

Igo

ane hogabe

4n pdgdapén

fin

ir

0ft

thou goest

ni hdgabi

nin pogdapi

¢

he goes

awana hogako

avam pogdapam

adg

we go

name hogabemme

am pdgdapévu

ye go

niye hégabirri

nim pogdapir

emp

they go

awane hégako

avar pogdapar

deriy

i

E

—

T

RUDER DRAVIDIAN TONGUES.

17

In this paradigm the first person plural, both of the pronoun and of the verb,

and the second person plural of the verb, accord most with the Tamil ; the other

forms agree most with the Ancient Caranese, particularly the formative suffix of

the present tense of the verb, which is ‘dap’ in Ancient Caranese, and ‘ab’ in

the Kota.

In the use of ‘h’ instead of ‘p’ (‘hdgu,’ to go, instead of ‘pdgu’), the

Kota accords with the modern Caranese.

The third person of the Kota verb,

which is formed, both in the singular and the plural, by the suffix ‘ko, seems

If we

at first sight entirely unconnected with all other Drividian forms.

consider it, however, not as a verb properly so called, but as an abstract verbal

;)

noun, which acquires the force of a verb from juxta-position with a pronoun, like

b

the third person in the Persian verb, it may easily be brought within the range of

Drividian analogies; for many such verbal nouns in the other dialects end in

I

Sk ‘kel’ “ka’ ‘ge’ &e.

The sign of the genitive case in Kéta is ‘a,’ of

h

the dative, ‘ke,” of the locative, ‘olge,’—all which forms correspond with those

Js

which are found in the other dialects.

The preterite is formed by changing

ly

‘ka’ or ‘ga’ into ‘ji’ or ‘di;y—e.g., ‘hégako,” he goes; ‘hdjiko, he went:

‘tinkabe,” I eat; ‘tindibe, 7 ate. In this also we see a family resemblance to the

n

manner in which the other dialects, especially the Telugu, form their preterites.

:

X,

The Kota forms its infinitive by the addition of ‘alik’ to the root,—e. g., ¢tin,

bt

eat ; ‘tinalik,” to eat.

The. infinitives of the corresponding verb in Canarese

o8

are ‘tinna,” ‘tinnalu,” ¢tinnalike.

On the whole, though certain analogies with

b

the Tamil and also with the Tulu may be observed in the Kota, I regard this

ol

language as more nearly allied to the Canarese than to any other Drividian idiom.

a8

3. Tae GOND.—The very complete grammar and vocabulary of the Mahadeo

8

dialect of the GoOnd language, which was compiled by the Rev. Mr. Driberg, a

be

late missionary of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in the Saugor

el

and Nerbudda country, and which was published at Bishop’s College, Calcutta,

ny

in 1849, together with Dr. Manger’s interesting paper on the dialect of the Saonee

14

(Seoni) Gonds, including ¢ The Song of Sandsumjee,” in the Journal of the Bengal

of

Asiatic Society,—contain so many proofs of the close affinity of the Gond

the

language to the Tamil, the Telugu, and the Canarese, that it seems quite unne-

5

It is not

Ve

cessary to prove in detail that it is a member of the Drividian family.

to

80 easy to determine to which of the cultivated Drividian dialects it is most

nearly allied.

In many respects it accords most with the Telugu, its neighbour

ays

to the South and East; but on the whole, it is more closely allied to the Tamil,

ing

though locally of all Drividian dialects the farthest removed from it—a proof

i

‘that the claim of the Tamil to be considered as the best representative of the

rOf

primitive condition of these languages is not destitute of foundation.

el

The chief particulars in which the Gond agrees with the Telugu, rather than

the

with the Tamil or with the Canarese, are as follows :—

Clb;

(1.) The pronouns of the first and second persons, especially the second

{he

person plural, have most resemblance to the Telugu.

Compare ‘mik,’ Gond,

to you, Telugu, ‘miku,’ with the Tamil ‘umakku’ and the Canarese ‘ nimage.’

(2.) Another point of resemblance to the Telugu consists in the absence of a

feminine form of the pronoun of the third person singular and of the third person

of the verb, and the use of the neuter singular for the feminine singular.

(3.) The Gond preterite verbal participle is formed, like the Telugu, by the

addition of ‘si’ or ‘ji’ to the root, instead of the ‘du’ which is so largely

employed by the Tamil and Canarese.

(4.) A certain number of roots of secondary importance and a few Sanserit

derivatives seem to have been borrowed by the Génd from the Telugu ;- e. g.,

C

18

INTRODUCTION.

‘nattur, blood, from the Telugu, ‘netturu, a corrupt derivative from the

Sanscrit, ¢ ractam.’

In some instances again the Gond agrees remarkably with the Canarese; e. g.,

the G6nd infinitive is in ‘4lle,” or ‘ille.’ In Telugu and Tamil the infinitive is

invariably in ¢a:’ the Tamil has a verbal noun ending in “al,” of which the dative

is used as a supine ; and the High Tamil occasionally, but the Canarese ordinarily

The Gond also like the Canarese some-

uges this very form al’ as an infinitive.

times prefers ¢k’ where the Telugu has ‘ch’ and the Tamel ‘s;’ e. g., the ear, is

in Tamil, ‘Sevi; Telugu, ‘chevi; Canarese, ‘kevi; in Gond also, ‘ kaovi’

To

do, is in Tamil, ‘dey; Telugu, ‘chéj; Canarese, ‘géy’ (g hard); Gond, ‘ki.’

Such agreements of the Gond with the Canarese are rare; but the particulars in

which the Go6nd agrees with the Tamil, though the Telugu country lies between

it and the country in which the Tamil is spoken, are very numerous and important.

The following are specimens of this agreement.

(1.) The Telugu has but one form for the plural of nouns substantive, the

suffix ‘lu; the Tamil has two, ‘ar’ and ‘kal’ the former epicene, the latter

neuter : the Gond also has two, ‘ar’ and ‘k.

(2.) The instrumental case of the Telugu is formed by the addition of ‘ chéta:’

the Gond like the Tamil uses ¢al.’

(8.) The Go6nd differs from the Telugu, and accords with the Tamil in retaining

unaltered the initial vowel of its pronouns in the oblique cases. Thus, from ‘adi,

Telugu, ¢, comes ‘déni,” of #¢; Tamil, ¢adin,’ of i¢; GOnd, ‘adena.

(4.) The Telugu negative particles are ‘1édu,’” there is not, and ‘kédu,” ¢ @s

ﬂ

not ; the corresponding particles in Tamil are ‘illei” and alla;’ in GOnd, * hille’

and ¢ halle.’

(5.) The Telugu systematically uses ‘d” instead of the Tamil vocalic ‘r: the

Gond retains the ‘r’ of the Tamil; e. g., ‘édu’ or “adalu,” Telugu, fo weep ;

Tamil ‘ara,” Gond ‘ara.

So also compare ‘édu, Telugu, seven, with Tamil

“éru’ and Gond ¢éro.

A considerable number of Go6nd roots denoting objects of primary importance

correspond with the Tamil rather than the Telugu; e. g.

TELUGU.

TAMIL.

GOND.

one

okati

ondru

und

three

mindru

mund

!

mfidu

i

hand

chéy

kei

kai

tree

manu

maram

marri

f]

great

pedda

peru, paru

paror

to come

vachcha (vatssa) vara

wara

al

[h\

In a large number of instances the Go6nd, though retaining the same roots as

il

the other Drividian dialects, modifies those roots after a fashion peculiar to itself.

o

This will appear on comparing the following Tamil and Gond words.

i

TAMIL.

GOND.

I

of

flower

ph

pungar

belly

vayaru

pir

i

il

boy

peiyal

perdgal

to fall

vira

ara

P

nira

niha

b

to fill

light

velicham

verchi

hy

walle

an

many

pala

Lo

RUDER DRAVIDIAN TONGUES.

1D

16

TAMIL.

GOND.

district

Jy

nadu

nér (a village)

dew

pani

pini (cold)

18

break

urreha

Ve

udei

Iy

Notwithstanding the affinities between the Génd and the other Drividian

17

dialects which have now been mentioned ana illustrated, the Gond possesses

18

a large number of roots which are not found elsewhere, and exhibits peculiarities

[o

of grammatical structure of such a nature as amply to justify our regarding it as

4!

a distinet dialect.

The difference existing between the Tamil and the Telugu

n

sinks into insignificance when compared with the difference between the Gond

e

and every other dialect of the Dravidian family.

In the list of Génd words given

nf

by Mr. Driberg, I have been able to identify only thirty-four per cent. as words

contained in or allied to those that are found in the other dialects, which is a

the

smaller proportion than that which is contained even in the Tuda.

ter

The principal particulars in which the grammatical siructure of the Génd

differs from that of the other dialects are as follows :—

£}

(1.) Like the idioms of Northern India, the Génd evinces a tendency to con-

found the dative with the accusative, though in possession of both forms.

mg

(2.) It has a passive voice formed, as in some of those Northern idioms, by

di,

prefixing the past participle of the active voice to the substantive verb.

(3.) The remote and proximate demonstratives (¢ille, ¢hic,’) which in

18

Tamil are ‘avar,” ‘ivar;’ in Telugu ‘varu, ‘viru; are in Gond corrupted into

‘wor’ and ‘yer.’

Ile’

(4.) The base of the interrogative pronouns in all the other dialects is ‘y4 ;

in this it is ‘bd, or ‘bo.

the

oy

(5.) Instead of the regularly formed negative voice of the other dialects, the

Gond forms its negative verbs by simply prefixing the negative particles ¢hills,’

il

or ‘halle,” to the verb. For example, thou art not, or thou becomest mot (in

Tamil ¢4ghy,’ in Telugu, ‘kivu’), is in Gdénd ‘halle aivi.

A similar use

ance

of the negative particle is found in the Kota language.

The only thing in the

other dialects which at all corresponds to this, is the occasional formation in

poetical Tamil of a negative verb by the insertion of the negative particle ‘al’

between the root of the verb and the pronominal suffix ; e. g.,

not, for ‘pés-én.’

‘pésal-én, 1 speak4

(6.) The chief difference, however, in point of grammatical structure between

the Gond and the other Drividian dialects, consists in its peculiarly elaborate

and complete conjugational system. The Tamil, the Malayilam, the Canarese, and

the Tulu possess only a present, an indefinite past, and a future tense,—the future

more or less aoristic.

fs 88

The Telugu, in addition to these tenseg, has a regularly

formed aorist. The indicative and the imperative are the only moods which these

tgelf

dialects possess, and they are destitute of a passive voice properly so called. All

modifications of mood and tense are formed by means either of auxiliary verbs or

of suffixed particles.

Whilst the more cultivated Dravidian idioms are so simple

in structure, the speech of the rude Mahadeo Génds boasts in a system of verbal

modifications and inflexions almost as elaborate as that of the Turkish.

It has a

passive voice: in addition to the indicative and the imperative moods, it possesses

a potential: in the indicative mood, where the Tamil has only three tenses, it

has a present, an imperfect definite, an indefinite past, a perfect, a conditional,

and a future, each of which is regularly inflected : like the other idioms, it has a

causal verb, but it stands alone in having also an inceptive. In these particulars

€2

-

INTRODUCTION.

20

the Gond grammar has acquired a development peculiar to itself, perhaps in some

degree through the influence of the highly inflected Santdl, its Kol neighbour to

the northward.

(4.) Tae Ku.* The Kond, Khond, or Ku language, undoubtedly a Drévidian

idiom, has generally been considered as identical with the Gond. It was stated

long ago by Captain Blunt in the Asiatic Researches, vol, vii., on the authority

of a native Jaghiredar, that the Goénds and Khunds are totally distinct races :

notwithstanding this, I have not met with any account of their languages in which

they have been regarded as different, though in truth their differences are

numerous and essential. In many particulars the Ku accords more closely than

the Gond with the Tamil, the Telugu apd the other Drividian tongues; in some

things less so.

For example :—

(1.) The Gond forms its infinitive in ‘alle, or ¢ille;’ the Ku, like the

Telugu, the Tamil, and the modern Canarese, forms its infinitive by suffixing

¢a,’ sometimes ¢va, or ‘pa’ Thus, fo become, is in Gond ‘aialle; in Telugu,

)

¢kay in Canarese, ‘4gal’ or ‘iga; in Tamil, ‘4ga; in Ku, ‘4va

(2.) The Ku retains the simplicity of the conjugational system of the other

Dravidian dialects, in contradistinetion to the elaborateness of the Gond.

(3.) The Goénd forms its negatives by prefixing to the indicative aorist the

In this point the Ku differs

geparate negative particles “hille,” or “ halle.”

from the Godnd, and agrees with the other dialects. Thus, 7 do not, is in Gond

“hille kion; in Tamil ‘seyyén; in Telugu ‘chéyanu; in Canarese ¢ géyenu,’

in Ku “giénu.’

In the following instances the Ku accords more closely with the Tamil and

1'11]

Canarese, though locally very remote, than with its nearer neighbour the

t

Telugu.

I

(1.) The Telugu forms its plurals by the use of lu’ alone, except in some

of the oblique forms of the ‘rational’ demonstratives. The Ku, like the Tamil,

makes a difference between the plurals of nouns which denote rational beings,

The Tamil suffix of the first class of

and those of nouns of the inferior class.

plurals is ¢ar,’ of the second class ‘kal:’ the corresponding suffixes in Ku are

“4ru’ or ‘ru, and ‘ka.

(2.) The Telugu forms its masculine singular by means of the suffix ‘du?’

§

the Canarese and Tamil by ‘anu’ and ‘an.’

The Ku by means of the suffix

I

‘Afiju’ or ‘4nyu.’ Thus, compare ‘vadu,” Telugu, he, with the Tamil ‘avan,’

1

Canarese ‘avanu, Ku ‘avéfju.’

U

(3.) The Ku pronouns bear a closer resemblance to the Tamil and Canarese

i

than to the Telugu and Gond, as will appear from the following comparative

view :—

TELUGU.

GOND.

T AMIL.

CANARESE.

Ku

!

I

nénu

and

yan (ancient

4n (ancient)

anu

we

mému

amab

ydm (do.)

am

(do.)

amu

thou

nivu

1ma

ni

ninu

fnu

§

miru

imat

nir

nivue

iru

ye

avanu

he, remote

vadu

wor

avan

avafiju

he, proximate

vidu

yer

ivan

ivanu

ivadiju

* See a 1-ucid1y arranged grammar of this language prepared by Lingam

T ————

Letchmajee, Deputy Translator to the Ganjam Agency, and published in Uriya

I have

characters in the Calcutta Christian Observer for May and June, 1853.

—

not seen any notice in any scientific work or periodical of this valuable contribu-

tion to our knowledge of the Indian languages.

21

RUDER DRAVIDIAN TONGUES.

16

0

(d.) In the Dravidian languages contingency is expressed by the addition of a

particle to any verbal tense, person or number.

A

This subjunctive suffix is in

Telugu ¢ éni’ or

‘e

in Canarese ‘re, ‘rQl) or ‘agyu.’

One of the suffixes

il

employed in the Tamil is ‘kkal,’ which in the speech of the vulgar becomes

i

<kki s and this very particle ‘kkA’ added, as in Tamil, to the preterite, is the

)

suffix by which the Ku also forms conditional or contingent verbs: e.g., If 1 do,

is in Telugu ‘nénu chéyudunéni; in Canarese ‘ninu géyidare; in colloquial

ch

Tamil this is ‘nin cheyddkkd; in Ku also, (from the root gi,’ to do), it is ‘4nu

16

gitekki.’

an

On the other hand, in the following particulars the Gond agrees more closely

16

with the Telugu than with the Tamil or Canarese.

(1) It uses the neuter singular to denote the feminine singular.

he

(2.) The oblique cases or “inflexions” of the pronouns of the first and

ng

second persons, singular and plural, are identical with those of the Telugu.

Uy

(8.) The case terminations of the Ku are nearly in accordance with those of the

Telugu.

er

(4.) The pronominal signs suffixed to the Ku verbs accord on the whole better

with the Telugu than with any other dialect : e.g., in Tamil the second and third

the

persons plural end differently, the one ‘ir, the other ‘ar; in Telugu they end

oS

alike—both generally in ‘aru; in Ku also both these persons end alike in ¢ eru.’

ind

(5.) In Canarese all relative participles, including that of the negative verb, end

in ‘a; in Tamil all relative participles, with the exception of that of the future,

Dl

have the same ending: in Telugu the relative participle of the indefinite or

and

aoristic tense ends in ‘edi,” or ‘eti; and in the Ku also the relative past par-

the

ticiple exhibits this ending. Thus, ¢4na,’ Tamil, that became; in Canarese, ‘4da;’

in Telugu (indefinite tense), ‘ ayyéti; in Ku the same form is ‘4ti.

The various particularsand illustrations which have now been mentioned prove

me

111117

the Ku to be totally distinct from the Gond ; and though it is allied to it, it is

allied only in the same manner as to the other Drévidian languages.

In some

ng*

g of

points this language differs from all the other dialects of the family; for example,

it forms its past verbal participles not by means of the suffixes ‘du, ‘i, or ‘si,

e

the only suffixes known in the other dialects, but by suffixing to the root ‘4,

fu!

sometimes ‘sd’ or ‘ji, after the manner of some of the languages of Northern

India.

In the other dialects of this family the negative verb possesses only one

iffis

(an,

tense, an aorist; the Ku, in addition to this negative aorist, has also a negative

preterite,—a decided advantage over the other dialects.

The Ku suffixes of the

rese

present verbal participles are also different from those which are found in the other

Drividian dialects. The formative suffix of the present verbal participle is in

gtive

)

Telugu chu’ or ¢tu;

in the Canarese ‘ta’ or ‘te; in the Ku it is i’ or ‘pi.

The four dialects referred to above—the Tuda, Ko6ta, Génd and

Ku—though rude and uncultivated, are undoubtedly to be regarded

as distinctively and essentially Dravidian dialects, equally with the

Tamil and Telugu.

In addition to these, there are two uncultivated

idioms of Central India, the Uréon and the R4jmahal, which contain

so many Dréavidian roots of primary importance that they may claim

g

to be considered as originally members of the same family, though

Tripp

hat

they contain also a large admixture of roots and forms belonging

b

to the Kol dialects. The Urdon is considered by Mr. Hodgson as a

22

INTRODUCTION.

connecting link between the Kol and the Rajmahal ; and the Rajma-

il

hal as a connecting link between the K6l and the Tamulian families,

(1

The Rajmahal is more distinctively Dravidian than the ﬁrﬁon, though

{

the Males or aborigines of the Rdjmahal or D{Iale range by whom it is

8l

spoken, are locally more remote than the Urdons from the present

fi

seats of the DrAvidian race.

The Kols intervene between the Males

and the Dravidians ; but whilst the Male is substantially a Dravidian

0

tongue, the Kol belongs to a totally different family.

It

In the list of R4jmahal or Male words given by Mr. Hodgson, sixteen per cent,

are purely Drividian ; in the older list, given in the Asiatic Researches, the Dri-

vidian roots form only ten per cent. In the Urfon list the proportion of Drividian

roots is fourteen per cent.

The principal and most essential analogies which I have noticed are as

follows :—

§

RASMAHAL,

URAON.

Tamin, &e.

eye

kiné

khin

kan

I

eye-lash

kan-meer

kan-mayir

hand

sésht

kﬁheiziﬁh

chéyi (Tel.), kyé (Canar.)

ear

0of

kkhétway

kadu, kél, to hear

th

mouth

bai

vay

tooth

pall

pall

pal

1

hair

tali

talei, head

§

father

abi

appa

il

mother

ayi

aya

ayyo-

D

tree

man

man

mén-u (Tel.)

flower

plp

phip

pl; plppu, a flowering

min

min

fish

i

dove

plirah

purd

tilah

61

scorpion

pain

nogi

nogu, to pain

above

méché

méyajl;

mél, mélé

below

e

kiyah

kir, kiré

within

flé

fila

ul, ullé

1

en

enan

nin, én

1o

thou

nin

nien

nin (Can.)

he, she, it

ith

asan

ata (Can.), he, adu, ¢¢; adum,

By

(Tuda), ke, she, it

of

we

nam, om

en

nim, dm

ye

nina (nim in nimki,

nim (Can.)

a0y

Teo

Yyours)

it

they

awir, asabar

avar

this

th

i

that

ah

&

here

ino

inge

there

ino

ange

one

art, orb

ﬁnt,émlll.

or, ondru

two

en-otan

(Sanserit)

rendu (Tel.), ranu (Gond.)

three

(do.)

man-otan

mfinna (Malayal).

our

(do.)

nakh-otan

nilku, nanku

the

1)

B—

—

23

THE BRAHUIL

Unfortunately the inflexions of the Rdjmahal and Urdon nouns and verbs are

not given in any of the lists, so that, with the exception of a few incidental parti-

culars, the grammatical counstruction of these languages remains unknown. In

the particulars that follow they accord with the Dravidian grammatical rules.

The Rijmahal expresses the prepositions to, in, on, &c., by suffixes. Its dative

suffix is ‘kus ‘m’ is the sign of the plural number of the pronouns of the

first and second persons, replacing ‘n,’ the corresponding sign of the singular;

“ar’ is the sign of the plural of epicene pronouns of the third person. The sign

of the possessive pronouns is ki, or in the Urfon ‘ghi,’ corresponding appa-

rently to the ‘ké, ki, of the Hindi, and more remotely to the *yoka’' of the

Telugu.

The existence of a distinetively Dravidian element in these abori-

ginal dialects of Central India being established, the Dravidian race

can now be traced as far North as the banks of the Ganges ; and the

supposition (which was deduced from other considerations) that this

race was diffused at an early period throughout India is confirmed.

The Brahui, the language of the Belichi mountaineers in the khanship

of Kelat enables us to trace the Dravidian race beyond the Indus to

the southern confines of Central Asia.

The Brahui language, con-

sidered as a whole, is derived from the same source as the Panjabi and

Sindhi ; but it unquestionably ¢ontains a Dravidian element, an ele-

ment which has probably been derived from a remnant of the ancient

Dravidian race incorporated with the Brahuis.

The discovery of this

Dravidian element in a language spoken beyond the Indus proves that

the Dravidians, like the Aryans, the Graeco-Scythians and the Turco-

Mongolians, entered India by the north-western route.

The following is an outline of the particulars in which the Brahui is fognd to

be allied to the Drévidian tongues.

(1.) In Brahui, as in the Drividian dialects, the cases of nouns are denoted by

post-positions.

(2.) The gender of nouns is expressed not by their inflexions, but by prefixed

separate words.

(3.) The number of nouns is ordinarily denoted by the use of separate particles

ly

of pluralisation, such as many, several, &e. When a noun stands alone without

any such sign of plurality, its number is considered to be indefinite, and it is then

regarded as singular or plural according to the context, or the number of the verb

with which it agrees.

This rule is remarkably in accordance with the Tamil.

(4.) Adjectives are destitute of comparatives and snperlatives.

(5.) Pronouns form their genitives in ‘mna’ or ‘aj eg., ‘kana,” of me;

‘nana,’ of us. Compare Tamilian ‘nama,’ of us, and the Gond genitive suffix

‘na’ or ‘a.’

(6.) The Brahui dative-accusative is in ‘e’ Compare the Malayéila accusative

€&’ Tamil ‘ei’

(7.) The Brahui pronoun of the second person singular is ‘ni, thou, precisely

the same as in all the Drividian tongues. The analogy of the plural of this pro-

noun, viz., ‘num, you, ‘numa, of you, is also wonderfully in accordance with

IRt A LY,

T a1t AN e

s Z e

24

INTRODUCTION.

i

classical Dravidian forms

The Canarese is ‘nim,” you; the old Tamil possessive

]:;

is *num-a,’ your (derived from an obsolete nominative in ‘ntim’ or ‘num’), and

the ordinary base of the oblique cases of this pronoun in colloquial Tamil is ¢ um’

(the initial ‘n’ being lost), which is also the termination of the plural of the

gecond person imperative.

(8.) Whilst ‘nim’ or ‘nfim’ is to be considered as the most classical form

of the plural of the Dravidian pronoun of the second person, ‘nir’ is the form ordi-

narily used in a separate shape in Tamil, ‘miru’ in Telugu; and in consequence

of this plural termination in ‘r,’ in nearly all the Drividian idioms the second

person plural of the verb in the indicative mood ends, not in ‘im’ or ‘um,

but in ‘ir, ‘eru

Y. i A

aru,

’ iri; &e.

The same peculiarity reappears in the

Brahui. Whilst the separate pronoun ends in ‘m,” ‘r’ is the pronominal sign

of the second person of the verb; e.g., ‘areri) ye are, ‘aver, they are; with

which compare the Canarese ‘iru(tt)iri, ye are, ‘iru(tt)ire,’ they are.

(9.) The root of the substantive verb in Brahui is ‘ar, in Canarese and

Tamil ¢ir.

(10.) A remarkable analogy between the Brahui and the Drividian languages is

apparent in the reflexive pronoun self; ‘se.’ In the Drividian languages this

pronoun is universally ‘tdn’ or ‘tan :’ in the Brahui ‘ten.

(11.) Bopp remarks that the three lowest numerals could never be introduced

d

into any country by foreigners.

The truth of this remark is illustrated by a cir-

d

cumstance of which Bopp could scarcely have been aware.

From jfour upwards,

b

the Brahui numerals are of Indo-European origin (e.g., ¢char, four, ‘panj,’ five,

“shash,’ siz); and in the compound numerals twenty-one and twenty-two, the

(¢

_ _ I

words for one and fwo are also Indo-European, but the separate numerals one, two,

U

three, are totally unconnected with the Sanscrit family, and two of them are iden-

th

tical with Drividian numerals.

In Brahui, two is ‘irat; compare Canarese,

W

‘ erad-u,’ two; Tamil, irat(tu),” éwofold or double.

In Brahui three is

0l

‘ musit;’ compare Canarese ‘mfir-u; Telugu, ‘mtd-u.’

The Drividian bases

of these numerals are ‘ir,” two, ‘mf,’ three; and if we notice the terminations

I

of the Brahui numerals (1, “asit;’ 2, ‘irat;’ 3, ‘musit;’) it is obvious that the

¢

second syllable of each of these words, ‘it,” or ‘at’ is merely a neuter formative,

[

like that which we find in the Drividian languages (e.g., compare ‘ir,’ the base

be

and numeral adjective fwo, with ‘iradu,” the abstract neuter noun #wo): conse-

quently the agreement of the Brahui with the Drividian numerals, both in the

base and in the formative, is complete.

If we remember the interchangeable

10y

relation of ‘s’ and ‘r,’ and if we regard the Canarese ‘mfr,’ three, and the

et

Brahui ‘mus,’” as an instance of this interchange, as I think we may safely do,

0f 1

we may also venture to connect the Drividian numeral base, ‘or,” one, with the

i\

Brahui ‘as.”” This connection, however, is doubtful, whereas there cannot be any

W

doubt respecting fewo and three.

Loy

(12.) In the class of auxiliary words (prepositions, conjunctions, &c.) compare

I

the Brahui, ‘moni opposite, with the Tamil, ‘munné,’ before; and also the

copulative conjunction ‘Q,” and, with the corresponding Canarese ‘1.’

A

In the limited vocabulary of the Brahui language, which is given in the Jousr-

W

nal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, I notice a few Dravidian roots. In the following

list I include also a few Dravidian words, which are found in the Laghmani, an

Afghan dialect, containing an element allied to the Brahui.

THE BRAHUI

25

sive

Branur, &ec

Tamir, &ec.

and

water

dir

nir

um

eye

khan

kan

the

ear

khaff

kad-u

do., Laghmani and Cashgari

kad

|

om

mother

Jummé

amma

ordi-

do.,

Laghmani

ae

fyi

ence

belly

pid

pir (Gond), bir (Tuda)

stone

khall

kal

ond

um,

bow

billa

billu (Can.)

the

mud or earth

men

man

sign

bedstead

kat

kat-(til)

with

hare

muru

muyal

karatik

ass (female) Lagh.

karudei, ass

and

cat, Laghmani

pusha

plsei

to come

barak

bar-u (Can.)

68 i3

to go, Laghmani

pak

pog-u

- this

It is true that the great majority of the words in the Brahui language

uced

are altogether unconnected with Dravidian roots ; but it must be evi-

g (il

dent from the analogies in structure, as well as in the vocabulary, which

ands,

have now been exhibited, that this language contains many grammati-

fivey

cal forms essentially and distinctly Dravidian, together with a small

) the

0,

proportion of impdrtant Dravidian vocables. The Brahuis state that

their forefathers came from Haleb (Aleppo) ; but even if this tradition

iden-

1686,

were to be regarded as a credible one, it would apply to the secondary

o 18

or conquering race of Indo-European origin, not to the aboriginal,

hases

indigenous Dravidians.

The previous existence of the latter race

jtions

seems to have been forgotten, and the only evidence that they ever

11 the

itive,

existed is that which is furnished by the Dravidian element which hag

base

been discovered in the language of their conquerors.

onse:

n the

The analogies between the Brahui and the Dravidian languages which have

now been pointed out, are incomparably closer than any analogy which- subsists

;eable

d the

between the Drividian languages and the Bodo, the Dhimal, and the languages

of the other tribes on the north-eastern frontier of India which have been termed

51:,' do,

“ Tamulian ” by Mr. Hodgson.

Those analogies appear to me to be as remote

b the

e any

as those of the Tibetan family; and are not only less numerous, but also of a

less essential character and less distinctive than the analogies which are discover-

able between the Finnish tongues and the Dréividian.

np&re

Compare the following list of Drévidian words of primary importance with

o the

analogous words in the Brahui, and with the words in the Bodo and Dhimal

which correspond in signification : —

Jour

owig

DRAVIDIAN.

Branur,

Bobo.

DHIMAL,

thou

ni

ni

né

nni) o

nang

you

num

num

nangchir

nyél

we

nim

nan

jong

kyel

self

tan

ten

goui

tal

26

INTRODUCTION.

DRAVIDIAN,

Branui.

Bobo.

DyiMAL.

abori

A

one

or

as-it

ché

(&

them

two

irad-u

irat

gné

gne

on |

three

mir-u

mus-it

thim

stim

whicl

eye

kan

khan

mogon

mi

ear

kad-u

kad

khom#

nihithong

Tami

Madu

water

nir

dir

doi

chi

stone

kal

khall

onthai

finthr

celebr

itself

It seems unnecessary to give a larger number of instances; for whilst the

Brahui does to a certain extent contain Drividian forms and words, the Bodo and

being

the

Dhimal, and to them may be added the other dialects of the north-eastern

forests, present no special analogies whatever; and contain only a few vague

adop

structural affinities, which they have in common not only with the Drividian, but

guag

with the Tibetan, and with every other language and family of languages of the

word

Scythian group.

Tami]

Il

Use or THE ComMoN TErRM ¢ DRAVIDIAN.

Pand

denom

I have designated all the languages now subjected to comparison

By th

by a common term, ¢ Drévidian,” because of the essential and distine-

tive grammatical characteristics which they all possess in common,

Popula

and in virtue of which, joined to the possession in commnion of a large

Bengél

ciently

number of roots of primary importance, they justly claim to be con-

sidered as springing from a common origin, and as forming a distinet

the Uy

family of tongues.

the 8

lay |

This family which T style ¢ Dravidian’ has been styled ‘Tamu-

lian’ by some recent writers ; but though the Tamil is the oldest and

the Ca

most highly cultivated member of the family, and that which contains

ing j

I

the largest proportion of the family property of forms and roots, yet as

it is but one dialect out of many, and does not claim to be the original

Teh'uga

speech from which the other dialects have been derived ; as 1t is also

or Tam

desirable to reserve the terms ¢ Tamil’ and ¢Tamilian’ (or as it is

Ity

iy

generally but erroneously written ¢ Tamulian’) to denote the Tamil

language itself and the people by whom it is spoken, I have preferred

i(S lQCall

to designate this entire family by a term which is capable of a wider

{he qu

The word which I have chosen is ¢ Drividian,” a word

application.

kl‘llguag

which has already been used as the generic appellation of this family

Sy

of tongues by the Sanscrit geographers.

Properly speaking, the term

Of thl I

\

W ]de

ly

¢ Dravida’ denotes the Tamil country aloune (including Malayalam),

and Tamil Brahmans are usually styled

¢ Drvida Brahmans.’

that ¢

h

¢ Dravida’ means the ‘country of the Drividas; and a Drivida is

The

defined in the Sanscrit lexicons to be “a man of an outcast tribe,

ff)ﬂrr

g,

descended from a degraded Kshatriya.”

This name was doubtless

K

applied by the Brahmanical inhabitants of Northern India to the

thg Dy

USE OF THE COMMON TERM ‘ DRAVIDIAN.

27

aborigines bf the extreme South prior to the introduction amongst

them of Brahmanical civilisation, and is an evidence of the low estima-

tion in which they were originally held.

In the Maha-Bharata, in

which the Drividas are distinguished from the Cholas, or Tanjore

0

Tamilians, the term is still further restricted to the Pandiyas of

Madura, doubtless on account of the advanced civilisation and early

celebrity of the Pandiya kingdom. The term ¢Drévidian’ is thus in

itself as restricted as that of ¢ Tamilian,” but it has the advantage of

6 the

do and

being remoter’ from ordinary usage, and somewhat more vague, and

eastern

the further and more special advantage of being the term already

vague

adopted by Sanscrit writers to designate the southern family of lan-

an, bt

guages.

Consequently, by the adoption of this more generic term, the

of the

word ¢ Tamilian” has been left to signify that which is distinctively

Tamil.

The colloquial languages of India are divided by the Sanserit

Pandits into two classes, each containing five dialects.

These are

denominated respectively ‘the five Gauras' and ‘the five DrAviras.’

arison

Istine-

By the Gauda or Gaura languages are meant the ¢bhashis,’ or

popular dialects, of Northern India, at the head of which stands the

Mot

Bengali, the GéAura proper.

Some of the ¢bhaAshas’ or Priecrits an-

y large

e 0l

ciently enumerated have ceased to bespoken. At present the Bengali,

the Uriya, the Hindi with its daughter the Hind{istini, the Panjabs,

igtinet

the Sindhi, the Gujarathi, and the Marathi are the languages which

may be regarded as forming the Gaura class ; to which I would add

Tami

the Cashmirian and the language of Nipal, thus reckoning in this class

st and

nine idioms instead of five.

ontaids

The five Dravidas or Draviras, according to the Pandits, are “the

| yet a8

Telinga, the Karntaka, the Maratha, the Gfirjara, and the Dravira,”

rginal

is also

or Tamil proper. The Maratha and Girjara are erroneously included

in this enumeration.

It is true that the Marithi contains a small

s it 18

admixture of Drividian roots and idioms, as might be expected from

; T&mil

its local proximity to the Telugu and the Canarese ; and both it and

efonted

the Giirjara, or Gujarithi, possess certain features of resemblance to the

, wider

languages of the South, which are possibly derived from the same or a

, word

similar source ; but, notwithstanding the existence of a few analogies

fumily

of this nature, those two languages differ from the Dravidian family so

e term

widely and radically, and are so closely allied to the northern group,

yfﬂﬂ»ﬂl)’

that there cannot be any hesitation in transferring them to that class,

hmg,]ls.,

The three languages that remain in the classification of Drividian

il

tongues which is contained in the Sanscrit geographical lists, viz., the

4 tribe

Karnataka, Kannada or Canarese, the Telinga, Telungu or Telugu, and

bl

the Dravida proper or Tamil, are certainly the principal members of

]

28

INTRODUCTION.

It will be observed that the

the .

the southern or Dravidian family

smal

Malayﬁlam and the Tulu are not contained in the Sanscrit enumeration.

they

The first was considered to be a dialect of the Tamil, and was included

in the denomination of the Dravida proper ; the second was probably

of th

the I

considered as a dialect of the Canarese.

The uncultivated dialects—

past

the Tuda, Kota, Gond, and Kn—appear to have been unknown to the

Pandits ; and even had they been known, probably they would not

know

to, ]

have been deemed worthy of notice.

No term belonging to the Dravidian languages themselves has ever

idion

been used to designate all the members of this family, nor are the

aoqus

acqu

native Tamil or Telugu grammarians, though deeply skilled in the

grammar of their own tongues, sufficiently acquainted with comparative

has ¢

grammar to have arrived at the conclusion that all these idioms have a

langu

common origin and require to be designated by a common term. Some

that ¢

an

European scholars who have confined their attention to the study of

some one Drividian idiom to the neglect of the others, have fallen into

being |

the same error of supposing these languages independent one of

ever,

Th

another. The Sanscrit Pandits had a clearer perception of grammatical

affinities and differences than the Dravidian grammarians ; and, though

betipeg

their generalisation was not perfectly correct, it has furnished us with

those |

the 8y

the only common terms which we possess for denoting the northern

and southern families of languages respectively.

languag

from 4

Tae DrRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES INDEPENDENT OF THE SANSCRIT.

Sangey

Somg |

It was supposed by the Sanscrit Pandits (by whom everything

Which

with which they were acquainted was referred to a Brahmanical origin),

0oy

and too hastily taken for granted by the earlier European scholars, that

family)

the Dravidian languages, though differing in many particulars from

00ty an

the North-Indian idioms, were equally with them derived from the

Precede,

Sanscrit.

They could not but see that each of the Dréividian

from t

languages to which their attention had been drawn, contained a

10 anot)

certain proportion of Sanscrit words, some of which were quite

|

thvig

unchanged, though some were so much altered as to be recognized with

a\’ing (

difficulty ; and though they observed clearly enough that each language

{idging

contained also many Un-Sanserit words and forms, they did not

kg

observe that those words and forms constituted the bulk of the

Uy,

language, or that it was in them that the living spirit of the language

resided. Consequently they contented themselves with ascribing the

liy

Un-Sanscrit portion of these languages to an admixture of a foreign

element of unknown origin.

According to this view there was no

port; on

essential difference between ¢the Drividas’ and ‘the Gaudas ; for

DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSCRIT.

29

the

the Bengali and the other languages of the Gaura group contain also a

08

small proportion of Un-Sanscrit words and forms, whilst in the main

ded

they are corruptions of the Sanscrit. This representation fell far short

ably

of the real state of the case, and the supposition of the derivation of

s —

the Dravidian languages from the Sanscrit, though entertained in the

the

past generation by a Colebrooke, a Carey, and a Wilkins, is now

10t

known to be entirely destitute of foundation. The orientalists referred

to, though deeply learned in Sanscrit and well acquainted with the

ever

idioms of Northern India, were unacquainted, or but very slightly

o the

acquainted, with the Drividian languages. No person who has any

| the

acquaintance with the principles of comparative philology and who

atie

has carefully studied the grammars and vocabularies of the Dravidian

aved

languages, and compared them with those of the Sanscrit, can suppose

Some

that the grammatical structure and inflexional forms of those languages

and the greater number of their more important roots are capable of

0y of

1 0t

being derived from the Sanscrit by any process of corruption whatso-

ever.

e of

atical

The hypothesis of the existence of a remote original affinity

hough

between the Dravidian languages and the Sanscrit, or rather between

s with

those languages and the Indo-European family of tongues, inclusive of

rthern

the Sanscrit, of such a nature as to allow us to give the Dravidian

languages a place in the Indo-European group, is altogether different

from the notion of the direct derivation of those languages from the

RIT

Sanserit. The hypothesis of a remote original aflinity is favoured by

some interesting analogies both in the grammarand in the vocabulary,

rything

which will be noticed in their place. Some of those analogies are best

accounted for by the supposition of the retention by the Dravidian

')l'l’giﬂ)’

5, that

family, as by the Finnish and the Turkish, of a certain number of

g from

roots and forms belonging to the Pre-Sanscrit period, the period which

preceded the final separation of the Indo-European group of tongues

on ‘(he

from the Scythian. I think I shall also be able to prove, with respect

to another portion of the analogies referred to, that instead of the

ined &

Dravidian languages having borrowed them from the Sanserit, or both

0 qﬂite

having derived them from a common source, the Sanscrit has not

ol with

disdained to borrow them from its Dravidian neighbours. Whatever

guag?

i not

probabilities may be in favour of the hypothesis now mentioned, the

of the

older supposition of the direct derivation of the Dravidian languages

from the Sanscrit, in the same manner as the Hindi, the Bengali, and

I&nguage

ping 12

erroneous.

the other Gaura dialects are directly derived from it, was certainly

(1.) It overlooked the circumstance that the Un-Sanscrit

, oregh

portion of the Drividian languages was nearly as much in excess of

s 10

the Sanscrit, as in the North-Indian idioms the Sanserit was in excess

for

(38 ;

it s ki i 2 J

30

INTRODUCTION.

10

of the barbarian or Un-Sansecrit element. (2.) It overlooked the still

more material circumstance that the pronouns and numerals of the

the

er

Dravidian languages, their verbal and nominal inflexions, and the

Sl

syntactic arrangement of their words—everything, in short, which

fing

constitutes the living spirit of a language—were originally and

Tel

radically different from the Sanserit.

(8.) The Orientalists who held

the opinion of the derivation of the Drividian languages from the

1o

the

Sanscrit relied mainly on the circumstance that all dictionaries of

Dravidian langnages contained a large number of Sanscrit words

l'leh

scarcely at all altered, and a still larger number which, though much

——

ind

it

altered, were unquestionably Sanscrit derivatives.

They were not,

however, aware that such words are never regarded by native scholars

if1

as of Drividian origin, but are known and acknowledged to be derived

(Qb

from the Sansecrit, and that they are arranged in classes, according to

the degree in which they have been corrupted, or with reference to

has

from

the medium through which they have been derived. They were also

unaware that true Dravidian words, which form the great majority of

sedu

the words in the southern vocabularies, are placed by native gram-

deny

marians in a different class from the above-mentioned derivatives from

Soun

the Sanscrit, and honoured with the epithets ¢national words’ and

perv:

that.

¢ pure words.’

The Telugu grammarians specify even the time when

Sanserit derivatives were first introduced into Telugu; by which we

good

are doubtless to understand the time when the Brahmans established

to th

themselves in the Telugu country. They say,— The adherents of

S0mg

King Andhra-riya, who then resided on the banks of the Godavery,

The

coun

spoke Sanscrit derivatives, many of which words in course of time

became corrupted. That other class of words consisting of nouns,

diale

verbals, and verbs, which were created by the god Brahma before the

in th

time of this king, are called ‘pure (Telugu) words.’

The date of the

condit

reign of this King Andhra-raya, or King of the Andhras (a division of

Positi

the ancient Telugus), who is now worshipped at Chieacole as a deity,

lt’arne‘

is unknown, but was probably several centuries anterior to the

ad

Chrigtian era,

Ihose 3

In general no difficulty is felt in distinguishing Sanscrit derivatives

Ugeth

from the ancient Dravidian roots.

There are a few cases only in

U (

§

which it may be doubtful whether particular words are Sanserit or

gy

Dravidian, e. g., ‘nir, water, and ‘min,” fish, are claimed as com-

Pr Ollzq

ponent parts of both languages; though I believe that both are of

Sleay

Dravidian origin.

(4.) The Orientalists who supposed the Dravidian languages to be

Whl'ck

derived from the Sanscrit were not aware of the existence of unculti-

(P 1q y

vated languages of the Dravidian family, in which Sanserit words are

the

Pas

o

DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSCRIT.

31

still

not at all, or but Very rarely, employed; and they were also not aware

the

that some of the Dravidian languages which make use of Sanserit

| the

derivatives, are able to dispense with those derivatives altogether,

rhich

such derivatives being considered rather as luxuries or articles of

and

finery than as necessaries.

It is true it would now be difficult for the

held

Telugu to dispense with its Sanserit: more so for the Canarese; and

| the

most of all for the Malayilam :—those languages having borrowed from

ey of

the Sansecrit so largely, and being so habituated to look up to it for

yords

help, that it would be scarcely possible for them now to assert their

much

independence.

The Tamil, however, the most highly cultivated «b

) 110,

intra of all Dravidian idioms, can dispense with its Sanserit altogether,

olars

if need be, and not only stand alone but flourish without its aid.

rived

The ancient or classical dialect of the Tamil language, called the

ng to

‘Shen-Tamil’ or correct Tamil, in which nearly all the literature

ce to

has been written, contains exceedingly little Sanscrit; and differs

y also

from the colloquial dialect, or the language of prose, chiefly in the

ity of

sedulous and jealous care with which it has rejected the use of Sanserit

g[’ftlll-

derivatives and characters, and restricted itself to pure Dravidian

s from

sounds, forms, and roots. So completely has this jealousy of Sanscrit

¢ and

pervaded the minds of the educated classes amongst the Tamilians,

when

that a Tamil composition is regarded as refined, in accordance with

h we

good taste, and worthy of being called classical, not in proportion

to the amount of Sanscrit which it contains, as would be the case in

lished

nts Of

some other dialects, but in proportion to its freedom from Sanscrit !

averys

The speech of the very lowest classes of the people in the retired

f time

country districts accords to a considerable extent with the eclassical

dialect in dispensing with Sanserit derivatives.

10UDS,

In every country it is

mn the poetry and in the speech of the peasantry that the ancient

e T,Ile

()f the

condition of the language is best studied.

It is in Tamil prose com-

positions and in the ordinary speech of the Brahmans and the more

qon of

, deity,

learned Tamilians that the largest infusion of Sanscrit is contained -

{0 the

and the words that have been borrowed from the Sanserit are chiefly

those which express abstract ideas of philosophy, science, and religion,

tives

together with the technical terms of the more elegant arts. Even in

Prose compositions on religious subjects, in which a larger amount of

et OF

Sanserit is employed than in any other department of literature, the

proportion of Sanserit which has found its way into Tamil is not

§ CoM-

are of

greater than the amount of Latin contained in corresponding composi-

tions in English. Let us, for example, compare the amount of Sanscrit

which is contained in the Tamil translation of the Ten Commandments

S to h'e

(Prayer Book version) with the amount of Latin which is contained in

oiltl

the English version of the same formula, and’ which has found its way

s 878

3

-

2

INTRODUCTION.

borr

into it, either directly, from Ecclesiastical Latin, or indirectly, through

then

the medium of the Norman-French.

Of forty-three nouns and adjec-

avk

tives in the English version twenty-nine are Anglo-Saxon, fourteen

Latin : of fifty-three nouns and adjectives in the Tamil (the difference

han

any

in idiom causes this difference in the number) thirty-two are Dravidian,

mak

twenty-one Sanscrit.

Of twenty verbs in the English, thirteen are

the

Anglo-Saxon, seven” Latin : of thirty-four verbs in the Tamil, twenty-

Of the five numerals

of e

seven are Dravidian, and only seven Sanserit.

dimi

which are found in the English, either in their cardinal or their

Tefir

ordinal shape, all are Anglo-Saxon: of the six numerals found in

the Tamil, five are Dravidian, one (¢ thousand’) is probably Sanserit.

0f

the

Putting all these numbers together, for the purpose of ascertaining

and

the percentage, I find that in the department of nouns, numerals and

Wor

verbs, the amount of the foreign element is in both instances the same,

In both instances, also,

to Ui

viz., as nearly as possible forty-five per cent.

info

all the pronouns, prepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions, and all the

religi

inflexional forms and connecting particles are the property of the

native tongue.

of th

of x¢

Trench's expressions respecting the character of the contributions

which our mother-English has received from Anglo-Saxon and from

Sans

whic]

Latin respectively, are exactly applicable to the relation and propor-

tion which the native Dravidian element bears to the Sanscrit con-

Wond

tained in the Tamil.

Doeti

oy

« All its joints, its whole articulation, its sinews and its ligaments,

the great body of articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, nume-

Sang

rals, auxiliary verbs, all smaller words which serve to knit together,

posi

and bind the larger into sentences, these, not to speak of the gramma-

I

tical structure of the language, are exclusively Anglo-Saxon (Drévi-

(!Omp

dian). The Latin (Sanscrit) may contribute its tale of bricks, yea of

is eml

goodly and polished hewn stones, to the spiritual building, but the

Aoqui

of th(

mortar, with all that holds and binds these together, and constitutes

them into a house is Anglo-Saxon (Dréavidian) throughout.”

Braby

Though the proportion of Sanscrit which we find to be contained

Togt (

in the Tamil version of the Ten Commandments happens to correspond

“flloh

so exactly to the proportion of Latin which is contained in the English

Sareq

version, it would be an error to conclude that the Tamil language is

lme“

as deeply indebted to the Sanscrit as the English is to the Latin.

the }

The Tamil can readily dispense with the greater part or the whole

bfanr:’

of its Sanscrit, and by dispensing with it rises to a purer and more

By}

refined style ; whereas the English cannot abandon its Latin without

g Hag\

abandoning perspicuity. Such is the poverty of the Anglo-Saxon that

Scg

it has no synonymes of its own for many of the words which it has

litera

——

—

DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF THE SANSCRIT.

33

borrowed from the Latin ; so that if it were obliged to dispense with

ugh

[ec-

them, it would, in most cases, be under the necessity of using a very

teen

awkward periphrasis instead of a single word. The Tamil, on the other

enCe

hand, is peculiarly rich in synonymes ; and generally it is not through

ian,

any real necessity, but from choice and the fashion of the age, that it

are

makes use of Sanscrit.

If the Ten Commandments were expressed in

nty

the speech of the lower classes of the Tamil people, or in the language

of every-day life, the proportion of Sanscrit would be very greatly

rals

helr

diminished ; and if we wished to raise the style of the translation to a

d

refined and classical pitch, Sanscrit would almost entirely disappear.

Of the entire nnmber of words which are contained in this formula

it

ning

there is only one which could not be expressed with faultless propriety

and poetic elegance in equivalents of pure Dravidian origin: that

and

word is ¢ graven image’ or ‘idol’! Both word and thing are foreign

ale,

also,

to primitive Tamil usages and habits of thought; and were introduced

into the Tamil country by the Brahmans, with the Purdnic system of

| the

f the

religion and the worship of idols. Through the predominant influence

of the religion of the Brahmans, the majority of the words expressive

of religions ideas which are in actual use in modern Tamil are of

Hons

from

Sanscrit origin ; and though there are equivalent Dravidian words

which are equally appropriate, and in some instances more so, such

con

words have gradually become obsolete, and are now confined to the

poetical dialeet ; so that the use of them in prose compositions would

sound affected and pedantiec.

This is the real and only reason why

nents,

Sanscrit derivatives are so generally used in Tamil religious com-

nume-

positions.

.

efhe,

In the other Dravidian languages, whatever be the nature of the

mmé-

composition or subject-matter treated of, the amount of Sanscrit which

)révi-

is employed is considerably larger than in Tamil ; and the use of it has

(28 of

it the

acquired more of the character of a necessity. This is in consequence

of the literature of those languages having chiefly been cultivated by

Htutes

Brahmans. Even in Telugu the principal grammatical writers and the

most celebrated poets have been Brahmans.

There is only one work

tained

of note in that language which was not composed by a member of the

aspoﬂd

sacred caste ; and indeed the Telugu Stdras, who constitute par excel-

}ngﬁsh

lence, the‘Telugu people, seem almost entirely to have abandoned to

the Brahmans the culture of their own language, with every other

L

branch of literature and science.

In Tamil, on the contrary, few

yhole

The lan-

Brahmans have written anything worthy of preservation.

| more

guage has been cultivated and developed with immense zeal and

ﬂthvﬂ'&

success by native Tamilian Stdras ; and the highest rank in Tamil

on th

ab

literature which has been reached by a Brahman is that of a commen-

it o8

D

ko

it oaicsi

T

24

INTRODUCTION.

tator.

The commentary of Parimélaragar on the Kural of Tiru-

valluvar (a Pariar! but the acknowledged and deified prince of Tamil

authors) is the most classical production which has been written in

Tamil by a Brahman.

Professor Wilson observes that the spoken languages of the South

were cultivated in imitation and rivalry of the Sanscrit, and but par-

tially aspired to an independent literature ; that the principal compo-

l

sitions in Tamil, Telugu, Canarese, and Malayalam are translations or

a8

paraphrases from Sanscrit works ; and that they largely borrow the

of

phraseology of their originals.

This representation is not perfectly

&

correct, in so far as the Tamil is concerned ; for the compositions that

l

are universally admitted to be the ablest and finest in the language,

P

viz., the Cural and the Chintamani, are perfectly independent of the

4]

Sanserit, and original in design as well as in execution ; and though

it is true that Tamil writers have imitated—I cannot say translated —

to

the RamAayana, the Maha-bhérata, and similar works, they boast that

of

the Tamil Ramayana of their own Kamban is greatly superior to the

daf

Sanserit original of Valmiki.

fal

(5.) Of all evidences of identity or diversity of languages the

i

most conclusive are those which are furnished by a comparison of their

grammatical structure ; and by such a comparison the independence of

fua

the Dravidian languages of the Sanscrit will satisfactorily and conelu-

lse

sively be established. By the same comparison (at the risk of antici-

sep

pating a question which will be discussed more fully in the body of

adg

the work), the propriety of placing these languages in the Scythian

or

group, rather than in the Indo-European, will be indicated.

The most prominent and essential differences in point of grammati-

dee

cal structure between the Dravidian languages and the Sanscrit, are

as follows : —

ﬂlej

Iﬁn(r

(i.) In the Dravidian languages all nouns denoting inanimate

The dis-

Wi

substances and irrational beings are of the neuter gender.

tinction of male and female gppears only in the pronouns of the third

Ot

to g

person ; in the adjectives (properly appellative nouns) which denote

rational beings, and are formed by suffixing the pronominal terminations;

ﬂ”yJ

f

and in the third person of the verb, which, being formed by suffixing

the same pronominal terminations, has three forms in the singular and

qaah

two in the plural, to distinguish the several genders, and in accordance

In all other cases where it is

lianl

with the pronouns of the third person.

dig

required to mark the distinction of gender, separate words signifying

Wh(

‘male’ and ‘female’ are prefixed ; but, even in such cases, though

the object denoted be the male or female of an animal, the noun which

Ofv

cal]

denotes it does not cease to be considered nenter, and neuter forms of

Qu]

DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF THE SANSCRIT.

35

I

the pronoun and verb are required to be conjoined with it. This rule

il

presents a marked contrast to the rules respecting gender which we

10

find in the vivid and highly imaginative Sanscrit, and in the other

Indo-European languages, but it accords with the usage of all the

ith

languages of the Scythian group.

al

(ii.) Dravidian nouns are inflected, not by means of case-termina-

PO

tions, but by means of suffixed post-positions and separable particles,

3 O

as in the Scythian tongues.

The only difference between the declension

the

of the plural and that of the singular, is that the inflexional signs are

otly

annexed in the singular to the base, in the plural to the sign of

that

plurality, exactly as in the Scythian languages.

After the pluralising

e

particle has been added to the base, all nouns, irrespective of number

the

and gender, are declined in the same manner as in the singular.

ugh

(iii.) The Dravidian dative ‘ku,” ki, or ‘ge,” bears no analogy

] —

to any dative case-termination which is found in the Sanscrit or in any

that

of the Indo-European languages ; but it perfectly corresponds to the

y the

dative of the Oriental Turkish, to that of the language of the Scythian

tablets of Behistun, and to that of several of the languages of the

s the

Finnish family.

their

(iv.) Wherever prepositions are used in the Indo-European lan-

y0e of

guages, the Dravidian languages, with those of the Scythian group,

neli-

use post-positions instead,—which post-positions do not constitute a

el

separate part of speech, but are real nouns of relation or quality,

dy of

adopted as auxiliaries.

All adverbs are either nouns or the gerunds

or infinitives of verbs.

ythliaﬂ

(v.) In Sanscrit and all the Indo-European tongues, adjectives are

matl-

declined like substantives, and agree with the substantives to which

they are conjoined in gender, number, and case.

In the Dravidian

t, are

languages, as in the Scythian, adjectives are incapable of declension.

When used separately as abstract nouns of quality, which is the

nmate

e dis-

original and natural character of Dravidian adjectives, they are subject

to all the affections of substantives ; but when they are used adjectiv-

) third

Jenote

ally, i.c., to qualify other substantives, they do not admit of any

110055

inflexional change, but are simply prefixed to

‘the nouns which they

qualify.

fixing

al and

(vi.) Tt is also a characteristic of these languages, as of the Mongo-

lian, the Manchu, and several other Scythian languages, in contra-

rdanct

ro it 1

distinetion to the languages of the Indo- European family, that,

wherever it is practicable, they use as adjectives the relative participles

lmfymg

ghovgl

of verbs, in preference to nouns of quality, or adjectives properly so

) Which

called ; and that in consequence of this tendency, when nouns of

quality are used, the formative termination of the relative participle

orms 0

'

D 2

A A A A

36

INTRODUCTION.

is generally qu{ﬁ\ed to them, through which suffix they partake of the

character both of nouns and of verbs.

(vii.) The existence of two pronouns of the first person plural, one

of which includes, the other excludes the party addressed, is a peculi-

arity of the Dravidian dialects, as of many of the Scythian languages;

but is unknown to the Sanscrit and the languages of the Indo-

European family

(viii.) The situation of the governing word is characteristic of each

of these families of languages

In Sanscrit and the Indo-KEuropean

family it usually precedes the word governed: in the Drividian and

in all the Scythian languages, it is invariably placed after it; in con-

sequence of which the principal verb always occupies the last place in

the adverb

the sentence

The adjective precedes the substantive

the substantive which is governed by a verb

precedes the verb

together with every word that depends upon it or qualifies it, precedes

the verb by which it is governed : the relative participle precedes the

1

noun on which it depends: the negative branch of a sentence precedes

the affirmative: the noun in the genitive case precedes that which

governs it: the pre-position changes places with the noun and becomes

I‘

a post-position in virtue of its governing a case

and finally the

sentence is concluded by the one, all-governing, finite verb

In each

of these important and highly characteristic peculiarities of syntax the

fl'\

Dravidian languages and the Scythian are thoroughly agreed

fq

(ix.) The Dravidian languages like the Scythian but unlike the

Indo-European, prefer the use of continuative participles to conjunc-

t

tions

(x.) The existence of a negative as well as an affirmatjve voice

I

in the verbal system of these languages, constitutes another essential

I

point of difference between them and the languages of the Indo-

European family: it equally constitutes a point of agreement between

Im

by

them and the Scythian tongues.

Oy,

(xi.) It is a marked peculiarity of these languages as of the

I8

Mongolian and the Manchu, and in a modified degree of many other

it

Scythian languages, that they make use of relative participles instead

of

of relative pronouns

There is not a trace of the existence of a relative

pronoun in any Dravidian language

The place of such pronouns is

supplied, as in the Secythian tongues mentioned above, by relative

ly

i

participles, which are formed from the present, preterite, and future

1

participles of the verb by the addition of a formative suffix which

B

suffix is in general identical with the sign of the possessive case

literally, the

of

Thus, the person. who came, is in Tamil vand-a &l

who-came person

vand’ the preterite werbal participle signifying

La

the

thal

A e RO SR e

UN-SANSCRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS.

a7

he

having come, being converted into a relative participle, equivalent to

the-who-came, by the addition of the old possessive and adjectival

ne

suffix ‘a.’

li

Many other differences in grammatical structure will be pointed

5,

out hereafter, in the course of the grammatical analysis: but in the

do

important particulars which are mentioned above, the Dravidian

languages evidently differ so considerably from the languages of the

ach

Indo-European family, and in particular from the Sanscrit (notwith-

ean

standing the predominance for so many ages of the social and religious

and

influence of the Sanscrit-speaking race), that it cannot be doubted that

(0N

they belong to a totally different family of tongues.

They are neither

¢ il

derived from the Sanserit, nor are capable of being affiliated with it:

et

and it cannot have escaped the notice of the student of comparative

eth,

philology, that in every one of those particulars in which the gram-

edes

matical structure of the Dravidian languages differs from the Sanscrit,

the

it agrees with the structure of the Scythian languages, or the languages

odes

of Central and Northern Asia.

hich

omes

Is THE Unx-SANSCRIT ELEMENT CONTAINED IN THE VERNACULAR

the

LANGUAGES OF NORTHERN INDIA DRAvIDIAN ?

each

The hypothesis of the direct derivation of the Dravidian tongues

¢ the

from the Sanscrit, with the admixture of a proportion of words and

forms from an unknown source, being now no longer entertained, some

o the

oriental scholars have adopted an opposite hypothesis, and attributed

ajunc-

to the influence of the Drividian languages that corruption of the

Sanscrit out of which the vernaculars of Northern India have arisen.

yolce

It has been supposed by the Rev. Dr. Stevenson, of Bombay,

eutiﬂl

Mr. Hodgson, of Nipaul, and some other orientalists, (1) that the North-

Indo-

Indian vernaculars have been derived from the Sanscrit, not so much

tweell

by the natural process of corruption and disintegration, as through the

over-mastering, re-moulding power of the Un-Sanscrit element which

of the

is contained in them ; and (2) that this Un-Sansecrit element is identical

/ other

with the Drividian speech, which they suppose to have been the speech

insteﬁd

of the ancient NishAdas, and other aborigines of India.

»e]ative

The first part of this hypothesis appears to rest upon a better foun-

ouns 18

dation than the second: but even the first part appears to me to be too

elafi®®

strongly expressed, and to require considerable modification; for in some

future

important particulars the corruption of the Sanscrit into the Hindi, the

; whiCh

Bengali, &c. has been shown to have arisen from that natural process

of change which we see exemplified in Europe, in the corruption of the

p 0050

111)"; e

Latin into the Italian’ and the French. Nevertheless, on comparing

;nifyiﬂg

the grammatical structure and essential character of the Sanscrit, with

that of the vernaculars of Northern India, I feel persuaded that those

|

38

INTRODUCTION

vernaculars bave to a considerable extent been corrupted in a Scythian

direction, and through the operation of Scythian influences

f

f

The modifications which the grammar of the North-Indian languages

have received, being generally of one and the same character, and in

\

J

one and the same direction, it is obvious that there must have been a

common modifying cause ; and as the barbarian or Un-Sanscrit portion

of those languages, which Professor Wilson styles ‘a portion of a

id

m

primitive, unpolished, and scanty speech, the relics of a period prior to

civilization,” is generally calculated to amount to one-tenth of the

01

whole, and in Marathi, to a fifth, it seems reasonable to infer that it

was from that extraneous element that the modifying influences pro-

el

ceeded

la

It is admitted that before the arrival of the Aryans, or Sanscrit-

al

speaking colony of Brahmans, Kshatriyas,

nd Vaisyas, the greater

by

part of Northern India was peopled by rude aboriginal tribes, called

g

by Sanscrit writers, Mléchchas, Dasyus, Nishadas, &e. ;

and 1t is the

01

Bra

received opmlon that those aborlglnal tribes were of Scythlan, or at

least of Non-Aryan origin.

On the irruption of the Aryans it would

Ra

naturally happen that the copious and expressive Sanscrit of the con-

quering race would almost overwhelm the vocabulary of the rude

eve

Never-

Scythian tongue which was spoken by the aboriginal tribes

poi

theless, as the grammatical structure of the Scythlan tongues possesses

1l

0

peculiar stability and persistency ; and as the Pre- -Aryan tribes, who

of t

were probably more numerous than the Aryans, were not annihilated,

ph

but only reduced to a dependent position, and eventually, in most

by

instances, incorporated in the Aryan community, the large Sanscrit

)

addition which the Seythian vernaculars received, would not necessarily

an

alter their essential structure, or deprive them of the power of influencing

U,

and assimilating the speech of the conquering race

According to this

Lt

th

theory, the grammatical structure of the spoken idioms of Northern

amo)

India was from the first, and always continued to be, in the main,

lay

0l

Scythian ; and the change which took place when Sanscrit acquired

Wty

the predominance, as the Aryans gradually extended their conquests

\(sytl

and their colonies, was rather a change of vocabulary than of grammar,

heS

—a change not so much in arrangement and vital spirit as in the

Ty

matériel of the language

Sy

This hypothesis seems to have the merit of according better than

liegy

any other with existing phenomena

Seeing that the northern verna-

|

culars possess, with the words of the Sanscrit, a grammatical structure

Ing;

which in the main appears to be Scythian, it seems more correct to

fol]

represent those languages as having a Scythian basis, with a large and

Paxg;

almost overwhelming Sanserit addition, than as having a Sanscrit basis,

o

with a small admixture of a Scythian element

————ene

———

—

UN-SANSCRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS

39

Wl

Whichever proposition be adopted, there is not much room for dif-

ference of opinion respecting the fucts that are involved in the dispute;

{4

the existence of a Scythian element in the colloquial dialects of

n

Northern India having been pointed out many years ago by Sir W

| &

Jones, and never since called in question.

00

The second part of the hypothesis of Dr. Stevenson, viz., the

)

identity of the Un-Sanscrit or Scythian element which is contained

to

in those languages with the languages of the Dravidian family, rests

the

on a different foundation, and appears to me to be less defensible

16

According to the supposition in question, the Scythian or Dravidian

IO

element is substantially one and the same in all the vernacular

languages of India, whether northern or southern, but is smallest in

ot

amount in those districts of Northern India which were first conquered

ater

by the Aryans; greater in the remoter districts of the Dekhan, Telin

lled

gana, and Mysore ; and greatest of all in the Tamil country, at the

the

southern extremity of the peninsula, to which the aggressions of the

Brahmanical race had not extended in the age of Manu and the

or ab

ould

Réméayana

con

This hypothesis is certainly in accordance with the current of

rude

events in the ancient history of India : but whatever relationship, in

Vel

point of blood and race, may originally have subsisted between the

northern aborigines and the southern—whatever ethnological evidences

08568

who

of their identity may be supposed to exist,—when we view the question

phalologically, and with veference to the evidence which is furnishe

ated.

by their languages alone, the hypothesis of their identity does not

mOat

psenb

appear to me to have been established

It may be true that various

analogies in point of grammatical structure appear to connect the

Un-Sanserit element which is contained in the North-Indian idioms

neIng

with the Scythian or Tartar tongues

This connection, however,

o this

amounts only to a general relationship to the entire group of Scythian

hert

mai

languages ; and no special relationship to the Dravidian languages, in

contra-distinction to those of the Turkish, the Finnish, or any other

qmred

Indeed I conceive that

Scythian family, has yet been proved to exist

quea

the Scythian substratum of the North-Indian idioms presents a greater

mmaly

number of points of agreement with the Oriental Turkish, or with that

m the

Scythian tongue or family of tongues by which the New Persian has

been modified, than with any of the Dravidian languages

T thﬁn

The principal particulars in which the grammar of the North-

pInd

Indian idioms accords with that of the Dravidian languages are as

pctie

follows :—(1), the inflexion of nouns by means of separate post-fixed

ect 1

particles; (2), the inflexion of the plural by annexing to the unvary-

190 ol

ing sign of plurality the same suffixes of case as those by which the

it b”" K

40

INTRODUCTION.

——

singular is inflected ; (3), the use of a dative or dative-accusative in

th

ha

‘ko’ dr ‘ku :’ (4), the use in several of the northern idioms of two pro-

nouns of the first person plural, the one including, the other excluding

an

the party addressed ; (5), the use of post-positions, instead of preposi-

nf

tions ; (6), the formation of verbal tenses by means of participles ;

pr

(7), the situation of the governing word after the word governed. In

g

the particulars above-mentioned the grammar of the North-Indian

01

idioms nndoubtedly resembles that of the Drividian family : but the

argument founded upon this general agreement is to a considerable

extent neutralised by the circumstance that those idioms accord in the

very same particulars, and to the very same extent, with the Turkish

and several other families of the Scythian group. Not one of those

particulars in which the Dravidian languages differ from the Turkish

or the Mongolian (and there are many such points of diflerence) has

as yet been discovered in the North-Indian idioms.

For instance,

those idioms contain no trace of the relative participle which is used

in all the Dravidian tongues instead of a relative pronoun ; they are

destitute of the regularly inflected negative verb of the Drividian

languages ; and they contain not one of the Drividian pronouns or

numerals—not even those which we find in the Scythic tablets of

Behistun, and which still survive even in the languages of the Ostiaks

and Lapps.

If the Un-Sanscrit element contained in the northern

vernaculars had been Dravidianwe might also expect to find in their

vocabularies a few primary Dréividian roots—such as the words for

‘head,” ‘hand,” foot, ‘eye, ‘ear, &c.; but I have not been able

to discover any reliable analogy in words belonging to this class.

The only resemblances which have been pointed out are those which

Dr. Stevenson has traced in a few words remote from ordinary use,

and on which, in the absence of analogy in primary roots, and espe-

cially in grammatical structure, it is impossible to place any depen-

dence.*

The difference between the Dravidian vocabulary and that

of the languages of Northern India with respect to primary roots

together with the essential agreement of all the Dravidian vocabularies

one with another, will appear from the following comparative view of

)

* In many instances Dr. Stevenson’s lexical analogies are illusory, and dis-

appear altogether on a little investigation.

Thus, he supposes the North Indian

Plog

‘pet,’ the belly, the womb, to be allied to the first word in the Tamil compound

‘petta pillei, own child.

by

That word should have been written ‘pettra’ in

English, to accord with the pronunciation of the Tamil word : the Tamil spelling

Wepy

of it, however, is ‘perra.’

It is the preterite relative participle of ‘ per-u, to

Iy

bear, to obtain, signifying that was borne.

¢ Per-u,” to obtain, has mno con-

nexion with any word which signifies #he womb, and its derivative noun

e

‘ pér-u,” means a thing obtained, @ birth, a favour.

The affinities of this root

Doy

will be inquired into in the Comparative Vocabulary.

4ppe;

UN-SANSCRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS.

41

em

It sometimes

the pronouns of the first and second persons singular.

happens that where one form of the pronoun is used in the nominative,

pro-

ling

another survives in the oblique cases, and a third in the verbal

posi-

inflexions : it also sometimes happens that the ancient form of the

Where such is the case I have

les;

pronoun differs from the modern.

In

given all extant forms a place in the list, for the purpose of facilitating

dian

comparison.

the

Pronoun of the first person singular :—

able

1 the

Norra-INDIAN IDIOMS.

DrAvIDIAN IDIOMS,

rkish

(Sanscrit primary form ‘aham ;

’

Tamil,

nin, yan, én, en

secondary forms, ‘ma,

HAN

mis’ S

Canarese,

dn, ninu, en, éne

those

Turkish primary form, ‘man.’)

Tuly,

yéan, en, e

rkish

Hindi,

main

Malayalam, fijin, én, en, in

Bengali,

mii

) has

Telugu,

nénu, nf

ance,

Marathi,

mi

Tuda,

On, 4n, en, ini

Gujarathi,

hun

Kota,

ine, en, e

used

Sindhi,

man

Gond

dna, 4n

y are

Ku

dnu, nd, énu, e

:'idi:m

en

Rajamahal,

n§ or

Uraon,

enan

ts of

Pronoun of the second person singular :—

tiaks

thern

Norre-INDIAN IDIOMS.

DrAvipiaN Iptoms,

thelr

(Sanserit primary forms tvam,’

Tamil,

ni, nin, nei, i,

‘tav,” ‘te; secondary form,

si,

Js for

’

Canarese,

nin, ninu, 1, i

‘8

Turkish primary form, ¢gen.’)

Tulu,

i, ni, nin

) able

Hindi,

tun, tu, te

Malayalam, nf, nin, nan

class,

Bengali,

tiii, to

Telugu,

nivu, ni, nin

which

Marathi,

tln, tu, to

Tuda,

nf, nin, i

y 186,

Gujarathi,

tln, ta

Kota,

nf, nin, i

Sindhi,

tun, to

Gond,

ima, nf, i

esper

Ku

inu, ni, i

Jepen-

Uraon

nien

1 that

Rajamahal nin

A

100t

Brahui

ni

Scythic of the Behistun tablets, nt

u}fm'es

jow of

From the striking dissimilarity existing between the North-Indian

nd dis

pronouns and the Dravidian it is obvious that, whatever may have

]

pdian

been the nature and origin of the Scythic influences by which they

p()llﬂ

were modified, those influences do not appear to have been Dravidian.

o 1

bpellmg

In the pronouns of almost all the North-Indian languages, the Scythian

Bl 0

20 08

termination—the obscure ‘%’ which forms the final of most of the pro-

nouns—is at once observed : we cannot fail also to notice the entire dis-

0 o

bis *

appearance of the nominative of the Sanserit pronoun of the first person

42

INTRODUCTION

men or

man

norf

singular, and the substitution for it of the Turkish

but in no connexion, in no number or case, in no compound or verbal

and

the

inflexion do we see the least trace of the peculiar personal pronouns of

nafl

the Dravidian family. Possibly, after all, further research may disclose

the existence in the northern vernaculars of distinctively Dréavidian

lang

forms and roots

but their existence does not appear to me as yet to

g

be proved ; for most of Dr. Stevenson’s analogies take too wide a range

and

and where they are supposed to be distinctively Dravidian, they inva-

tical

I conclude, therefore, that the

We

riably disappear on examination

Un-RSanserit portion of the northern languages cannot safely be placed

prol

luc

in the same category with the southern, except perhaps in the sense of

both being Scythian rather than Indo-European

thos

the

Wite WHAT GRouP oF LANGUAGES ARE THE DRAVIDIAN IpToms

TO BE AFFILIATED ?

the

unde

Leaving the idioms of Northern India out of consideration for the

hoge

present, as extraneous to the object of this work, and restricting our

I

attention to the Dravidian languages, and the question of their affilia-

addy

tion, the supposition of their Scythian relationship appears to me to

Was

be that which is most fully borne out by grammatical analysis and the

The

comparison of vocabularies.

bioey

In using the word ‘Scythian,” I use it in the wide general sense

and

in which it was used by Professor Rask, who first employed it to

)

designate that group of tongues which comprises the Finnish, the

hab

All these lan-

Turkish, the Mongolian, and the Tungusian families

]an(

guages are formed on one and the same grammatical system, and in

fable

Their formation of cases

accordance with the same general laws

Valug

Ju

moods, and tenses, by the simple agglutination of successive, unchange-

o be

able suffixes, determine them to be a distinct class of languages—

Gmpy

a class distinet from the Semitic, which inflects dissyllabic roots by the

Ufthe

variations of internal vowels, and also from the Indo-European idioms,

the J

hich make so extensive a use of technical case-signs and other in-

Seyth

flexions, of euphonic modification, and of composition. These languages

[artie

have been termed by some the Tatar or Tartar family of tongues, by

famﬂy

others the Finnish, the Ural-Altaic, the Mongolian, or the Turanian ;

benm

but as these terms have often been appropriated to designate one or

the [

two families, to the exclusion of the rest, they seem to be too narrow

follo“

and too liable to misapprehension to be safely employed as common

(

designations of the entire group. The term Scythian’ having already

dlan

(

been used in the Classies in a vague, undefined sense, to denote

1

generally the barbarous tribes of unknown origin that inhabited the

Pergy

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

43

dll

northern parts of Asia and Europe, it seems to be the most appropriate

bal

and convenient word which is available.

Professor Rask, who was

5 of

the first by whom this word was employed as a common generic desig-

lose

nation, was also the first to suggest that the Dravidian or Tamilian

1an

languages were probably Scythian.

He has the merit of having

f0

suggested this relationship; but the evidence of it was left both by him,

1ge,

and by succeeding writers, in a very defective state.

In the gramma-

[V

tical analysis and comparison of the Drividian languages on which

the

we are about to enter I hope to help forward the solution of a

wced

problem which has often been stated, and which has been ingeniously

e of

elucidated up to a certain point, but which has never yet been

thoroughly investigated.

The various particulars which were recently adduced to prove that

the Dravidian family is essentially different from and independent of

S

the Sanserit (each of which will be more fully considered in the sequel,

under its appropriate head) may also be regarded as proving that

the

those ldnguages are intimately related to the Scythian group.

In this introductory part of the work, I shall content myself with

: our

filla

adducing in proof of their Scythian relationship the evidence which

was recently furnished by the translation of the Behistun tablets.

e to

[ the

The inscriptions discovered at Behistun record the political auto-

biography of Darius Hystaspes in the Old Persian, in the Babylonian,

2058

and also in the language of the Scythians of the Medo-Persian

it to

cmpire ; and the translation of the Scythian portion of those inseriptions

has thrown new light on the propriety of giving the Dravidian

j the

) Jan-

languages a place in the Scythian group. The language of the Scythic

nd iﬂ

tablets, at first supposed to be Median, has been shown in Mr. Norris’s

(AS63

valuable paper (in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. XV.)

to be distinctively Scythian.

Consequently we are now enabled to

ange-

0eS—

compare the Dravidian idioms with a fully developed, copious laﬁguage

of the Scythian family, as spoken in the fifth century, B.c.: and whilst

)y the

Jioms,

the language of the tablets has been shown to belong generally to the

Scythian group, it has been found to bear a special relationship to a

ol in-

particular family included in that group—the Ugro-Finnish—that very

1588

family to which the Dravidian dialects have long appeared to me to

5, DY

pian ;

be most nearly allied. The principal points of resemblance between

the Dravidian dialects and the language of the tablets are as

follows :—

lﬁm‘()“!'

(1.) The language of the tablets appears to accord with the Dravi-

ol

dian tongue in the use of consonants of the cerebral class, ¢t,” ¢d,” and

k]

Iready

N

These sounds exist also in the Sanscrit, but I have long been

deuote

persuaded that the Sanscrit borrowed them from the indigenous Dra-

o 00

44

INTRODUCTION.

{10

vidian languages (vide the section on “Sounds”); and I find that

pr

Mr. Norris has expressed the same opinion.

fic

(2.) The language of the tablets agrees with the Tamil in regard-

fie

ing the same consonant as a surd in the beginning of a word, and as a

sonant in the middle, and in pronouncing the same consonant as a

gul

Wl

sonant when single, and as a surd when doubled.

(See in the section

on “Sounds” illustrations of the Tamil rule.)

Wi

(8.) The genitive case of the language of the tablets is formed by

the

3

suffixing the syllables ‘na,” ‘ni-na,” or ‘inna.’

The analogous forms

of the Dravidian languages are ‘ni,’ in the Telugu, ‘na,’” or ‘a, in

1§

the Gond and Brahui, and “ni,” in the Tamil.

There are

(4.) The dative of the tablets is ¢ikki’ or ¢ikka.’

analogies to this both in the Tartar-Turkish and in the Ugrian

fol

families ; but the form which is most perfectly in accordance with it

is that of the Dravidian dative suffix ‘ku,” ‘ki,’ ¢ ka,” &ec., preceded,

togg

as the suffix generally is in Tamil and Malayalam, by an euphonic ‘u’

tom

or ‘i, and a consequent doubling of the ‘k.’

Compare ‘ni-ikka,” fo

to g

thee, in the language of the tablets, with the corresponding Telugu

a ki

‘ni-ku,” and the Malayéla ‘nan-i-kka.’

(5.) The pronouns of the language of the tablets form their accu-

sative by suffixing ‘un,” “in,” or ‘n.’

Compare the Telugu accusative

Wit}

inflexion ‘nu’ or ‘mni,” and the Canarese ‘am,” ‘ann-u,’” &e.

(6.) The only numeral which is written in letters in the Seythian

Ugy

Whi

tablets is ‘kir,” one, with which appears to be connected the numeral

adjective, or indefinite article, ‘ra’ or ¢irra.’

In Telugu, one is ‘ oka,’

ticl

?

and in Tamil, ¢or

From a comparison of all the shapes which this

the

numeral has assumed in the various Dravidian dialects and in com-

of ¢

pounds, I had long ago come to the conclusion that both the Telugu

verh

and the Tamil forms were probably derived from a eommon and older

fable

form, ¢okor’ or ‘kor, which I regarded as identical with the Sam-

Prim

oyede ‘okur, one.

I can now compare it also with the ‘kir’ of the

Temg

tablets.

The Ku numeral adjective one is ‘ra,” corresponding to the

£ah)

Tamil ¢ oru,” but more closely to the ‘ra’ or ‘irra,” of the tablets.

from

In the language of the tablets all ordinal numbers end in ¢im,” in

10 the

hen@

Tamil in ‘4m,” in Samoyede in ‘im.’

(7.) The pronoun of the second person is exactly the same in the

h()rde

language of the inscriptions as in the Dravidian languages and the

of f

Brahui: in all it is ‘ni.’

Unfortunately the plural of this pronoun

|

is not contained in the tablet,—the singular having been used instead

tena

of the plural in addressing inferiors.

tlog

(8.) The language of the tablets, like the Dravidian languages,

a4 g

makes use of a relative participle. A relative pronoun is used in addi-

t()n 0

misna O

s

AFFILIATION OF

DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES

45

that

tion to the relative participle ; but Mr. Norris supposes the use of this

pronoun to be owing to the imitation of the Persian original. The par-

and-

ticular particle which is used in the tablets in forming the relative par-

a5 a

ticiple differs from that which is generally used in the Drividian lan-

a3 &

guages ; but the position and force of this particle, and the manner in

ction

which the participle formed by it is employed, are in perfect harmony

with Dravidian usage

Perhaps the use of this relative participle is

d by

the most remarkable and distinctive characteristic of the grammar of

every unaltered dialect of the Scythian family.

0rms

3, 11

9.) The negative 1mperat1ve, or prohibitive particle of the tablets

18 “inni,

in Gond, ¢ minni.’

(10.) The only verbal roots which appear to be analogous are the

¢ are

orlan

following : —

1t

hit

LANGUAGE OF THE TABLETS

DRAVIDIAN

eded

to say,

nan

an or en

1010

tomake known, uri

urei,

to explain; aRri, to know

[y

fo

to go

pori

po

el

gl

a king,

ko (the vowel considered

kd or kén

uncertain)

aceu

The conjugational system of the language of the tablets accords

sative

with that of the Magyar, the Mordwin, and other languages of the

Ugrian family, but differs considerably from the Dravidian languages,

yth\an

which form their tenses in a simpler manner, by the addition of par-

meral

ticles of time to the root, and which form the persons of their verbs by

“okay

the addition of the ordinary pronominal terminations to the particles

ch this

of time

Notwithstanding this discrepancy in the inflexions of the

] ol

gt

verbs, the resemblances shown to subsist between the language of the

e

tablets and the Dravidian idioms, most of which are in particulars of

|

older

primary importance, fully establish the existence of a radical though

o Sam

remote, connection

From the discovery of these analogies, we are

of the

enabled to conclude that the Dravidian race, though resident in India

fo the

from a period long prior to the commencement of history, originated

i

in the central tracts of Asia—the seed plot of nations

and that from

iy 1

thence, after parting company with the rest of the Ugro-Turanian

horde, and leaving a colony in Beluchistan, they entered India by way

n the

of the Indus

nd the

Whilst I regard the grammatical structure and prevailing charac-

}ronoun

teristics of the Dravidian idioms as Scythian, I claim for them a posi-

mste"‘d

tion in the Scythian group which is independent of its other members

as a distinct family or genus, or at least as a distinct sub-genus of

005

i

tongues.

They belong not to the Turkish family, or to the Ugrian, or

n o

A s oo B e

INTRODUCTION.

46

to the Mongolian, or to the Tungusian (each of which families differs

only

Gael

materially from the others, notwithstanding generic points of resem-

blance), but to the group or class in which all these families are com-

genel

diffe

prised. On the whole, the Drividian languages may be regarded as

COnD

most nearly allied to the Finnish or Ugrian family, with special

fam]

affinities, as it appears, to the Ostiak ; and this supposition, which I

(rael

had been led to entertain from the comparison of grammars and voca-

bularies alone, derives some confirmation from the fact brought to light

(one

allieg

by the Behistun tablets that the ancient Scythic race, by which the

greater part of Central Asia was peopled prior to the irruption of the

have

coln

Medo-Persians, belonged not to the Turkish, or to the Mongolian, but

to the Ugrian stock. Taking for granted, at present, the conclusive-

the

Indo

ness of the evidence on which this hypothesis rests, the result at which

1ot

we arrive is one of the most remarkable that the study of comparative

philology has yet realized.

Iangu

How remarkable that the closest and most distinet affinities to the

each

speech of the Dravidians of inter-tropical India should be those that

Lithy

are discovered in the languages of the Finns and Lapps of Northern

gy,

Europe, and of the Ostiaks and other Ugrians of Siberia! and, conse-

at log

quently, that the Pre—Aryan inhabitants of the Dekhan should be

mauy

beside

proved by their language alone, in the silence of history, in the absence

of all ordinary probabilities, to be allied to the tribes that appear to

Teslify

betwe

have overspread Europe before the arrival of the Goths and the Pelasgi,

and even before the arrival of the Celts !

What a confirmation of the

Seem

statement that ¢ God hath made of one blood all nations of men, to

(‘apa'

dwell upon the face of the whole earth !’

to bg

In weighing the reasons which may be adduced for affiliating the

earl]

Drévidian languages with the Scythian group, it should be borne in

1 gy

mind that whilst the generic characteristics of the Scythian languages

th d]

Of Te

Jy

are very strongly marked and incapable of being mistaken, in a vast

variety of minor particulars, and especially in their vocabularies, the

§0mp

stock

languages which are comprised in this family differ from one another

more widely than the various idioms of the Indo-European family

EHTOP(

mutually differ.

The Ugrian and the Turkish families can be proved

0f

to be cognate almost as certainly as the Gothic and the Sanscrit, or

Kl

0]

the Zend and the Greek ; yet, apart from the evidence of structure

and vital spirit, and looking only at the vocabulary, and the gram-

31011\: |

matical materiél, the agreement of any one of the Ugrian dialects with

any one of the Turkish is found to be very far inferior even to the

By,

I

agreement of the Sanscrit and the Celtic,—the longest separated and

theorv

e ————————————

st

most widely differing members of the Indo-European family. Thus

I’uc]\

whilst in nearly all the Indo-European languages the numerals are not

QUPPO:

I

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN

LANGUAGES.

47

ffers

only similar but the same,—(the Sanscrit word for ome and the

em:

Gaelic word for five are the only real exceptions to the rule of

COm

general identity),—muot only do the numerals of every Scythian family

d 8

differ so widely from those of every other as to present few points of

ecial

connection, but even the numerals of any two dialects of the same

ich I

family are found to differ very widely. Whilst the Sanserit and the

Y0Ca-

Gaelic agree in eight numerals out of ten, and differ in two only

light

(one and five) ; the Magyar and the Finnish, though as closely

h the

allied in point of grammatical structure as the Gaelic and the Welsh,

»f the

have now only the first fonr numerals in common, and perfectly

coincide in two numerals only, one and four

, but

So great indeed is

15Ive-

the diversity existing amongst the Scythian tongues, that, whilst the

which

Indo-European idioms form but one family, the Scythian tongues are

rafive

not so much a family as a group of families.

The Indo-European

languages may be regarded as forming but a single genus, of which

each language —(Sanscrit, Zend or Persian, Greek, Latin, Gothic,

o the

o that

Lithuanian, Slavonic, Armenian, Celtic)—-forms a species ; whilst the

rthern

languages of the Scythian group, more prolific in differences, comprise

at least five or six authenticated genera, each of which includes as

conse-

1ld be

many species as are contained in the solitary Indo-European genus ;

besides twenty or thirty isolated languages, which have up to this time

hsence

ear t0

resisted every effort to classify them.

This remarkable difference

’Qlﬁfgi!

between the Indo-European languages and those of the Scythian stock

seems to have arisen partly from the higher mental gifts and higher

of the

capacity for civilisation, with which the Indo-European tribes appear

nen, 10

to have been endowed from the beginning, and still more from the

earlier literary culture of their languages, and the better preservation,

ing the

orme 10

in consequence, of their forms and roots: but, from whatever cause

this difference may have arisen, it is obvious that in weighing evidences

{

of relationship this circumstance must be taken into account ; and that

1 4 \'35[

so minute an agreement of long separated sister dialects of the Scythian

res, the

stock is not to be expected as in parallel cases amongst the Indo-

nother

European dialects.

1 fﬁmlh

Of late years some inquirers have been inclined to question the

) pr()\"ed

relationship of the Drividian languages to the Scythian, either in

sertty OF

consequence of comparing them with the Tartar or Turkish languages

fracture

alone, to the exclusion of the more nearly allied Ugrian family, or in

p gralr

consequence of observing in the DrAvidian languages certain Indo-

3c/[s With

European affinities which seemed inconsistent with the Scythian

1 to t»he

theory. A friend of mine, who is a good Tamil scholar, was so much

ated ol

struck with the latter class of analogies that he was led to adopt the

- Thoe

supposition of the Indo- European relationship of the Dravidian

48

INTRODUCTION.

tongues.

At the very outset of my own inquiries I observed those

and

Indo-European analogies myself ; and, rejecting affinities which are

in vl

unreal and which disappear on investigation—(such as the connection

the e

of the Tamil numerals ¢ondru

or ‘onnu,

one;

anju,’ five

‘ettu

tions,

erght ;

with ‘un-us,” ‘pancha, and ¢ashta’—a connection which

and

looks very plausible, but is illusory (see section on ¢ Numerals’),—I

I

think it capable of satisfactory proof that a small number of the

Euro]

grammatical forms of the Dravidian languages, and a more considerable

I

number of their roots, are to be regarded as of cognate origin with

Not-

(

corresponding forms and roots in the Indo-European languages.

withstandine the existence of a few analogies of this character, the

(

dem

most essential parts of the grammar and vocabulary of the Dravidian

idioms are undoubtedly Scythian, and therefore I have no doubt of

the propriety of placing those idioms in the Scythian group Though

(4

the il

the majority of Hebrew roots have been proved to be allied to the

d ¢

Sanscrit, yet the Hebrew language does not cease to be regarded as

(5

Semitic rather than Indo-European ; so, notwithstanding some

(Germ;

interesting analogies with the Sanscrit, the Greek, the Gothic, and the

modern Persian, which may be discovered on a careful examination of

(6

Portior

the Dravidian tongues, and which will be pointed out in each of the

succeeding sections, the essential characteristics of those tongues are

I

Th

such as to require us to regard them as in the main Scythian

In stating that the Dravidian languages contain certain roots and

llied

Tndo.]

forms allied to the Sanscrit, and to the Indo-European languages

During the

i

generally, it is necessary to preclude mlsapprehensmn

long period of the residence of the Drévidian and Aryan races in the

X

Qan\cr

same country, the Drividian vocabularies have borrowed largely from

{

the Sansecrit

It is necessary, therefore, to premise that the analogies

I

ba

to which I refer are not founded on the existence in the Dravidian

NG

tongues of Sanscrit derivatives, but are such as are discoverable in the

original structure and primitive vocabulary of those languages. Whilst

Iy

‘Il]llh 1

the Dravidian languages have confessedly borrowed much from their

more wealthy neighbours, the Sanscrit, in some instances, has not dis-

Jith

dained to borrow from the Drévidian

but in general there is no

The

ol

]le L)

difficulty in distinguishing and eliminating what the one language has

borrowed from the other

and the statement which I have now made

Tafiy

|

relates not to derivatives, or words which may be supposed to be deri-

Sy i

vatives, but to radical, deep-seated analogies which cannot be explained

e

e

1 0§

on any supposition but that of a partial or distant relationship

In

el

Hea[’ext

most instances the words and forms in which analogies are discoverable

are allied not to the Sanscrit alone, but to the entire Indo-European

D 1ay ldl

family : in not a few instances analogies are discoverable in the Greek

IOPe

(]

qu

AFFILIATION OF THE DRAVIDIAN FAMILY.

49

hose

are

and Latin, which are not found in the Sanserit; and in many instances

tion

in which the Sanscrit appears to exhibit the closest analogy, it is not

tto,

the euphonized, systematised Sanscrit (Samscrita) of written composi-

lll.ich

tions, but the crude, original Sanscrit, which is discoverable by analysis

~1

and comparison, the ¢ Pre-Sanscrit’ of W. von Humboldt.

the

I subjoin here a few illustrations of primitive, underived Indo-

able

Europeanisms, which are discoverable in the Dravidian languages.

with

I. Analogical grammatical forms.

Not

(1.) The use of ‘n,’ as in Greek, to prevent Aiatus.

. the

(2.) The use of ‘d’ or “t

as the sign of the neuter singular of

demonstrative pronouns.

idian

bt of

(3.) The existence of a neuter plural, as in Latin, in short ¢a.’

ough

(4.) The formation of the remote demonstrative from a base in ‘a,’

the proximate from a base in ‘i; as in the New Persian, ‘4n, that,

the

od a8

and ‘¢in, this.

(5.) The formation of most preterites, as in the Persian and the

some

td the

Germanic tongues, by the addition of ‘t’ or “d.’

on of

(6.) The formation of some preterites by the reduplication of a

portion of the root.

f the

5 e

II. Analogical vocables.

The following are instances of roots which are much more nearly

allied to the Greek, the Gothic, or some other western language of the

sand

Indo-European stock, than to the Sanserit.

;u&ges

‘Ka-y,” to burn: Greek ¢ rai-w ; Sanscrit ‘kam.’

z the

in the

‘ki ‘gi,’ or ‘ge’—(Gond and Can.), to do: Old Persic ‘ki;

Sanserit “kri.

Y from

‘mig-u,’ much ; related words ‘migala’ and ‘mikkili:’ Persian

Jogies

‘mih,” English ‘migh-t,” Old High-German ¢ mih-hil,” Norse ‘mikil ;’

ridian

Sanserit ¢ mahi.

n the

‘mugil, @ cloud : Lithuanian ‘migla, Greek ¢¢-ulx\-y, Gothic

.

Fhilst

‘milh-ma ;' Sanscrit < mégha.’

1 fheir

‘pamp-u,’ ¢o send : Greek ¢ méum-w ; no allied word in Sanscrit.

lot diS‘

The illustrations which are given above form only a small portion

l,iS 10

of the analogous forms and roots which will be adduced in the gram-

matical analysis and in the glossarial affinities: they will, however,

7 made

suffice to prove that primitive, deep-seated Indo-European analogies

1 d@fi‘

are discoverable in the Dréividian languages.

They also serve to

Pmined

illustrate the statement, that, though the Sanscrit has long been the

0 In

nearest neighbour of the Dréividian tongues, there are not a few

N erﬁble

Dravidian roots which are more nearly allied to the Western Indo-

N

European idioms than to the Sanseritic or Eastern.

Whilst, therefore,

I classify the Drayidian family of languages as essentially and in the

. ek

E

~

INTRODUCTION.

J

0

main Scythian, I consider them as of all Scythian tongues those which

present the most numerous, ancient, and interesting analogies to the

il

Indo-European languages.

The position which this family occupies,

W)

Wi

if not mid-way between the two groups, is on that side of the Scythian

group on which the Indo-European appears to have been severed from

ar

it, and on which the most distinet traces of the original identity of

b

the families still remain.

If this view be correct (as I think it will

(s

be shewn to be), the Indo-Europeanisms which are discoverable in the

st

Dravidian languages carry us back to a period beyond all history,

all

beyond all mythology, not only prior to the separation of the western

th

branches of the Indo-European race from the eastern, but prior also to

of

the separation of the yet undivided Indo-Europeans from the Scythian

11

stoek.

B

It is a remarkable circumstance, that in the vocabulary of the

P

Drévidian languages, especially in that of the Tamil, a few Semitic

log

analogies may also be discovered.

In some instances the analogous

Tng

roots are found in the Indo-European family, as well as in Hebrew,

For

}’idl

though the Hebrew form of the root is more closely analogous.

example, though we find in Latin, ‘ave-o,” to desire, and in Sanscrit,

II]]p

oy

‘ava,” of which to desire is a subordinate meaning; yet the corre-

e

sponding Tamil words ‘avi,” desire, and ‘aval’ (signifying also desire),

ful}

a verbal noun from a lost verb ‘4v-u,’ o desire, seem still more directly

of ¢

allied to the Hebrew ‘4vah,’ ¢o desire, and the verbal noun ‘avvah,’

desire.

tol

In addition, however, to such general analogies as pervade

the

several families of tongues, including the Dravidian, there are roots

Dy

discoverable both in the Dravidian languages and in the Hebrew, to

which I am not aware of the existence of any resemblance in any

Ind.

langunage of the Indo-European family. The following are illustrations

Whj(

of such special analogies :—

aboy

W}]y

mMAR-U .

to change, or exchange, to sell ; Hebrew ‘mir,” fo

Tesey

exchange; Syriac ‘mor,” to buy.

unqu

guvar

a wall ; Hebrew, ‘shir,’ a wall.

liy |

thyy

kir

a sharp point; Hebrew, ‘kiir,” fo bore, to pierce.

*

fev-(vei) .

equal, level, right; Chaldee, ‘shev-4,” to be equal,

level, &c. ; Hebrew, ‘shiv-ah,’ the same.

al, 11, 14, 1é

no, not; Hebrew, ‘al,” ‘16, not; Chaldee, ‘14,” not.

Compare also Chaldee ‘léth,’ i¢ is not, with Telugu

“lédu,’ there is not.

01y

Seng,

~

AFFILIATION OF

THE DRAVIDIAN FAMILY.

J

1

h

The Semitic analogies observable in the Tamil are neither so

16

numerous nor so important as the Indo-European, nor do they carry

)b,

with them such convincing evidence; but taking them in connexion

il

with that more numerous and important class of analogous roots which

)i}

are found in the Indo-European languages, as well as in the Hebrew,

of

but of which the Hebrew form is more closely allied to the Dravidian

ill

(see the Glossarial Affinities), these analogies, such as they are, con-

he

stitute an additional element of interest in the problem of the origin

I,

and pre-historical connections of the Dravidian race.

I do not adduce

eIl

these analogies for the purpose of endeavouring to prove the existence

) t0

of any relationship between the Dravidian language and the Hebrew,

jan

similar to that which subsists between the DraAvidian and the Indo-

European languages.

Aware of the danger of proving nothing by

the

proving too much, I content myself with merely stating those ana-

itie

logies, without attempting to deduce any inference from them. The

gOﬂS

Indo-Furopean analogies are so intimately connected with the indi-

16w,

viduality and vital essence of the Dravidian languages, that it seems

For

impossible to suppose them to be merely the result of early association,

oty

however intimate.

It is only on the supposition of the existence of a

O

remote or partial relationship that they appear to be capable of being

e,

fully explained.

In the case of the Semitic analogies, the supposition

ectly

of a relationship between the two families of tongues does not appear

vab,

to be necessary. All the analogies that exist can be accounted for on

rvade

the hypothesis—a very easy and natural one—that the primitive

10018

Dravidian nomades were at some early period before their arrival in

W, 10

India, associated with a people speaking a Semitic language.

] any

It seems proper here to notice the remarkable general resemblance

ations

which exists between the Dravidian pronouns and those of the

In whatever

aboriginal tribes of Southern and Western Australia.

way it may be explained or accounted for, the existence of a general

resemblance (which was first pointed out by Mr. Norris), seems to be

fr, 0

unquestionable; but it has not hitherto been observed that the Austra-

lian pronouns of the first person, are more nearly allied to the Tibetan

|

than to the Dravidian.

This will appear from the following compara-

tive view of the pronoun of the first person singular.

10

DrAvIDIAN.

A USTRALIAN

TIBETAN.

CHINESE.

gqual,

ot

nin, nd, én

nga, ngaii, ngatsa,

nga, nge, nged

ngo

nganya

h ﬂ/f

Whilst the base of this pronoun seems to be closely allied to the

Telugh

corresponding pronoun in Tibetan, and in the Indo-Chinese family

generally, the manner in which it is pluralised in the Australian dia-

2

B

u

S MR *&mé’”

AN

5

2

-]

INTRODUCTION.

lects bears a marked resemblance to- the Dravidian, and epecially to

the Telugu. The Telugu forms its plurals by suffixing ¢lu’ to the

singular; the Australian dialects by a similar addition of ¢lu, ‘li,

¢dlu, dli; &ec. In this particular some of the dialects of the North-

Eastern frontier of India exhibit also an agreement with the Telugu :

e. g., compare Dhimal ¢ n&, thou, with ‘nyel, you. In the Australian

dialects T find the following plurals and duals of the pronoun of the

§

first person—uwe, or we two, ngalu,” ¢ ngadlu,” ¢ ngadli, ‘ngalata,’ &e.

Compare this with the manner in whieh the Telugu forms its plural;

e.g. ‘vad’-u,’ he; ‘vAdlu, they ; and even with the colloquial Tamil

plural of the pronoun of the first person; e.g., ¢ nan, 7 ; ‘nanggal,’

we

The resemblance between the Australian pronouns of the second

person, both singular and plural, and those of the Dravidian languages

l

is more distinet and special ; and is apparent, not only in the suffixes,

but in the pronominal base itself. The normal forms of these pronouns

I

in the Dravidian languages are—singular, ‘nin,’ plural, ‘nim.” The

personality resides in the crude root ¢ ni, thow ; which is the same in

—

both numbers, with the addition of a singular formative ‘n’ (e. g. ¢ ni-n,’

thow), and a pluralising formative ‘m’ (e. g., ‘ni-m,” thous, or you).

Tn some cases the pluralising particle ‘m’ has been displaced, and ‘r,’

i

which I regard as properly the sign of the epicene plural of the third

6

person, has been substituted for it; e. g., ‘nir, you (in Telugu ‘mir-u’).

This abnormal form ‘nir is most used in a separate form : the older

and more regular ‘nim’ retains its place in compounds, and in the

[

imperative of the verb. Whilst ¢i’ is the vowel which is almost in-

01

variably found in the singular of the pronoun of the second person,

in the plural, ‘i’ often gives place to ‘u,’ as in the classical Tamil

It is to be noticed also

Ql

<numa, your, and the Brahui ¢ num,” you.

that the modern Canarese has softened ‘nim’ into ‘niva’ or ¢ niwu,’

£X

[

in the nominative.

qu

It is singular, in whatever way it may be accounted for, that in

each and all of the particulars now mentioned the Australian dialects

86e

Under

(y

resemble the Dravidian.

See the following comparate view.

W

the Australian head I class the dual together with the plural, as being

substantially the same.

Wh

b

DRAVIDIAN.

A USTRALIAN.

fh

thou,

nin, nin

ninna, nginne, ngintoa, ningte

€0

you,

nim, nim, nir, num, niwa

nimedoo, nura, niwa, ngurle

al

th

Compare also the accusative of the first person singular in Tamil,

€l

¢ ennei,’ me, with the Australian accusative ¢ emmo.’

THE REPRESENTATIVE DIALECT.

53

The grammatical structure of the Australian dialects exhibits a

general agreement with the languages of the Scythian group.

In the

use of post-positions instead of prepositions; in the use of two forms of

the first person plural, one inclusive of the party addressed, the other

exclusive ; in the formation of inceptive, causative, and reflective verbs

by the addition of certain syllables to the root ; and, generally, in the

n

agglutinative structure of words and in the position of wordsin a

i

sentence, the dialects of Australia resemble the Dravidian—as also the

Turkish, the Mongolian, and other Scythian languages: and in the

ki

same particulars, with one or two exceptions, they differ essentially

il

from the dialects which are called Polynesian.

A

The brief vocabularies of the Australian dialects which have been

compiled do not appear to give additional confirmation to the resem-

»lld

blances pointed out above: but it is difficult to suppose those resem-

168

blances to be unreal, or merely accidental ; and it is obvious that the

il

Australian dialects demand (and probably will reward) further exami-

108

nation.

WuaT DIALECT BEST REPRESENTS THE PRIMITIVE CONDITION OF

;

1

THE DRAVIDIAN ToNGUES ?

1)

Before entering upon the grammatical comparison of the Dravidian

b1

dialects, it seems desirable to ascertain where we should look for their

hird

earliest characteristics.

Many have been of opinion that the Shen-

u).

Tamil, or high dialect of the Tamil language, is to be regarded as the

dder

best representative of the primitive Dravidian speech. Without under-

the

estimating the great value of the Shen-Tamil, I am convinced that no

{10

one dialect can be implicitly received as a mirror of Dravidian antiquity.

101,

A comparison of all the dialects that exist will be found our best and

fanﬂl

safest guide to a knowledge of the primitive tongue from which the

qlso

existing dialects have diverged ; and not only the Shen-Tamil, but

il

every existing dialect, even the rudest, will be found to contribute its

quota of help towards this end. The Tamil pronouns of the first and

at 1

second person cannot be understood without a knowledge of the Ancient

ﬂects

Canarese : and the Ku, one of the rudest dialects, and the grammar of

Tnder

which was reduced to writing only a few years ago, is the only dialect

heing

which throws light on the masculine and feminine terminations of the

Still it is unquestionable

Dravidian pronouns of the third person.

that the largest amount of assistance towards ascertaining the primitive

condition of the Dravidian languages will be afforded by the Tamil,

ngte

and in particular by the Shen-Tamil ; and this naturally follows from

e

the circumstance that of all the Dravidian idioms the Tamil was the

earliest cultivated.

Tamﬂ,

INTRODUCTION.

1

PrioriTy oF THE LITERARY CULTIVATION OF THE TAMIL.

¢

(

4

The relatively high antiquity of the literary cultivation of the

Tamil being a matter of interest considered in itself, irrespective of its

W

by

important bearings on the question of Dravidian comparative grammar,

I shall here adduee a few of the evidences on which this conclusion

I

rests.

¥

W

1. The Shen-Tamil, which is the language of the poetry and of the

ancient inscriptions, and which not only contains all the refinements

I

0

which the Tamil has received, but also exhibits to a great extent the

primitive condition of the language, differs more from the colloquial

a

Tamil than the poetical dialect of any other Dravidian idiom differs

0

from its ordinary dialect.

It differs from the colloquial Tamil so con-

siderably that it might almost be considered as a distinet language :

T

th

for not only is classical Tamil poetry as unintelligible to the unlearned

Tamilian as the Aneid of Virgil to a modern Italian peasant, but even

fic

prose compositions written in the eclassical dialect might be read for

hours in the hearing of a person acquainted only with the collo-

I0(

quial idiom, without his understanding a single sentence.

Notwith-

th

Ty

standing this, High Tamil contains less Sanserit, not more, than the

colloquial dialect.

It affects purism and national independence ; and

pln

its refinements are all ad nira.

As the words and forms of the Shen-

an

Tamil cannot have been invented by the poeets, but must at some

e

period have been in actual use, the degree in which the colloquial Tamil

de

has diverged from the poetical dialect, notwithstanding the slowness

it

with which language, like every thing else, changes in the East, is a

hi

proof of the high antiquity of the literary cultivation of the Tamil.

T

2. Another evidence consists in the extraordinary copiousness of

o

the Tamil vocabulary, and the number and variety of the grammatical

T&i

forms of the Shen-Tamil.

The Shen-Tamil grammar is a crowded

|

H]\i

museum of obsolete forms, cast-off inflexions, and curious anomalies.

ey

A school lexicon of the Tamil language, published by the American

toy

missionaries at Jaffna, contains no less than 58,500 words; and it

Wi}

would be necessary to add several thousands of technical terms, besides

{la

provincialisms, in order to render the list complete. Nothing strikesa

1)

Tamil scholar more, on examining the dictionaries of the other Dravi-

T4

dian dialects, than the paucity of their lists of synonyms in comparison

Wa

with those of the Tamil. The Tamil vocabulary contains not only those

Jos

words which may be regarded as appropriate to the language, inasmuch

ill(

as they are used by the Tamil alone, but also those which may be con-

Ty

sidered as the property of the Telugu, the Canarese, &ec. Thus, the

i

ANTIQUITY OF THE TAMIL.

5

J

word used for house in ordinary Tamil is ¢ vidu ;’ but the vocabulary

contains also, and often uses, the word appropriate to the Telugu, €il

(Telugu, ‘illu’), and the distinctive Canarese word, ‘manei’ (Canarese,

he

‘mana) ; besides another synonym, ‘kudi, which it has in common

Its

with the whole of the Finnish languages.

The grammar and voca-

ar,

bulary of the Tamil are thus to a considerable extent the common

0

repository of Dravidian forms and roots: and as the grammars and

vocabularies of the other dialects contain only the words and forms

he

which are now peculiar to themselves, we may conclude that the lite-

nts

rary cultivation of the Tamil dates from a period prior to that of the

the

other idioms, and prior to the final breaking up of the language of the

ancient Dravidians inte lialects.

lial

8. Another evidence of the antiquity and purity of the Tamil

o1

01

consists in the agreement of the Ancient Canarese, the Malayalam, the

76

Tulu, and also the Tuda, Gond, and Ku, with the Tamil, in many of

ned

the particulars in which the modern Canarese and the Telugu differ

yen

from it.

for

4. The fact that in many instances the forms of the Telugu

1lo

roots and inflexions have evidently been corrupted from the forms of

ith

the Tamil, is a strong confirmation of the higher antiquity of the

Tamilian forms.

Instances of this will be given in the section on the

the

and

phonetic system of these languages.

It will suffice now to adduce, as

en-

an illustration of what is meant, the transposition of vowels which

we find in the Telugu demonstrative pronouns.

The true Dravidian

ome

il

demonstrative bases are ‘a,” remote, and ‘i, proximate; to which are

suffixed the formatives of the genders, with ‘v’ euphonic, to prevent

1688

hiatus.

The Tamil demonstratives are €avan, ¢lle, and ‘ivan,’ Aic.

154

The Telugu masculine formative answering to the Tamil ‘an,” is “ du,’

or ‘adu ; and hence the demonstratives in Telugu, answering to the

a of

Tamil ‘avan,” ¢ivan,” might be expected to be ‘avadu’ and ‘ivadu

tieal

instead of which we find ¢vadd,” 4lle, and ‘vidu,’ FZic.

Here the

yded

demonstrative bases ‘a’ and ‘i, have shifted from their natural posi-

pliess

tion at the beginning of the word to the middle ; whilst by coalescing

rical

with the vowel of the formative, or as a compensation for its loss, their

d it

quantity has been increased. The altered, abnormal form of the

gsideﬂ

Telugu is evidently the later one ; but as even the high dialect of the

kesd

Telugu contains no other form, the period when the Telugu grammar

)rﬁ\"l'

was rendered permanent by written rules and the aid of written com-

u‘iSOD

positions, must have been subsequent to the origin of the corruption

those

in question, and therefore subsequent to the literary cultivation °f the

uch

Tamil.

) (Ol

5. Another evidence of antiquity consists in the great cor-

the

oAk LA

’;

56

INTRODUCTION.

fo

ruption of many of the Sanscrit derivatives that are found in the

Tamil.

I¢

?

The Sanscrit contained in Tamil may be divided into three portions

00

|

d:

of different dates, introduced by three different parties.

‘t

(1.) The most recent portion was introduced by the school of

S

X

Sankara Acharya, the apostle of Advaita, or Vedantic Saivism, and by

de

its chief rival, the school of Sri Vaishnava, founded by Raménuja

ch

ﬁ

Acharya.

The period of the greatest activity and influence of those

sects extended from about the tenth century, A.p., to the fifteenth ;*

i

1;

and the Sanscrit derivatives introduced by the adherents of these

it

W

|

systems (with the exception of a few points wherein change was un-

avoidable) are pure, unchanged Sanscrit.

Jiki

(2.) The school of writers, partly preceding the above and partly

T]

contemporaneous with them, by which the largest portion of the

or

i

&

Sanscrit derivatives that are found in Tamil were introduced, was that

of the Jainas, which flourished from about the eighth century, a.p., to

g

the twelfth or thirteenth.

The period of the predominance of the

i

Jainas (a predominance in intellect and learning—rarely a predomi-

i

nance in political power) was the Augustan age of Tamil literature,

oo

the period when the Madura College, a celebrated literary association,

Tng]

flourished, and when the Cural, the ChintAmani, and the classical voca-

Tar

bularies and grammars were written.

Through the intense Tamilie

of |

nationalism of the adherents of this school, and their jealousy of

bah

Brahmanical influence, the Sansecrit derivatives which are employed in

oth

their writings are very counsiderably altered, so as to accord with Tamil

the

euphonic rules.

Thus ‘loka,” Sanscrit, the world, is changed into

Sar

‘ulagu 7 ‘raja,’ a king, into ‘arasu; and ‘ri,’ night (an abbreviation

Te

of ‘ratri’), into ‘iravu.’

the

Nearly the whole of the Sanscrit derivatives that are found in

Ien

Telugu, Canarese, and Malayalam belong to the periods now men-

Jeri

tioned, or at least they accord on the whole with the derivatives

Jaiy

Jaiy

* Sankara Acharya is supposed by Professor Wilson to have lived in the

eighth or ninth century, A.p.: but the statement which I have here made relates

intg

the

i:

not to Sankara Acharya personally, but to the school of theology and philosophy

which was founded by him. This school did not reach the acme of its influence

thy

in the Carnatic till the tenth or cleventh century, when it appears probable that

the great temples of the Carnatic were erected.

Those temples, the most stupen-

The

dous works of the kind in the Bast, owe their existence to the enthusiasm and

zeal of the adherents of the system of Sankara Acharya.

I have not yet been

gy

able to ascertain the exact date when any of the more celebrated temples was

S—

erected ; but from inscriptions in my possession recording donations and endow-

[

ments made to them, I am able to state that the greater number of the Saiva

g

temples were in existence in the twelfth century, many in the eleventh, and a few

in the tenth. I have not ascertained the existence of any Vaishnava temple in

()]de

the South before the twelfth century.

only

ANTIQUITY OF THE TAMIL,

57

the

found in the Tamil of those two periods, especially the former or more

recent.

They are divided, according to the degree of permutation or

l0ng

corruption to which they have been subjected, into the two classes of

‘tat-sama,’ the wery same,

.., words which are identical with

| of

Sanserit, and ‘tad-bhava,’ the same nature, i.e., words which are

d by

derived from a Sanscrit origin, but have been slightly corrupted or

I

changed by local influences.

those

The former class, or ‘tat-sama’ words, are scarcely at all altered,

ih

and generally look like words which have been used only by Brah-

these

mans, or which had been introduced into the vernaculars at a period

8 U~

when the Sanscrit alphabetical and phonetic systems had become

naturalised, through the predominance of the later forms of Hinduism.

partly

Those Sanscrit derivatives which have been altered more considerably,

f the

or ‘tad-bhava’ words, do not appear to have been borrowed directly

g th&t

from the Sanscrit, but are represented by Telugu and Canarese gram-

D, 10

marians themselves as words that have been borrowed from the Pra-

of the

crits, or colloquial dialects of the Sanscrit, which were formerly spoken

odomi-

in the contiguous Gaura provinces.

tature,

(8.) In addition to the Sanscrit derivatives of the two pericds now

jation,

mentioned—the Jaina and the modern Vedantic Saiva periods—the

y0ea-

Tamil contains many derivatives belonging to the very earliest period

E

amilio

of the literary culture of the language,—derivatives which are pro-

bably of an earlier date than the introduction of Sanscrit into the

sy of

other dialects.

gyed in

The derivatives of this class were not borrowed from

the northern Pracrits (though much more corrupted than even the

, Tamil

ed 1nto

Sanscrit which was borrowed from those Praecrits by the Canarese and

Telugu), but appear to have been derived from oral intercourse with

3\'i:lti0ﬂ

the first Brahmanical priests, scholars, and astrologers ; and probably

und 10

remained unwritten for a considerable time.

The Sanscrit of this

w men-

period is not only greatly more corrupted than that of the period of the

Jainas, but its corruptions are of an entirely different character. The

vatives

Jainas altered the Sanscrit which they borrowed in order to bring it

into accordance with Tamil euphonic rules; whereas in the Sanscrit of

4 the

Je relates

the period which is now under consideration—the earliest period—

losophy

the changes that have been introduced are in utter defiance of rule.

influence

The following are instances of derivatives of this class :

e that

stuped:

(a.) The Sanscrit ‘sri, sacred, was altered into °tiru ;> whilst a

fastn A0

more recent alteration of the Sanscrit word is into ¢stri)’

yeb heen

v

168 a8

(0.) The Sanscrit ¢ karmam,” ¢ work, is in the Tamil of the more

od endov

modern periods altered into ‘karumam’ and ‘kanmam ; but in the

the ST

older Tamil it was corrupted into ‘kam, a word which is now found

alld g fem

fomple 2

only in the old compound, ¢ kam(m)-alan,” an artificer.

58

INTRODUCTION.

still

(c.) Several of the names of the Tamil months supply us with

illustrations of early corruptions of Sanserit.

The Tamil months,

and |

ancle

though now solar-siderial, are named from the old lunar asterisms ;

Chris

the names of which asterisms, and still more the names of the months

borrowed from them, are greatly corrupted. Z.g., the asterism ‘plirva-

point

4shadam, is changed into ¢plraddam :* ‘ashidam,’ also is changed into

also t

lon

adam,” from which is formed ¢ 4di,’ the Tamil name of the mouth July

—August. The name of the asterism ‘aswini’ has been corrupted into

T

¢ eippasi,” which is the Tamil name of the month October —November.

and t

with

The change of ¢pfirva bhadra-pada,’ the Sanscrit name of one of

the asterisms, into ‘ purattisi’ is still more extraordinary.

¢ Plirva-

‘nir,

bhadra-pada’ was first changed into ¢ plrattadi,’ the name of the cor-

1s is

tlons

responding asterism in Tamil; and this, again, by the shortening of

the first syllable and the change of ¢di’ into ¢si,” became ¢ plirattasi,’

the Tamil month September —October.

found

The corresponding names of the asterisms and months in Telugu,

the

Canarese, &c., are pure, unchanged Sanscrit ; and hence the greater

a e

antiquity of the introduction of those words into Tamil, or at least the

fur}

any]

greater antiquity of their use in Tamil written compositions, may safely

In

be concluded.

tablets

6. The higher antiquity of the literary cultivation of the Tamil

the Re

In Carnataka and

may also be inferred from Tamil inseriptions.

Tomj]

idion

Telingina, every inscription of an early date, and the majority even

of modern inscriptions, are written in Sanscrit.

Even when the

knowy

characters employed are the Ancient Canarese or the Telugu (characters

earliep

which have been arranged to express the peculiar sounds of the

chrong

Sanserit), it is invariably found that Sansecrit is the language in which

are ey

In the Tamil

the inscription is written, if it is one of any antiquity.

the Sey

country, on the contrary, all inscriptions belonging to an early period

are written in Tamil ; and I have not met with, or heard of, a single

the inger

Sanscrit inscription in the Tamil country which appears to be older

Lenfioy

than the fourteenth century, A.p., though I have obtained fac-similes

°haracter

ﬂﬂll]e, wh

of all the inscriptions that I could hear of in Tinnevelly and South

ha}'e begy

Travancore—integral portions of the ancient Pandiyan kingdom. The

o

U g

number of inscriptions that I have obtained is about a hundred and fifty.

WhiCh e

They were found on the walls and floors of temples, and on rocks and

ﬁOIlS of i

coh({lll‘i[

pillars. The latest are written in Grantham, or the character in which

6 Ohl

Sanserit is written by the Dravida Brahmans ; those of an earlier age

*

Wy

in an old form of the existing Tamil character ;

and the earliest in a

Dﬂ‘]v

pro

Elghth 0

0 hayy

Tdjy n

* T hope at some future period to make public the items of historical informa-

tion whieh are contained in those inscriptions; not one of whieh is included in

Plceg |

ANTIQUITY OF THE TAMIL.

59

vith

still older character, which appears to have been common to the Tamil

ths,

and the ancient Malayéala countries, and is the character in which the

s

ancient Sasanas in the possession of the Jews at Cochin and of the Syrian

Christians in Travancore are written.

nths

This character presents some

IVa

points of resemblance to the modern Telugu-Canarese character, and

into

also to the character in which some undeciphered inscriptions in Cey-

lon and the Eastern Islands are written.

July

nto

The language of all the more ancient of these inscriptions is Tamil ;

\bet.,

and the style in which they are written is that of the classical dialect,

6 of

without any of those double plurals (e.g., ‘ninggal,” yous, instead of

va-

‘nir, you), and other unauthorized novelties by which modern Tamil

) 001

is disfigured ; but it is free also from the affected brevity and involu-

19 of

tions of the poetical style.

fisy

As no inscription of any antiquity in Telinghna or Carnétaca is

found to be written in the Canarese or the Telugu language, whatever be

lug,

the character that is employed, the priority of Tamil literary culture,

reater

as well as its national independence to a considerable extent, may

st the

fairly be concluded.

safely

I may here remark that the Cochin and Travancore ¢shsanas’ or

tablets which are referred to above, and which have been translated by

Tamil

the Rev. Dr. Gundert, prove conclusively, not only the priority of

a and

Tamil to Malayala literature, but also the derivation of the Malayala

idiom from the Tamil.

Y evel

The date of those documents is not certainly

known, but is probably not later than the ninth century, A.p., nor

N the

racters

earlier than the seventh ; for the technical terms of solar-siderial

chronology (derived from the Sirya-Siddhanta of Arya—bhatt}a) which

of tjhe

are employed in these inscriptions were not generally introduced till

which

Tamil

the seventh century.

The ‘shsanas’ were written at a time when the

pel‘iod

the inseriptions belonging to the Mackenzie collection of MSS.

, single

I may, however,

e 01(101'

mention here the following interesting items.—(1.) The generally fictitious

character of the long lists of kings of Madura, each with a high-sounding Sanserit

iiles

name, which are contained in the local ¢ purnas’ and other legends, and which

have been published by Professor Wilson in his Historial Sketch of the Pandiyan

1 South

Kingdom, and by Mr. Taylor in his Oriental Historical MSS.

(2.) The veracity

5, The

and accuracy of most of the references to the PAndiya and Chodla dynasties

od fiftye

which are contained in the Mahi-wanso and other historical records and compila-

tions of the Singhalese Buddhists.

(3.) The fact, or proof of the fact, of the

,cks alld

conquest of the whole of the Pdndiya country, including South Travancore, by

the Chélas in the eleventh century.

(4.) The probable identification of Sundara

1 Which

Pandiyan, by whom the Jainas (sometimes erroneously termed Buddhists) were

Jier a9

finally expelled from Madura, and whom Professor Wilson has placed in the

-

st 10

eighth or ninth century a.n. with the ¢ Sender Bandi,’ who is said by Marco Pole

AT

33 e Ll PR SN B e et TR

to have been reigning in the southern part of the peninsula during his visit to

India in the middle of the thirteenth century. The same Sundara Pindiyan is

e

placed by native Hindu authorities some millions of years before the Christian

| for

era !

cluded

r

i3

e

i

60

INTRODUCTION.

Chérd or Kérala dynasty was still predominant on the Malabat coast :*

iti]

but though words and forms which are peculiar to the modern

Iep

Malayéla language may be detected in them, the general style of the

language in which they are written is Tamil ; the inflexions of the

Jar

furt

nouns and verbs are Tamil, and the idiom is mostly Tamil ; and we are

therefore left to infer that at that period Tamil was the language at

lontt

TESL

least of the court and of the educated classes in the Malayéla country,

and that what is now called Malayalam, if it then existed at all, was

B

probably nothing more than a rustic patois that was current amongst

the inhabitants of the hills and jungles in the interior.

The fact that

the ‘shsanas’ which were given by the ancient Malayala kings to the

Ma

Jews and Syrian Christians, are in the Tamil language, instead of the

£0 |

Malayalam, cannot be accounted for from the circumstance of the

of

temporary conquest of any part of the Malayala country by the

4D

ancient kings of Madura ; for the kings in question were Kérala, not

Gan

Pandiya, kings, with Kérala names, titles, and insignia; and it is evi-

dent from the Greek geographers themselves, from whom alone we

|

know anything of this conquest, that it was only a few isolated places,

o

(i

on or near the Malabar coast, that were really under the rule of the

of T

Pandiyas. The only part of the Malayéla country which at’ that

(rha

period could be regarded as belonging bond fide to the Pandiyas, was

hill

the southern part of ¢ Paralia, 4.e., South Travancore, a district which

has always been inhabited chiefly by Pandiyas, and where to the

Dr

present day the language of the entire people is Tamil, not Malay-

aAlam.

SR Su—

of ¢

From the various particulars mentioned above it appears certain

Drj

W hll

that the Tamil language was of all the Dravidian idioms the earliest

cultivated: it also appears highly probable, that in the endeavour to

Stry

the 11

ascertain the characteristics of the primitive Dravidian speech, from

whic

which the various existing dialects have been derived, most assistance

will be furnished by the Tamil. The amount and value of this assistance

lient

Whig

will appear in almost every portion of the grammatical comparison on

which we are about to enter.

It must, however, be borne in mind, as

LI

has already been intimated, that neither the Tamil nor any other

of W

G

* One of them is dated ‘in the seventh year of King Ravi Varma, opposite

upl

the second year.’

By this vexed expression, ‘opposite the second year,

Mr. Whish supposed that a reference was made to the ©second cycle of a thousand

& fy

years

from the building of Quilon, a calculation according to which the present

by

1856, would be the thirty-first of the third cycle; but the same expression

year,

is excee

dingly common in the ancient Tamil inscriptions (e.g. ¢the seventh year

an

|

of King Kulaskhara, opposite the fifteenth year ’); and it denotes, I conceive, the

year of

‘the cycle of sixty’ (which was formerly the prevailing calculation all

Gng

over India and the East) to which the year o

f the king’s reign stands ¢ opposite,’

or answers.

smﬁ'[

I

EARLIEST® TRACES

OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

61

R

dert

single dialect, ancient or modern, can be implicitly adopted asa faithful

the

representative of the primitive Dravidian tongue.

A careful com-

[ the

parison of the peculiarities of all the dialects will carry us up still

(I

further, probably up to the period of their mutual divergence, a period

long anterior to that of grammars and vocabularies ; and it is upon the

26 b

ntry,

result of such a comparison that most dependence is to be placed.

, was

Jongst

EArLIEST EXTANT WRITTEN RELICS OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

t that

to the

The Dréavidian words which are contained in the RamAyana, the

of the

Mahé-bharata, and other Sanserit poems of undoubted antiquity, are

of the

so few that they throw no light whatever upon the ancient condition

)y tbe

of the Dravidian languages, prior to the eighth or ninth centuries

A.D., the earliest date to which any extant Tamil compositions

la, not

Is evi-

can safely be attributed. The name ‘Pandiya’ being probably of

Sanscrit origin, the only Dravidian names which are contained in the

ne W

poems referred to, are ‘Chola,’ corrupted from the Tamilic ‘Séra’

place%

: Of the

(commonly pronounced ‘Chéla’), the collective name of the Tamilians

of Tanjore, and ‘ Malaya,’ the name of a mountain range, the Western

b that

Ghauts, which is probably derived from the DraAvidian ‘mala,’ «

8 Was

X8

hall.

, which

It is 2 remarkable circumstance, that the largest stock of primitive

to the

Malay-

Dravidian words which is contained in any authentic written document

of ancient times—the earliest extant traces of the existente of the

certain

Dravidian languages, as distinguished from the Sanscrit—are those

which are contained in the notices of the Greek geographers, Ptolemy,

eatliest

Strabo, and the author of the Periplus Maris Erythrae; including also

your 10

i

the Natural History of Pliny. Many of the names and places and tribes

p, from

@

which are recorded by those geographers, not long after the commence-

gistance

ment of the Christian era, are identical, letter for letter, with the names

lstance

which are now in use. Several of those names have become obsolete, or

cannot now be identified : but the signification of the compound words

[ﬂmdi (&

of which they consist cannot be mistaken ; and in several of them we

'ny Other

can detect the operation of some interesting dialectic peculiarity or

euphonic rule which is still characteristic of these languages. I subjoin

, ot

)ﬂd yeal

a few examples of Dravidian words of this class which are recorded

thou“‘m

by the Greeks.

pe et

(1.) ‘6 Mavdiwy’'—* oi Havéidves, ‘Pandiya,’ is probably a word of

¢x 165:10

ey

el

th yel!

Sanscrit origin, but the masculine termination which is given by the

)Ilbelve’

I

Greeks is unmistakeably Tamil.

The Tamilic sign of the masculine

[ation &

oppoclfe:

singular is ‘an ; consequently o Tlavéiwy’ (and still better the plural

62

INTRODUCTION.

Tam

form of the word, ‘Havéidves, which is applied to the subjects of the

(iree

Pandiya monarchy), faithfully represents the Tamil nominative sin-

gular ‘Pandiyan.’

(

supp

The form of the masculine singular in Ancient Canarese which

aceor

corresponds to the Tamil ‘an,’ is ‘am:” in Telugu it is ‘udu,” so that

midy

‘Pandiyudu’ in Telugu, answers to ‘Pandiyan’ in Tamil. Consequently,

D)

we learn that, as early as the Christian era, the Tamil differed dialec-

tically from the other Dravidian idioms, and that its mode of forming

the |

indi¢

the masculine singular was then the same as it is now. ‘Pandiya’ was

not the name of any one king, but the titular name of the dynasty of

10t

but 1

Madura (Mo’ﬁov/)a ﬁam'/\ewv Hav&.o'vw).

The race were ‘Pandis,” or

part

‘PAndiyas’ (mavdwves); the king, the ‘Pandiyan’ (¢ Iavdlwv), or the

Ao

‘Pandiya Déva.

It is a proof of the advanced social position which

Sever

was occupied by the Pandiyas, that after the termination of the

political relations which subsisted between the Greeks of Alexander’s

COr2g

iale

time, and the princes of the Punjaub, the Pandiyas were the only

Indian princes who perceived the advantages of an Kuropean alliance.

dre

Two embassies were sent by the Pandiyan king to Augustus : the first

& Jun

Telug

(which is mentioned in the Eusebian fragments) was received by

Augustus at Tarragona; the second is mentioned by Strabo.

The

P

Moz

friendship of the Romans was sought by only one other Hindu prince,

6 knpofBddpos, the King of Chéra (or Kérala), who was also a Dravidian,

‘Ségﬂ;

and probably a Tamilian.

*

(2.) ¢ Korrwapa.

This is the name of a place in the country of the

(St

¢Aii, or ‘Paralia’ (identical with South Travancore), which is called

Undg

from

‘Kottiara Metropolis’ by Ptolemy, ‘Cottora’ by Pliny. Undoubtedly

the town referred to is ‘Kottira,” or, as it is ordinarily spelled by

ag g

Vordg

Europeans, ‘Kotaur,” the principal town in South Travancore, and now,

Dartigy

as in the time of the Greeks, distinguished for its commerce.

The

T —

i

iy

name of the place is derived from ‘Kéd-u,” Tam., a line of circumval-

Sén

e,

L gy

lation, a fortification, and ‘4r4," a riwer. It is a rule in the Tamil and

the Malayalam, that when a word like ‘K6d’ is the first member of a

SOX‘{“I

toit {l

compound, the final ‘d’ must be doubled for the purpose of giving the

~¥ith

word the force of an adjective: it is another rule that sonants when

‘bUP&H

A

theﬂlee]

doubled become surds. Consequently the compound ‘kod’-

aRa&

> becomes

P S A 303 i

i) lk el

ave, {

by rule ‘kott-ara.’

It is interesting to perceive that in the time of the

\\Qrd (

Greeks the same peculiar phonetic rules existed which are now in opera-

St

tion.

ufch

It is also worth noticing that the Greek writers represent the last

syllable of the name of the town, not as ‘aru,” but as ‘ara.’

The

Wit

Waop,

Tamil has ‘4ru,” the Malayilam ‘4ra.’

At Kotaur, the dialectic pecu-

Wagg

il

liarities of the Malayala language begin to supersede those of the

il [he

o

EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

63

of the

Tamil; and this appears to have been the case even in the time of the

e §in-

Greeks.

(3-) “’Aprarov Baci\ewor. The place referred to by this name was

which

supposed by one of the editors of Ptolemy to be Bijnagar; which would

o that

accord well enough, it is true, with the position which Ptolemy,gives it,

midway between the sources of the CAvéri and Gondwana: but the

enly,

dialec-

resemblance of the name to that of Arcot, and the circumstance that

mming

the place is represented as the capital of ‘the nomadic Séras’ (Zdpar),

indicate the propriety of identifying it with Arcot in the Carnatic: for

9 WS

not only was Arcot included in the ancient Séra or Chéla Kingdom,

ity of

dis, or

but there is a distinct, uniform tradition, that the inhabitants of that

or the

part of the Carnatic which lies between Madras and the Ghauts, including

Arcot, were ‘Kurumbars,” or wandering shepherds—nomades—for

which

of the

several centuries after the Christian era.

If this identification is

ander’s

correct, we have another instance of the antiquity of the existing

dialectic peculiarities of the Tamil ; for the second syllable of the name

o ouly

Areot, (properly ‘4ru-kidu,’ the Jungle ow the riwer), viz., ‘kad-u,’

[liance.

he first

a jungle, is peculiar to the Tamil,— the corresponding word used in

Telugu being ‘atavi’ or ‘adavi.’

ved by

Ptolemy gives the name of the people of the neighbouring country

), The

more accurately than the Sanserit writers.

They are called in Tamil

| prince,

yidian,

‘Soras;* Cholas in Sanscrit; but Sérae, and also Sorigi, or Sorigéti

* I am doubtful whether the eastern coast of India derived from this word

y of the

(‘Sora’) the name of the ‘Coromandel’ coast, by which it is styled by Europeans.

Undoubtedly Fra Paolo & St. Bartolomaeo was wrong in supposing it to be derived

§ called

ubtedly

from ‘chéla-mandalam,” the millet country.

“Chélam’ is not millet, but maize ;

and compounds of indigenous Drividian words like ‘cholam’ and Sanserit

Jled by

words like ‘mandalam’ are ordinarily inadmissible; and this compound in

particular is quite unknown. ¢So6ra-mandalam,’ the country of the Séras, who

nd 1oV,

are called ‘ Chélas’ in Sanscrit, is a compound which is in actual use, like ¢ Pandi-

mandalam,’ the country of the Pdndiyas, and ¢ Séra-

2, T]Ie

Séras, or Kérala : and doubtless this is the w

mandalam, the country of the

il

ord with which Paolo’s informants

had supplied him.

This derivation of the word °Coromandel, viz. from

il and

S Sl e e s

“Sora-mandalam,’” has generally been accepted ; but there is this serious objection

to it, that the name of that part of the eastern coast—from Cuddalore to Madras

ferof &

—with which Europeans first became acquainted, is ‘Tonda-mandalam,” not

¢ Séra-mandalam in addition to which, these terms are rarely used by the natives

tg when

themselves : their use is restricted to classical compositions,

and it is extremely

unlikely that the first European mariners and factors

ever heard of them.

We

becomes

have, therefore, to seek for some more trite, easy, and natural derivation of the

o of the

sand), the name of a small village on the eastern coast n

word ‘ Coromandel; and this I think we find in ¢ Karu-manal’ (literally black

(=

ear Pulicat (the first

iﬂ 01)61’21‘

o

Dutch settlement),

written ¢ Coromand

which is invariably up to the present day pronounced and

i the s

=

el’ by the Europeans who are resident in Madras; some of

—

it yeings R e e

whom annually tak

e refuge in ‘ Karumanal’ or ‘Coromandel’

during the hot land

i The

s

winds. Coromandel is often the first

point which is sighted by ships from Europe

ot

bound to Madras; and the o

i peet

e

bjects on which my own eyes first rested on approach-

f the

ing the coast in January,

1838, were the cocoa-nut trees of Coromandel and the

g 0

distant Nagari hills.

ok

e

S o S TR

i

64

INTRODUCTION.

().

The two last names must have been applied by

by the Greeks.

K

Ptolemy to the Soras of the Tanjore delta; for the Cavéri flowed

18

through the country of the Sorigi, and “Xafnpos, the emporium at the

1

mouth of the CAvéri (which he calls Xdfpnpis,”), belonged to them. The

Soras ate sometimes in poetical Tamil called ‘Soragas’ or ‘Soriyas,

de

and their country ‘Séragam,—¢g’ being optionally added to many roots

qll

as an euphonie.

The ‘r’ of the Tamil word ¢Séra,’ is a peculiar sound,

it

not contained in any of the other Drévidian dialects; in which it is

(ﬂ

al

generally represented by ‘I’ or ‘d;’ in Sanserit and in the Pali of the

¢ Maha-wanso’ by ‘1.

The more accurate spelling of this word given

W]

by the Greeks shews that then, as now, the use of this peculiar vocalic

[V

‘r’ was a dialectic characteristic of the Tamil.

th

(4.) Modogalingum. Pliny observes, «Insula in Gange est ....

g

Modogalingum nomine.”

The same island, country, or city (for the

o

description of it is somewhat obscure) is called by Ptolemy, Triglyphum

all(

or Trilingum. Though the place referred to is said to be “on the

Ta

Ganges,” it may have been considerably to the south : for the Godavery

has always been considered by Hindus as a branch of the Ganges, or

in]

as mythologically identical with it; and the Greeks would most

0

probably be taught to regard it in the same light. At all events, from

O M A AR 5 b 14

the

the circumstance that the Andhras and Calingas (the two ancient divi-

the

sions of the Telugu people) are represented by the Greeks as Gangetic

pations, and as living in or near Triglyphum, it may be considered as

the

certain that Triglyphum, Trilingum, or Modogalingum, was identical

1a

with Telingéna, or Trilingam, °the country of the three lingas;’

cly

from which word, indeed, the modern term ¢ Telinga’ is ordinarily

the

derived by native grammarians.

The derivation of ¢ Telugu,’

oby,

¢ Telungu,” or ¢ Telinga’, from ¢ Trilinga’ is repudiated by Mr. C. P.

§ent

Brown ; who also states that the name ‘ Trilinga’ is not contained in any

R ——

This statement is probably

161

of the ancient Sanscrit lists of countries.

(k

ka

correct : nevertheless, the ancient use of the appellation ¢ Trilingam,’

and

and the identity of the names Trilingam and Modogalingum, are proved

s ARt

Caste

by the evidence of Ptolemy and Pliny, as conclusively as if they had

Peap

been mentioned by Sanscrit writers.

This being the case, the Telugu

name and language are fixed near the mouths of the Ganges, or at

gz

least between the Ganges and the Godavery, about the commencement

the I

Cay

of the Christian era : and not only so, but the existence of the dialectic

gy

peculiarities of the Telugu, as early as the time of the Greek geogra-

‘(i

phers, may safely be inferred ; inasmuch as ¢ modoga,” the word used

Gl

by

Pliny, is the ancient word for three (‘ moda,” or ¢ modoga’), answer-

lam

ing to the Canarese ¢miru, the Tamil ‘minru’ (

pronounced miin-

ki

dru), and the modern Telugu midu.’ The word used by Pliny being

—

e

e e

EARLIEST TRACES

OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

65

exclusively a Telugu word, we may conclude that at that early

by

period the dialectic peculiarities of the Telugu, one of which

wed

is the use of ‘d’ where the other dialects have ‘r, were already

; the

in existence.

The

(5.) Kapovpa ﬂao‘/)\ewv xypofolpov.

The place referred to is evi-

yas,

dently Kartr, a town in the Coimbatoor country, which was formerly

10018

the capital of the Chéra dynasty.

¢ Cerobothrus’ is given as the

yund,

titular name of the king of the country (ordinarily called by Tamilians

1t

18

¢the Chéran’), whose rule extended over Coimbatoor, part of Mysore,

f t

he

and a portion of the Malabar coast. Probably ‘Cerobothrus’ is identical

gl\ el

with ¢ Chéra-putra,” son of Chéra.

The Greek spelling of the word

ocalic

knpo confirms the supposition of the identity of the Dravidian title of

the dynasty, Séra or Chéra, with the Sanscrit ‘Kérala, and the

greater antiquity of the latter mode of spelling.

or §

lie

The name Kapodpa, in Tamil ¢ Karfir, is derived from ¢ kar,’ dlack,

phuny

and ‘qar

9

2

a town.

The exact agreement of the Greek word with the

n the

Tamil is remarkable.

avery

It is deserving of notice that in Ptolemy’s lists of names of places

ogs, O

in India the termination ovp or ovpe, equivalent to the Dravidian ¢fr,’

- mosh

a town, (Anglice, ‘oor’ or ¢ore’), is frequently met with, not only in

g from

the southern part of the peninsula, but as far north as the mouths of

11 divi-

the Ganges.

gjngetriﬁ

(6.) 6t Kapéor. The Carei of Ptolemy were a people who inhabited

red 88

the southern part of Tinnevelly, in whose country part of the ¢ Para-

entical

lia’ of the author of the Periplus seems at one time to have been in-

ingas;

cluded. ¢Kare’ or ‘karei’ is the Tamil word for coast or shore (from

Jinanlly

the verbal root ¢ karei,’ to be melted down,—to be washed away), and is

Felugu:’

obviously identical in meaning with the Greek ITapakia. Up to the pre-

P

sent time part of the Tinnevelly coast—that part where I have myself

| inany

resided and laboured for thirteen years—is called by the same name

)fObﬁbly

(¢ karel,” the shore) by which the whole southern coast of Tinuevelly

[ngay

and Travancore appears to have been known to the Greeks; and a

o 10v@

caste of fishermen found farther north are called ‘karei-(y)-ar,’ coast-

hey had

people,

This is one of the names given by Ptolemy to

Telug

(7.) Kal\iywov.

65, or ab

%%%

the promontory of Kupv. This promontory is supposed by some to be

ool

Cape Comorin ; but as it is said to be situated opposite the most

northern point of Ceylon, and to form the boundary between the

“Gangetic Gulf, or Bay of Bengal, and the ¢ Orgalic’ or ¢ Agaric

Gulf,’ the Gulf of Manaar, it is evidently Point Calimere. The Tamil

;ol'd 1se

%

name of this point, from which ¢ Calimere’ has been corrupted, is

f ﬁnswer‘

‘kalli-médu,’ the cactus eminence,; and it is evident that the first part

ol DI

F

iy being

g

7

A g

e

66

INTRODUCTION.

of the Greek name Ka\\iyucor is identical with the Tamil ¢kalli;

cactus, the first part of the name by which the place is now called.

il

(8.) Amongst many words of less importance of which the Tamil

signification can be easily recognised, I subjoin the following :—Ila\otpa

]

(obviously from ¢ pal’ milk, and ‘ftr,” a town), a place in the Bay of

}

Bengal, possibly at the mouth of the ¢Palar,” Milk-river, a river

1¢

th

which flows into the Bay of Bengal a little to the south of Madras:

Tevviyopa (from the Tamil ‘ten,” south, and the Sanserit ‘nagara,’

Hl

a city), a town in the Sora country : also the word épv{a, 7ice, which

th

is obviously derived from the Tamil ¢ariéi,” »ice deprived of the husk;

.

this being the state in which rice was then, as now, bought up in India

a

for exportation to Europe.*

of

(9.) During the period in which the Greeks traded with India, the

i

names of places and tribes recorded by them, and various circum-

(¢

stances which they have related, prove that the Brahmans had then

pl

established themselves in the Carnatic, and given names to some of

af

the principal places. ¢Mosdovpa’ (Madura) is a Sanscrit word, signi-

£X

fying the sweet city ; the name of the Cavéri, “’XdaBnpds,’ the yellow

river, is claimed by the Sanscrit, though possibly Tamil ; and

1eg

* The Hebrew word for pea-fowl, which is ¢ thuki’ in the Book of Kings,

)

o

¢ thfiki’ in Chronicles, is certainly Drvidian.

The pea-fowl is an Indian bird.

It was probably on the Malabar or Western coast of India that the pea-fowl was

of

procured by (or for) Solomon’s servants; and the old classical name of the fowl

in Tamil is ¢ tdkei, dialectically pronounced °tdgei.

In modern Tamil ¢tokei’

Wit

generally signifies only the peacock’s tail, or any similar tail-feathers; but in

an

old classical Tamil it signifies also the peacock itself. If this identification is

be

correct, the Hebrew word referred to is the oldest specimen of the Drividian

languages which is extant in any written document.

The Arabic word for the

lan

peacock, ‘tawas,’ and the Armenian ‘taus,’ are probably derived from the same

Jeq

source ; as also the Greek ©radic,” with which, by the insertion of the digamma,

some connect the Latin ¢ pavo.’

I cannot connect the Tamil t6g-ei,” as Max

T

Tnfe

Miiller does, with the Sans. ¢sikhin; for it is regarded by Dravidian lexico-

graphers as a pure Tamilian word; and the Tamil corruption of ¢sikhin’ is

at

find

“sigi,” @ peacock, which is a recognised Sans. derivative. ‘tdg-ei’ is not in Canarese

or Telugu.

by gt

u

Huge old specimeéns of the Baobab, or Adansonia Digitata, an African tree, of

which the Hindus do not know even the name, may still be seen in or near

P

various sites of foreign commerce in the extreme south of the Indian peninsula :

i

am

e. g., in Kottar, near Cape Comorin, and near Tutocorin in Tinnevelly—possibly

on the site of the ancient Kolkhi.

By what race of foreign merchants were those

!:mg

trees planted ?

The great age to which they are known to grow (they are called

by Humboldt ‘some of the oldest specimens of organic life on the globe’) will

0 p‘

fr(m-

admit of the supposition that they were brought from the mouth of the Red Sea

by the Grecian navigators, or even by the Phenicians and ‘the servants of

Solomon ’ themselves.

May it not have been by the same people that the Hebrew word ‘sak, a

sack (in Tamil ‘sikk-u,” in Malayalam ¢ chikka’), was introduced into Southern

%

tem

India?

0l

This word, though so long naturalised that it is considered by native

of I

scholars to be indigenous, is unknown to the Telugu and Canarese, as well as to

the Sanserit.

It is found only where the Baobab is found, and where the Hebrew

0f

name for the peacock had its origin.

i

inqh

Ty

Al

E

;

EARLIEST

TRACES OF

THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

67

ly

Koudpua drpov’ (Cape Comorin) is certainly derived from the Sanserit

This word is com-

‘kuméri. @ virgin, a name of the goddess Durga.

il

monly pronounced in Tamil ¢ kumiri ; and in the vulgar dialect of the

pu

people residing in the neighbourhood of the Cape, a wirgin is not

of

It is

‘kumari,’ or ‘kumdiri, but ©kumar,” pronounced ¢komar.

er

remarkable that this vulgar corruption of the Sanserit is identical with

the name which is given to Cape Comorin by the author of the Periplus.

1,

He says, ¢ After this, there is another place called ‘ Kouap,” where

ich

there is a fort and harbour, where also people come to bathe and

sk,

purify themselves:

. for it is related that a goddess was once

dia

accustomed to bathe there monthly.” This monthly bathing in honour

of the goddess Durgd or Parvati, is still continued at Cape Comorin,

the

but is not practised to the same extent as in ancient times.

Cape

11}

Comorin formerly ranked as one of the five renowned sacred bathing

hen

places” (a representation which accords with the statement of the

g of

author of the Periplus), but the number of visitors to it now is

gni-

extremely small.

Jlow

Though the Greek geographers have not given us any information

and

respecting the languages of India, beyond what is furnished by the

names of places contained in their works, the information derived

ings,

from those lists is exceedingly interesting. The earliest extant traces

bird.

] was

of the Drividian languages which possess reliable authority, are those

5 fO\\'l

with which we have been furnished by the ancient Greeks ; and from

kel

it in

an examination of the words which they have recorded, we seem to

jon 8

be justified in drawing the conclusion, not only that the Dréavidian

.'idian

langnages have remained almost unaltered for the last two thousand

i the

e

years, but also that the principal dialects that now prevail had a sepa-

meﬁx

rate existence at the commencement of the Christian era, and prevailed

J Max

exic0-

at that period in the very same districts of country in which we now

in' 18

find them. The art of writing had probably been introduced, the

NALEse

grammar of the Dravidian languages had been arranged, and some

166 of

progress made in the art of composition, several centuries before the

p near

arrival of the Greek merchants ;* and the fixity with which those

psula:

gssibly

languages appear to have been characterised ever since that period is

o hose

in perfect accordance with the history of all other Asiatic languages,

; callgd

) vl

from the date of the commencement of their literary cultivation.

o Seb

s 0

* The arrival in India of those Grecian merchants, appears to have been con-

temporaneous with the conquest of Egypt by the Romans.

The earliest Roman

f Sak; [}

coins found in India are those of the reign of Augustus.

A very large number

putherd

of Roman imperial ‘aurei’ were lately found on the Malabar coast; upwards

! naﬁYe

e

of thirty types of which, commencing with the earlier coins of Augustus, and

including many of Nero, were described by me in a pamphlet published at

Hebl'ew

Trivandrum in 1851 by the Rajah of Travancore, to whom the coins belonged.

F 2

68

INTRODUCTION.

If the Dravidian family of languages is allied, as I believe it to

be, to the Scythian families, it may justly claim to be considered as

one of the oldest members of the group. With the exception of the

language of the Behistun tablets, no words belonging to any other

Scythian language can be traced up to the Christian era.

Mr. Norris

says, ‘I know of nothing written in the Magyar language earlier

than the fifteenth century, and of the other Ugrian languages we have

nothing above fifty or sixty years old The great Finnish heroic

poem, ‘the Kalevala,” may be of any age, but as it appears to have

been brought down to us only by word of mouth, it has naturally

varied, like all traditional poetry, with the varying forms of the lan-

guage.’

The Uigurs, or Oriental Turks, acquired the art of writing

from the Nestorian Christians, the Mongolians from the Uigurs; so

that the literary cultivation of neither of those languages is to be

s B s i X S S S s R b

compared in point of antiquity with that of the Dravidian.

Amongst

the carliest records of Seythian tongues that have been discovered, is

a brief list of words which are recorded by the Chinese as peculiar to

the old Turks of the Altai; and of eight words contained in this list,

all of which are found in the modern dialects of the Turkish, probably

three, certainly two, are Dravidian.

Those words, as given by the

Chinese, are :—

TURKISH OF THE ALTAL

MopErN TURKISH.

T AMIEL.

black,

koro

quard

kar-u

old,

kori

gori

kira

chieftain, kin

khin

kon or kd

I am strongly inclined to consider the last Tamil word, ‘kén’ or

¢ ko, to be identical with the ¢ kén,” ¢ khan,” or ‘khégan’ of the Turco-

Mongolian languages.

The Ostiak, an Ugrian dialect, has ‘khon ;

and the word signifying king, which is found in the Scythic version of

the Behistun tablets, and which certainly commences with ‘k,” or ‘kh,’

In the old Tamil in-

is conjecturally written by Mr. Norris ‘ko.’

seriptions I have invariably found ko

or ‘kén, instead of the San-

scrit ¢ Raja :’ but the word has become obsolete in modern Tamil,

except in compounds, and in the honorific title ‘kon,” which is assumed

by shepherds.

This conjunction of meanings (king and shepherd) is

very interesting, and reminds one of the Homeric description of kings

ag ¢ 7rm/ue've9 Nabv.

The Tamil literature now extant enables us to ascend, in studying

the history of the language, only to the eighth or ninth century, A.p.:

the Dravidian words handed down to us by the Greeks carry s up, as

RELATION OF DRAVIDIANS TO NORTH-INDIANS.

69

we have seen, to the Christian era

Beyond that period, the compa-

rison of existing dialects is our only available guide to a knowledge of

the primitive condition of the Dravidian language

The civilization of

the Tamil people, together with the literary cultivation of their lan-

guage, commenced probably about the sixth or seventh century, B.C.,

but the separation of the primitive Drividian speech into dialects

must have taken place shortly after the arrival of the Dravidians in

the districts which they at present inhabit—an event of unknown,

but certainly of very great antiquity

The Irish and the Welsh dialects of the Celti

the Old High and

the Old Low dialects of the Teutonic, and the Finnish and Magyar

dialects of the Ugrian, had probably become separate and distinct

idioms before the tribes by which those dialects are spoken settled in

but the various Dravidian dialects which

their present habitations

%

are now spoken appear to have acquired a separate existence subse-

quently to the settlement of the Drévidians in the localities in which

A

we now find them. Supposing that their final settlement in their

> 3

~

present abodes in Southern India took place shortly after the Alyan

irruption (though I think it probable that it took place before), every

Z

grammatical form and root which the various dialects possess in

common, may be regarded as at least coeval with the century subse-

Every form and root which

quent to the arrival of the Aryans.

the Brahui possesses in common with the Drividian tongues may be

The Brahuic analogies enable

regarded as many centuries older still.

us to ascend to a period anterior to the arrival in India of the Aryans

(which cannot safely be placed later than 1600, B.c.); and they furnish

us with the means of ascertaining, in some degree, the condition of the

I

Dréavidian language before the Dravidians had finally abandoned their

original abodes in the central tracts of Asia

of

POLITICAL AND SoCIAL RELATION oF THE PRIMITIVE DRAVIDIANS TO

THE ARYAN AND PRE-ARYAN INHABITANTS OF NORTHERN INDIA

ly

1

The arrival of the Dravidians in India was undoubtedly anterior

n-

to the arrival of the Aryans, but there is some difficulty in determining

1,

ol

whether the Dravidians were identical with the Scythian aborigines

whom the Aryans found in possession of the northern provinces, and

1§

g5

to whom the vernacular languages o Northern India are indebted for

their Un-Sanserit element, or whether they were a distinet and more

anclent race

The question may be put thus :— Were the Dravidians

g

and ¢ Mléchchas, by whom the progress

identical with the ¢ Dasyus

of the Aryans was disputed, and who were finally subdued and incor-

P}

70

INTRODUCTION.

porated with the Aryan race as their ‘Slidras,” or serfs and depen-

dents? or were they a race unknown to the Aryans of the first age,

and which had already been expelled from Northern India, and duven

southwards towards the extremity of the Peninsula before the Aryans

it

arrived ?

This question of the relation of the Dravidians to the primi-

tive Stdras, or Aryanised Mléchchas, of Northern India is confessedly

involved in obscurity, and can be settled only by a more thorough

—_—

investigation than any that has yet been made of the relation of the

Dravidian languages to the Un-Sanscrit element contained in the

northern vernaculars

We may, indeed, confidently regard the Dra-

vidians as the earliest inhabitants of India, or at least as the earliest

race that entered from the North-West, or crossed the Indus; but it is

St

not so easy to determine whether they were the people whom the

Aryans found in possession, or whether they had already been expel-

led from the northern provinces by the pre-historic irruption of another

Scythian race

Some recent inquirers hold the identity of the Dré-

vidians with the primitive Stdras; and much may be said in support

of this hypothesis

I am not competent to pronounce a decided opinion

point which lies so far beyond my ewn province, but the diffe-

rences which appear to exist between the Dravidian languages and the

é

Seythian under-stratum of the northern vernaculars induce me to

incline to the supposition that the Dravidian idioms belong to an older

period of the Scythian speech—the period of the predominance of the

Ugro-Finnish languages in Central and Higher Asia, anterior to the

westward migration of the Turks and Mongolians

If this supposition

is correct, it seems to follow that the progenitors of the Seythian por-

tion of the Stidras and mixed classes now inhabiting the northern and

western provinces must have made their way into India subsequently

to the Dravidians, and alse that they must have thrust out the Dra-

vidians from the greater part of Northern India, before they were in

their turn subdued by a new race of invaders

By whoemsoever the

Dravidians were expelled from Northern India, and through what

causes soever they were induced to migrate southward, I feel persuaded

that it was not by the Aryans that they were expelled.

Neither the

bllbjugatlon of the Cholas, Pandiyas, and other Dravidians by the

nor the expulsion from Northern India of the races who after-

Ar yans,

wards became celebrated in the South, as Pandiyas, Cholas, Kéralas,

Calingas, Andhras, &e., is recognised by any Sanscrit authority, or any

Dravidian tradition.

Looking at the question from a purely Dravidian

point of view, I am convmccd that the Driavidians never had any rela-

tions with the primitive Alyans but those of a peaceable and friendly

character ; and that if they were expelled from Northern India, and

i i

RELATION OF DRAVIDIANS TO NORTH-INDIANS

71

forced to take 1efuge in Gondwana and Danda-Kéaranya, the great

Drévidian forest, prior to the dawn of their civilisation, the tribes that

subdued and thrust them southwards must have been Pre—Aryans

Those Pre—Aryan Scythians, by whom I have been supposing the

Dravidians to have been expelled from the northern provinces, are not

and other

to be confounded with the Kéles, Sontals, Bhills, Déms

aboriginal tribes of the North.

Possibly these tribes had fled into the

forests from the Dravidians prior to the Pre- Ary&n invasion, just as the

British had taken refuge in Wales before the Norman conquest.

It

is also possible that the tribes referred to had never crossed the Indus

at all, or occupied Northern India, but had entered it, like the Bhutan

tribes, by the North-East, and had passed from the jungles and swamps

of Lower Bengal to their present abodes,—taking care always to keep

on the outside of the boundary line of civilisation

At all events, w

cannot suppose that it was through an irruption of those forest tribes

that the Dravidians were driven southwards ; nor does the Un-Sanserit

element which is contained in the northern vernaculars appear to

accord in any degree with the peculiar structure of the Kole languages.

The tribes of Northern India whom the Arya.ns gradually incorporated

in their community, as Stidras, whosoever they were, must have been an

They were probably identical with

organized and formidable race

the ¢ Althiopians from the East, who, according to Herodotus, were

T

e

brigaded with other Indians in the army of Xerxes, and who differed

from other Athiopians in being

¢ straight-haired.

4

0

I admit that there is a difficulty in supposing that the Dravidians,

who have proved themselves greatly superior to the Aryamsed Stdras

of Northern India in mental power, independence, and patriotic feeling,

should have been expelled from their original possessions by an irrup-

tion of the ancestors of those very Stdras

It is to be remembered

:i

however, that the lapse of time may have effected a great change in

the warlike, hungry, Scythian hordes that rushed down upon the first

0

Dravidian settlements. It is also to be remembered that the dependent

1

and almost servile position to which this secondary race of Scythians

d

was early reduced by the Aryans, whilst the more distant Dravidians

6

10

were enjoying freedom and independence, may have materially altered

their orlglnal character

It is not therefore so improbable as it might

at first sight appear, that after the Dravidians had been driven across

)

the Vindhyas into the Dekhan by a newer race of Scythians, this new

y

race, conquered in its turn by the Aryans and reduced to a dependent

il

position, soon sank beneath the level of the tribes which it had ex-

pelled

whilst the Dravidians, retaining their independence in the

y

southern forests into which they were driven, and submitting eventually

d

—

72

INTRODUCTION.

to the Arya.ns not as conquerors, but as colonists and instructors,

gradually rose in the social scale, and formed communities and states

in the Dekhan, rivalling those of the Aryans in the north.*

Mr. Curzon (Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 16) recently

attempted to meet the difficulty which I havg stated by supposing that

the Tamilians were never in possession of Arya-vartta, or Northern

India, at all ; but tflat they were eonnected with the Malay race, and

came to Southern India by sea, from the opposite coast of the Bay of

ii

Bengal, or from Ceylon.

This theory seems, however, perfectly gra-

tuitous ; for it has been proved that the languages of the Goénds and

Kus are Dravidian, equally with the Tamil itself ; that the Rajmahal

is also substantially Drividian ; and that the Brahui partakes so

largely of the same character (not to speak of the language of the

Scythic tablets of Behistun), as to establish a connection between the

Drévidians and the ancient races we:st of the Indus.

It has also been

shewn that in the time of Ptolemy, when every part of India had long

ago been settled and civilised, the Dravidians were in quiet possession,

not only of the south-eastern coast, but of the whole of the Peninsula,

up nearly to the mouths of the Ganges.

It is undeniable that immigrations from Ceylon to the southern

districts of India have occasionally taken place.

The Teers (properly

¢ Tivar, islanders) and the Ilavars, ‘Singhalese,” (from ‘Ilam,’ Ceylon,

T s

a word which has been corrupted from the Sanserit ¢ Simhalam,” or

rather from the Pali ‘Sihalam, by the omission of the initial f.al);

B

both of them Travancore castes, are certainly immigrants from Ceylon ;

but these and similar immigrants are not to be considered as Singha-

lese, in the proper sense of the term, but as offshoots from the Tamilian

S s e

population of the northern part of the island. They were the partial

reflux of the tide which peopled the northern and western parts of

Ceylon with Tamilians.

Bands of marauding Tamilians (¢ Sollies,

¢Pandis,” and other ¢Damilos,” <. e, Cholas, Pandiyas, and other

* ‘Dekhan’ is a corruption of the Sanserit ¢ dakshina,’ the south,

literally the

:;

reght (‘dexter’)

, an appellation which took its rise from the circumstance that the

Brahman in determining the position of objects, looked towards the East, which

he called ‘plirva,’ the opposite region, when whatever lay to the southward was to

the right. The South, as the region of freedom, safety, and peace, was to the

primitive Dravidian what the East was to the Brahman.

He called it ‘ten,” of

whieh one meaning in Tamil is opposite, another, sweet : whenee also *tennei’

is the Tamil name of the cocoa-nut, literally the sweet nut > whilst the North

was ‘vada’ (the north-wind ‘videi), which is probably connected with ‘vad-u,’ to

wither,—the north wind being regarded by Tamilians with as much dread as the

south wind (mythologically the car of Kima, the Indian Cupid) was associated

with the idea of everything that was agreeable.

Referring to the physical

configuration of the Carnatic, the Drividians called the East downward 5 the

West, the region of the Ghauts, upward.

USE OF THE TERM ¢ SUDRA.

73

Tamilians) frequently invaded Ceylon, as we are informed by the

o)

Maha-wanso, both before and subsequently to the Christian era

On several occasions they acquired the supreme power, and at length

y

they permanently occupied the northern provinces of the island

M

There is no relation, however, between the Singhalese language—the

language of the Singhalese, properly so called, who were Buddhists

and colonists from Magadhd or Behir—and the language of the

f

Tamilians ; nor is there any reason for supposing that the natural

course of emigration (viz., from the mainland to the island) was ever

d

inverted to such a degree as to justify the supposition that the whole

)|

mass of the Dravidians entered India from Ceylon

£

OR1GINAL UsE AND PROGRESSIVE EXTENSION oF THE TERM ‘SODRA

6

I

The term ‘Stdra,” which is now the common appellation of the

8

mass of the inhabitants of India, whether Gaudians or Dréividians,

l

seems originally to have been the name of a tribe dwelline near the

J

Indus

Lassen recognises their name in that of the town =dépos on

the Lower Indus; and especially in that of the nations of the S¢4&poc in

Northern Arachosia.

He supposes them to have been, with the

Abhiras and Nishadas, a black, lonrr-hzured race of aborigines, not

b

originally a component part of the Alyzm race, but brought under its

¥

influence by conquest; and that it was in consequence of the Stdras

having been the first tribe that was reduced by the Aryans to a

dependent condition, that the name ‘Stdra’ was afterwards, on the

conquest of the aboriginesin the interior part of the country, extended

to all the servile classes

Whatever may have been the origin of the

4

name ‘Stdra,” it cannot be doubted that it was extended in course of

f

time to all who occupied or were reduced to a dependent condition ;

whilst the name ¢ Mléchcha’ continued to be the appellation of the

unsubdued, Un- Ar} anised tribes.

1

Most writers on this subject, including Lassen and Max Miiller,

4

suppose that the whole of the Sidras, or primitive, servile classes of

0

Northern India, to whom this name was progressively applied,

0

belonged to a different race from their Alyan conquerors.

Whilst T

G

assent to every other part of the supposition, I am unable to assent to

f

this.

It seems to me to be probable that a considerable proportion of

the slaves, servants, dependents, or followers, of the high-caste Aryans

0

belonged to the Aryzm race.

As the Slavonian serfs are Slavonians,

4

and the Magyar serfs Magyars, there 1s no improbability in the sup-

I

position, that a large number of the Aryan serfs or Sidras, perhaps

the majority, were Aryans, and I cannot on any other supposition

74

INTRODUCTION.

Il

account for the fact that nine-tenths of the component materials of the

northern vernaculars are Sanscrit

f

The supposition of the Aryan origin of a large number of the

Stidras, seems also most in accordance with the very old mythological

statement of the oricin of the Stdras from Brahm

feet; for though

4

the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, the twice-born classes, are

represented as springing from more honourable parts of Brahmé’s body

i?

|

yet the Stdras are represented to have sprung from the same divinity,

though from "an ignoble part; whereas the Nishadas, or barbarian

aborigines, are not represented to have sprung from Brahmé at all

It

E

but formed a ‘fifth class,’ totally unconnected with the others.

ol i

appears from this mythological tradition that the Sudms were supposed

1

in the first ages to differ from the ‘twice born’ Aryas in rank only,

not in blood

I regard as confirmatory of this view the statement of

Manu that €all who become outecasts are called Dasyus Whother they

> for in the

speak the language of the Mléchchas or that of Ar yas:

same manner, all who enjoyed the protection of the Aryas, as their

dependents and servants, would naturally receive a common appella-

tion, probably that of Stidras,—whether, as aborigines, they spoke ‘the

lan guage of Mléchchas,’

the Scythian vernacular, or Whether as

Aryas of an inferior rank in life, they spoke ‘the language of Ary‘Ls,

e T——

a colloquial dialeet of the Sanscrit.

It is true, as Professor Max

%

Miiller says, that the three twice-born castes alone are called Alyas

by the Satapatha-Brahmana of the Rigveda: but as ‘the four castes,’

including the Stidras, but excluding the Dasyus and le}mda,s, are

E

distinctly referred to in the most ancient hymns; as outcaste Aryas

are styled Dasyus by Manu; and as the higher classes of the Tamilians

monopolize the national name in this very manner, and pretend that

the lower classes of their race are not Tamilians, I think that we

may safely attribute the statement in question to the pride of ‘the

twice-born.

Even the Vratyas, who are distinguished from the

Stdras and are regarded as an inferior class, did not dlfﬂ)l‘ from the

Brahmans in language, and must, therefore, have been Alyas

The aboriginal Scythian inhabitants of India seem to have been

subdued, and transformed from Mléchchas into Stdras, by slow degrees

At ACRPANT AR N R PR s S T R o sy B

In the age of Manu, they retained their independence and the appel-

lation of Mléchchas in Bengal, Orissa, and the Dekhan; but in the

earlier period which is referred to in the historic legends of the

Maha-bharata, we find the Mlechchas and Dasyus disputing the pos-

gession of Upper India itself with the Aryas

Sagara, the thirty-

fifth king of the Solar dynasty, is related to have laboured in vain to

subdue the heterodox aborigines residing on or near his frontier: and

a

:.)f

USE OF THE TERM ¢ SUDRA.

75

lie

in the reign preceding his, in conjunction with certain tribes connected

with the Lunar line, those aborigines had succeeded in overrunning his

he

territories.®

cal

The introduction of the Drividians within the pale of Hindaism,

th

and the consequent change of their appellation from Mléchchas to that

e

of Slidras appears to have originated, not in conquest, but in the

ly

peaceable process of colonisation and progressive cwlhsatlon.

There

i,

is no tradition extant of a warlike irruption of the Alyas into Southern

Al

India, or of the forcible subjugation of the DrAvidians; though if such

ll,

an event ever took place, it must have been subsequent to the era

It

of Manu and the Raméiyana, and therefore some remembrance of it

ad

would probably have survived. All existing traditions, and the names

ly,

by which the Brahmanical race is distingunished in Tamil, viz., ‘Eiyar

of

instructors, fathers, and ‘Parppar,” overseers, (probably the émwkomor of

ey

Arrian), tend to show that the Brahmans acquired their ascendency by

their intellicence and their administrative skill

Lie

The most adventurous immigrations from Northern India to the

elr

la

Dekhan were those of the offshoots of the Lunar dynasty, a dynasty

he

which originated from the Solar, and whose chief city was Ayodhya,

%

a8

Oude, the traditional starting point of most of their immigrations

15

The Pandiya kings of Madura were feigned to have sprang from the

ax

Lunar line

The title ‘Pandiya,” is supposed to be derived from the

lj

'{U

* SAgara, finding himself unable to extirpate or enslave those heterodox

b8,

E

tribes, entered into a compromise with them, by imposing upon them various

distinguishing marks; by which, I think, we may understand their obstinate

AT

persistence in the use of the distinguishing marks to which they had been accus-

tomed. Omne of those marks is worthy of notice in an inquiry into the relations

yaa

‘The PéAradas

s

of the early Dravidians

it is recorded, ¢ wore their hair long

%

in obedience to his commands

Professor Wilson observes, with reference to this

ab

statement (in his notes on the Vishnu Purana), ¢ What Oriental people wore their

hair long, except at the back of the head, is questionable ; and the usage would be

we

characteristic rather of the Teutonic and Gothic nations.’

The usage referred to

U

is equally characteristic of the Drividians, and it is even possible that the Piradas

may have been a Drividian tribe.

Up to the present day the custom of wear-

the

ing the hair long, and twisted into a knot at the back of the head, is charac-

he

teristic of all the inferior castes in the southern provinces of the Tamil country,

and also of the shepherds and Maravars

In ancient times this mode of wearing

the hair was in use amongst all Drividian soldiers; and sculptured represen-

el

tations prove that at a still earlier period it was the general Drividian custom

The Kotas of the Nilgherry Hills wear their hair in the same manner. The Tudas

08

ol

wear their hair long, but without confining it in a knot. Probably it was from the

é:

Dravidian settlers in Ceylon that the Singhalese adopted the same usage; for as

the

early as the third century A.n., Agathemerus, a Greek geographer, describing

Ceylon, says, ‘ the natives cherish their hair as women among us, and twist it round

the

their heads.”

The wearing of the hair long appears to. ha,ve been regarded by the

0

early Drividians as a dlstmctwe sign of national independence : whllst the shaving

of the hair of the head, with the (xccptmn of the ‘kudumi,” or lock at the back

ty

of the head, couespondmw to the tail of the Chinese, was considered as a sign of

[tO

A1 yamwtmn or submission to Aryan customs, and admission within the palc of

Aryan protection.

nd

76

INTRODUCTION.

A

name of the ‘Pandavas’ of Northern India, the celebrated combatants

in the great war of the Mahé-bhérata, to whom every Cyclopean work

of unknown antiquity is traditionally aseribed.

Probably this deriva-

tion of the name of ‘Pandiyas’ is correct ; but there is no reason what-

ever to suppose that the kings of Madura, by whom this name was

assumed, sprang from any of the royal dynasties of Northern India.

The Aryan immigrants to the South appear to have been Brahmanical

priests and instructors, not Kshatriya soldiers; and the kings of the

Pandiyas, Cholas, Calingas, and other Dravidians, appear to have been

simply Dravidian chieftains, or ‘Poligars,” whom their Brahmanical

preceptors and spiritual directors dignified with Aryan titles, and

taught to imitate and emulate the grandeur and cultivated tastes of

the Solar, Lunar, and Agni-kula races of kings.* In our own times we

may see the progress of a similar process in Gondwana, where barbarous

Gond chieftains have learned from their Brahman preceptors, not only

* I find that a similar opinion respecting the rclation that subsisted between

the Aryans and the early Drividians, has been expressed by Professor Max Miiller

(Report of British Association for 1847).

He says, ¢ Wholly different from the

manner in which the Brahmanieal pcople overcame the north of India, was the

way they adopted of taking possession of and settling in the country south of

the Vindhya.

They did not enter there in crushing masses with the destroying

|

force of arms, but in the more peaceful way of extensive colonisation, under the

protection and countenance of the powerful empires in the north.

‘Though sometimes engaged in wars with their neighbouring tribes, these

colonies generally have not tuken an offensive but only a defensive part; and it

appears that, after having introduced Brahmanical institutions, laws, and religion,

especially along the two coasts of the sea, they did not pretend to impose their

language upon the much more numerous inhabitants of the Dekhan, but that

they followed the wiser policy of adopting themselves the language of the

aboriginal people, and of conveying through its medium their knowledge and

instruetion to the minds of uncivilised tribes.

In this way they refined the rude

language of the earlier inhabitants, and brought it to a perfection which rivals

even the Sanserit.

By these mutual concessions, a much more favourable assimi-

lation took place between the Arian and aboriginal race; and the south of India

became afterwards the last refuge of Brahmanical science, when it was banished

from the north by the intolerant Mahommedans.

It is interesting and important

to observe how the beneficial influence of a higher civilisation may be effectually

exercised, without forcing the people to give up their own language and to adopt

that of their foreign conquerors, a result by which, if successful, every vital

principle of an independent and natural development is necessarily destroyed.’

I cannot see how this statement of the Professor can be reconciled with his

identification of the old Drividians with the Nish&das of Northern India,

In hig

more recent Results of Turanian Researches, he interprets Siva’s triumph over

Tripura, and the Garuda’s devouring of the Kirfitas, as traditions of the conquest

of Nishdda races by the Aryans; and represents the same Nishddas as retirirg

before the Aryas to the south of the Vindhyas, broken and scattered in the

centre, and violently pressed together even in the south.

If the Nishédas who

were thus dealt with had been Drividians, I think we should find some distinct

notice of this in the Mahd-bhérata, in which the peaceable, polished Cholas,

Kalingas, Pandiyas, and other Drévidians of the South, are carefully distin-

———————

guished from the Nishddas of various races, whom the old Solar and Lunar

kings are represented as subduing in Northern India.

e PR T

————

77

PRE-AYRIAN CIV;LIS ATION.

=29

to style themselves Rajahs, but even to assume the sacred thread of

=

the ‘twice-born’ Kshatriyas.

The only Dravidian kings who are commonly believed to have been

really Kshatriyas (though with what truth it is now impossible to say),

were the kings of the Kérala dynasty on the Malabar coast; from

[;

whom the modern Rajahs of Cochin claim to be descended.

I

It is proper to notice here that the title ‘Stdra’ conveys a higher

3

meaning in Southern than in Northern India. The primitive ‘Stdras’

of Northern India were slaves to the Aryans, or in a condition but

1

little superior to that of slaves.

They had no property of their own,

and no civil rights.

In Southern India, on the contrary, it was upon

f

the middle and higher classes of the Dravidians that the title of

0

¢Stdra’ was imposed ; and the classes that appeared to be analogous

1§

to the servile Stdras of Northern India, were not called ¢Stdras,” but

¢ Pallas,” ¢ Parias,” &c., names which they still retain. The application

of the term ‘Stdra,’ to the ancient Dravidian chieftains, soldiers, and

cultivators may prove that the Brahmans, whilst pretending to do them

!

an honour, treated them with contempt ; but it does not prove- that

10

16

they had ever been reduced by the Brahmans to a dependent position,

of

or that they ever were slaves, like the Northern Siidras, to any class

4

16

of Aryans. The Brahmans, who came in ¢ peaceably, and obtained the

kingdom by flatteries,” may probably have persuaded the Dravidians,

that in calling them Stidras, they were conferring upon them a title of

16

honour.

If so, their policy was perfectly successful ; for the title of

1,

Ir

¢Sldra’ has invariably been regarded by Dravidians in this light :

i

and hence, whilst in Northern India the Stdra is a low caste man, in

10

d

Southern India he ranks next to the Brahman, and the place which he

e

ls

occupies in the social scale is immeasurably superior, not only to that

I

of the Pariars, or agricultural slaves, but also to that of the un-

1

d

enslaved low castes, such as the fishermen, and the cultivators of the

cocoa-nut and palmyra palms.

b

[y

b

PRE-;&RYAN CIVILISATION OF THE DRrAvVIDIANS.,

al

1§

Though the Dravidians were destitute of letters, and unacquainted

18

ol

with the higher arts of life, prior to the arrival of the Brahmans, they

do not appear to have been so barbarous and degraded a people as the

Puranic legends represent.

They are represented to us by the Brah-

16

10

mans as tncouth ‘rakshasas,’ or giants; as monkeys (by an interesting

Ch

anticipation of the theory of the author of the Vestiges of the

5

Natural History of the Creation, who regards the monkeys of the

)

Dekhan as the progenitors of the human race) ; or as vile sinners, who

B

78

INTRODUCTION.

ate raw meat and human flesh, and disturbed the contemplations of

holy Rishis.

Even Hanuméan, their king, and Rama’s most useful

ally, is half-praised, half-ridiculed, as a monkey-god.

This picture may in some few particulars have correctly enough

represented the condition of the barbarous Kole, or Gond tribes who

inhabited the Vindyha forests; but it cannot be doubted that the Dra-

vidians, properly so called, had acquired, at least, the elements of

civilisation prior to the arrival amongst them of the Brahmans.

If we eliminate from the Tamil language the whole of its Sanserit

derivatives, the primitive Dravidian words that remain will furnish us

with a faithful picture of the simple, yet not savage, life of the Un-

Aryanised Dravidians. Mr. Curzon holds that there is nothing in the

shape of a record of the Tamil mind which can recall to us anything

independent of an obvious Sanscrit origin ; and that if the contrary

supposition were tenable, we ought to find the remains of a literature

embodying some record of a religion different from Hinduism.

Unequivocal traces of the existence amongst the Un-Aryanised Dravi-

;

dians, hoth ancient and modern, of a religion different from Hinduism,

will be pointed out in the Appendix. At present I will merely adduce

those records of the primitive Tamil mind, manners, and religion

RO AT S

which the ancient vocabularies of the language, when freed from the

admixture of Sanserit, will be found to furnish.

§

From the evidence of the words in use amongst the early

Tamilians, we learn the following items of information.

They had

‘kings,” who dwelt in “fortified houses,” and ruled over small ¢ distriets

of country :’ they were without ¢books,” and probably ignorant of

written alphabetical characters, but they had ¢ minstrels,” who recited

‘songs’ at ‘festivals :’ they were without hereditary ‘priests’ and

:‘g“

“idols,” and appear to have had no idea of ¢ heaven’ or ‘hell, of the

“soul” or ‘sin ;" but they acknowledged the existence of God, whom

they styled ko, or king—a realistic title which is unknown to

f

orthodox Hinduism.

They erected to his honour a ‘temple,’ which

i

they called ‘Ko6-il,” God’'s-house ; but 1 cannot find any trace of the

{

“worship’ which they offered to him.

The chief, if not the only

!

actual worship which they appear to have practised was thut of

‘devils, which they worshipped systematically by ¢giving to the

devil, .e. offering bloody sacrifices, and by the performance of

frantic ‘devil dances.’

They were acquainted with all the ordinary

metals, with the exception of ‘tin’ and ‘zine; with the planets

which were ordinarily known to the ancients, with the exception of

f

¢ Mercury’ and ‘Saturn.

They had numerals up to a ¢hundred,’—

some of them to a ‘thousand ; but were ignorant of the higher deno-

0

]

DATE OF DRAVIDIAN

CIVILISATION.

{

9

of

minations, a ‘lakh’ and a ¢crore.” They had ¢medicines, b.ut no

ul

‘medical science,” and no ‘doctors ;) ‘hamlets’ and ‘towns,” but no

“cities ;' ‘canoes,” ‘boats,’ and even ‘ships’ (small ¢decked’ coasting

h

vessels), but no foreign ‘ commerce ;' no acquaintance with any people

o

beyond sea, except in Ceylon, which was then accessible on foot at

low water ; and no word expressive of the geographical idea of

of

‘island’ or ¢continent.’

They were well acquainted with ¢agricul-

ture,” and delighted in ¢war.’

All the ordinary or necessary arts of

!

life, including ‘cotton weaving’ and ¢ dyeing,” existed amongst them,

s

but none of the arts of the higher class.

They had no acquaintance

)

with ¢painting,” ¢sculpture,’ or ‘architecture ;

with ¢astronomy,” or

ho

even ‘astrology;’ and were ignorant, not only of every branch of

ng

¢ philosophy,” but even of ¢ grammar.’

Their unecnltivated intellectual

Iy

condition is especially apparent in words that relate to the operations

16

of the mind. Their only words for the ‘ mind’ were the ¢diaphragm’

Il

(the ®pjr’ of the early Greeks), and ‘the inner parts’ or ‘interior.”

VI

They had a word for ‘thought; but no word distinet from this for

I,

‘memory,’” ‘judgment,’ or ¢ conscience, and no word for ¢ will.’

To

express ‘the will’ they would have been obliged to describe it as, ‘that

00

on

which in the inner parts says, ‘I am going to do so and so0.”

he

This brief illustration, from the primitive Tamil vocabulary, of the

social condition of the Dravidians, prior to the arrival of the Brah-

ly

mans, will suffice to prove that the elements of civilisation already

existed amongst them.

They had not acquired much more than the

ad

(fs

elements ; and in many things were centuries behind the Brahmans

of

whom they revered as ‘instructors,” and obeyed as ¢ overseers :’ but if

they had been left altogether to themselves, it is open to dispute

ol

nd

whether they would not now be in a much better condition, at least in

point of morals, than they are.

he

il

The mental culture and the higher civilisation which they derived

to

from the Brahmans, have, I fear, been more than counterbalanced by

the fossilising caste rules, the unpractical, pantheistic philosophy, and

ch

the cumbersome routine of inane ceremonies, which were introduced

he

amongst them by the guides of their new social state.

y

of

TrE

ProBABLE DATE OF THE

he

ARYAN CIVILISATION OF THE

DRAVIDIANS.

(vf

!

W7

It would appear, from the unanimous voice of ancient legends, that

o8

the earliest Dravidian civilisation was that of the Tamilians of the

of

Pandiya kingdom, near the southern extremity of the Peninsula. This

civilisation is traditionally, and with much show of reason, attributed

10

80

INTRODUCTION.

to the influence of successive colonies of Brahmans from Upper India,

who were probably attracted to the South by the report of the ferti-

lity of the rich alluvial plains that were watered by the Cavéri, and

other Peninsular rivers; or as the legends relate, by the fame of Rama-

chandra’s exploits, and the sacred celebrity of the emblem of Siva,

which Rama discovered and worshipped at Ramisseram, or Ram-is-

varam, a holy place in the island of Paumben, between the mainland

5}

The leader of the first, or most influential colony, is

and Ceylon.

traditionally said to have been Agastya, a personage who is celebrated

in Northern India as a holy ¢rishi,’ or kermat, but who is venerated in

the South with greater reason as the first teacher of science and litera-

ture to the primitive Dravidian tribes.

It is very doubtful whether

:li:

Agastya (if there ever were such a person) was really the leader of

t

the Brahman immigration : more probably he is to be considered as its

sbasta e R i

mythologica] embodiment.

¢ The Vindhya mountains,” it is said,

8

¢ prostrated themselves before Agastya; by which I understand that

fl

they presented no obstacle to his resolute, southward progress; for he

N

is said to have penetrated as far south as Cape Comorin. He is called

Il

by way of eminence the ¢ Tamir muni,’ or Zamilian sage; and is cele-

a0

brated for the influence which he acquired at the ¢court’ of Kula-

il

stkhara, according to tradition the first Pandiyan king, and for the

fo

numerous elementary treatises which he composed for the enlighten-

Ul

ment of his royal disciple ; amongst which his arrangement of the

pr

grammatical principles of the language has naturally acquired most

€0

renowin.

He is mythologically represented as identical with the star

1§

Canopus, the brightest star in the extreme southern sky in India, and

ki

is worshipped near Cape Comorin as Agast-isvara. By the majority of

Iy

orthodox Hindus he is believed to be still alive, though invisible to

my

ordinary eyes, and to reside somewhere on the fine conical mountain,

Cer

commonly called ¢ Agastya’s hill,” from which the ¢ Porunei’ or ‘Tamra-

wh

parni,” the sacred river of Tinnevelly, takes its rise.

any

The age of Agastya, and the date of the commencement of the

whi

Brahmanical civilisation of the Tamilians cannot now be determined

Drig

with certainty ; but data exist for making an approximate estimate.

It was certainly prior to the Christian era: for then the whole country

isly

appears to have been already Brahmanised, and the Pandiya dynasty

It was as certainly

Ag

of kings had become known even in Kurope.

lite

subsequent to the era of the RaméAyana and Manu: for then the whole

* The proper name of this mountain is ‘Podeiyam’ or ‘Podeiya-mi-malei,’

the great common mountain, which has received this name from the circumstance

that it is equally conspicuous on the Pandiya or Tinnevelly side of the Ghauts,

!

and on the Chéra or '1‘1'av§,ncore side.

quity

DATE OF DRAVIDIAN CIiVILISATION

81

of the Coromandel coast was still inhabited by ¢ Mléchchas,” who ‘ate

human flesh,” ¢ consorted with demons,” and ¢disturbed the contempla-

tions of holy hermits

The age of Agastya is undoubtedly to be

placed between those two eras

If we be could be sure that the

J

references to the Cholas, Dravidas, Knntalas, Kéralas, Mushicas, and

Karnatakas, which are contained in the present text of the Maha-

bharata, formed originally part of that poem, the era of the commence-

1S

ment of Tamilian civilisation, and the date of the Agastyan colony

d

from which it proceeded, might be brought within a still narrower

I

compass, and placed between the age of Manu and that of the Maha-

bharata

The gennineness of those references being as yet doubtful

er

and the era of Manu (in deference to an allusion to the Chinese, under

of

the name of ‘Chinas,” which, like similar allusions to the ‘Chinas’ and

1ts

‘ Yavanas’ in the Mahé-bharata, is probably an interpolation) being

id,

generally placed I think too low, I am inclined to look to Ceylon for

b

the best means of arriving at an approximate date.

The immigration

he

into Ceylon of the colony of Aryans from Magadha, probably took

ed

place about B.c. 550, or, at least, some time m the course of that century:

|l

and I think we may safely argue that the Aryas or Sanscrit-speaking

la

inhabitants of Northern India, must have become acquainted with, and

the

formed establishments in, the Dekhan and the Coromandel coast. and

el

must have taken some steps towards clearing the Danda-karanya, or

the

primitive forest of the Peninsula, before they thought of founding a

106

colony in Ceylon

Wijeya, the leader of the expedition into Ceylon,

star

is related in the Maha-wanso to have married the daughter of the

and

king of Pandi; and though it may be doubtful enough whether he

yOf

really did so (for on the same authority we must believe that he

etO

married also the queen of the Singhalese demons)

this at least is

il

certain, that it was the persuasion of the earliest Singhalese writers,

)

who were, on the whole, the most truthful and accurate of oriental

annalists, that the Pandi kingdom of Madura (the first kingdom

the

which was established on Aryan principles in the Peninsula) existed

uued

prior to the establishment of the Magadhi rule in the neighbouring

L

island

otry

Probably, therefore, we shall not greatly err in placing the era of

1aSty

Agastya, or that of the commencement of Tamilian civilisation and

iy

literature, in the seventh, or at least in the sixth century, B ¢

vh()l

RELATIVE ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE

mﬂlel,

lcmﬂce

Notwithstanding the antiquity of Dravidian civilisation, the anti-

hauté

quity of the oldest Dravidian literature extant is much inferior to that

G

T —

82

INTRODUCTION.

of the Sanscrit. Indeed it is questionable whether the word ¢anti-

quity > is a suitable one to use respecting the literature of any of the

T E—————_—

Dravidian languages.

The earliest writer on Telugu grammar is said to have been a sage

called ¢Kanva,” who lived at the court of Andhra—réya,, the king in

whose reign Sanscrit was first introduced into the Telugu country,

according to the tradition which was formerly mentioned.

For this tradition there is probably a historical groundwork, the

introduction of Sanserit derivatives being necessarily contemporaneous

with the immigration of the Brahmans ; and the statement that the

first attempt to reduce the grammatical principles of the language to

writing proceeded from a Brahman residing at the court of a Telugu

prince, is a very reasonable one.

Kanva’s work, if it ever existed, is now lost; and the oldest extant

work on Telugu grammar (which is composed,like all Telugu grammars,

in Sanscrit) was written by a Brahman, called Nanniah Bhatta, or

Nannappa, who was also the author of the greater part of the Telugu

version of the Maha-bharata, which is the oldest extant composition of

any extent in Telugu.

Nannappa lived in the reign of Vishnu Vard-

hana, a king of the Calinga branch of the Chalukya family, who

reigned at Rajamundry. The reign of this king is placed by Mr. A.

D. Campbell about the commencement of the Christian era ; but

Mr. C. P. Brown, in his Cyclic tables, places it, on better authority, in

%’%

the beginning of the 12th century, A.p.

¢

With the exception of a few other works, which were composed

towards the end of the 12th century, nearly all the Telugu works that

are now extant were written in the fourteenth and subsequent centuries,

P

after the establishment of the kingdom of Bijnagar, or Vijaya-nagara ;

0

and many of them were written in comparatively recent times.

il

Though the Telugu literature which is now extant cannot boast of

a high antiquity, the language must have been cultivated and polished,

and many poems that are now lost must have been written in it, prior

to the twelfth century—the date of Nannappa’s translation of the

Maha-bharata : for as this translation is considered ‘the great standard

of Telugu poetry,” it cannot be supposed to have sprung into existence

all at once, without the preparation of a previous literary culture.

Tamil literature is undoubtedly older than Telugu, though the

high antiquity which is ascribed to some portions of it by the Tamilian

my

literati cannot be admitted.

W

The sage Agastya occupies in Tamil literature a place of still

el

greater eminence and importance than that of Kanva ia Telugu.

lfa

Not only is the formation of the Tamil alphabet attributed to

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

83

Agastya, and the first treatise upon Tamil grammar, together with the

original settlement of the grammatical principles of the language; but

he is also said to have taught the Tamilians the first principles of

medicine, of chymistry or alchymy, of architecture, astronomy, and

law ; and some of the most ancient and admired treatises on all these

sciences, as well as many modern ones, are attributed to his pen.

It

is admitted by Tamilians that his grammar does not now exist; but

they suppose him to have been the anthor of most of the extant

treatises on medicine and other sciences which bear his name.

Though the literary cultivation of the Tamil language may have

commenced, as the Tamilians believe, in the age of Agastya (premising

however, that it is undecided whether he was a real personage, or is

only to be regarded as the mythological representative of a class or

period), I feel quite certain that none of the works which are com-

monly ascribed to Agastya, were written at so early an age. Probably

there is not any one of them older than the tenth century, A.p.

Of the works which are attributed to him, those which advocate

f

the system of the ‘Siddhas’ (Tamulice ‘Sittar’), or the ‘Siddbhantam,’

a mystical compound of alchymy and quietism, with a tinge of

Christianity, were certainly written after the arrival of Europeans in

India: and Agastya's name appears to have been used by the writers,

as had been done by many successions of authors before, for the pur-

1t

i

pose of gaining the ear of the people for whose use the books were

composed.

We cannot doubt that the substance of the following stanza,

od

at

which is contained in the ¢ Njina ntru,’” or centum of wisdom, a small

poem attributed to Agastya, has been borrowed from statements of

P8y

Christianity, notwithstanding that Christianity is not directly named

&)

in it, or in any other work of this class :—

of

¢ Worship thou the Light of the Universe; who is One;

el,

Who made the world in a moment, and placed good men in it ;

101

Who afterwards himgelf dawned upon the earth as a Guru;

Who, without wife or family, as a hermit performed austerities;

the

ard

Who appointing loving sages (siddhas) to succeed him,

Departed again into heaven :—worship Him.’

700

It is a striking illustration of the uncritical structure of the Hindu

the

mind, that this stanza is supposed, even by Tamil literati, to have been

Jian

Heathens

written by Agastya himself many thousands of years ago.

endeavour to give it a heathen meaning, and Hindu Christians regard

stin

it as a kind of prophecy.

Though there is not a single archaism in it; though it is written

d t0

G

2

INTRODUCTION.

84

not only in the modern dialect, but in a vulgar, colloquial idiom,

abounding in solecisms; veither party entertains any doubt of its

antiquity.

Leaving out of account various isolated stanzas, of high but

unknown antiquity, which are quoted as examples in the grammatical

and rhetorical works, the oldest Tamil works now extant are those

which were written, or are claimed to have been written, by the

Jainas, or which date from the era of the literary activity of the

Jaina sect. The Jainas of the old Pandiya country were animated by

a national and anti-Brahmanical feeling of peculiar strength ; and it is

chiefly to them that Tamil is indebted for its high culture and its com-

The Saiva and Vaishnava

parative independence of the Sanscrit.

writers of a later period, especially the Saivas, imbibed much of the

enthusiasm for Tamilic purity and literary independence, by which the

Jainas were distinguished : in consequence of which, though Tamil

literature, as a whole, will not bear a comparison with Sanscrit lite-

rature, as a whole, it is the only vernacular literature in India which

has not been contented with imitating the Sanserit, but has honourably

attempted to emulate and outshine it.

In one department, at least,

that of ethical epigrams, it is generally maintained, and I think must

be admitted, that the Sanscrit has been outdone by the Tamil.

The Jaina period extended probably from the eighth or ninth

century, A.D., to the twelfth or thirteenth.

In the reign of Sundara

Pandiya, which appears to synchronize with Marco Polo’s visit to

India, the adherents of the religious system of the Jainas, were finally

expelled from the Péndiya country : consequently, all Tamil works

which advocate or avow that system must have been written before

the middle of the thirteenth century, A.p., and probably before the

f

decadence of Jaina influence in the twelfth.

It seems reasonable to conclude that the period in which Jaina

1

literature chiefly flourished was that which preceded the enthusiastic

0

propagation of the Vedantic doctrines of Sankara Achérya. If this

conclusion is correct, the most celebrated poem which was written by

d

an avowedly Jaina author—the ¢Chintémani,’ a brilliant romantic

epic, containing 15,000 lines—cannot be placed later than the tenth

century.

0

The ¢ Nan-ntl,” a High Tamil grammar of great excellence, and

the poetical vocabularies, which were all written by Jaina scholars,

h

P

must be placed a little later than the ‘ChintAmani; but yet anterior to

the Chola conquest of the Pandiya country, which took place in the

§

th

eleventh century.

m

The ¢Tol-kippiyam, or ancient composition, the oldest extant

%

1n;

86

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

Tamil grammar, is probably to be placed at the very commencement of

the Jaina period. Though written by a Saiva, its Saivism is not that

of the mystical school of Sankara ; and in the chapters which are

extant (for much of it has been lost), native grammarians have noticed

the existence of various grammatical forms which are considered to be

archaic

It is traditionally asserted that the author of this treatise,

who is styled technically ¢ TolkAppiyanar

was a disciple of Agastya

bimself, and that he embodied in his work the substance of Agastya’s

grammatical elements

This tradition is on a par with that which

ascribes so many anonymous works to Agastya

nevertheless, if any

relics of poems of the first age of Tamil literature still survive, they

are to be found amongst the poetical quotations which are contained

in this and similar works, and in commentaries which have been

written upon them

Some of those quotations are probably the oldest

specimens of the poetical style that are now extant

L, TR Ty e Y L o, I

The <Kural’ of Tiruvalluvar, a work consisting of 1330 distichs, or

poetical aphorisms, on almost every subject connected with morals and

political economy, and which is regarded by all Tamilians (and per-

haps justly) as the finest composition of which the Tamil can boast

)

appears to be not only the best but the oldest Tamil work of any

extent which is now in existence

I think we should not be warranted in placing the date of the

%

Kural later than the ninth century, A.p

The reasons which iuduce me to assign to it so high an antiquity

i

are as follows :—

y

(1.) The Kural contains no trace of the distinctive doctrines of

ks

Sankara Achérya

It teaches the old Sankhya philosophy, but ignores

16

Sankara’s additions and developments ; and would therefore appear

he

to have been written before the school of Sankara had risen to notice,

if not before Sankara himself, who lived not later than the ninth

0%

century

£10

his

(2.) There is no trace in the Kural of the mysticism of the modern

Puranic system ; of Bhaktt, or exclusive, enthusiastic faith in any one

by

deity of the Hindu Pantheon

of exclusive attachment to any of the

ti

sects into which Hinduism has been divided since the era of Sankara ;

ith

or even of acquaintance with the existence of any such sects

The

work appears to have been written before Saivism and Vaishnavism

ud

had been transformed from rival schools into rival sects ; before the

Mt

Purénas, as they now stand, had become the text books of Hindu

to

theology ; and whilst the theosophy of the early Vedinta and the

the

mythology of the Mahé-bbéarata GOHIPI'lbed the entire creed of the

majority of Hindus.

ant

86

INTRODUCTION.

(8.) The author of the Kural is claimed with nearly equal reason

by Saivas, Vaishnavas, and Jainas.

On the whole the arguments of

|

the Jainas appear to me to preponderate, especially that which appeals

to the Jaina fone that pervades the ethical part of the work :—e.g.,

scrupulous abstinence from the destruction of life is frequently declared

to be the chiefest excellence of the true ascetic. Nevertheless, from the

indistinctness and undeveloped character of the Jaina element which

is contained in it, it seems probable that in Tiruvalluvar’s age Jainism

was rather an esoteric ethical school, than an independent objective

system of religion, and was only in the process of development out of

the older Hinduism. This would carry back the date of the Kural to

the eighth or ninth century.

(4.) Tt is the concurrent voice of various traditions that Tiru-

valluvar lived before the dissolution of the Madura Sangam ; i. ., the

college of literati, or board of literary examiners, at Madura. It is

asserted that the Kural was the very last work which was presented

for the approval of that body ; and that it was in consequence of their

rejection of the Kural (on account of the low caste of its author) that

the college ceased to exist. If any weight is to be attached to this

tradition, which has the appearance of verisimilitude, the Kural must

be the oldest Tamil composition of any extent that is now extant : for

every composition which is attributed (with any show of reason) to

the literati who constituted that college, who were in any way

connected with it, or who lived prior to the abolition of it (some

of whom were the traditional fathers of Tamil literature), has long

ago perished.

(5.) The Kural is referred to and quoted in grammars and prosodies

which were probably written in the tenth century.

For these reasons I think the Kural should be placed in the eighth

or ninth century at least.

It is admitted, however, as in almost every

similar inquiry pertaining to Indian literature, that the reasons for

this conclusion are rather negative than positive.

15

Certain poetical compositions are attributed to Auveiyar, ¢the

Matron, a reputed sister of Tiruvalluvar, of which some, at least, do

&

not belong to so early a period.

§

It is a remarkable circumstance that the author of the Kural is

1t

represented to have been a Pariar. A later legend represents him to

ol

have been the offspring of a Brahman father by a Pariar mother.

tt

His real name is unknown.

The Valluvars are the priestly division

(s

of the Pariars, and the author of the Kural is known only as ¢ Tiru-

W

valluvar, the sacred Valluvan, or Pariar priest. It is a still more

Do

remarkable circumstance that the poetical compositions which are now

ey

87

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

referred to (small works of universal use and popularity in the Tamil

country, and of considerable merit) are ascribed to a sister of Tiru-

valluvar, a Pariar woman !

Auveyar’s real name, like that of her

brother, is unknown,—* Auvei,” or ¢ Auveiyér,’ signifying a mother, o

venerable matron.

|

The brief verses (éach commencing with a consecutive letter of the

Z

Tamil alphabet) which are ascribed to Auveiyar, appear to be of con-

siderable antiquity : but the Advaita work which is called ‘ Auveiyar’s

Z

Kural’ was written subsequently to the arrival of the Mahommedans

in Southern India ; and the collection of moral epigrams (most of them

possessed of real poetic merit) which is called the ¢ Mudurei,” or pro-

verbial wisdom, was written after the arrival of Europeans, perhaps

after the arrival even of the English.

The proof of the modern origin of the Mtdurei is contained in the

16

18

following simile :—¢As the turkey that had seen the forest peacock

3

dance, fancied himself also to be a peacock, and spread his ugly wings

T

and strutted, so is the poetry which is recited by a conceited dunce.’

ab

As it is certain that the turkey is an American bird, which was

brought to Europe from America, and introduced into India from

118

86

Europe, there cannot be any doubt of the late origin of the Midurei,

if this stanza was always an integral portion of it, as it is represented

o1

t0

to have been.

When I have mentioned this anachronism to native

scholars, and have called their attention to the circumstance that the

2y

Tamil word for ¢ turkey ’ (like the words denoting ¢ tobacco,” ¢ potato,’

me

ng

&ec.), is not an original root, but a descriptive compound, signifying

‘the heavenly fowl’ ¢.e., ‘the great fowl’ they have courageously

os

maintained that the turkey was always found in India.

The date which is commonly attributed to the Tamil translation,

hth

or rather the Tamil imitation, of the Ramayana, a highly finished and

very popular work, is considerably too high.

In a stanza which is

ery

prefixed to the work, and which is always believed to have been written

for

by the author himself, it is related that it was finished in the year of

the Salivihana era corresponding to A.D. 733.

This date has been

(the

accepted as genuine, not only by natives, but by those few European

do

scholars who have turned their attention to matters of this kind.

If

it were genuine, the Tamil version of the Raméyana would be the

J 18

oldest Tamil composition which is now extant—a supposition to which

n 0

the internal evidence of style is opposed ; and the author, Kamban

her.

(so called from ¢ Kamba nadu,’” a district in the Tanjore country, to

glon

which he belonged), would claim to be regarded as the father of Tamil

[0

poetry.

ot

N

This date, though it is the only one with which T am

“acquainted

o

88

INTRODUCTION.

in the whole range of Tamil literature, is I fear a surreptitious addi-

tion to Kamban’s poem, which was prefixed to it by some admiring

editor, for the purpose of giving it a higher antiguity than it can justly

claim,

It is generally stated that Kamban finished his poem in the reign

of Kulotunga Choéla : and as certain poetical riddles, purporting to

have been given him by Kulétunga Chéla to selve, have come down

to the present time, there seems to be no reason to doubt the propriety

of placing him in the reign of that king. Mr. Taylor, in his analysis

of the MacKenzie MSS., mentions a tradition that Kamban presented

his poem to Rajéndra Chéla. As Réajéndra, Kul6tunga’s father, was the

Anugustus of the Chola line, it may be supposed that the more celebrated

name crept into the story, instead of the less celebrated. = Mr. Taylor

1

represents Rajéndra as Kulétunga's father, not his som: but in an

inscription in my possession procured from Kottar, in South Tra-

vaneore, and which was written during the period of the occupation of

the Pandiya country by the Chélas, it is stated that the temple on

which the inscription is cut was ‘erected by Kulotunga Chéla to the

honour of the divinity of Rajéndra Chol-isvara,’ 7.e., to Réijendra

T g b 3 P R

Chola, ‘deified,” or considered as identified with Siva, after his death.

I therefore conclude that Kulétunga was Réjéndra’s son, not his

father.

It makes little difference, however, whether he were father

or son : for Kamban may be supposed to have lived in both reigns, and

a single reign is of no importance to my present argument. The other

premiss of my argument is founded upon the evidence of an inseription

it

whieh is found on the walls of an old temple at Cape Comorin.

That

inscription is dated in the reign of Réjéndra Chola, and celebrates a

victory gained by Réjéndra over Abhava Malla (a Jaina king, of the

The date of the

Chalukya race), on the banks of the Tunga-bhadra.

inscription is in the two hundredth year of the Quilon era (a popular

local era), answering to 1025, A. .

Mr. Walter Elliot’s inscriptions,

found in the old Chalukya country, place Ahava Malla’s battle with

D

1

Rajéndra Chola a little later than this, but in the same century; and

IS

they also claim the victory not for the Chéla, but for the Chalukya

§

king. This discrepancy, however, is not of any importance : for it is

clear, from both sets of inscriptions, that Ré&jéndra Chéla lived about

|

the beginning of the eleventh century, and Kulotunga Chéla about the

middle of it; and, in consequence, it appears to be certain that the

publication of Kamban’s Ramayana, which professes to have been in

—

A.D. 733, has intentionally and mendaciously been ante-dated three

hundred years.

W

This is not the proper place for attempting to furnish the reader

e

0

h

Iy

E

ESTIMATE OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

89

|

with an estimate of the intrinsic value of Dravidian poetry. Whilst

L

an elevated thought, a natural, expressive description, a pithy, sen-

ly

tentious maxim, or a striking comparison, may sometimes be met with,

unfortunately elegance of style, or an affected, obscure brevity, has

1

always been preferred to strength and truthfulness, and poetic fire has

fo

been quenched in an ocean of conceits.

4!

Nothing can exceed the refined elegance and ¢linked sweet-

by

ness’ of many Telugu and Tamil poems ; but a lack of heart and

51§

purpose, and a substitution of sound for sense, more or less characterise

ed

them all : and hence, whilst an anthology composed of well-selected

he

extracts would please and surprise the English reader, every attempt

to translate any Tamil or Telugu poem in extenso into English, has

lor

proved to be a failure.

an

To these causes of inferiority must be added a slavery to custom

b

and precedent at least equal to what we meet with in the later San-

of

scrit.

Literature could never flourish where the following distich

0n

(contained in the ‘Nan-nil,” or classical Tamil grammar) was accepted

he

as a settled principle :—

Ira

¢ On whatsoever subjects, in whatsoever expressions, with whatsoever arrangement,

th

Classical writers have written, so to write is denoted propriety of style.’*

hi

her

For the last hundred and fifty years the Dravidian mind appears to

nd

have sunk into a state of lethargy,—partly in consequence of the dis-

her

couraging effect of foreign domination, but chiefly through the natural

101

tendency to decay and death which is inherent in a system of slavery

hat

to the authority of great names.

8 8

With the exception of a small ethical poem, called the ‘Niti-neri-

the

vilakkam,” the only Tamil poems or treatises of any real value which

have been written within the period mentioned, have been composed

the

lar

* It is deserving of notice that alliteration is of the essence of Drividian

)i

)

poetry, as of Welsh ; and that the Drividians have as just a claim as the Welsh

to the credit of the invention of rhyme.

ith

The rhyme of modern European poetry

is supposed to have had a Welsh or Celtic origin; but Drividian rhyme was

and

necessarily invented by Drividians.

The chief peculiarity of Drividian rhyme

kya

consists in its seat being, not at the end of the line, but at the beginning —a

natural result of its origin in a love of alliteration.

The rule in each Drividian

f 18

dialect is that the consonant which intervenes between the first two vowels in a

)ollt

line is the seat of rhyme.

A gingle Tamil illustration must suffice :—

the

sirei (t)tédil,

érei (t)tédu.—AvveL

the

¢ If you seek for prosperity,

1

Seek for a plough.’

760

The agreement of those two consonants constitutes the minimum of rhyme

which is admissible : but often the entire first foot of one line rhymes with the

same foot in the second ; sometimes the second feet in each line also rhyme ; and

u]el

the rhyme is sometimes taken up again further on in the verse, according to fixed

laws in each variety of metre.

90

INTRODUCTION.

by European missionaries.

At the head of compositions of this class,

and high in the list of Tamil classics, stands the ¢ Tém-ba-vani,’ of

Father Beschi.

This long and highly elaborated scriptural epic

possesses great poetical merit, and exhibits an astonishing command of

the resources of the language : but unfortunately it is tinged with the

fault of too close an adherence to the manner and style of ¢the

ancients,” and is still more seriously marred by the error of endeavour-

to Hinduize the facts and narratives of Holy Scripture, and even

Scripture geography, for the purpose of pleasing the Hindu taste.

Now that native education has commenced to make real progress,

and the advantages of European knowledge, European civilisation, and

European Christianity are becoming known and felt by so many of

the Hindus themselves, it may be expected that the Dravidian mind

will ere long be roused from its lethargy, and stimulated to enter upon

a new and brighter career.

If the national mind and heart were stirred to so great a degree a

thousand years ago by the diffusion of Jainism, and some centuries

later by the dissemination of the Saiva and Vaishnava doctrines, it is

reasonable to expect still more important results from the propagation

of the grand and soul-stirring truths of Christianity, and from the

contact of the minds of the youth with the ever-progressive literature

and science of the Christian nations of the West.

It is a great and peculiar advantage of the English and vernacular

education which so many Hindus are now receiving from European

missionaries and from Government teachers, that it is communicated to

all who wish to receive it, without distinction of caste. In former ages

the education of the lower castes and classes was either prohibited or

seduously discouraged, and female education was generally regarded as

disgraceful ; but now the youth of the lower classes, of both sexes,

are generally admitted to the same educational advantages as those

The hitherto uncultivated

that are enjoyed by the higher castes.

minds of the lower and far most numerous classes of the Hindu

community, are now for the first time in history brought within the

range of humanising and elevating influences.

A virgin soil is now

for the first time being ploughed, turned up to the air and light, and

sown with the seed of life ; and in process of time we may reasonably

expect to reap a rich crop of intellectual and moral results.

In the Appendix I have endeavoured to answer the question, ‘are

the Pariahs and the Tudas Dravidians ¥’

I have also subjoined some

S

remarks ‘on the Dravidian physical type,” and ‘on the religion of the

ancient Dravidian tribes.

of

ic

of

he

he

I

en

5,

nd

of

nd

[}

»

168

1§

on

he

COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR,

e

a1

al

f0

;es

or

a8

%)

56

ol

du

he

W

nd

ly

10

1117

he

NOTE.

All foreign words, to whatever family of languages they may

belong, are represented in this work in the Roman character, for the

double purpose of preventing unnecessary expense and trouble, and of

facilitating comparison.

Long vowels are invariably marked thus,—‘4:" when no such

accent is placed over a vowel, it is intended that it should be pro-

nounced short.

Bl

(0

All vowels are pronounced in the Continental manner.

il

di

The ‘cerebral’ consonants are denoted by a subscribed dot, e.g.,

Bl

‘t, d, n:’ the peculiar vocalic ‘r, and the surd ‘1’ of the South-

to

Indian languages are denoted in a similar manner, e.g., ‘r, 1:’ the

’

9

obscure, inorganic nasal ‘n,

or ‘m; is italicized, ¢g., ‘m,

or ‘m.

?

and the hard, rough ‘r,

is represented by a capital ‘Rr.’

th

A\t

The dental ‘d,” in Tamil, and the corresponding ‘t,’ in Malayélam,

are pronounced in the middle of a word, or between two vowels, like

Vi

the English ‘th,’ in tkan ; and in Telugu, ¢j’ and ‘ch,” when fol-

ﬂh

lowed by certain vowels, are pronounced like ‘dz’ and ‘ts: but as

01

these are merely peculiarities of pronunciation, and one consonant is

S —

(if

not exchanged for another, no change has been made in the characters

1

by which those sounds are represented.

1LY

In colloquial Telugu, a ‘y’ euphonic is generally written, as well

ny

QX]

as pronounced, before ‘i’ and ‘e; and a similar ‘v’ before ‘o :’ but

as this is merely a colloquial corruption, and one which tends to hinder

far

E

thy

e e

comparison with other dialects, all such words will be written without

the ‘y’ or ‘v, and it will be left to the reader to pronounce them as

usage requires.

This is the rule in Tamil, in which ‘evan,’ who ? is

Y1z

always pronounced, but never written, ‘yevan.’

'the

j;

1

dep

ear)

|

P

whi

12y

SECTION 1.

the

d of

uch

SOUNDS.

ro

It will be my endeavour in this section to elucidate the laws of

sound by which the Dravidian languages are characterized, and which

contribute to determine the question of their affiliation.

Special

notice will be taken of those regular interchanges of sound in the

different dialects which enable us to identify words under the various

6.0

shapes that they assume, and to which it will frequently be necessary

the

to allude in the subsequent sections of this work.

‘ th

m

DrAvipiaN ArLpHABETS.—Before entering on the examination of

the Dravidian sounds, it is desirable to make some preliminary obser-

vations on the alphabets of the Dravidian languages.

Jam,

There are three different Dravidian alphabets at present in use,

fike

viz., the Tamil, the Malayalam, and the Telugu-Canarese.

I class

fol-

the Telugu and the Canarese characters together, as constituting but

f a8

one alphabet; for though there are differences between them, those

1t 18

differences are few and unimportant.

The Tulu is ordinarily written

oferd

in the Malayéla character: the Ku grammar of which I have made

use, is written in the characters of the Uriya—characters which are

much less appropriate than those of the Telugu would have been, for

The other uncultivated dialects of this

well

expressing the Ku sounds.

' hub

family have hitherto been content to have their sounds expressed in

the Roman character.

pder

ot

The three Dravidian alphabets which have been mentioned above,

m a8

viz., the Tamil, the Malayalam, and the Telugu-Canarese, together with

1Bt}

their older but now obsolete shapes, and the ‘Grantham,” or character

in which Sanserit is written in the Tamil country, have all been

derived, I conceive, from the early Déva-nagari, or from the still

earlier characters that are contained in the cave inscriptions—characters

which have been altered and disguised by natural and local in-

94

SOUNDS.

al

fluences, and especially by the custom, universal in the Dekhan, of

of

writing on the leaf of the palmyra palm with an iron stylus.

It was supposed by Mr. Ellis, and the supposition has gained

Wi

currency, that before the immigration of the Brahmans into the Tamil

al

country, the ancient Tamilians were acquainted with the art of

writing ; that the Brahmans recombined the Tamil characters which

la

0

they found in use, adding a few which were necessary for the expres-

sion of sounds peculiar to the Sanscrit; and that from this amalgama-

ch

tion, which they called ‘Grantham, or the book, the existing Tamil

af

characters have been derived. There cannot be any doubt of the

by

derivation of the Tamil character from the Grantham: for some

characters are evidently identical with Grantham letters which are

!

still in use; others with more ancient forms of the Grantham: but the

other part of the hypothesis, viz., the existence of a Pre-Sanscrit

0!

Tamil character out of which the Grantham itself was developed, is

U8

a8

very doubtful ; and though it is true that there is a native Tamil word

which signifies ‘a letter; yet there is no tradition extant of the

eixstence of Tamil characters older than those which the first Brah-

eq

man immigrants introduced. The Indian characters referred to by

ag]

Iambulus, as quoted by Prinsep, evidently differed widely from the

Vo

ab

Tamil, and appear to have been identical with, or allied to, ‘the cave

character; and the character called Hala Kannada, or Old Canarese,

al

and the various characters in which Tamil is found to be written

wh

U§

in old inscriptions, are plainly founded on the basis of an alpha-

betical system which was originally intended for the use of the

Sanscrit.

thy

The modern Telugu-Canarese differs considerably from the modern

va

Tamil, and departs more widely than the Tamil from the Déva-nagari

der

type; but there is a marked resemblance between many of the

Telugu-Canarese characters and the corresponding characters that are

tior

found in early Tamil inseriptions, such as the ‘Sasanas,’ or royal

rep1

The modern

|

grauts, in the possession of the Jews of Cochin.*

Malayéla character is manifestly derived from the Tamilian Grantham.

Tel

Thus, there is reason to conclude that all the alphabetical characters

gt

which are used or known in Southern India have a common origin ;

Sys

Sar

* The Cochin inscriptions have been published and interpreted by the

Rev. Dr. Gundert, in the Journal of the Madras Literary Society. They are

the

written in the Tamil language, though in an idiom which is tinged with the

af

peculiarities of the Malayalam. The character in which they are written, was

once supposed to be peculiar to the Malaydla country : bul I have in my posses-

o)

sion many fac similes of inscriptions in the same character, which were obtained

g

in various districts of the Southern Tamil country, or Pindiyan kingdom ; and it

would appear to have been the character which was most generally used at an

carly period all over the South.

DRAVIDIAN

ALPHABETS.

95

of

and that their origin is the same as that of all the existing alphabets

of Northern India, namely, the system of characters in which Sauscrit

ned

was written by the ancient Brahmans.

i

The difference between the northern and the southern alphabets

of

arises from the antiquity of the literary cultivation of the southern

lich

languages, as compared with the northern.

The southern languages

168

commenced to be cultivated in that early period when the cave

ma

character was used: the northern vernaculars were not cultivated till

il

after the cave character had become obsolete, and had been superseded

the

by the later Déva-nagari.

ome

The Telugu and the Canarese alphabets correspond to the Déva-

are

nagari in power and arrangement.

The only difference is that a short

the

‘e’ and ‘o, and a hard ‘r’ which is unknown to the Sanscrit, are

serb

contained in those alphabets, together with a surd ‘1, which is not

used in the modern Sanscrit, but is found in the Sanscrit of the Védas,

l, 18

ord

as well as in the Dravidian languages.

th

16

In other respects the characters of those alphabets are convertible

1ah

equivalents of the Déva-nagari.

The Malayéla alphabet generally

) by

agrees with the Telugu-Canarese: it differs from them in having the

vocalic ‘r,” of the Tamil, in addition to the other characters mentioned

the

cave

above; and in having only one character for long and short ‘e, and

another for long and short ‘o.” The aspirated letters and sibilants

1686

itten

which all those alphabets have borrowed from the Sanscrit, are seldom

lpha

used except in pronouncing and writing Sanscrit derivatives.

Those letters are not really required for native Dravidian purposes;

' the

though, through the prevalence of Sanscrit influences, they have

acquired a place in the pronunciation of a few words which are not

pdern

agarl

derived from the Sanscrit.

the

The letters ‘ch’ and ¢j,” are pronounced in Telugu in certain situa-

tions ‘ts’ and ‘dj:’ but no additional characters are employed to

\

are

royﬁl

represent those sounds.

The Tamil alphabet differs more widely than the Malayalam, or the

Odern

than

Telugu-Canarese, from the arrangement of the Déva-nagari.

The

grammar of the Tamil language having, to a considerable degree, been

aefers

systematised and refined independently of Sanscrit influences, and

ngils

Sanscrit modes of pronunciation being almost unknown to Tamilians,

hv ﬂ]e

the phonetic system of the Tamil demanded, and has secured for itself,

ey 10

a faithful expression in the Tamil alphabet.

The materials of that

ih the

alphabet are wholly, or in the main, Old Sanserit ; but the use which is

o], “ﬁb

0386

made of those materials is Tamilian.

pained

a0 ]

The following are the principal peculiarities of the Tamil alphabet,

b

In common with the Telugu and Canarese alphabets, the Tamil

i

96

SOUNDS.

alphabet possesses separate characters for long and short ‘e, and for

long and short ‘0.” Formerly it had but one character for the long

and the short sounds of those vowels; and it is believed that the marks

by which the long are now distinguished from the short were first

introduced by Beschi.

The Tamil has no characters corresponding to

the liquid semi-vowels ‘ri® and ‘li,” which are classed amongst vowels

by Sanscrit grammarians; and it has not adopted the ‘anusvéra,’ or

1l

obscure nasal of the Sansecrit.

Much use is made of nasals in Tamil:

but those nasals are firm, decided sounds, not ‘echoes,’ and are classed

amongst consonants by native grammarians.

‘m’ is the natural sound

of the Tamil nasal, and this sound is uniformly retained at the end of

words and before labials: when followed by a guttural, ‘m’ is changed

into ‘ng,” the nasal of the guttural row of consonants; and it is changed

1t

in a similar manner into ‘@ij,” ‘n,” or ‘n,” according as it is followed by

%

a palatal, a cerebral, or a dental.

The Tamil alphabet has nothing to

Bl

correspond with the ‘half anuswara’ of the Telugu—a character and

sound which is peculiar to that language: nevertheless, the tendency

00,

th

to euphonize hard consonants by prefixing and combining nasals, from

{hy

which the ‘half anuswAra’ has arisen, is in full operation in Tamil.

The Tamil makes no use whatever of aspirates, and has not

th

alz

borrowed any of the aspirated consonants of the Sanscrit, nor even the

isolated aspirate ‘h.

of

I\

In arranging the consonants, the Tamil alphabet follows the Déva-

b

nigari in respect of the ¢vargas,” or rows, in which the Sanserit con-

sonants are classified and arranged. Tt adopts, however, only the

1

d

first and the last consonant of each row, omitting altogether the inter-

mediate letters.

In the first or guttural row, the Tamil alphabet

Iy

adopts ‘k,” and its corresponding nasal ‘ng,” omitting ‘kh,’ ‘g’ and

‘gh:’ in the second or palatal row it adopts ‘ch,” and its corresponding

ofh

nasal ‘nj,” omitting ‘chh,” ‘j,’ and ‘jh: in the third or cerebral row it

adopts ‘t,” and its nasal ‘n,’ omitting ‘th,” ‘d,’ and ‘dh:’ in the fourth

§

or dental row it adopts ‘t,’ and its nasal ‘n,” omitting ‘th,’ ‘d,” and *dh?’

B

in the fifth or labial row it adopts ‘p,” and its nasal ‘m,” omitting

.

“Bh,; *b..and ‘bh.

Thus, the Tamil alphabet omits not only all the aspirated con-

sonants of the Déva-nagari, but also all its soft or sonant letters.

The

sounds which are represented by the sonants of the Déva-nagari, are

as commonly used in Tamil as in Sanscrit: but in accordance with a

peculiar law of sound (to be explained hereafter) which requires the

same letter to be pronounced as a surd in one position and as a sonant

in another, the Tamil uses one and the same character for representing

both sounds; and the character which has been adopted for this pur-

DRAVIDIAN ALPHABETS.

97

or

pose by the Tamil alphabet, is that which corresponds to the first

consonant, viz., the tenuis or surd, in each of the Déva-nigari ‘vargas.’

ng

ks

In the ‘varga’ of the semi-vowels the Tamil follows the Déva-

nagari ; but it subjoins to that ‘varga’ a row of four letters which are

I8

to

not contained in the Déva-nagari.

Those letters are a deep liquid ‘r,’

ela

which will always be represented in this work as ‘r; a harsh, rough

or

‘r,” which will be represented as ‘r; ‘1, a peculiar surd ‘1, with a

il

mixture of ‘r;’ and ‘n,’ a letter to which it is unnecessary to affix any

distinctive mark, the difference between it and the ‘n’ of the dental

\ed

nd

¢ varga’ being one of form rather than of sound. This peculiar ‘n’ is

| of

that which is invariably used as a final ; and it is also much used in

combination with ‘r,’ to represent the peculiar Tamil sound of ¢ ndr.’

ool

opd

The Tamil alphabet is not only destitute of aspirated consonants, but

it is also without the separate aspirate ‘h,” which hasa place in the alpha-

by

r 10

bets of so many other languages.

It is destitute also of the Sanscrit

sibilants ‘8, ‘sh,” and ‘s.’

The second and third of these sibilants are

and

occasionally used in pronouncing and writing Sanscrit derivatives; but

ney

rom

these letters are never found in the ancient dialect of the Tamil, or in

the classics, nor have they a place in the Tamil alphabet : when used,

108

they are borrowed from the Grantham, from which a few other letters

also are occasionally borrowed to express Sanscrit sounds.

The first

the

(,)f the three Sanscrit characters referred to above, namely, ¢the § of

v

iva,” is never used at all in pure Tamil : the Tamil palatal or semi-

sibilant which corresponds to the Sanscrit ‘ch,” and which is pro-

con:

nounced as a soft ¢

S

7

the

> or ‘sh,) when single, and as ‘ch,” when

doubled, is the letter which is used instead.

nter-

The following comparative view of the ¢Déva-nigari’ and the

abeb

and

Tamil alphabets exhibits the relation which the one bears to the

other.

ding

VowELS.

W lt

Sanserit

a, &

ol

u,

risrl

It : —8 :af : —06 :alt: n : ah

)ul‘t»h

Tamil

—

a, &

i :——

e, &

ef : o, 0

all 1 —: —

bt

fing

CONSONANTS.

Gutturals, Sans.

k,

kh

gh

Ditto,

Tamil

k,

con

Sans.

chh

The

Palatals,

ch,

jh

Ditto,

Tamil

ch,

e

Cerebrals, Sans.

t,

th

dh

ith 8

Tamil

Ditto,

o8 the

Dental,

Sans.

th

dh

Ditto,

Tamil

onalt

Labials,

Sans.

bh

nting

p,

ph

P e e Bt B

Ditto,

Tamil

p,

BEERBEBEEEE

Pur

98

SOUNDS.

CONSONANTS.

Semi-vowels, Sans.

NE

T,

1,

Ditto,

Tamil

Y

T,

1,

T,

L,

Sibilants and aspirate,

Sans.

g,

sh,

8,

Tamil

DrAvIDIAN SysTEM OF Sounps.—We now proceed to inquire into

the sounds of the Dravidian letters, and the laws of sound, or phonetic

system, of this family of languages ; and in doing so, it will be found

advantageous to adhere to the order and arrangement of the ¢ Déva-

nagari’ alphabet.

It is not my object to explain in detail the pro-

nunciation of each letter: but such observations will be made on each

vowel and consonant in succession as seem likely to throw light on

I

the principles and distinctive character of the Drividian system of

sounds.

Tamil grammarians designate vowels by a beautiful meta-

phor, as ‘uyir,’ or the life of a word; consonants as ‘ mey,” or the

body ; and the junction of a vowel and consonant as ¢ uyir mey,” or

an animated body.

a

v 3

and ‘4.’

The sound of these vowels in the

th

I. Vowels.—(1.) ¢

DrAvidian languages corresponds to their sound in Sanscrit. In Tamil,

80

4

a

is the heaviest of all the simple vowels, and therefore the most

U

liable to change, especially at the end of words. In the other dialects

8

it maintains its place more firmly ; but even in them it is ordinarily

i

strengthened at the end of words by the addition of the euphonic

syllable ¢vu,’ consisting of the enunciative vowel ‘u,’ and the euphonic

formative ¢ v

¢4 has almost entirely disappeared from the end of

This rule

nouns in Tamil, and has been succeeded by ‘u’ or ‘ei.

05

holds universally with respect to nouns singular.

‘When the Greeks

ey

visited India, ‘iru,’” @ fown, appears to have been invariably pronounced

i

¢ Gira :’ it has now become in Telugu and Tamil either ¢{ru,’ or ‘dr,’

Te

but remains ‘{ra, in Malayalam.

Where final “a’ changes into ¢ei,’

il

in Tamil, it generally changes into ‘e, in Canarese, or else it is

tlo

propped up by the addition of ¢vu.

In Telugu, and especially in

1§

Malayalam, this vowel is less subject to change.

Neuter plurals of

81

appellatives and pronouns, which originally ended in ‘a’ in all the

Ca

dialects, and which still end in ‘a, in MalayAlam, now end in most

[4

2

ad

instances in

€l

b

in eolloquial Tamil, in ¢i,” in Telugu, and in ‘u,” in

|

Canarese.

Thus, ‘ava,’ those (things), has become ‘avei,’ in Tamil;

in;

¢avi, in Telugu ; ‘avu,” in Canarese : in Malayalam alone, it is still

2

of

‘ava

In the same manner, the long final ‘4’ of Sanscrit feminine

foif(

VOWELS.

99

abstracts, becomes in Tamil ¢ei,—e.g.,

CALA 2

Sans., desire, Tamil,

4

A/

.

asa,

A2

asel

;> ¢Chitrd,” Sans., April—May, Tamil Sittirei.’

The same ¢

a

becomes ‘e,’ in Canarese, e.g., ‘Gangh,’ the Ganges, is in Canarese

‘ Gange’ or ¢ Gange-yu.’

The diphthong into which final ‘a’ and ‘4’

are weakened in Tamil, is represented more properly as ‘ei’ than as

¢

9

al

The origination of the Tamil ‘ei’ from ‘a,” and the analogy of

to

the Sanscrit diphthong ¢ ai,” which is equivalent to ¢ 4i,’ might lead us

e

to regard the Tamil diphthong as “ai,” rather than ‘ei.’ It is curious,

however, that though it originated from ¢a,” every trace of the sound

nd

Va

of “a’ has disappeared.

It is represented in Grantham by a double

‘e, and in Telugu-Canarese by a character which is compounded of

10

‘e’ and ‘i it accords in sound also very nearly with the sound of

1ch

CA?

e

or ‘ey, in Turkey.

on

It is also to be observed that the Tamil ‘ei,

¢A?

is the equivalent of the

)

of the Malayala accusative, and is the

of

' )

ta

ordinary representative of the final

€,

of Canarese substantives and

verbal nouns.

I conclude, therefore, that it is best represented by the

the

¢ A2

diphthong ‘ei,” which corresponds to the

€L

of the Greeks.

or

8.) 51 mnd “80

These vowels call for no remark.

(39 ‘uand ¢4}

In the Indo-European languages, and also in

the

the Semitic, the vowels ‘i’ and ‘04, are very decided, inflexible

mil

sounds, which admit of little or no interchange with other vowels,

nost

or euphonic softening.

In the Dravidian languages, long i’ is

leCtv

sufficiently persistent ; bat short ‘u’ is of all vowels the weakest and

iy

lightest, and is largely used, especially at the end of words, for

10010

euphonic purposes, or as a help to enunciation.

ol

In grammatical, written Telugu, every word without exception

d of

must end in a vowel ; and if it has not naturally a vowel ending of its

rule

own, ‘u

is to be suffixed to the last consonant.

This rule applies

eeks

even to Sanscrit derivatives ; and the neuter abstracts ending in ‘m,’

1nced

which have been borrowed from the Sansecrit, must end in ‘m-u,” in

“ury

Telugu.

Though this ‘u’ is always written, it is often dropped in pro-

nuneciation.

fel

In modern Canarese a similar rule holds, with this addi-

15

tional development, that ‘u’ (or, with the euphonic copula ‘v,” ‘vu’)

1t

I

v

is suffixed even to words that end in ‘a:’ e.g., compare the Tamil

ls

of

“sila,’ few (things), and ¢ pala,” many (things), with the corresponding

| the

Can. ‘kela-vu’ and ¢pala-vu.’

The Tamil rule, with regard to the

most

addition of ‘u’ to words which end in a consonant, accords with the

rule of the ancient Canarese.

That rule is, that in words which end

1, 1

g

il

in any hard or surd consonant, »iz., in ‘k,’ ‘ch,’ ¢t t, or ¢p,’ (each

5

il

of which is the leading consonant of a ‘varga’), or in the hard, rough

‘R,” which is peculiar to these languages, the hard consonant shall be

qiaine

followed by ‘u’ (as ‘q,’ by ‘sh’v,’ in Hebrew), in consequence of its

H 2

100

SOUNDS.

being impossible for Tamilian organs of speech to pronounce those

letters without the help of a succeeding vowel. In most instances this

[

enunciative ‘u’ is not merely short, but so very short that its quantity

d

is determined by grammarians to be equal only to a fourth of the

Vi

quantity of a long vowel.

2

The Malayalam uses invariably a short

fi

(a”

in those connexions and for those purposes for which ‘u’ is used

el

in the other dialects.

8

It often happens (though it is not an invariable rule) that the final

surd, to which enunciative ‘u’ or ‘a’ has been appended, is doubled,

&

apparently for the purpose of furnishing a fulerum for the support of

the appended vowel.

Thus, the Samscrit ¢ vak, speech, becomes in

1I

Tamil ‘vak(k)-u; °ap,” water, becomes ‘ap(p)-u;’ and so in all similar

cases.

The rule is further extended in Tamil so as to apply to the

If a

(

final consonants of syllables, as well as to those of words.

syllable, though in the middle of a word, terminates in one of the hard

Sl

consonants above-mentioned, and if the initial consonant of the suc-

I§

ceeding syllable is one which cannot be assimilated to it, the final

consonant is doubled, and ‘u’ is affixed.

Thus, ‘advaita,” Sans.,

!

@

in-duality, becomes in Tamil ‘attuveida.’

The rule by which “d,’

when thus doubled, becomes ‘t,” will be explained hereafter.

2

1t

In modern collogquial Tamil, ‘u

is suffixed to almost every final

bey

consonant,—to the semi-vowels and nasals, as well as the surds; and

even in the ancient or classical Tamil it is sometimes suffixed to final

U

¢

‘1) e.g., ‘Sol(1)-u,” speak, instead of simply ol.”

The employment of ‘u,’ in the manner and for the purposes now

mentioned, is obviously quite foreign to Indo-European usages.

It is

i

f

not derived from the Sansecrit, and is directly opposed to Sanscrit laws

of sound.

It will be termed the ¢enunciative u,’ and will generally

€l

o

be separated off by a hyphen.

il

‘e

H

‘e

A

AT

(€]

A9

n

(4.)

5 of

The Dravidian languages possess, and

largely employ the short sounds of the vowels ‘e’ and ‘o’ (epsilon

and omicron), and have different characters for those sounds, for

fror

i.)ﬁ

the purpose of distinguishing them from the corresponding long

vowels.

dlp]

The Sanskrit is destitute of short ‘e’ and o.

The entire absence

a

of those sounds from a language which attends so nicely as the San-

ll(‘q

serit to the minutest gradations of sound, cannot be the result of

1B

accident ; and the important place which they occupy in the Dravidian

Q(‘,u

system of sounds, shows that the Drividian languages are independent

of the Sanscrit.

\In

In a few cases, both in Telugu and in Tamil, particularly in the

oy

instance of the interrogative base ‘e,” the short vowel has sometimes

ot

Wit}

VOWELS.

101

been corrupted into a long one, or lengthened by becoming the seat of

emphasis ; but such cases are rare and exceptional, and in general the

difference between short ‘e’ and ‘o, and the corresponding long

vowels, is a difference which pertains, not to the euphony or inflexional

form, but to the bases or roots of words, and is essential to the differ-

ence in the signification.

Z.g., in Tamil, ‘té&l,” means clear, and tél,’

scorpron ; ‘kil,) stone, and “kal,’ foot.

(5.) ‘el

It has already been mentioned that ‘ei,” unlike the

I

Sanscrit diphthong ¢ai,’ is derived from ‘e’ and ‘i, not from ‘a’ and

2

b

The primitive Dravidian ‘a’ changes into ‘e,” and this again

into ‘el

’

\r

Thus, the head, is ‘tala,” in Telugu and Malayilam; tale,” in

16

Canarese ; and ‘talei,” in Tamil.

rd

When ‘ei’ is succeeded in Tamil by another ‘ei,” with only a

single consonant between them, the first ‘ei, though naturally long,

0

is considered short by position, and is pronounced short accordingly ;

al

In such

e.g., ‘udeimei,” property, is regarded in prosody as ‘udeimei.’

bk

cases ‘ei’ is an equivalent to its original ‘4’ or ‘&

dw

(6.) ‘aun.’

This diphthong has a place in the Tamil alphabet; but

al

it is not really a part of any of the Dravidian languages, and it has

been placed in the alphabets solely in imitation of the Sanscrit.

It is

md

used only in the pronunciation of Sanscrit derivatives; and when such

nal

derivatives are used in Tamil, they are more commonly pronounced

without the aid of this diphthong. Ordinarilythe diphthong is separated

10\’V

into its component elements : that is, the simple vowels “a’ and ‘u,’

)

from which it is derived, are pronounced separately, with the usual

s

euphonic ‘v’ of the Tamil between them to prevent hiatus. Z.g., the

lly

Sanserit noun ‘saukhyam,” health, is ordinarily pronounced and written

in Tamil, ‘savukkiyam.’

and

It is a peculiarity of the Tamil system of sounds, as distinguished

lon

from that of the other languages of the family, that the vowels ‘i,

i W By

1

9

H

for

‘e

fe and ‘u,

acquire before certain consonants a compound,

Jong

diphthongal sound, which is different from the sound which they have

as simple vowels.

Thub, 1" before 4, ‘n, ‘x’ fr' Cn Ol ale]

.) 6/\,

e

acquires something of the sound of ‘e

.

1

before the same conso-

San-

nants, with the exception of the first ‘r’ and the first <1, takes a

It of

sound resembling ¢t " ‘Qi” remains always unchanged; but ‘i, not

idian

only before the above-mentioned seven consonants, but before all

1dellﬁ

single consonants, when it is not succeeded by “i,” ‘u

2

or ‘e, is pro-

nounced nearly like ‘o ;

and in Telugu, ‘o’ is generally used in

) fhe

writing those words.

‘e, before the consonants above mentioned,

fmes

with the exception of the semi-vowels, loses its peculiarly slender

102

SOUNDS.

sound, and is pronounced nearly as it would be if the succeeding con-

bo

th

sonant were doubled.

¢¢, with the same exceptions, acquires a sound

similar to 0.

n

The circumstance which is most worthy of notice, in connection

D

with these changes, is that each of the short vowels ‘1, ¢ u,” and ‘e,

retains its natural sound, if it is succeeded by another ¢i,’ ‘u,” or e.

de

Thus, ura, Tamil, infinitive, o have, to be, is pronounced ‘oRa,” but

Ta

the imperative ‘uru’ is pronounced as it is written.

]

This rule discloses a law of sound which is unlike anything that is

aly

thy

discoverable in Sanserit. So far as it goes, it is evidently connected

00

with the Scythian law of harmonic sequences, which will be referred

to hereafter.

“d

C01

The vowel ‘3, occurring in the last syllable of a word ending in

wh

‘p) ‘m’ ‘r’ ‘r) ‘1, or ‘1’ acquires a slender sound resembling that

of ¢; eg., “avar, Tamil, they, (honorifically, /e) is pronounced ¢ aver.’

lie

wh

This change corresponds to the weakening of the sound of heavy

Con

vowels, in the ultimate or penultimate syllables of words, which is

sometimes observed in the Sanserit family of tongues.

a00(

i

I1. Consonants.—Tamil grammarians divide all consonants into

iy

three classes :—(1.) Surds, which they call ‘vallinam,” or the hard class,

(00§

viz., ‘k, ‘ch, ‘t’ ‘t’ ‘p, ‘R’ (2.) Nasals, which they call ¢ melli-

dept

nam, or the soft class, viz., ¢ ng, &), fm, fn,) ‘m, with final S8

L

and (3.) semi-vowels, which they call ¢ ideiyinam,” or the medial class,

fo

gy et v, St

fo

In this enumeration, as I have already observed, the sonant equi-

ke

valents of the surd consonants (viz., ‘g’ the sonant of ‘k’; ¢§,’ the

the

sonant of “ch ; ¢d,” the sonant of ‘t; “d,’ the sonant of ‘t;’ and Fhy

tog,

the sonant of ¢p’) are omitted.

In the other Dravidian dialects the

(ase

difference between surds and sonants is generally expressed by the use

ﬂenUr

of different characters for each sound, in imitation of the system of the

g |

Déva-négari ; but in Tamil, and in part in Malayalam, in accordance

be B

with the peculiar Dravidian law of the convertibility of surds and

the

sonants, one set of consonants serves for both purposes, and the differ-

ence between them is expressed in the pronunciation alone.

the

i

It is desirable before proceeding further to enquire into this law, viz.:

)

The Convertibility of Surds and Sonants.—We have seen that the

an|

Tamil alphabet adopts the first and last of each of the DevA-nagari

ang

‘yargas, OT TOWS of consonants, viz., the un-aspirated surd and the nasal

1t 8

of each ¢varga; we have also seen that the Tamil has not separate

Ingty,

characters for surds and sonants, but uses one and the same character—

Operg

that which, properly speaking, represents the surd only—to express

Int

he

CONSONANTS.

103

both.

This rule does not apply merely to the written characters of

the language, but is the expression of a law of sound which is inherent

in the language itself.

There are distinct traces of the existence of this law in all the

Dravidian dialects ; but it is found most systematically and most fully

developed in Tamil, next in Malayilam. The law, as apparent in the

Tamil system of sounds, is as follows : ‘k, “t,” < t,” ‘p,” the first, un-

aspirated consonants of the first, third, fourth, and fifth ¢ vargas, are

always pronounced as tenues or surds (i.e., as ‘k,) ‘t’ ¢t ‘p,’) at

the beginning of words, and whenever they are doubled. The same

|

consonants are always pronounced as medials or sonants (i.e., as ‘g

9

€d, ¢d, ‘b,’) when single, in the middle of words.

A sonant cannot

1

commence a word, neither is a surd admissible in the middle, except

b

when doubled ; and so imperative is this law, and so strietly is it ad-

hered to in Tamil, that when words are borrowed from languages in

which a different principle prevails, as the Sanscrit or the English, the

y

15

consonants of those words change from sonants to surds, or vice versd,

according to their position : e.g., ¢ dantam,” Sanserit, a tooth, becomes

in Tamil, ¢ tandam ;> ‘bhigyam, Sanscrit, Aappiness, becomes phk-

0

kiyam.” This rule applies also to the case of compounds. The first

S

consonant of the second word, though it was a surd when it stood in-

i

dependent, is regarded as a sonant when it becomes a medial letter in

a compounded word. This difference is marked in Telugu by a dif-

%,

ference in the character which is employed ; e.g., ‘anna-dammulu’

(for ¢ anna-tammulu’), elder and younger brothers ; ¢ kotta-badu’ (for

l

“kotta padu’), to be beaten ; but in Tamil, and generally in Malayélam,

he

the difference appears in the pronunciation alone.

This rule applies

b

to all compounds in Telugu: but in Tamil, when the words stand in a

[

he

case relation to one another, or when the first is governed by the

186

second, the initial surd of the second word is not softened, but doubled

the

and hardened, in token of its activity; e.g., instead of ¢ kotta-badu,’ to

106

be beaten, it prefers to say, ¢ kotta-(p)padu.’ In ‘dwanda’ compounds

nd

the Tamil agrees with the Telugu.

fer-

A similar rule applies to the pronunciation of ¢ ch’ (the Tamil ¢ g’),

the first consonant of the second ¢varga.’ When single it is pro-

/1L

nounced as a soft, weak sibilant, with a sound midway between ¢sh’

he

and ‘ch” This pronunciation is unchanged in the middle of words,

and in all cases in which the letter is single ; but when it is doubled

it is pronounced exactly like ‘ch.’ The principle involved in this

sl

rate

instance is the same as in the cases previously mentioned ; but the

operation of the rule is in some degree different. The difference consists

g

in the pronunciation of this consonant in the beginning of a word, as

p1'655

104

L4

SOUNDS.

Zey

well as in the middle, as a sonant, ¢.e., as ¢

8

By theory it should be

pronounced as ‘ch’ at the beginning of a word,—and it is worthy of

notice that it always receives this pronunciation at the beginning of a

word in vulgar colloquial Tamil; and in Telugu it is written as well

I

as pronounced ‘ch.’

A somewhat similar rule prevails with respect

to the rough ‘®’ of the Tamil, which is pronounced as ‘®r’ when

f

single, and like ‘ttr’ when doubled.

Iy

The Tamilian rule which requires the same consonant to be pro-

nounced as ¢ k’ in one position and as ¢ g’ in another—as ‘t,’ ‘t, ‘p,’

3

in one position, and as ‘d,” ‘d,” ‘b,” in another—is not a mere dialectic

peculiarity, the gradual result of circumstances, or a modern refine-

ment invented by grammarians ; but is essentially inherent in the lan-

guage, and has been a characteristic principle of it from the beginning.

b

The Tamil characters were borrowed from the earlier Sanscrit, and

ta

the language of the Tamilians was committed to writing on, or soon

it

dg

after, the arrival of the first colony of Brahmans, probably more than

six centuries before the Christian era.

Yet even at that early period

the Tamil alphabet was arranged, not in accordance with Sanscrit laws

n

of sound, but in such a manner as to embody the peculiar Drividian

law of the convertibility of surds and sonants.

The Tamil alphabet

(oL

systematically passed by the sonants of the Sanscrit, and adopted the

surds alone, considering one character as sufficient for the expression

Sar

el

of both classes of sounds.

This circumstance clearly proves that ab

Its

initio the Dravidian phonetic system, as represented in the Tamil,

its most ancient exponent, differed essentially from that of the

€X

1

Sanscrit, *

1t )

In none of the Indo-European languages do we find surds and

sonants convertible ; though Hebrew scholars will remember the

y

existence in Hebrew of a rule which is somewhat similar to the Ta-

The Hebrew

milian respecting ‘k,” ‘t,’ ‘p,” and their equivalents.

that

consonants composing the memorial words, ¢begad kephath,” are pro-

o

nounced in two different ways, according to their position. When any of

T

those consonants begins a word, or in certain cases a syllable, it is to be

0r g

pronounced hard, that is, as asurd or tenuis; and if it be an aspirated

Inf

letter, it is then deprived of the aspirate which it naturally possesses.

It i

To denote this, such consonants have a point, called a ¢ dagesh,” insecri-

0ry

bed in them.

When those consonants are found in any other position

frop

])Va

* See also the evidence which is furnished in the Introduction respecting the

existence of this law of the convertibility of surds and sonants in the names of

places in Southern India that are recorded by the Greek geographers; e.g.,

Prog

Cottora (Kottar), where the ‘d’ of ‘kdd,” the first part of the compound, being

doubled, has become ‘t.

]HP ]

]n “’I

CONSONANTS

105

be

they are pronounced as sonants, and two of them ‘ph’ and ‘th, as

of

aspirates.

fa

This rule resembles the Tamilian in some particnlars ; but the

vell

resemblance which will be found to exist between the Tamilian rule

6ct

and the law of sounds which prevails in some of the languages of

hen

the Scythian family, amounts to identity

In the Finnish and Lappish there is a clearly marked distinction

)10

between surds and sonants

a sonant mever commences a word or

tp,

syllable in either tongue. But in the oldest specimen of any Scythian

ofie

language which is extant—the Scythic version of the inscription at

ne-

Behistun—Mr. Norris has ascertained (Journal of the Royal Asiatic

Jan

Society for 1853) the existence of a law of convertibility of sonants and

ng

surds which is absolutely identical with the Tamilian

He has ascer-

and

tained that in that language, in the middle of a word, the same conso-

S00L

nant was pronounced as a sonant when single and as a surd when

doubled

thian

riod

We now enter upon an examination of the Drividian consonants

Jaws

in detail

dian

(1) The guttural ‘varga :

‘k, ¢ g, and their nasal, ‘ng.’—These

ahet

cousonants are pronounced in the Drividian language precisely as in

] the

Sanserit.

85101

‘g, the sonant of ‘k,’ which is expressed by the same cha-

racter in Tamil, is pronounced in Tamil in a peculiarly soft manner

it 00

Tts sound resembles that of the Irish ‘gh,’ and is commonly used to

il

express the ‘h

of other languages

Thus, the Sanscrit adjective

' the

‘mahd,” great, is written in Tamil ¢magi

but so soft is the ¢g’ that

it may be considered as an equivalent to ‘h,” pronounced with less

) and

roughness than is usual with that aspirate

he

o Ta

(2.) The palatal ‘varga: ¢cl

J, and ‘fij’—It has been observed

that the Tamil rejects the Sanscrit sibilants ¢

S,

2

sh,” and ‘g

The

ohrew

consonant which it adopts instead is

ch,” which is pronounced in

p 1)10

v of

Tamil in a manner somewhat similar to the soft aspirated ‘§ of Siva,

s tobe

or as a very soft ‘sh,” with as little sibilation or aspiration as possible

In fact, it should be regarded as a palatal, not asa sibilant

and when

M%Lt@d

38565

it is doubled it takes precisely the sound of the Sanscrit palatal ¢ch,’

or its English equivalent in ¢ which.’

To distinguish the Tamil letter

HPCH

f00

from the sibilant ¢s’ of the Sanscrit, it will be denoted, when single,

by an accent, thus—¢§.’

In Telugu the sound of ‘ch’ is that with which this consonant is

g the

pronounced, not only when doubled, but also when single ; and a simi-

poés

lar pronunciation prevails in the lowest colloquial dialect of the Tamil

g; 0

e

13

in which

sey

to do, is prounounced

chey,” asin Telugu

106

SOUNDS.

¢j,” the second un-aspirated consonant of this row, is not used in

99 ‘I'T

mads

correct Tamil ; but in Telugu it is both written and pronounced : in

The same

inste

vulgar Tamil also ‘ch’ is sometimes pronounced like ¢j.’

with

sound of ¢j’ is sometimes admitted in the use of those Sanscrit deriva-

(

nan

tives in which the letter ‘j’ is found in Sanscrit ; but ordinarily the

Tamil sound of ‘ch,” or ‘&’ is used instead.

Saus,

Tam;

‘1ij,’ the nasal of this row of consonants, is pronounced as in

elrenl

Sanserit, in all the Dravidian languages.

It is frequently used in

2

Malayalam as an initial where the Tamil uses ‘n,

ey, Cijan,

diom

instead of the Tamil ‘nin.

Junct

It is necessary here to notice the existence in Telugu of a pecu-

18 oy

Jiang.

liarly soft pronunciation of ‘ch’ and ¢j,” with their aspirates, which is

I

unknown in Sanscrit and the northern vernaculars, and is found only

in Telugu and in Marathi.

¢ch’ is pronounced as ¢ ts,” and ¢’ as ‘dz,’

Sonan

g N e

1

Before these ex-

the ¢

before all vowels except ‘i,

e, ‘&’ and ‘el.’

cepted vowels, the ordinary sounds of ‘ch’ and ¢j’ are retained. Whe-

the D

ther the Telugu borrowed these sounds from the Marathi, or the Marathi

(4

from the Telugu, I will not venture to express an opinion ; but this is

‘varga

not the only particular in which those languages are found to agree.

The o

in Ty

(8.) The cerebral ‘warga :* “t, ¢d, ‘n.’—The pronunciation of the

10t g

consonants of the cerebral ¢ varga’ in the Drividian languages does not

differ from their pronunciation in Sanscrit.

In expressing these con-

oy y

hove

sonants, with their aspirates, in Roman characters in this work, a dot

i

)

will be placed under each, to distinguish them from the ¢t,” ¢d,” and

2

QHS}’ ]

(n’

of the dental row.

Though “t’ is the surd consonant of the cerebrals, it is not pro-

the }f

nounced at the beginning of any word in Tamil, like the other surds.

t0 e ¢

Its sound is too hard and rough to admit of its use as an initial ; and

therefore, in those few Sanserit derivatives which commence with this

0 Whe

fd.! (

letter, ‘¢’ is preceded in Tamil by the vowel ‘i, as a help to enunciation,

and a3

When ‘t’ is thus proceeded by a vowel, it is no longer an initial, and

of fhe

therefore no longer a surd ; and hence it becomes ‘d’ by rule: so that

‘da’ €y

the sound of ‘t’ is never heard in Tamil, except when ‘d’ is doubled.

illitia]’

In the other Dravidian dialects ‘t’ is sometimes pronourced singly, as

in Sansecrit.

(5

The Tamil differs from the other dialects in refusing to combine

nd it

‘t’ with ‘n,” and changing it into ‘d” when ‘n’ is combined with it.

‘Hl’ in

This peculiarity is founded upon a general Tamilian law of sound,

'

which is that nasals will not combine with surds, but coalesce with

alata)

sonants alone.

In consequence of this peculiar law, such combinations

“augy,

Wun y,

CONSONANTS.

107

| in

as ‘nt,” ‘nt,” and ‘mp,” which are admissible in Telugu and Caf)arese, are

1

inadmissible in Tamil; in which ‘nd,” ‘nd,” and ‘mb,” must be used

Ame

instead. This rule applies also to ‘K’ and “ch;’ which, when combined

1V2:

with the nasals corresponding to them, become ‘g’ and ¢ 3’

Thus,

the

‘mantapam,” Sans., @ porch, becomes in Tamil ¢ mandabam ;* ‘antam,’

Sans., end, becomes ‘andam.’

Probably the difference between the

B

Tamil and the other Dravidian languages in this point, arises from the

| m

circumstance that the Tamil has remained so much freer than its sister

'l

idioms from Sanscrit influences.

A similar rule respecting the con-

junction of nasals with sonants alone, is found in the Finnish; and

ecl-

is possibly owing to that delicacy of ear which both Finns and Tami-

chis

lians appear to possess.

I reserve to the close of this examination of the Dravidian con-

only

( (lZ,’

sonants, some observations on the circumstance that the consonants of

j ex-‘

the cerebral class are found in Sanserit as well as in the languages of

Vhe

the Dravidian family.

fthi

(4.) The dental ‘varga ? “t) ¢d,” ‘n.’—The letters of the dental

18 18

‘varga’ have the same sound in the Dravidian languages as in Sanscrit.

ce.

The only exception consists in the peculiarly soft pronunciation of ¢t,’

in Tamil and Malayalam, when used as a sonant: it is then pronounced

»f the

not as ‘d,” but with the sound of the soft English ¢th,” in ¢that.” Tt is

s 1100

only when it is combined with a nasal (as in the word which was cited

({11}

above ‘andam, end,) that the sonant of ‘t’ is pronounced in Tamil as

2 dot

‘d; the sound of ‘d’ being, in such a conjunction, more natural and

' and

easy than that of ‘th.’

As this peculiar sound of ‘th’ is found only in Tamil, and in

the Malayalam, a daughter of the Tamil, it is doubtful whether ¢ th’ is

i pro-

ard

o}

to be considered as the original sound of the sonant equivalent of ¢ t,’

; and

or whether it is to be regarded as a corruption or further softening of

j this

ad

On the whole the latter supposition seems the more probable:

atiOﬂ.

and as the ‘th’ of the Tamil corresponds to the ‘d’ of the Telugu and

of the other dialects, in position and power, I will always write it as

, and

) that

‘d,’ even when quoting Tamil words, except where it is used as an

initial, and is therefore a surd, when it will be written as ‘t.’

[Ibledo

;ly’ a8

(5.) The labial ‘varga: ‘p, ‘b, ‘m.—The pronunciation of s

and its sonant ‘b,’ requires no remark. With regard to the use of

mbill(’/

‘m’ in combination, I have only to observe that though it changes into

10

‘ng,” ‘Qij,’ ‘n, or ‘n,’ when immediately succeeded by a guttural, a

souﬂd)

palatal, a cerebral, or a dental, it is not to be confounded with the

‘anusvara’ of the Sanserit alphabet.

The true ‘anusvéra, i.c., the

qtions

sound which ‘m’ takes in Sanscrit before the semi-vowels, the sibilants,

108

SOUNDS.

11SES

and the letter ‘h,’” is unknown to the Drividian languages. A cha-

subs

racter called by the name of ‘anusvara,’ but of a different power from

at §

the ‘anusvéra’ of the Sanscrit, is in use in Telugu and Canarese; but

‘kir

it is used merely as the equivalent of the consonantal ‘m,” in euphonic

We ¢

combinations, and even as a final.

The Telugu has also a vocalic

the

nasal, the half ‘anusvara,” which, though it is used merely for euphony,

softe

bears a close resemblance to the true ‘anusvara’ of the Sanserit.

‘Kt

There is nothing in any of the Dravidian languages which corresponds

(

to the use of the obscure nasal ‘anuswéra’ as a final, in Hindi and in

the

the other northern vernaculars.

styl

The euphonic use of ‘m’ and its modifications, and also the use of

Sour

‘n’ and its equivalents, to prevent Aiatus, will be cousidered at the

Sonar

close of this section.

T

Sane

(6.) The ‘varga’ of the semi-vowels: ‘y, ‘x,; €1} ‘v ‘)’ €1} ‘R’—

Itis:

In classical Tamil neither ‘r nor ‘1’ can commence a word: each of

it; b

them requires to be preceded by an euphonic auxiliary vowel; ‘1’ by

Iny

“toand by n,

Thus, the Sanscrit ¢ra,’ night, abbreviated from

evider

¢rAtri, is written and pronounced ¢ ird; and this again is softened into

‘irdvu.’

In like manner ¢ l6kam,” Sans., the world, becomes ulogam,’

thr(JUg

and by a further corruption ¢uligu’ The same rule applies to the

xegpt

ever,

second set of semi-vowels, ‘r,” ‘L’ ‘r,’ which are the exclusive property

2Ppr

of the Dravidian languages, and none of w:hich can be pronounced

the 5

without the help of preceding vowels.

emblg

Of these distinctively Dravidian semi-vowels, ‘1’ is found in the

I

Tamil alone.

Its sound resembles that of the English ‘x’ after a long

which

vowel, as in the word ‘farm; but it is pronounced farther back in the

mouth, and in a still more liquid manner.

It is sometimes expressed in

(

(i

Rp’

English books as ‘zh,” or ‘rzh; but this is merely a local pronuncia-

tion of the letter, which is peculiar to the northern district of the

T of ¢

Tamil country: it is at variance with its affinities and its inter-

Wﬂ'y 1l

Wt

changes, and is likely to mislead the learner.

‘r’ is the only Dra-

vidian consonant which is pronounced differently in different districts.

Ei&ﬁon

souydy

In the southern districts of the Tamil country, it is pronounced by the

i,

mass of the people, exactly in the same manner as ‘1’ which is the

letter invariably used instead of ‘r’ in Canarese.

Between Tanjore

(i)

Tam)

and Pondicherry, it is softened into ‘rzh,” or ‘zh; and in Madras and

the neighbourhood, this softening process has been carried to such a

Prefiy,

length, that in the speech of the wvulgar, ‘r’ has become a silent

COmpou

letter.

ike {

K@ h(

[l

The Telugu, which commences to be spoken about two days’

8 Of

fol)

OWeq

journey north of Madras, has lost this letter altogether. Gen(?rally it

CONSONANTS,

109

cha

uses ‘d’ instead, as the Canarese uses ‘1; but sometimes it uses no

substitute, after the manner of the vulgar Tamil of Madras. Looking

from

but

at such Telugu words as ‘kinda,’ below, answering to the Tamil

00i¢.

‘kirnda,’ and ‘vingu,’ #o swallow, answering to the Tamil ‘ virungu,’

we cannot but suppose, that the Telugn had this letter originally, like

calie

00},

the Tamil, and that it lost it gradually through the operation of that

softening process which, in the colloquial Tamil of Madras, converts

serit.

AA Y

‘kiré,” below, to ¢ kié

yonds

id

‘I’ is a peculiar heavy ‘1, with a mixture of ¢ r, which is found in

the Védic Sanscrit, as well as in the Dravidian languages. Tt may be

56 0f

styled the cerebral ¢1; and it is probably derived from the same

source, whatever that source may be, from which the cerebral con-

it the

sonants ‘t,’ ‘d,” and ‘n,” have proceeded,

The hard rough ‘r’ of the Dravidian languages is not found in

Sanserit, and is not employed in pronouncing Sanscrit derivatives.

p—

ch of

It is found in Telugu poetry, and the grammarians insist upon using

it; but in the modern dialect of the Telugu it has fallen into disuse.

( 1,’ by

In Canarese also, the use of this letter is confined to the poets. It is

from

d into

evident that it was originally contained in all the dialects; though,

through the influence of the Sanscrit, it has now ceased to be used

fany

to the

except in the Tamil and MalayAlam, in which it has as firm footing as

ever. In some of the older Tamil alphabets I have found this letter

operty

appropriately expressed by a double ‘r; and to distinguish it from

punced

the softer letter, it will be represented in this work by a capital ‘wr,’

emblematical of its greater strength,

in the

In the use of this hard ‘®’ in Tamil, there are two peculiarities

2 Jong

which are worthy of notice.

§ iﬂ the

(1) ‘®, when doubled, is pronounced as ‘ttr, though written

g:‘SGd in

‘RR

The ‘t’ of this compound sound differs both from the soft dental

uncit-

‘t" of the fourth ‘varga,” and from the cerebral ‘t, and corresponds

of the

very mnearly to the emphatic final “t of our English interrogative

g inter-

‘what? This sound of ‘t” is not expressed in writing, but in pronun-

1}! Dl’é‘

ciation it is never omitted; and it is one of those peculiar Dravidian

iricts:

sounds which are not derived from the Sanscrit, and are not found

in it.

by the

) 18 the

(ii.) The letter ‘n’ (not the dental ‘n,’ but the final ‘n’ of the

Tap]0re

Tamil), a letter which is not found in the Telugu or Canarese, is often

I

g8 Al

prefixed in Tamil to the rough ‘R’ for the sake of euphony ; when the

0 ach @

compound ‘nr’ acquires the sound of ‘ndr'—a sound of which the Tamil,

Jent

g 8

like the language of Madagascar, is exceedingly fond. In another

class of words, the “n’ which is prefixed to »’ is radical, and should be

7o

days

followed by ¢d,” according to rule (e.g., in the preterites of verbs whose

Jly

)

e

110

SOUNDS

2

root ends-in ‘n’); but ‘R’ is suffixed to ‘n

instead of ‘d,” in eon-

The

Wi

sequence of which the sound of ‘ndr’ is substituted for that of ‘nd.

The ‘R’ is radical, and the ‘n’ euphonically prefixed, in ‘minru’

(mlndru), Tam., three, (for ‘miru,” Can., the more ancient form of the

§0n4

othe

word), and in ¢ onru,’ (ondru), Tam., one, (for ‘oru.’) The ‘n’ is radical

(or an euphonised form of the radical), and the ‘R’ is used euphonically

Larl

instead of ¢d, in the following examples; ‘enru’ (endru), having

spoken, instead of ‘endu; ‘$enru’ (Sendru), kawving gone, for ¢ Sendu,’

(which is instead of the less euphonic ‘&eldu.”) In the speech of the

and

Dré

vulgar in the Tamil country, and in the Malayalam, this compound

‘ndr,” is further altered into ‘nn’ or ‘nn.’

In Telugu and Canarese

(d}’

mazj

‘nd’ is always found instead of ‘ndr.’

1ot

€&

(7.) The sibilants and the aspirate

S

‘sh, g’ ‘h”’—It has

0bser

The

fami]

already been mentioned that the Tamil is destitute of sibilants.

other DrAvidian idioms freely use the sibilants and aspirates of the

the T

Sanscrit, in writing and pronouncing Sanscrit derivatives, and to some

I

extent, through the prevalence of Sanscrit influences, in the pronun-

0ng ¢

/

ciation even of pure Drividian words.

In Tamil ‘the

S

of Siva,’

the of

and

occurring in Sanserit derivatives, is represented by the peculiar palatal

which answers to the ¢ ch’ of the Sanserit, and the sound of which, when

Tl

¢ &2

S.

single, closely resembles that of

The other sibilants, ‘sh,” and *s,

Indig

are altogether excluded from pure classical Tamil.

In later Tamil

from

books, and in the speech and letters of the better educated Tamilians

have

beey

of the present age, those sibilants are freely employed in writing and

pronouncing words which have been borrowed from the Sanserit; and in

guﬂgt

such cases, the characters which are used to express them are taken from

bomy

the Grantham. By the mass of the people, however, those letters are

artiy

rarely pronounced aright; and in the remoter districts the vulgar

Iead i

substitute for them, in accordance with the genius of the language,

(L

those letters which the ancient grammars enjoin, and the use of which

laggg

is exemplified in the Sanscrit derivatives that are employed in the

E8Pecg

Tamil classics.

The substitutions are as follows :—¢gh,’ the cerebral

WhETE‘&:

sibilant of the Sanscrit is represented in general by the cerebral ‘d;

instead

sometimes by the liquid ‘r; sometimes even by the dental ‘t’ or ¢d.’

Of the |

¢s,” the sharp sibilant of the Sanscrit, is sometimes represented by ‘t;

@)

sometimes it is omitted altogether; sometimes it is changed into the

in any

Tamil ¢ch,’ the equivalent of ‘8.

When this sibilant stands at the

Th

& ¢

beginning of a Sanscrit derivative, and when it is desired in aceordance

with modern usage, to pronounce it with the unmodified Sanserit sound,

Celtic,

2

they ax

it is preceded (at least in pronunciation) by the vowel ‘i,

without

Magey

which it cannot be enunciated, in that connexion, by Tamil organs.

a‘IldS 0)

CONSONANTS.

38 ¢

1 €01~

Thus, strl) Sans., @ woman, is always pronounced and generally

nd,

written ¢istiri.’

iRy’

The Tamil is destitute of the sound of ¢h,” and of aspirated con-

of the

sonants, as well as of sibilants.

Aspirates are plentifully used in the

adical

other dialects of the Drividian family ; and in Canarese, ‘h’ is regu-

>

nically

P

larly used as a substitute for ¢ p

iy

endu,

OriciN oF THE CEREBRAL CoNsoNANTs.—In all the languages

of the

and dialects of India, whether they belong to the Sanscrit or to the

npound

Dravidian families, much use is made of a series of consonants—¢ 1,

\arese

¢d,” with their aspirates, and ‘n’—which are called by Hindu gram-

marians ¢ cerebrals,” because they are pronounced far back in the

mouth, with a hard, ringing sound. I have reserved to this place some

Tt has

observations on the existence of this peculiar class of sounds in two

) The

families of tongues which are so widely different from one another

MI&S

of the

the Dravidian and the Sanscrit.

) Some

It seems natural to suppose, and it will readily be admitted, that

pl‘()}lllﬁ'

one of those families must have borrowed the sounds in question from

f SiVﬂ‘a‘

the other ; but it remains to be determined which was the borrower,

' palatal

and which was the original proprietor.

The Hindi, the Bengali, and the other vernaculars of Northern

h, when

and S:’

India may be conceived to have borrowed the cerebral consonants

r Tamil

from the Sanscrit, from the decomposition of which those languages

qmilians

have mainly arisen: but it is very difficult to suppose that they have

fing ad

been borrowed in this manner from the Sanscrit by the Dravidian lan-

guages. On the contrary, I have long been persuaded that they were

lt, ﬁl]dill

ken from

borrowed from the Drividian languages by the Sanserit, after the

arrival of the Sanscrit-speaking race in India.

The reasons which

thers 4t

) Vlllgfl‘f

lead me to adopt this view are these :—

anguigd

(J.) The cerebral consonants are essential component elements of

a large number of primitive Drividian roots, and are often necessary,

Of whlch

0 n the

especially in Tamil, for the discrimination of one root from another g

whereas in most cases in Sanscrit, the use of cerebral consonants

cerehnal

instead of dentals, and especially the use of the cerebral ¢ n,” instead

0

ohral dj

of the dental ‘n,’ is merely euphonic.

( t o | d.i

(2.) None of the cerebral consonants has ever been discovered

| into B¢

in any of the primitive languages which are related to the Sanserit,

They are not found in the Classical languages, the Gothic, or the

ds at ﬂle

Celtic, in the Lithuanian, the Slavonian, or the modern Persian:

00

Ol'dﬂ'uce

they are not found in the Cuneiform Persian, or the Zend—those lan-

Cl'it goundy

nuages, or rather sister dialects, with which the Sanserit finally shook

; gifhont

hands on crossing the Indus and settling in Arya-vartta. On the other

il o

112

SOUNDS.

Dré

hand, the DréAvidian languages, which claim to have had an origin

independent of the Sanserit, and which appear to have been spoken

here

throughout India prior to the arrival of the Brahmans, possess the

o tl

cerebral sounds in question, and for aught that appears, were in posses-

lang

sion of them always.

They are found even in the Brahui.

There is

fran

no trace of these sounds in the Aryan family of tongues, west of the

adop

Indus: but no sooner does a member of that family cross the Indus,

fhe §

and obtain a lodgment in the ancient seats of the Dravidians and other

Teig

Seythians in India, than the cerebral sounds make their appearance in

who

fall

their language. It is worthy of notice also, that the Pracrit, a local

dialect or vernacular of the Sanscrit, makes a larger use of the cere-

{

brals than the Sanscrit itself.®

heen

(3.) Those consonants which the Tamil has borrowed from the Sans-

treat

crit within the period of the existence of Dravidian literature, have been

fact 1

greatly modified to accord with the Tamilian laws of sound and delicacy

ra}ly

of ear. Thus, the Tamil omits the aspirates even of Sanscrit deri-

the 3

vatives, and omits or changes all the sibilants.

It systematically

them

softens down all harsh sounds.

Even the Sanscrit cerebral-sibilant

the d¢

‘sh’ cannot be pronounced by Tamil organs.

Hence it seems impro-

indug

bable that a series of harsh, ringing sounds, like the cerebral ¢t <d;

him,

and ‘n, should have been borrowed by the Tamil from the Sauscrit

knowy

without change, and used in the pronunciaticn, not only of Sanscrit

Gram

derivatives, but also of a large number of the most essential Dravi-

{ t; th

dian roots.

formg

(4.) Though the Telugu has been more exposed to Sanscrit influ-

of ¢,

ences than the Tamil, yet larger use is made of those sounds in Tamil

oceur

than in Telugu,—a circumstance which is incompatible with the suppo-

I\

sition of the derivation of those sounds from the Sansecrit.

Dy

Putting all these considerations together, it appears probable that

of the

instead of the Dravidian languages having borrowed the cerebral con-

It

sonants from the Sanscrit, the Sanserit has borrowed them from the

lext |,

Dréavidian languages ; and it will, I think, be demonstrated in the

midd]y

¢ Glossarial Affinities,” that the Sanscrit has not disdained to borrow

lafe

from the Dravidian languages words as well as sounds.

betwee.

After the foregoing observations were written, I met with

strengt

Mr. Norris’s paper on the language of the Scythic tablets’ of

Behistun, and found a similar opinion expressed therein respecting the

Dy

% The Védic Sanserit possesses a peculiar ‘1’—the cerebral ‘1’ of the Drévi-

intgpg

Ventgg

dian languages—which has disappeared from the more modern Sanserit. This “1°

f the Dravidian languages, especially of

is one of the most distinctive features o

illterch :

the Canarese and the Tamil; and its origin is probably the same as that of the

other cerebrals. It has nearly disappeared from the Telugu, apparently through

Dy

the influence of the more modern Sanscrit.

ﬂlI‘OW h

::i

\E

—

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

113

i

Dravidian origin of the Sanscrit cerebrals.

Mr. Norris says, ‘I will

en

here express my conviction that the sounds called cerebral are peculiar

ghe

to the Tartar or Finnish class of languages ; that the really Indian

69

languages are all of Tartar origin, or, at least, that their phonetic and

1§

grammatical affinities are Tartar; and that the writers of Sanscrit

the

adopted the sound from their Indian neighbours, in the same way that

s,

the Scandinavians appear to have adopted a similar sound from their

hfn'

neighbours, the Lapps, who are undoubtedly Tartars ; the Icelanders

11

who retain the old Scandinavian language, pronouncing the words

el

‘falla’ and ‘fullr,” as though written ¢fadla’ and ¢ fudir.’

16

“Tt is certainly the case that this peculiar articulation has not

been noticed as cerebral, so far as I know, by the writers who have

M1

treated of those languages; but this may be accounted for from the

eel

fact that Tartars have had few, if any, native grammarians ; that gene-

a0y

rally speaking, their languages are unwritten ; and that, where written,

leri

the alphabet, not having been adopted by themselves, but given to

ally

them by nations more civilized than themselves, the difference between

lant

the dentals and cerebrals was not striking enough to a foreigner to

tpl‘()

induce him to invent new characters to designate the sounds new to

o

him.

But the existence of a ‘t’ or *d,” convertible into ‘1, is well-

sentt

known to Finnish philologers.

Castrén, a Finnlander, in his Osteak

sont

G'rammar, uses distinct characters for the cerebral and dental ‘d’ and

ravl

‘t,’ though not giving them these denominations, and directs that the

former should be pronounced somewhat aspirated, with the addition

nflu

of ‘1, as “dhl’ or ‘dl,’” and ¢ thl’ or ¢ t] ;’ observing that similar sounds

aml

occur in the Lappish and Finnish tongues.”

These observations undoubtedly strengthen the supposition of the

Ippe

Dravidian origin of the cerebral consonants of the Sanscrit, as well as

of the Scythian relationship of the Dravidian languages.

that

oo

It is remarkable that the Drividian ‘1’ (as will be seen under the

i tll@

next head) is interchangeable with the cerebral ¢d,” through their

’

i the

middle point, the vocalic ‘r

All these letters appear to have a cog-

110w

nate origin ; and the supposition of the existence of a remote connection

between the Dravidian and the Ugrian families evidently grows in

kil 1th

strength as we proceed.

ts’ Of

Diarecric INTERCHANGE oF ConsoNaANTs.—Under this head I

intend to consider, not the euphonic refinements which have been in-

Dratt

vented by grammarians, but those natural, unintentional mutations and

s}

interchanges which are brought to view by a comparison of the various

jally

Dravidian dialects.

These dialectic interchanges will be found to

of 6

g

throw much light on the Drividian laws of sound, whilst they enable

I

—

= -

114

SOUNDS.

us to identify many words and inflexional forms contained im the

various dialects which appear at first sight to be unconnected, but

which are in reality the same.

I

Following as before the order of the Déva-nigari alphabet, I pro-

ceed to point out the dialectic changes to which each Dravidian conso-

nant appears to be liable.

I omit the aspirated consonants, as not

really Dravidian.

J{

11

1. The gutturals.—‘k,’ ‘g, ‘ng.’

‘g’ being merely the sonant of ‘k,’ in the changes now to be

[t

It

enquired into, ‘k’ and ‘g’ will be regarded as identical.

(i.) ‘k,” when used as a sonant, that is, as ‘g, changes into ‘v

Where we have ‘g, in Tamil, we sometimes find ‘v, in Telugu;

m

e.g., “ agu,’ Tam., to become; avu,’ Tel.

In ¢ k4, the infinitive of this

verb in Telugu, which corresponds to the Tamil ‘4ga’ ‘k’ (or ‘g’)

ill

reappears.

It is especially in the middle of words that this consonant

evinces a tendency to be changed into ‘v.’

This tendency constantly

thy

appears in the spoken language of the lower classes of the Tamil

people in the southern provinces ; and has found a place even in the

all

poets ; e.g., ‘mova,’ to be pained, instead of the more common

I |

¢ noga.’

@

Tn Telugu ‘v’ is often not only pronounced, but written, instead

fro

9

ot g

e.g., ¢ pagadamu,’ coral, corrupted into ¢ pavadamu.’

th

Compare with this the change of the Sanserit ‘laghu,’ light, into

€y

sometimes

the Latin ¢levis.’

It will be seen that, per contra, ‘v

for

becomes ‘g’ in Telugu.

.l

(ii.) ¢k’ changes into ‘ch’ or

IS

As the Tamil ‘&’ becomes

¢ ch,” when doubled, and is represented in the alphabet by the equiva-

(ti

lent of the Déva-nigari ‘ch,” the change of ‘k’ into ‘ch, is identical

with that of ‘k’ into ¢ §

The former change appears in the Telugu,

the latter in the Tamil.

Compare the change of the Greek and Latin

¢k, into the Sanserit ‘§; e.g., ‘ééca’ and ‘decem, softened into

beiy

“daa, ten.

The Canarese retains ‘k,” the older pronunciation of this consonant,

of |

and where ‘k’ is found in the Canarese, we generally find ‘ch’ in

lege

Telugu, and ‘§’ in Tamil ; e.g., ¢ kinna,’ Can., small ; ¢ chinna,” Tel.;

Can

«§inna, Tam.

‘kevi, Can , the car ; ‘chevi, Tel.; ¢&evi,” Tam.

intg

«Geéy, Can.,to do; ‘chéy,” Tel ; ‘Sey, Tam. Sometimes the older

fl'()n]

¢k’ is retained by the Tamil as well as by the Canarese, and the

Comy

RNV

softening appears in the Telugu only ; e.g., ‘kei,” Tamil, the hand ;

14§

‘kyé, or ‘keiyyi, Can.; ‘chéy,’ Tel.

‘Kedu,” Tam. and Can., fo

I

spoil ; Tel.,, ‘chedu,’” or ¢ cheru.’

illf() ¢

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES

115

A similar change of ‘k’ into ¢ ch,’ appears even in Sanscrit; e.g.,

‘vich-as,” of speech, from the ecrude nominative ¢ vak, speech.

(iii.) ‘kk’ change systematically into ‘ch.’

This change may be

regarded as the rule of the pronunciation of the lower classes of the

Tamil people in the southern districts.

Further north, and in gram-

b

matical Tamil, it is rarely met with, but in the Telugu country the

rule re-appears ; and in a large class of words, especially in the for-

matives of verbs, the double ‘k’ of the Tamil is replaced regularly

by ¢ch’ in Telugu.

The following instances of this change are con-

tained even in grammatical Tamil: ‘kajchu, o beil, for the more

regular ‘kajkku,” and ¢ phychu,’ to wrrigate, for ¢ paykku.’

A single illustration will suffice to illustrate the perfect conformity

I,

in this point between the vulgar pronunciation of Tamil in the extreme

his

south and the regular, grammatical use of ‘ch’ for ‘kk’ in Telugu.

/)

“veikka,” Tamil, to place (infinitive), is pronouneed °wveicha,” by the

b

illiterate in the southern Tamil districts ; and in grammatical Telugu

fly

the same word is both written and pronounced ¢veicha.’

mil

(iv.) ‘k’ appears sometimes to have changed into ‘t.’

I cannot

the

adduce a good instance of this change in the Dravidian languages ; but

101

I suspect that the ‘t’ of some inflexional terminations in Goénd

(e.g., the nominative plural of the personal pronouns) has been derived

ead

from the Tamil ‘k.’

Compare also ¢ vakili, a doorway, Telugu, with

the Malayala form of the same word, ‘vatal.

I am doubtful, how-

nto

ever, whether this illustration can be depended upon, because the Tamil

mes

form of the same word is ¢véafal,’ classically ¢ vayil,” apparently from

¢ vay-il,” literally mouth-house.

mes

In other families of languages the interchange between ‘k’ and

d Vi

t’ is not uncommon ; e.g., Doric ¢ 7avos,’” ke, instead of ¢ e-xetvos.’

fieal

2. The palatals :— ch’ or “§’ ¢}, ‘nj.

hlgu;

atin

I class the changes of ‘ch, ‘§’ and ¢j, together, those letters

nto

being in reality but one in the Drividian languages.

The only change to which this letter, ‘&’ or ¢j,” is liable is that

of being softened into ‘y.” On comparing the Tamil with the Cana-

,nal‘.t,

)’ D

rese, many instanees of this process are brought to light ; e. g., ¢ hefar,’

Can., @ name (ancient Canarese, ¢ pefar’), has been softened in Tamil

Tel,

into ‘peyar,’ ‘pejr, or ¢pér.

In words borrowed by the Tamil

i

older

from the Sanserit, ¢y’ is optionally used instead of ‘§’ and very

commonly instead of ¢j.

Thus ‘rija,” Sans., @ kirng (in Tamil

4 the

Wld )

‘rasa,” and with the masculine formative, ¢ rdé-an’), becomes ¢ ray-an.’

In the southern provinces of the Tamil country this change of <&’

Dy

0

into ‘y’ has become a characteristic of the pronunciation of the lower

1.2

116

SOUNDS.

s o i

g

classes.

In those provinces in all words in which this letter occurs,

whether Sanscrit or Tamil, the ¢§’ is changed into ‘y; e. g., they

say ‘ariyi,” rice, instead of ‘ariéi.’

8. The cerebrals :—°t,’ ¢d, ‘n’

(i.) The cerebral ¢t when used as a sonant and pronounced

?

in Tamil :

€. 1.

.‘

as ‘d, is sometimes changed into the vocalic ‘r

nAdi, Sans., @ measure, is commonly written and pronounced in

Tamil “néri; and this is colloquially pronounced ‘nali’ in the

The counter-

southern districts, by a further change of ‘1’ into ‘1’

part of this change, wiz., the change of ‘r’ into d,” is much more

common in the Dravidian languages.

(See ‘r’) In Telugu there

are some instances of the change of ¢d’ into the hard rough ‘R, e. g.,

“chedu, ?o spoil (Tamil and Canarese, ¢ kedu’), should have for its

transitive form ¢cheduchu,” answering to the Tamil ‘kedukku

f

whereas ¢ cheruchu’ is used instead. -

(ii.) “n’ This cerebral nasal is frequently softened in Telugu into

¢n, the nasal of the dental row.

The Tamil, the most correct repre-

E;‘

sentative of the ancient speech of the Drividians, makes much use of

i 01

)

as well as of the other cerebrals ; and the colloquial Tamil and

the Malayalam go beyond the grammatical Tamil in preferring ¢n’

1

to ‘n.” The Telugu, on the other hand, whilst it uses the other cere-

brals freely enough, often prefers ‘n’ to ‘n

Thus, it softens the

Tamil (and old Drividian) words ¢kan, eye, ‘vin,’ lkeaven, ¢man,

earth, into ‘kannu, vinnu, and ‘mannun.

It softens even some

Sanscrit words in a similar manner ; e. g., ¢ guna,’ quality, instead of

Sometimes, both in Tamil and in the other idioms, ‘n’ is

¢ guna.’

first enphonized into ‘nd,’ and then converted into ‘d,” which when

doubled becomes ‘t; e. g., ‘en,’ etght, has first become in Canarese

e —

¢entu, and then in Tamil ‘ettu’’ ‘pen,’ a female, has become

f

¢pendu; and in the equivalent Tamil word, ¢pedei, a fen, the ‘n’

i

has disappeared and left no substitute.

|

i

4. The dentals :—t, d, “n.

i

(i.) ‘t, or its sonant equivalent ‘d,’ changes into ‘1’ in Tamil.

)

In the interchange of the cerebral ‘d’ and ‘r) ‘r

sometimes ap-

pears to have been the original sound, and “d’ the corruption ; but

in the change which is now referred to, it is ‘d’ that is the original

sound, and which is changed into ‘r.

This change may arise from

C0)

the circumstance that the ‘r’ into which ‘d’ is altered is pronounced

Px

very like a dental, and bears a considerable resemblance to ‘d.’

In

th;

the southern districts of the Tamil country the change of ‘d’ (when

of

preceded and followed by a vowel) into ‘r’ is exceedingly common in

]JLp

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

I8

the pronunciation of the lower classes: but the same change has in

some instances found its way into the written language ; e. g., ¢virei,

seed, or to sow, instead of the more correct ¢ videi.’

In Canarese ¢ ad,’

the inflexional increment, or basis of most of the oblique cases of certain

l

singular nouns, changes in some instances into ‘ar; e. g., compare

“id-ar-a,’ of this, from ¢id-u,’ this, with ‘mar-ad-a,’ of @ tree, from ¢ mara,’

a tree.

I

In this instance the change from “d’ to ‘r,” or some equivalent

(4

change, was obviously required by euphony : ‘id-ad-a’ would have been

[«

intolerably monotonous, and ¢ mar-ar-a’ not less so. This change of ‘&’

(i

into 0’ is not unknown to the North Indian languages; and in that

16

family it is often followed up by a further change of ‘r’ into ‘L.’

[

Bopp has pointed out some instances in the Hindustani and Bengali ;

18

e.g., ‘des, ten, becomes ‘rel’ in the compound numbers, as ¢ ba-reh,’

twelve.

)

An instance of the change of ‘1’ into ‘I’ is furnished by ano-

ther compound numeral, sizteen, which is not ¢s6-reh,’” but ¢sb-leh.’

1to

The Précrit also changed ¢ d into ‘r,” as is seen in the instance of the

(g

word ‘raha, ten, which has superseded ¢daha,” a softened form of the

Sanserit ¢ daSa,” and which is used instead of ¢daha’ at the end of

of

e

compound numerals.

Ln\l

It seems to me not improbable that in these cases, and also in the

‘0

re-

use in Bengali and Marathi of ‘1’ instead of ¢d’ or ‘t,” as a sign of

the preterite and passive participle, we see an evidence of the ancient

t

16

prevalence of Dravidian influences in Northern India.

A1,

It may be noticed here that the Umbrian also regularly changed

me

‘d’ into ‘r; e. g. ‘sedes’ was written ‘seres.’

As in Tamil, how-

| of

ever, this change took place only when ¢d’ came between two vowels.

] 13

¢

?

(ii.) ¢d’ sometimes changes into

S

hen

This change appears in Tamil in the optional use of &’ in the

150

formatives of nouns instead of ¢d.

Thus, ‘vayadu,” age, becomes

ome

‘vayasu ;° and ‘periSu,’ large, or that which is large, is commonly used

Bl

instead of ¢ peridu,’ the more correct form.

In Telugu, ‘d’ is still

more frequently subject to this change.

We have a remarkable in-

stance of the softening of ‘d’ into ‘s, of ‘s’ into ‘y,” and finally of

bl

the obliteration of the ‘y

itself in the Dravidian word signifying

amﬂ.

a name.

This in Tulu is ¢ pudar,” in ancient Canarese ¢pefar, in

P

bub

classical Tamil ¢ peyar ; and finally in modern Tamil ¢ pér.’

(iii.) ‘nd’ changes in Tamil into ¢0j.

In this change ¢j’ must be

Lginﬁl

(s BIAE)

from

considered as identical with

8,

being the sound which ¢§’ takes when

preceded by a nasal; and it is always expressed by ‘&’ in Tamil. In

uu(}ed

this conjunction the dental ‘n’ changes into ‘fi,’ which is the dental

&

of the palatal row.

The change of ‘nd’ into ‘nj’ especially takes

o

place after the vowels ‘i’ or ‘ei’

In general it is heard in the pro-

118

SOUNDS.

nunciation of the lower classes only ; but in a few instances it has

found its way into grammatical compositions ; e.g. ‘eindu,’ five, has

changed into ¢ einju,’ and this again into ¢ anju,” a form which is found

even in the Tamil classies.

(iv.) “tt’ change into ‘ch’ in Tamil after the vowels i’ and ei.

¢ 229

The change to which I refer appears to be one of dd’ into

88,

if the

form of the Tamil letters is regarded : but it has already been ex-

plained that sonants become surds when doubled ; and hence ‘dd’ must

¢ L2

be expressed as ¢tt, and

Ss as

¢ch,” this being their pronunciation

when in juxtaposition. The corruption of the double, soft dentals ¢ tt°

¢ L%

into the palatals

88,

which are represented by ¢ ch,’ is peculiarly easy

and natural.

This ¢ch’ which arises out of ¢tt, though almost uni-

versally characteristic of the pronunciation of the mass of the Tamil

people, as distinguished from the literati, is rarely found in grammatical

compositions, except in the formatives of derivative nouns, after the

semi-vowel ‘r; e g., ‘unar-chi,) semsation, knowledge, instead of

¢ unar-tti, which is more in accordance with analogy. In Malayalam

this change not only appears in the pronunciation of the vulgar, but is

the rule of the language after the vowels ¢i

and ‘e; and ‘ch’ is

written as well as pronounced : e. ¢., compare ‘siricha,’ that laughed,

with the corresponding Tamil ¢giritta.’

(v.) ‘n, the nasal of the dental ‘varga,’ changes or is softened

%

9

into ‘y

This change rarely occurs ; but we have an indubitable in-

stance of it in the change of ‘nu,’ the Telugu copulative conjunction

and, into ¢ yu.” ‘yu’ has been still further softened in Canarese into

Y

We have also an instance of this in the softening in classical

Tamil of na,’” the termination of certain preterite relative participles

Hto " ya sk e/, “folli-ya,” that said, instead of the more regular

¢ §olli-na.’

!

(vi.) “n’ also changes, though still more rarely, into ‘m? e.g,

¢miru, you, in Telugu, must have been altered from ¢ niru,’ the form

which answers to the Tamil ¢nir,” and which Telugu analogies would

lead us to expect.

See the section on The Pronoun.

5. The labials :—*p,” ‘b, ‘m.

!

This remarkable rule

(i.) ¢p’ changes in Canarese into ‘h.’

applies to the initial ‘p’ of nearly all words in modern Canarese,

whether they are pure Dravidian words or Sanscrit derivatives ;

¢.g. ‘pattu,” Tam., ten (‘padi,’ Tel.), is in Canarese ¢hattu.’ In like

manner, ‘pana,’ money, a Sanscrit derivative, is in modern Canarese

‘hana.” This change of ‘p’ into ‘h’ has taken place in comparatively

d

recent times ; for in the old Canarese, and in the dialect of the Bada-

t

_—

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

119

gars of the Nilgherries, ¢ p’ maintains its ground. A change similar

to this is occasionally apparent in the Marathi, the neighbour of the

Canarese on the north : the Sansc. participle ¢bhita-s,” one who kas

been, being altered in Marathi to “hoté ; e.g., ¢ hoto-n,” I was. Com-

pare also the Prakrit ¢ hé-mi, I was, from bhita-smi.’

A gsimilar

change of ‘p’ into ‘h’ appears in Armenian; e.g., foot is in Armenian

‘het’ (for ‘pet’), and father, ‘hayr’ (for ¢payr’).

)t

(ii.) ‘b, the sonant of ‘p,’ sometimes changes into ‘m ; eg.,

¢ padi, Tel., fen, becomes ‘midi’ in ‘tom-midi,” nine, a compound

which the analogy of both the Tamil and the Telugu would require to

be ‘tom-badi : ¢ enbar,” they will say, is often in poetical Tamil ¢ enmar.’

‘b’ is also euphonically added to ‘m’ in vulgar Tamil.

I do not refer

1l

to such words as ¢ pAmbu,” Tam., a snake, as compared with ‘pamu,’

il

Telugu ; for in those instances the ‘m’ itself is euphonic, and bu’

16

(in Can., ‘vn’) is the real formative.

Cases in which the ‘m’ is radi-

cal and the ‘b’ euphonic occur plentifully in colloquial Tamil ; e.g.,

of

¢ kddumei,” wheat, commonly pronounced ‘kédumbei.’

18

(iii.) ¢ b’ is often softened into ¢ v’ in Tamil. Most transitive verbs

18

in Tamil form their future tense by means of ‘p’ or ‘pp ; and in the

0

corresponding intransitives we should expect to find the future formed

by ¢b,” the sonant of ‘p

)

Where the root ends in a nasal consonant,

ed

this ‘b’ appears ; but where it ends in a vowel, ‘b’ is ordinarily

See the section on The Verb. In some instances in

I

changed into ‘v.

on

the Tamil poets this ‘b’ of the future is changed, not into ‘v’ but into

1t0

‘m, according to the previous rule.

(iv.) ‘m’ changes into ‘n

This change is often apparent in the

al

les

nominatives of neuter nouns in Tamil, the natural termination of many

of which is ‘m,” but which optionally terminate in ‘n:’ e.g., ‘pala-n,’

Jar

profit, a derivative from ¢phala.’ Sans., is more commonly used than

¢ pala-m.’

In Telugu ‘kola-nu, a tank, answers to the Tamil

g

‘kunla-m.’

In the same manner ‘um, the Tamil aoristic future for-

1

ald

mative, has become ‘nu’ in Telugu; and ‘um, the Tamil copulative

particle, has in Telugu been changed into ‘nu.’

(v.) ‘m’ changes into ‘v; e.g., ‘nam, we, and ‘ném, you, in

ancient Canarese are softened in the modern dialect to ¢nav-u’ and

‘ niv-u.’

le

0S6y

6. The semi-vowels :—y, ‘r} <1} ‘v ‘r) 1’ ‘R

ves ;

(i.) ‘y’ changes into ‘8§

It has been shown that ‘ch,’ ‘8§, and

ik

‘)’ are softened into ¢y’ in Tamil

Notwithstanding this, and in

rese

direct opposition to it, we find in the colloquial Tamil, especially in

ol

?

that of the southern districts, a tendency also to harden ¢y’ into ‘8§

ad&

£

e

;

120

SOUNDS.

<

S

7/

Through some peculiar perversity, where

ought to be, it is pro-

e i T S Sy

nounced as ¢y, and where ¢y’ ought to be, it is pronounced as ‘5§

t

e. g., ‘ padl,” hunger, is mispronounced by the vulgar ‘payi; whilst

‘ vayaru, the belly, is transformed into ¢ vasaru’

This change of

?

¥

into ‘&’ is not confined to the South, though it is more frequently

met with there.

Even in Madras, ‘payangal,’ boys, is pronounced

‘pafangal,’ and ‘ayal’ mear, is not only pronounced but written

g

‘asal.

C.29

In Telugu ¢y’ is invariably converted into

8,

after the par-

ticipial ‘1; e.g., ‘chéyi, having done, becomes ¢ chési’ When ‘y’

is used euphonically to prevent hiatus, it invariably retains its proper

sound.

z

(ii.) ‘r’ changes into ‘d.

A change of ‘d’ into ‘r’ has already

been mentioned. This is sometimes met by a counter-change of ‘r’

into ‘d; e.g., ¢ per-u, or ‘per-iya,” Tam., large, becomes in Telugu

¢ pedd-a.’

P T T T,

(iii ) ‘r’ changes into ‘1.

“r’ and ‘I are found to be interchange-

able in many families of languages ; and in the Dravidian family this

G

Sometimes ‘1’ is cor-

interchange is one of very common occurrence.

rupted into ‘r ;’ but in a larger number of cases 1’ appears to be the

¢l

original, and ‘1’ the corruption.

In the case of the distinetively Dra-

i

E}%

vidian ‘r’ and ‘1, the change is uniformly of the latter nature ; and

1l

the change of the ordinary semi-vowel ‘1’ into the corresponding ‘1,

U

though not uniform, is an exceedingly common one ; and one which

may be regarded as a characteristic of colloquial Tamil.

It is espe-

cially at the beginning of words that this change occurs, and it takes

place as frequently in the case of derivatives from the Sanscrit, as in

1I

the case of Dravidian roots ; e.g., ¢ rakshi,’ o save (‘raksh-a,” Sans.),

is pronounced by the vulgar ¢lakshi,’ or ‘latchi.’

In the middle of words ‘r’ is less frequently changed into ¢I;

e

nevertheless where the Tamil uses ‘r’

we sometimes find

416

C;

the Telugu; e.g., ‘teri] to appear, in Tamil, becomes ¢teli-yn’ in

il

Telugu.

)

Seeing that a

‘tendency to change ‘r’ into ‘T still exists and

IOS

operates in the Dravidian languages, especially in Tamil, it may be

concluded that in those ancient roots which are the common property

of several families of langnage, and in which an interchange appears

Ve

to exist between ‘1’ and ‘1l ‘r’ was the original, and ‘I’ the altered

1

sound : e. g., if the Dravidian ‘kar-u,’ or ‘kar, black, is connected,

8

as it probably is, with the Sanscrit ‘ kal-a,’ black, it may be concluded

sl

that the Sanscrit form of the root is less ancient than the Dravidian ;

and this supposition is confirmed by the existence of this root ‘kar,’

of

black, in many of the Scythian languages.

1ng

g

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

i

-

2

1

The fact of the frequency of the interchange between ‘1’ and ‘1,’

(irrespective of the question of priority), would lead us to suspect a

remote connection between several sets of DrAvidian roots, which are

¢

SIR,

now considered to be independent of each other ; e. g., compare

Tam., small, with ¢sil, few ;” and * par’ (another form of ¢ per’), large,

with ¢pal) many.

(iv.) ‘I’ changes into ‘r

Whilst the ordinary change is that of

‘r’into ‘1’ the change of ‘I’ into ‘1’ is occasionally met with, and

forms one of the peculiarities of the Tulu. The Tulu generally changes

the final ‘1’ of the other Drividian languages into ‘r; e.g., ¢vil,

In this instance

Tam., a bow, (* billu,” Can.), becomes in Tulu ¢bir.’

it cannot be doubted that ‘1’ was the original termination of the word ;

for we find the same root west of the Indus in the Brahui ¢billa,” @ bow.

A similar interchange between ‘I’ and ¢ 1’ takes place in Central Asia.

The ‘1’ of the Manchu is converted into ‘r’ in the Mongolian.

In Zend and Old Persian ‘1’ was unknown, and ‘r’ was systemati-

cally used instead.

In Telugu, ‘lu, the pluralising suffix of nouns, is sometimes

changed into ‘ru.’

This change, however, of ‘1’ into ‘r’ is mnot

systematic as in the Tulu, but exceptional.

In Tamil, ‘1’ is eupho-

nically changed, not into ‘r,” but into ‘R’ before ‘p; eg., ‘palpala,’

various, becomes in written compositions ¢ parpala.’

This proves that

)

a change of ‘1’ into ‘r

is not contrary to Tamil laws of sound.

(v.) ‘1’ changes in the language of the Kus to ‘d.’

The change

S

of “d’ into ‘1’ is common enough ; but the regular change of ‘1’

into ‘d’ is peculiar to this idiom ; e.g., ‘palu,’ Telugu, milk, is in

Ku ¢ padu;’ ‘illu, house, is ¢iddu.’

(vi.) v’ is generally hardened in Canarese into ‘b’ in the

beginning of a word ; eg.,

var,

Tamil, to fourish, becomes in

W here

347

1

Canarese ‘bal.

is not changed into ‘b,” viz., in the

middle of words, the Canarese generally softens it into ‘w.

The

i

same softening is sometimes observed in the pronunciation of the

lower classes of Tamilians.

il

In Malayalam, ‘v’ is always ‘w

(vii.) The ¢v’ euphonic of the Tamil is sometimes changed into

e

‘g’ in Telugu.

Both ¢y’ and ‘v’ are used euphonically to pre-

i

vent Aiatus in Tamil ; so in Telugu ‘g’ is sometimes used not only

)

ol

instead of ‘v,” but also instead of ‘y.

Compare Tam. ¢ 4rRu-(v)-ar,’

sux persons, with the Tel. ‘aru-(g)-uru,” and the Tam. honorific

d,

singular ‘tandei-(y)-ar,” father, with the corresponding Tel. ¢ tandri-

el

19

(g)-ar-u.

This will, perhaps, explain the occasional use of ‘g’ instead

of ‘v’ as the sign of the future tense in High Tamil; e.¢., ¢ Seygén,’

Iy

instead of ‘éeyyén,’ I will do.

122

SOUNDS.

(viii.) ‘r’ (the pecnliar vocalic ‘r’ of the Tamil) interchanges

with three different consonants.

Sometimes it becomes ‘n; e.g.,

‘mirugu, Tamil, fo sink, is changed in Telugu to ‘munagu; and

¢kuri/ Tam., @ hole, becomes in Canarese ‘ kuni.’

Ordinarily ‘r’ is

changed in Telugu into ¢d.’

Neither the Telugu nor the Canarese

possesses the Tamil ‘r.’

In a very few instances the Telugu uses ‘n’

or ‘1’ instead: sometimes it omits the consonant altogether, without

using a substitute ; but in a vast majority of instances it converts ‘r’

into “d.

‘r’ is ordinarily converted in Canarese into ‘1: the same

change characterises the pronunciation of the mass of the Tamil people

in the southern districts of the country, and prevails in the Malayalam

also.

This change of ‘r’ into ‘1’ and the previous one of ‘r’ into ‘d,

That law is that

form the constituents of an important dialectic law.

the same consonant which is ‘r’ in Tamil, is generally ¢d’ in Telugu,

and always ‘1’ in Canarese.

Thus, fo caress, is ‘tar-u’ in Tamil;

‘tad-u,’” in Telugu; and ¢tal-u, in Canarese.

The numeral seven 1s

¢ér-u, in Tamil; ‘éd-u,” in Telugu; and ¢él-u,’ in Canarese.

In the

1l

compound numeral ¢eélnfiru,’ seven hundred, the Telugu ‘éd-u’ is

found to change, like the Canarese, into ¢ él-u.

The word signifying

time, which is included in the adverbial nouns then and now (literally

D

that time and ths time), is in Tamil *poru-du,” in Telugu ¢ pud-u,’ or

a

¢ podd-u,” and in Malayélam ¢pol.’

In this instance the Canarese

uses a different word.

It thus appears that ‘1’ and ¢d’ are as

intimately allied as ‘d’ and ‘y.

This is a point of some importance

in the affiliation of languages; for an interchange of ‘d’ and 1’ is

b

characteristic of the Ugrian family of languages, as well as of the

Dréavidian family and the North-Indian vernaculars.

The same word

th

is written with “t’ or ‘d’ in the Ostiak, and with ‘1’ in the Magyar

Ie

and Finnish.

al

A corresponding interchange is occasionally observed even in the

of

Indo-European languages; e.g., compare °8&axpvua, a tear, with

lay

lackryma : but in those languages it is rarely met with, whereas it is

a characteristic dialectic sign of several families of tongues belonging

a

to the Scythian group.

(ix.) It may be added that ‘1’ changes, though rarely, into ‘r;

off

e.g., ‘kammélan,” Tamil, an artificer, from ‘kam,” work, and ‘Al

Wl

to exercise, becomes in Canarese ‘kamméran-u,’ though ¢ali) a suffix

equivalent to “alan,” is used in Canarese as well as in Tamil.

('

(x.) ‘R’ (the strong, rough r of the Tamil), is frequently changed

b

in Tulu into ¢j; e.g., ‘muru’ (the original form of ‘mindru’), Tam.

fan

three, becomes ‘muji; ¢ aru, siz, ¢4ji.

o

2

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

3

¢ L

)

This change of ‘®’ into ‘j,’ the equivalent of

is directly the

converse of the change of ‘s’ into ‘r’ which is so common in the

Indo-European tongues.

Having now finished the consideration of the dialectic changes

which pure Drividian consonants undergo, it remains to point out the

[;

changes which take place in the Sanscrit sibilants, when words in

which they oceur are borrowed from the Sanscrit by the Tamil.

(1.) “sh.’ The hard, cerebral sibilant of the Sanscrit is unknown

to the classical Tamil.

Sometimes it is changed into ‘8§, a change

which ordinarily takes place at the present day in the pronunciation

of the lower classes in the southern districts: sometimes, though more

rarely, it is changed into ‘r;’ but most commonly it is converted into

X

¢ d.’

This ‘d’ is sometimes softened down into the dental ‘d.

Thus,

1

‘ manushya,” Sans., man, becomes in classical Tamil ¢ménida-n;’

I,

and this by a further change becomes ‘manida-n.’

A very old

¥

example of the change of the Sanserit ‘sh’ into ‘d’ in Tamil, can

1§

be adduced. The month ¢ Ashada,’ Sans., July—A ugust, has become

16

in Tamil ‘Adi? and this change dates probably from the earliest

18

period of the cultivation of the Tamil language.

In ¢Teigha,

‘D

g

January—February, the hard ¢gh,’ instead of being changed, has

ly

been discarded altogether: the Tamil name of this month, as far back

or

as the literature reaches, has been ¢ Tei.’

2

‘s

9

A

The hissing sibilant of the Sanscrit, answering to our

a8

English ¢s,’ is ordinarily in Tamil converted into ¢ d,’” the sonant of

10

¢t, which is pronounced as ‘th’ in that; e.g., ‘méasam,” Sans., @ month,

1§

becomes in classical Tamil ¢ madam ;’ and ¢ manas,” the mind, becomes

In this conversion of the Sansecrit ¢s

he

¢ manad-u.’

into ‘d’ in Tamil,

there is a change from the sibilant to the dental, which is exactly the

d

at

reverse of that change from the dental to the semi-sibilant which has

already been described.

It may be compared with the weakening

the

of : g

into ‘h’ which we find in several of the Indo-European

ith

languages.

When ‘s’ happens to be the first consonant of a Sanscrit deri-

L8

ing

vative, it is sometimes omitted in Tamil altogether; e.g., ¢ sthAnam,’

a place, becomes ‘tanam.’

More commonly in modern Tamil, an

)

‘14)

effort is made to pronounce this ‘s

with the help of the vowel ‘i,

which is prefixed to it in order to assist enunciation; e.g., ¢istiri’

iy

fix

(‘str, Sans.), @ woman.

The Sauscrit sibilant never changes into ‘r

9

in Tamil,

This

change, though very common in languages of the Indo-European

;ged

i

family, rarely, if ever, appears in the Dravidian.

The ounly instances in which it may be conjectured to have taken

124

SOUNDS.

place, are the following.

The Tamil-Canarese root ‘ir, to be, in

Brahui ‘ar,” may be allied to the Indo-European substantive verb, as

represented by the Sanscrit as

the Canarese ‘miur-u,” three, is

identical with the Brahui ‘mus-it,” and the Tulu ‘mdj-i:’ the Tamil

plural of ratiecnal beings ¢ar,’ resembles the Sanscrit epicene plural

“as? and perhaps, thongh more doubtfully still, the Tamil ‘iru,” romn,

o

euphonized into ¢iru-mbu,” may be compared with the Sanserit ‘ayas,’

and the English word ¢iron’—which is allied to ‘ayas,’ through the

|

change of ‘s’ into ‘r.

'I'he instances, however, which I have now

cited, are not by any means decisive; for the only reliable aflinity

1

amongst them is that of ‘mlr-u’ and ‘mus-it; and in that instance

‘r’ was probably the original letter, and ‘s’ or ¢j’ the corruption.

8

EvpnoNic PERMUTATION OF ConsoNANTS.—The permutation of

consonants for euphonic reasons, though it throws less light on the

8

laws of sound than dialectic interchange, includes a few points of con-

siderable interest. Dravidian grammarians have bestowed more atten-

tion and care on euphonic permutation than on any other subject;

t

and the permutations which the grammar of the Tamil requires or

8

allows, are at least twice as numerous, and more than twice as per-

i

plexing to beginners, as those of the Sansecrit.

On examining the

al

permutations of consonants prescribed in the grammar of the Tamil,

0

the Telugu, and the Canarese—the three principal languages of this

0]

family—it is evident that a considerable proportion of them are

f

founded upon Sanserit precedents: another class in which Sanserit

b

rules of euphony have been, not imitated, but emulated and surpassed,

1

may be regarded rather as prosodial than as grammatical changes: but

h

after these have been eliminated, a certain number of euphonic

permutations remain, which are altogether peculiar to these languages,

th

and which proceed from, and help to illustrate, their laws of sound.

I;

It will suffice to notice a few of those permutations; for the subject

80)

is too wide, and ‘at the same time not ofJsufficient importance, to allow

an

of our entering on a minute investigation of it.

‘t

(1.) In “dwanda’ compounds, ¢.e.,, in nouns which are united

do

together, not by copulative conjunctions, but by a common sign of

the

plurality (in the use of which common sign the Dravidian languages

Te

resemble, and perhaps imitate, the Sanserit), if the second member

D)

of the compound commences with the first or surd consonant of any

;

of the five ‘vargas’ (wiz., ‘k, ‘ch

orfgl i) ¢4, “p %), dhe surd

Th

must be changed into the corresponding sonant or soft letter.

In

to |

those Dréividian languages which have adhered to the alphabetical

E

i

system of the Sanserit, as the Telugu and the Canarese, this conver-

i,

EUPHONIC PERMUTATION.

125

sion of the surd into the sonant is carried into effect and expressed by

3

the employment of a different character.

In Tamil, in which the

§

same character is used to represent both surds and sonants, a different

i

character is not employed, but the softening of the first consonant

il

of the second word is always apparent in the pronunciation.

l

This peculiar rule evidently proceeds from the DrAvidian law, that

]

the same consonant which is a surd at the beginning of a word, should

16

be regarded as a sonant in the middle; for the first consonant of the

second word, being placed in the middle of a compound, has become a

y

medial by position.

The existence of this rule in the Telugu and

H

Canarese, notwithstanding the Sanscrit influences to which they have

been subjected, proves that the law of the convertibility of surds and

sonants is not confined to the Tamil.

of

All the Dravidian dialects agree in softening the initial surd of the

he

second member of ‘dwanda’ compounds: but with respect to com-

)it

pounds in which the words stand to one another in a case relation,

1l

e.g., substantives, of which the first is used adjectivally or to qualify

b;

the second, or an infinitive and its governing verb, the Telugu pur-

sues a different course from the Tamil.

0r

The rule of the Telugu is

el

that when words belonging to the ¢ druta’ class, including all infinitives,

he

are followed by any word commencing with a surd consonant, such

consonant is to be converted (as in ‘dwanda’ compounds) into its soft

i,

hla

or sonant equivalent.

The rule of the Telugu on this point resembles

are

that of the Lappish, and still more the rule of the Welsh; and it has

b

been observed that the Welsh, possibly through the pre-historic

!ed)

influence of the Finnish, is the most Scythic of all the Indo-European

languages.

but

nie

It is curious that in combinations of words which are similar to

geS,’

those referred to above, and uniformly after infinitives in ‘a,’ the

Tamil, instead of softening, doubles and hardens the initial surd-

nd

sonant of the succeeding word.

The Tamil also invariably doubles,

ject

and consequently hardens, the initial surd of the second member of

low

‘ tat-purusha’ compounds, <.¢., compounds in which the words stand in

a case-relation to each other.

In such combinations, the Canarese,

ited

though it is less careful of euphony than either the Tamil or the

uOf

Telugu, requires that the initial surd of the second member of the

ages

compound should be softened: it requires, for instance, that ¢huli

her

togalu,’ @ tiger’s skin, shall be written and pronounced “huli dogalu.’

any

The Tamil, on the contrary, requires the initial surd in all such cases

qurd

to be hardened and doubled; e.g., the same compound in Tamil, viz.,

[n

‘¢ puli tol,” a tiger's skin, must be written and pronounced, not ¢ puli

fical

dol,” but ¢ puli-(t)tol.’

This doubling and hardening of the initial is

yer

126

SOUNDS.

evidently meant to symbolize the transition of the signification of the

first word to the second ; and it will be seen that this expedient has

been very generally resorted to by the Tamil.

When the first word is used not as a noun or adjective, but as a verb

or relative participle, the initial surd of the second word becomes a

sonant in Tamil also, as in Telugu; e.g., compare ‘kéj gombu,’ @

withering branch, with ¢kay-(k)kombu,” a branch with fruit.

(2.) The Tamil system of assimilating, or euphonically changing,

concurrent consonants, is in many particulars almost identical with

that of the Sanscrit, and has probably been arranged in imitation of

1t.

Nevertheless, there are some exceptions which may be regarded

as distinctively Drévidian, and which are founded upon Drévidian

laws of sound; e.g., the mutation of ‘1’ into ‘n’ in various unex-

pected combinations.

Through this tendency to nasalisation, pél-da,’

like, becomes ‘podn-da, or rather ¢ pon-dra; ‘kol-da,” taken, bought,

becomes ‘kon-da; and the latter euphonic mutation has found its

C

way in Telugu into the root itself, which is ‘kon-u,’ 7o buy, instead

of the older Tamil ‘kol.’

It does not appear to have been noticed

even by Tamil grammarians, that ‘1’ in a few instances, has been

converted into ‘n’ before ‘k.

Thus ‘nan-ku, or ‘nén-gu,’ four, is

0

derived from ‘nal-ku,’ an older form of the word; and ‘Panguni,’

the Tamil name of the month of March-April, has been altered from

the Sanserit ¢ Phalguna.

In Telugu a correspondihg tendency

&l

appears in the change of ‘1’ into ‘n’ before ‘t; e.g., “ilti,” of «

house, is softened into ‘inti.

In all these cases ‘1’ is undoubtedly

the original; and these proofs of the priority of ‘1’ to ‘n, cor-

roborate the suspicion that the Latin ¢alius’ is older than its Sanscrit

th

equivalent ‘anyas.’

€x

0n

Evpnoxic NUNNATION, oR NasaLizATioN.— Much use is made in

th

‘k

the Dravidian languages, especially in the Tamil and Telugu, of the

nasals ‘ng,’ “fij,’ ‘n,” ‘n,” and ‘m’ (to which should be added ‘n’ or ‘m,’

Wi

the ¢ half anuswéra’ of the Telugu), for the purpose of euphonising the

harder consonants of each ¢varga.’

All the nasals referred to, with

Ve

the exception of the ¢half anuswéra,” which is an inorganic sound,

P

are regarded by native grammarians as modifications of the sound

int

of ‘m; the nature of each modification being determined by the

the

In

manner in which ‘m’ is affected by succeeding consonants.

Ve

Tamil, as in Sanserit, all those modifications are expressed by the

the

nasal consonants which constitute the final characters of each of the

th

five ‘vargas.’

In Telugu and in Canarese one and the same cha-

racter, which is called ‘anuswara,” but which possesses a greater range

Of\

EUPHONIC NUNNATION.

127

of power than the ‘anusvara’ of the Sanscrit, is used to represent

the whole of the nasal modifications referred to.

The pronunciation

of this character, however, varies so as to accord with the succeeding

consonant as in Tamil.

The ‘nunnation,’ or nasalization, of the Dravidian languages is of

three kinds.

1. The first kind of ‘nunnation’ is used to a greater extent in

Tamil than in any other dialect.

It consists in the insertion of a

nasal before the initial consonant of the formative suffix of many

of

nouns and verbs.

The formative syllable or suffix, the nature of

d

which will be explained more particularly in the succeeding section,

11}

is added to the crude root of the verb or noun, and constitutes the

inflexional theme, to which the signs of inflexion are annexed. The

by

nasalised formative is used in Tamil by the intransitive form of the

i

verb and by the isolated form of the noun.

When the verb becomes

t§

transitive, and when the noun becomes adjectival, or is placed in a

d

case-relation to some other noun, the nasal disappears, and the con-

od

sonant to which it was prefixed—the initial consonant of the formative

—1s hardened and doubled.

el

1§

The nasal is modified in accordance with the nature of the initial

1,

consonant of the formative suffix: it becomes ‘ng’ before ‘k’or ‘g

5

“fij’ before

S

or ‘ch;’ ‘n’ before ‘t’ or ‘d; ‘n’ before ‘t’ or g

om

Y

and ‘m’ before ‘p’ or ‘b’

The Telugu uses the ‘anuswéira’ to

()

express all these varieties of sound; and the *half anuswéra’ in

certain other cases.

lly

(I

(i.) Of the use of the first nasal, ‘ng,’ to emphasize and euphonize

the formative suffix ‘k-u’ or ‘g-u, the Tamil affords innumerable

it

examples. One verb and noun will suffice; e.g., ‘ada-ngu,’ to refrain

oneself, to keep in, is formed from the root ‘ada’ by the addition of

Bl

the formative, intransitive suffix ¢ gu,” which is euphonized into ‘ngu

the

‘ké-nggei,” heat, is from ‘ki’ or ‘ k4§, to burn (in Telugu ‘ka-gu’);

with the addition of the suftix ‘gei,” euphonized into ‘nggei.’

10y

the

(ii.) Instances of the euphonic use of the nasal of the second

‘varga, ‘1, are more common in Telugu than in Tamil.

Thus,

jith

‘ pafich-u,” Tel,, to divide, is derived from ¢pag-u, Tamil (changed

lﬂd;

Lllnd

into ‘pach-u,’ and then nasalized into ¢ pafich-u’); and is analogous to

the Tamil noun ‘pang-u,’ a share, which is derived from the same

the

In

verbal root: ¢ ret,ti—ﬁchu,’ Tel., to double, is an example of the use of

the euphonic nasal by verbs of the tranmsitive class; a class in which

the

e

that nasal is not used by any other dialect but the Telugu.

the

(iii.) The cerebrals ‘t’ and ‘d’ are not used as formative suffixes

chas

of verbs, though some verbal roots end in those consonants; but they

gt

5

128

SOUNDS.

are not unfrequently used as formatives of neuter nouns; e.g., ¢ ira-d-u,’

the original of the Tamil numeral fwo, corresponding to the Canarese

¢era-du,” has been euphonised to ¢“ira-nd-u.’ The Tamil adverbial

nouns ‘a-nd-u,’ there, ‘i-nd-u,’ here, ¢ ya-nd-u,’ where, are derived from

¢

4 )

a

and ‘1’ the demonstrative bases, and ¢ ya,’ the interrogative base,

with the addition of the usual neuter formative ¢d-u,” euphonised to

¢nd-u’ In Telugu a large number of masculine formatives in ‘d-u’

receive in pronunciation the obscure nasal ‘n;’ e.g., for ‘ vadu-lu’ or

¢ vAd-lu, they, ¢ vind-lu’ is commonly used. On comparing the Tamil

‘karandi,” @ spoon, with ¢ garite,” the Telugu form of the same word,

we find that sometimes the nasal is used of one dialect and rejected

by another.

(iv.) We see an example of the euphonic use of ‘n,’ the nasal of

the dental ‘varga,’ in the intransitive verb ¢tiru-nd-u,’ Tamil, ¢o

become correct, from ¢ tiru, the radical base, and ‘du,” the formative,

euphonised into ‘ndu: the transitive form of the same verb is

¢ tiru-ttu,’ fo correct. We find the same euphonic insertion in the Tamil

demonstrative adjectives ¢ anda, ‘inda,’ that, this, which are derived

from the demonstrative pronouns ¢ad-u,’ that, ¢id-u, this, by the

addition of the adjectival or relative participial ‘a,’ and the inser-

An

tion of the euphonic nasal before ¢d,’ the neuter formative.

example of the nasalisation of a moun of this class is found

in ‘maru-ndu, Tamil, medicine, which is derived from ¢maru,

fragrant, with the addition of the formative ‘du,’ euphonised to

‘ndu.’

(v.) Many examples of the euphonic insertion of ‘m’ before the

suffix in ‘b’ might be adduced; but the following will suffice,

¢ tiru-mbu,” fo twrn (intransitively), of which the root is unques-

tionably ¢tiru, as appears from the corresponding Telugu ¢tiru-gu’

and Canarese ¢ tiru-vu.’

The Tamil form of the transitive of the same

verb is ‘tiru-pp-u, to furn.

An example of a similar insertion of

euphonic ‘m’ before the formative ‘b’ of a noun, is seen in ‘eru-mbu,’

Tamil, an ant, when compared with the equivalent Canarese word

¢iru-ve.’

The formatives ‘nd-u’ and ‘ mbu,’ are extremely common

terminations of Tamil nouns; and with few if any exceptions, where-

ever those terminations appear, they will be found on examination to

be euphonized suffixes to the root.

2. The second use to which the euphonic nasal is put is altogether

It consists in the insertion of an euphonic ‘n,’

peculiar to the Tumil.

between the verbal theme and the ¢d’ which constitutes the sign of

f

the preterite of a very large number of Tamil verbs.

The same ‘d

ordinarily forms the preterite in ancient Canarese, and it is not

I

., __

—

R —

——

EUPHONIC NUNNATION.

129

unknown to the Telugu ; but in those ]angqages the nasal, ‘n, is not

prefixed to it.

|

The following are examples of this nasalisation of the sign of the

preterite in Tamil: ¢ vAr-nd-én’ (for ¢ var-d-én’), I flourished, from the

Il

root

‘var

in Canarese ‘bal: compare Old Canarese preterite,

)

0

¢ bil-d-en.’

So also, ¢ virn-nd-u’ (for ¢ viru-d-u’), having fallen, from

the root ‘viru’ or ‘vir:’ High Tamil, ‘vir-d-u ;7 Canarese equivalent,

Iy

¢ bidd-u.’

The corresponding Malayala ¢ vin-u,’ is an example of the

il

absorption of the dental in the nasal.

d

In colloquial or vulgar Tamil, this euphonic insertion of ‘n’ is

carried further than the grammatical Tamil allows.

Thus, ¢$ejy-d-a,

ol

done, and ° pey-d-a,” rained, are vulgularly progounced ‘Sey-nj-a’ and

of

‘ pey-nj-a.’

3. A third use of the euphonic nasal, is the insertion, in Tamil,

fo

of ‘n’ or ‘n, before the final ‘d’ or ‘d, of some verbal roots.

Ve

It}

The same rule sometimes applies to roots and forms that terminate

2

in the rough ‘m, or even in the ordinary semi-vowel ‘r

Thus,

nil

ed

¢kar-u,” Can., @ calf, is ‘kanr-u’ in Tamil (pronounced ¢ kandr-u’); and

he

¢mir-u, Can., three, is in Tamil ‘mfnr-u’ (pronounced ‘mind-u’).

In the first and second classes of instances in which nunnation is

o\

used for purposes of euphony, the Dravidian languages pursue a course

An

nd

of their own, which is different from the usages of the Scythian, as

well as of the Syro-Arabian and Indo-European families of languages.

I,

In the Syro-Arabian languages, especially in Talmudic Hebrew,

to

euphonic ‘n

is always a final, and is often emphatic as well as

euphonic.

the

In the Turkish, ‘n’ is used between the bases of words and their

166

In the North-

16

inflexions, in a manner similar to its use in Sanserit.

Indian vernaculars an obscure nasal, ‘n,’ is often used as a final.

gll

But none of these usages perfectly corresponds to the Dravidian nasa-

e

lisation referred to under the first and second heads.

In the third

uof

class of instances, the Dravidian usage bears a close resemblance to

bo,

the Indo-European.

In the seventh class of Sanscrit verbal roots, a

ord

nasal is inserted in the special tenses, so as to coalesce with a final

oD

dental, e.g., ‘nid,” fo revile, becomes ‘nindati, ke reviles.

Compare

(4%

also the root ‘uda,” water, with its derivative root ‘und,’ to be wet.

A

1l fo

In Latin we

similar nasalisation is found both in Latin and Greek.

find the unaltered root in the preterite, and a nasalised form in the

ther'

present: e.g., compare ¢ scidi’ with ¢ seindo;’ ¢ cubui’ with ‘cumbo ;

‘n,

‘tetigi’ with ‘tango; ‘fregi’ with ‘frango.

Compare also the

nOf

Latin ¢centum, with the Greek °é-xarov.’

In Greek, compare the

d

roots ‘ ua® and ‘AaB, with the nasalised forms of those roots found

| nﬂt

K

B IR 205 T e

130

SOUNDS.

in the present tense, e.g., ¢ pav0-avw.’ to learn, and NappB-dvw, to take.

The principle of euphonic nasalisation contained in these Sanserit,

Greek, and Latin examples, though not perfectly identical with the

Dravidian usage, corresponds to it in a remarkable degree.

The dif-

ference consists in this, that in the Indo-European languages the inser-

tion of ‘n’ is purely euphonic, whereas in Tamil it contributes to gram-

matical expression.

The consonant to which ‘n’ is prefixed by neuter

verbs, is deprived of the ‘n,’ and also hardened and doubled, by

transitives.

PrEvENTION OF ‘H1ATUS.—An examination of the means employed

in the Dravidian langnages to prevent hiatus between concurrent

vowels, will bring to light some analogies with the Indo-Kuropean

languages, especially with the Greek.

In Sanserit, and all other languages in which negation is effected

by the use of ¢alpha privative,” when this ‘a’ is followed by a vowel,

o)

‘m

is added to it to prevent Aiatus, and ‘a’ becomes ‘an, ‘in, or

¢

un

’

In the Latin and Germanic languages, this ‘n,” which was used

at first euphonically, has become an inseparable part of the privative

particles, ¢in’ or ‘un.’

In the greater number of the Indo-European

languages, this is almost the only conjuncture of vowels in which Aiatus

In Sansecrit and

'l%;

is prevented by the insertion of an euphonic ‘n.’

PAli, ‘n’ is also used for the purpose of preventing hiatus between the

¢

final base-vowels of nouns or pronouns and their case terminations, in

order that the vowels of the base may escape elision or corruption, and

be preserved pure.

In some instances (a probably older) ¢ m’ is used

for this purpose, instead of ‘n.’

This usage is unknown in the cog-

nate languages, with the exception of the use of ‘n’ between the

11§

vowel of the base and the termination of the genitive plural in the

\(

Zend and the Old High German.

iy

It is in Greek that the use of ‘n,” to prevent Aiatus, has been most

n

fully developed : for whilst in Sanserit contiguous vowels are combined

or changed, so that Asatus is unknown, in Greek, in which vowels are

tly

2

th

more persistent, ‘n

is used to prevent Aiatus between contiguous

I

vowels, and that not only when they belong to the same word, but also,

and still more, when they belong to different words.

b

On turning our attention to the Dravidian languages, we may

be

chance at first sight to observe nothing which resembles the system now

tlo

mentioned.

In Tamil and Canarese, and generally in the Dravidian

lan

languages, hiatus between contiguous vowels is prevented by the use

bl

of ‘v

pr oy,

Vowels are never combined or changed in the Drévi-

hig

dian languages, as in Sanserit, except in the case of compounds which

lig

PREVENTION OF ¢ HIATUS.

1

3

£

31

have been borrowed directly from the Sanserit itself ; nor are final

vowels elided in these languages before words commencing with a

vowel, with the exception of some short finals, which are considered

as mere vocalisations,

In Telugu and Canarese, a few other unimportant vowels are occa-

sionally elided. Ordinarily, however, for the sake of ease of pronun-

ciation, and in order to the retention of the agglutinative structure

which is natural to these languages, all vowels are preserved pure and

pronounced separately : but as ‘hiatus’ is dreaded with peculiar

intensity, the awkwardness of concurrent vowels is avoided by the

interposition of ‘v’ or ¢y, between the final vowel of one word and

the initial vowel of the succeeding one. The rule of the Tamil, which

in most particulars is the rule of the Canarese also, is that ‘v’ is used

after the vowels ‘a,’ ‘u,’ and ‘o, with their long vowels, and ¢au,’

|

and that ‘y’ is used after ‘i, ‘e, with their long vowels, and “ei.” Thus

in Tamil, ¢ vara illei,” 2ot come, is written and pronounced ¢ vara-(v)-

illei, and ¢vari-alla,’ (it is) wot the way, becomes ° vari-(y)-alla.’

i

This use of ‘v, in one conjunction of vowels, and of oy

another, is doubtless a result of the progressive refinement of the lan-

gnage. Originally, we may be sure that one consonant alone was used

1S

for this purpose. These euphonic insertions of ‘v’ and ¢ vy’ between

i

contiguous vowels are observed in the common conversation of

I3

Drévidians, as well as in written compositions; and they are found

1n

even in the barbarous dialects : e.g., in the Ku, which was reduced to

1

writing only a few years ago, ‘v’ may optionally be used for euphony,

ol

as in Tamil. Thus in Ku, one may say either ¢4alu, she, or ¢4(v)alu.’

Iig

This insertion of ‘v’ or ‘y, takes place, not only when a word termi-

he

nating with a vowel is followed by a word beginning with another

he

vowel, but also (as in Sanscrit) between the final vowels of substan-

tives and the initial vowels of their case terminations: e.g., ¢ puli-(y)-il,;’

st

wn the tamarind, ¢ pila-(v)-il,’ in the jack. The use of ‘alpha priva-

ed

tive’ to produce negation being unknown to the Dravidian languages,

916

there is nothing in any of them which corresponds to the use of ¢ an,

)us

“in,’ or “un’ privative, instead of ‘a,’ in the Indo-European languages,

50,

before words beginning with a vowel.

Hitherto the only analogy which may have appeared to exist

16y

between the Drividian usage and the Greek, in respect of the preven-

0W

tion of Aiatus, consists in the use of ‘v’ or ‘y,” by the Dréavidian

a0

languages as an euphonic copula.

use

As soon as we enter upon the examination of the means by whick

ﬁw.

huatus is prevented in Telugu, a real and remarkable analogy comes to

el

light ; for in many instances, where the Tamil uses ‘v, the Telugu,

K 2

132

SOUNDS.

like the Greek‘, uses ‘n

By one of the two classes into which alk

2

is used to

words are arranged in Telugu for euphonic purposes, ‘y

prevent Aiatus when the succeeding word begins with a vowel; by the

other, a very numerous class, ‘n’ is used, precisely as in Greek. Thus,

instead of ‘tinnagd égenu, ¢ went slowly, the Telugu requires us to

say ‘tinnaga-(n)-égenu.’

When ‘n’ is used in Telugu to prevent

hiatus, it is called ¢druta, and words which admit of this euphonic

appendage are called ‘druta prakrits, words of the ‘druta’ class.

‘ Druta’ is used in the sense of extra, and ¢ the druta n’ may be in-

terpreted as ‘the extra n, or ‘the n which has no meaning of its

own.” The other class of words consists of those which use ¢y’ instead

of ‘n, or prevent elision in the Sanscrit manner, by ‘sandhi,” or com-

bination. Such words are called the ‘cala’ class, and the rationale of

their prefering ‘y’ to ‘n’ was first pointed out by Mr. Brown. When-

ever ‘n’ (or its equivalent, ‘ni’ or ‘nu’) could have a meaning of its

own, e.g., wherever it could be supposed to represent the copulative

conjunction, ‘ni’ or ‘nu,’ or the case sign of the accusative or the loca-

tive, there its use is inadmissible, and either ¢y’ or ‘sandhi’ must be

used instead. Hence, there is no difference in principle between n’

and ‘y; for the latter is used in certain cases instead of the former,

merely for the purpose of preventing misapprehension; and it can

scarcely be doubted that both letters were originally identical in origin

and in use, like ‘v’ and ‘y,” in Tamil.

The Telugu ‘n’ directly cor-

responds to the Tamil ‘v

Compare the Tel., ‘r4-(n)-é lédu,” (he,

she, or it) has not come indeed, with the Tam,, ¢ vara-(v)-é illei.’

Even in Tel.,

0]

is replaced by ‘v, after the emphatic ‘é

e.g., ‘A-ast’-6-(v)-8&, that very property. After ‘e, the Tamil requires

<

y’ instead of ‘v.’

An euphonic peculiarity of the Telugu may here

be noticed.

‘ni’ or ‘nu, the equivalents of ‘n,’ are used euphonically

between the final vowel of any word belonging to the ‘druta’ class

(the class which uses ‘n’ to prevent hiatus) and the hard, surd initial

consonant of the succeeding word—which initial surd is at the same

time converted into its corresponding sonant.

They may also be

optionally used before any initial consonant, provided always that the

word terminating in a vowel to which they are affixed, belongs to the

class referred to.

It is deserving of notice, that in this conjunction

‘ni’ or ‘nu’ may be changed into that form of ‘m’ (the Telugu

¢ anuswara’) which coalesces with the succeeding consonant.

I regard ‘n’ as the original form of this euphonic copula of the

Telugu, and ‘y,’ as a softening of the same.

An undoubted and

independent instance of this softening process is seen in the change

o

of the Telugu copulative particle, nu,

and, into ¢ yu,’ in certain

s P

},’liEVEN’l‘IOl;I OF © HIATUS.

133

t:onjunctic'ms in the higher dialect of the language. This word has

been softened still further in Canarese into ¢

u

A

0,*

In the Sanserit of

the Vedas also, “ y’ is often used euphonically instead of ‘n, between

base vowels and case terminations.

That ‘nu’ was the original of

[4

K

yu,

not conversely ‘yu’ the original of ‘nu,” appears from the con-

Another instance

nection of ‘nu’ with its Tamil equivalent ‘um.

of this interchange of ‘um’ and ‘nu,” has already been pointed out

in the identity of the ‘nu’ of the Telugu aorist, and the ‘um’ of the

Tamil aoristic future.

It has been mentioned that ‘v

)

and ‘y’ are the letters which are

used in Tamil for preventing hiatus, where ‘n’ and ‘y’ are used by

the Telugu.

On examining more closely the forms and inflexions of

the classical Tamil, we shall find reason for advancing a step farther ;

inasmuch as in Tamil also ‘n’ is used instead of v’ in a considerable

number of instances, especially in the pronominal terminations of

verbs in the classical dialect.

Thus, the neuter plural demonstrative

being ‘avei’ (for ‘a-(v)-a, from a-a’), we should expect to find the

same ‘a-(v)-ei,” or the older ‘a-(v)-a,” in the third person plural neuter

of verbs: but we find ‘a-(n)-a’ instead; v.e, we find the hiatus of

I‘,

‘a-a’ filled up with ‘n’ instead of ‘v e.g., “ irukkindra(n)a, they are

il

(neuter), instead of ‘irukkindra(v)a.

So also, whilst in the separate

demonstratives ‘avan,” ke, and ‘avar, they (epicene), the hiatus is

r-

filled up with ‘v’ (‘a-(v)-an, ‘a-(v)-ar’), in the pronominal termina-

6

tions of verbs in the classical dialect we find “a-(n)-an’ often used

instead of ‘a-(v)-an,’ and ‘a-(n)-ar’ instead of ‘a-(v)-ar:’ e.g., ‘irunda-

(n)an,’ ke was, instead of ‘irunda(v)an,” or its ordinary contraction

¢irundan.’

es

We sometimes also find the same ‘n”’ in the neuter plural

{7

of appellative nouns in the classical dialect ; e.g., porula(n)a,” things

that are real, realities, instead of ‘porula(v)a,’ or simply ‘porula.’ We

y

b

find the same use of ‘n’ to prevent hiatus in the preterites and relative

al

past participles of a large number of Tamil verbs; e.g., ‘kitti(n)én, 7

showed, ‘katti(n)a,” which showed : in which forms the ‘n’ which comes

16

be

between the preterite participle ¢ katti’ and the terminations ‘én’ and

9

2

he

is clearly used (as ‘v, in ordinary cases) to prevent hiatus.

The

he

euphonic character of the ‘n’ of ‘na,” whatever be its origin (respecting

which see the section on Verbs,—Preterite tense), is conformed by the

00

ol

circumstance that ‘n’ optionally changes in classical Tamil into ¢ Vit

e.g., we may say, ‘katti(y)a, that showed, instead of ¢katti(n)a.

the

* According to this view of the case, the connection between the Canarese

particle of conjunction, ‘i, and the copulative conjunction, ‘u,” which is found

d

in the Védas, and also the '’ of the Semitic languages, will appear to be

¢

u

of the

i

accidental rather than real; for we have no reason to suppose the

;aill

Sanscrit and the ‘0’ of the Hebrew to be softened forms of *um,” ‘mu,’ or ‘nu.’

134

SOUNDS.

Another instance of the use of ‘n’ in Tamil for the prevention of

kiatus, is furnished by the numerals. The compound numerals between

‘ten’ and ‘twenty’ are formed by the combination of the word for

‘ten’ with each numeral in rotation.

The Tamil word for ten is

“pattu;’ but ‘padu’ is used in the numerals above twenty, and ‘padi,’

identical with the Telugu word for ‘ten, is used in the numerals from

eleven to eighteen inclusive. Between this ‘padi’ and the units which

follow, each of which, with the exception of ‘mfindru,” three, and

i

‘nalu,’ four, commences with a vowel, ‘n

is inserted for the preven-

tion of hiatus, where the modern Tamil would have used ¢v.’

The

euphonic character of this Tamil ‘n’ will appear on comparing the

Tamil numerals with those of the Telugu, in most of which ‘h’ is used

instead of ‘n:’—e.g.,

TeLvGU.

TAMIL.

15

padi-(h)-énu

padi-(n)-eindu

16

padi-(h)-dru

padi-(n)-4ru

17

padi-(h)-édu

padi-(n)-éru

In the Tamil compound numeral, ‘padi-(n)-mindru, thirteen, we find

the same ‘n’ used as in the previous examples, though there is no

f

hiatus to be prevented. The Telugu has here ¢ pada-midu ; the Cana-

I

rese, ‘hadi-muru ;' and as the Canarese uses ‘n,’ like the Tamil, in all

h

the other compound numbers between ‘eleven’ and ‘eighteen’ inclu-

sive, and dispenses with it here, I think it is to be concluded, that in

the Tamil ¢ padi(n)mundru,’ the ‘n’ has crept in through the influence

of the numerals on each side of it, and in accordance with the euphoniec

tendencies of the language in general.

1]

We have an indubitable instance of the use of ‘n,” even in common

(3

Tamil, to prevent hiatus,in appellative nouns ending in ¢ ei : e.g., when

‘A

an appellative noun is formed {rom ‘ilei,” youtk, or young, by annexing

14

d

an, the sign of the masc. sing., the compound is not ‘ilei-(y)-an,’

8]

but ¢ilei-(fij)-an’ or even ‘ilei-(n)-an.’

‘nj’ is merely a more liquid

da

form of ‘n,” and in Malayalam regularly replaces ‘n’ in the pronoun

X

of the tirst person.

Probably also ‘manér,” the epicene plural of the

U

future tense of the Tamil verb in some of the poets, is for ‘ma-ar ;

e.g., ‘enma-(n)-ar, they will say, for ‘enmér,” and that for ‘enbar, the

more common form.

Pa

the

There is thus reason to suppose, that originally the Tamil agreed

U

with the Telugu in using a nasal instead of a semi-vowel, to keep

contiguous vowels separate.

It may be objected that ‘n’ evinces no

tendency to change into v.’

I admit this; but if we suppose ‘m,” not

fur

sing

‘n,’ to have been the nasal which was originally employed for this

qua

.

-

e

———

PREVENTION OF ¢ HIATUS.

135

purpose, every difficulty will disappear, for ‘m’ readily changes on the

one hand to ‘v,” and on the other to ‘n.’ Nor is it a merely gratuitous

supposition that the Telugu may have used ‘m’ at a former period

instead of ‘n,’ for we have already noticed that ‘ni’ or ‘nu,” the

euphonic equivalents of ‘n,” are interchangeable in certain conjunctions

with the ‘anuswara’ or assimilating ‘m;’ that in two important instances

(the copulative particle and the aorist formative) the ‘n’ of the

Telugu replaces an older ‘m’ of the Tamil; and that in Sanscrit

also, instead of the ‘n’ which is ordinarily inserted between certain

pronominal bases and their case-terminations, an older ‘m’ is some-

times employed.

It may also be noticed that the ‘ni’ or ‘nu,” which

may be considered as the euphonic suffix of the accusative in Telugu,

is replaced in Old Canarese by ‘m.’

The reader cannot fail to have observed that whilst the Dravidian

languages accord to a certain extent with the Sanscrit in the point

which has now been discussed, they accord to a much larger extent,

with the Greek, and in one particular (the prevention of hiatus

between the contiguous vowels of separate words) with the Greek alone.

It is impossible to suppose that the Dravidian languages horrowed

this usage from the Sanscrit, seeing that it occupies a much less

important place in the Sanscrit than in the Dravidian languages, and

has been much less fully developed.

It should be mentioned here that the letter ‘r’ is in some instances

used to prevent hiatus in each of the Dravidian idioms.

In Tamil, ‘ki,’ the imperative singular of the verb fo preserve,

becomes in the plural, not ¢ka-(v)-um,” but ‘ka-(r)-um.” The Canarese

in certain cases inserts ‘r’ or ‘ar’ between the crude noun and the

case terminations, instead of the more common ‘v, ‘n, or ‘d; eg.,

¢ karid’-ar-a,” of that which is black. The Telugu inserts ‘r’ in a more

distinctively euphonic manner between certain nouns and ‘alu,’ the

suffix by which the feminine gender is sometimes denoted; e.g., ‘sun-

daru-(r)-alu,” a handsome woman.

Compare the latter with the Tamil

¢ soundariya-(v)-al,” in which the same separation is effected by the

use of the more common euphonic ‘v.’

The ¢d’ which intervenes between the ‘i’ of the preterite verbal

participle and the suffixes of many Canarese verbs (e.g., ‘madi-(d)-a,’

that did), though probably in its origin a sign of the preterite, is now

|

used simply as an euphonic insertion.

¢This ‘d’ becomes invariably

‘n’ in Telugu and Tamil; and in Tamil it is sometimes softened

’

further into ‘y

“t’ is stated to be used in Telugu for a

b

similar purpose, viz., to prevent hiatus between certain nouns of

quality and the nouns which are qualified by them; e.g., ¢ karaku-t-

136

SOUNDS.

ammu,” a sharp arrow, but I have no doubt that this ‘t’ is identical

with ‘ti

and originally an inflexional particle

‘g

18

m

sSome

instances, used by the Telugu to prevent hiatus, or at least as an

J

o b

euphonic formative, where the Tamil would prefer to use

the

rational’ plural noun of number, siz persons, may either be

he, for

vadu

1S

aru(g)ur-u, or ‘aru(v)ur-

probably ¢kadu

another instance of the optional use of ‘g’ for ¢

in Telugu

It

is used euphonically, instead of the ¢y’ euphonic of the Tamil, in such

words as ¢ tandri-(g)-ar-u,

Jathers (used honorifically to signify

Jather), compared with the Tamil ¢tandei-(y)-ar

HarmoNic SEQUENCE oF Vowers.—In all the languages of the

Scythian group (Finnish, Turkish, Mongolian, Manchu), but especially

in Manchu, a law has been observed, which may be called ¢the law

of harmonic sequence

The law is, that a given vowel occurring in

one syllable of a word, or in the root, requires an analogous vowel

i.e., a vowel belonging to the same set (of which sets there are in the

4

Turkish four) in the following syllables of the same word or in the

n

particles appended to it, which, therefore, alter their vowels accord-

al

ingly. This rule, of which some traces remain even in the modern

Persian, appears to pervade all the Scythian languages; and has been

e

regarded as a confirmation of the theory that all those langu'mes have

by

sprung from a common 011g1n

fr

In Telugu a similar law of attraction, or harmonic sequence, is

0

found to exist

The range of its operation is restricted to two vowels

“Sitcsand Ea

but in principle it appears to be identical with the

t

Scythian law,

u’ being changed into ‘i, and

mto ‘u

according

th

to the nature of the preceding vowel

Thus the copulative particle is

of

fona

after ‘i

9

{4k X3

1,

el;

and ‘nu’ after ‘u’ and the other vowels

la

¢ ku,’ the sign of the dative case, becomes in like manner ‘ki’ after

ig

£

LI Y

and ‘ei

1,

lay

In the above mentioned instances it is the vowels of the appended

()'I'a

particles which are changed through the attraction of the vowels of

the words to which they are suffixed: but in a large number of cases

lay

the suffixed particles retain their own vowels, and draw the vowels

dey

of the verb or noun to which they are suffixed, as also the vowels of

oth

any particles that may be added to them, into harmony with them-

eu}

selves

Thus, the Telugu pluralising termination or suffix being ¢lu

€39

the plural of katti) a knife, would naturally be ‘kattilu; but the

tey.

vowel of the suffix is too powerful for that of the base, and accord-

Ing;

ingly the plural becomes kattulu.” So also, whilst the singular dative

Dra

s ¢ katti-ki,” the dative plural i

not ¢ kattila-ki

but ¢ kattula-ku;

B Iy

HARMONIC SEQUENCE,

13

=

{

eal

for “la,’ the plural inflexion, has the same power as the pluralising

0me

particle ‘lu’ to convert ‘katti’ into ‘kattu, besides being able to

Al

change ‘ki,’ the dative post-position of the singular, into ¢ku.’

€l

In the inflexion of verbs, the most influential particles in Telugu

' be

are those which are marks of time, and by suffixing which the tenses

1§

are formed. Through the attraction of those particles, not only the

It

vowels of the pronominal fragments which are appended to them, but

such

even the secondary vowels of the verbal root. itself, are altered into

nify

harmony with the vowel of the particle of time.

Thus, from

¢ kalugu,” o be able, ‘du,’ the aorist particle, and ‘nu,’ the abbrevia-

tion of the pronoun ‘nénu,’ 7, is formed the aorist first person singular

the

‘kalugu-du-nu,” 7 am able.

On the other hand, the past verbal par-

fally

ticiple of ‘kalugu,” is not ‘ kalugi’ but ‘kaligi,” through the attraction

law

of the final ‘i’—the characteristic of the tense; and the preterite

it

of the first person singular is not ¢kalugi-ti-nu,” but ¢ kaligi-ti-ni.’

el

Thus the verbal root ‘kalu’ becomes ¢ kali; ‘nu,’ the abbreviation of

‘nénu,” becomes ‘ni

;. an

K

the

d both have by these changes been brought

the

into harmony with ti,’ an intermediate particle, which is probably an

cord

ancient sign of the preterite.

pdern

This remarkable law of the Telugu phonstic system evidently

been

accords with the essential principles of the law of harmonic sequence

have

by which the Scythian languages are characterised, and differs widely

from the prevailing usage of the Indo-European languages.

The

e, 15

change which is apparent in the pronominal terminations of the

various tenses of the Telugu verb (e.g., ‘nu’ in the first person of

owels

h ¢

he

the present tense, ‘ni’ in the preterite), have been compared with

the variation in Greek and Latin of the pronominal terminations

pdin

(;]e 1§

of the verb according to the temse: but the change in Greek and

wels

Latin arises merely from euphonic corruption; whereas the Dravi-

dian change takes place in accordance with a regular fixed phonic

af

fer

law, the operation of which is still apparent in every part of the

grammar.

onded

Though I have directed attention only to the examples of this

el of

(2865

law which are furnished by the Telugu, in which it is most fully

developed, traces of its existence could easily be pointed out in the

oW 6]5

other dialects.

Js of

Thus in the Canarese verbal inflexions, the final

jels 0

them

euphonic or enuntiative vowel of the personal pronouns is ‘u,’ ‘e, or

‘1" according to the character of the preceding vowel; e.g., ‘madut-

ol

it the

tév-e, we do, ‘maduttir-i, ye dg ¢ madidev-u,’ we did.

If in the

means employed to prevent hiatus between contiguous vowels, the

LCCOTd

Dravidian languages appeared to have been influenced by Indo-

dative

Euaropean usages, still more decided traces of Scythian influences and

k0

138

SOUNDS.

influene

a Scythian relationship may be noticed in the phonetic law now

mentioned.

but also

The rep

it must

PriNcipLEs oF SyLLABATION.—The chief peculiarity of Dravidian

syllabation is its extreme simplicity and dislike of compound or

(ven

concurrent consonants; and this peculiarity characterizes the Tamil,

nting u

the most early cultivated member of the family, in a more marked

Sanserit

degree than any other Dravidian language.

nstead ¢

In Telugu, Canarese, and Malayalam, the great majority of primi-

rpim:i

tive Dravidian words, 4.e., words which have not been derived from

the Tan

Sanserit or altered through Sanscrit influences, and in Tamil all words

(gh)), 0

without exception, including even Sanscrit derivatives, are divided

asthe §

into syllables on the following plan.

Double or treble consonants at

“diya, ¢

the beginning of syllables, like ¢str’ in ‘strength,” are altogether inad-

Anot

missible.

At the beginning not only of the first syllable of every

of an up

word, but also of every succeeding syllable, only one consonant is

formeq ;

allowed.

If in the middle of a word of several syllables, one syllable

Consonar

ends with a consonant, and the succeeding one commences with

issuffixe

another consonant, the concurrent consonants must be euphonically

‘aprayj

assimilated, or else a vowel must be inserted between them. At the

L

counclusion of a word, double and treble consonants, like ‘gth’ in

4gluting

‘strength,” are as inadmissible as at the beginning: and every word

Very vl

must terminate, in Telugu and Canarese, in a vowel ; in Tamil, either

hnguage

in a vowel or in a single semi-vowel, as ‘1’ or ‘r,’ or in a single

simple,

nasal, as- ‘a’or'‘m.’

It is obvious that this plan of syllabation is

of enup,

extremely unlike that of the Sanserit.

son,

The only double consonants which can stand together in the

The |

middle of a word in Tamil without an intervening vowel, are as

Peﬂmps, |

follows.

2

The various nasals, ‘ng,’ “fij,’ ‘n, ‘n,

and ‘m, may

('IHSS arp

precede the sonant of the ‘varga’ to which they belong; and hence,

thO 0ng §

‘1ij-8 ‘n-d, ‘n-d, ‘m-b,” may concur; also ‘ngng,’ ‘njnj,’

Stl'ength a

¢ ng",g;’

S,

‘nn

‘mm,” ‘nm,” and ‘nm: the doubled surds ‘kk, ‘chch,’

Tacterigtj,

‘t.t.,’ ‘tt,” ¢pp, ‘1l ‘RR’ (pronounced ‘ttr’): also ‘tk’ and ‘tp;

¥ Whic}

¢rk, ‘mreh,” and ‘®rp; ‘yy, ‘Il ‘vv; and finally ‘nr, pronounced

rfividian

‘ndr

The only treble consonants which can coalesce in Tamil under

gfﬂppling

any circumstances, are the very soft, liquid omes, ‘rnd’ and ¢§nd.

Tat}]er th

Tamilian laws of sound allow only the above mentioned consonants

SO]]{«mts ;

to stand together in the middle of words without the intervention of g

vowel.

All other consonants must, be assimilated, that is, the first

of the n

must be made the same as the second, or else a vowel must be

eﬂ“emmam

inserted between them to render each capable of being pronounced by

Tamilian organs.

In the other Dravidian dialects, through the

Wl]ils[

10p tha:t

PRINCIPLES OF SYLLABATION.

139

10w

influence of the Sanserit, nasals are combined, not with sonants only,

but also with surds; e.g., ¢ pamp-u,” Tel., to send, ¢ ent-u,” Can., eight.

The repugnance of the Tamil to this practice is so very decided, that

dian

it must be concluded to be Un-Dravidian.

d or

Generally ‘i’ is the vowel which is used for the purpose of sepa-~

aml,

rating unassimilable consonants, as appears from the manner in which

rked

Sanserit derivatives are Tamilised.

Sometimes

!

is employed

instead of ¢i.

K

Thus the Sanscrit preposition ‘pra’ is changed into

rimi-

‘pira’ in the compound derivatives which have been borrowed by

from

the Tamil; whilst ¢ Krishna’ becomes ¢ Kiruttina-n’ (‘tt’ instead of

<)

words

‘sh’), or even ¢ Kittina-n.

Even such soft conjunctions of consonants

vided

as the Sanscrit ‘dya,” ‘dva, ‘gya, &c., are separated in Tamil into

ts ab

‘diya,’ ‘diva,’ and °giya.’

nad-

Another rule of Tamil syllabation is, that when the first consonant

every

of an unassimilable double consonant is separated from the second and

ant 18

formed into a syllable by the intervention of a vowel, every such

Jlable

consonant (not being a semi-vowel) must be doubled before the vowel

with

issuffixed. Thus, ‘tatva,’ Sans., nature, becomes in Tamil ‘tat(t)uva ;

ically

‘aprayodjana, wunprofitable, ‘ap(p)iraydsana.’

\t the

In consequence of these peculiarities of syllabation and the

h' in

agglutinative structure of its inflexions, the Tamil language appears

very verbose and lengthy when compared with the Sanscrit and the

word

either

languages of Europe.

Nevertheless, each syllable being exceedingly

simple, and the great majority of the syllables being short, rapidity

single

fion 18

of enunciation is made to compensate for the absence of compres-

sion.

The mental physiology of the different races may be illustrated,

n the

a6, 43

perhaps, by their languages.

The langvages of the Indo-European

class are fond of combining clashing consonants, and welding them

Ay

into one syllable by sheer force of enunciation ; and it is certain that

strength and directness of character and scorn of difficulties are cha-

g Ilj Uj)’

¢cheh,

racteristics not only of the Indo-European langunages, but of the races

by which those languages are spoken.

On the other hand, the

] ‘s

Dravidian family of languages prefers softening difficulties away to

munced

grappling with them; it aims at ease and softness of enunciation

| und@l‘

rather than impressiveness: multiplying vowels, separating con-

4 i}nd,,

sonants, assimilating differences of sound, and lengthening out its

sonants

words by successive agglutinations, it illustrates the characteristics

o0 of 8

of the races by which it is spoken by the soft, sweet, garrulous

ho first

effeminancy of its utterances.

st be

Whilst the syllabation of the Dravidian languages differs widely

el by

from that of the Indo-European and Semitic families of tongues, it

[gh thB

140

SOUNDS.

tion o

exhibits many points of resemblance to the system of the Scythian

anothy

group, and especially to that of the Finnish or Ugrian family.

The Finnish, the Hungarian, and other languages of the same

Tam,

a8

stock, allow of only one consonant at the beginning of a syllable.

When foreign words which begin with two consonants are pro-

differe

TECUTT

nounced by a Magyar, the consonants are separated by the insertion

Where the first con-

of a vowel; eg., ‘kral’ becomes ¢ kiraly.

sonant is a sibilant, it is formed into a distinet syllable by a prefixed

In

vowel ; e.g., ‘schola’ becomes ¢iskola.’

How perfectly in accordance

with Tamil this is, is known to every European resideut in Southern

1ent

which

India who has heard the natives speak of establishing, or sending

The same peculiarity has

when

their children to, an English *iskool.”

been discovered in the language of the Scythic tablets of Behistun.

that ¢

the g

In rendering the word ‘Sparta’ into Scythian, the translator is found

to have written it with a preceding ‘i; e.g., ¢ Isparta,” precisely as it

pensat

would be written in the present day in Magyar or in Tamil.

dian

plura,

I do not suppose the Tamilian system of separating contiguous

consonants by a vowel to be older than the Indo-European system of

of a (i

1ouns ¢

combining them into one syllable.

On the contrary, many of the

lexical affinities which will be found in the section of ‘Roots’ and in

illg to !

the ¢ Glossarial Affinities, appear to me to prove that the Dravi-

they he

shoulq

dian roots were originally monosyllabic, and that the tendency to

separate consonants by the insertion of a vowel, was not a charac-

TQ\ugu

teristic of the older speech, whatever it may have been, from which

2 (:hang

the Dravidian family branched off. The inference which I draw is,

Second

that as a similar phonetic peculiarity appears in the Ugrian family

the fy

of languages, and is found in the Behistun tablets to have been a

disgyl

characteristic of the oldest Scythian tongue of which written records

If]m’ ¢

1

y

survive, the Dravidian languages probably claim kindred rather with

Sllﬂig g

the Scythian group than with the Indo-European.

d8~cnbe(

Minor DiALeEcTiC PECULIARITIES.—

‘d

iy’

1. Euphonic displacement of Consonants.

Mag

In the Dravidian languages, consonants are sometimes found to

€4, “uy

change places, through haste or considerations of euphony.

OPalu 1

We have an example of this in the Tamil ‘tasei,’ flesh, which by

A\ §

a displacement of consonants, and a consequent change of the surd

brOUU‘ht 1

into the sonant, has become °gsadel.

¢ kudirei,” @ korse, is in this

It g

o

manner often pronounced by the vulgar in the Tamil country ‘kuridei:’

are fmm(

and looking at the root-syllable of the Telugu word, ¢ gur-ram,” it is

)

1y

hard to decide whether ‘kuridei’ or ‘kudirei’ is to be regarded as

‘lﬂdu P

£x

the true Dravidian original.

In many instances, through the opera-

MINOR DIALECTIC PECULIARITIES.

141

eythiat .

tion of this displacement, we find one form of a word in Tamil, and

another, considerably different, in Telugu or Canarese. Thus, ¢ koppul,’

e same

Tam., the navel, is in Telugu ‘pokkili; and ‘padar,” Tam., to spread

syllable.

as a creeper, is in Canarese ¢parad-u.’

In comparing words in the

ate pro-

different dialects, it is always necessary to bear in mind the frequent

nsertion

recurrence of this displacement.

st con-

2. Euphonic displacement of Vowels.

preﬁxed

cordance

In Telugu we find many instances of a still more curious displace-

ment of vowels.

Southern

This displacement occurs most commonly in words

which consist of three short syllables beginning with a vowel ; and

sending

rity has

when it occurs, we find that the second vowel has disappeared, and

Behistun,

that the first vowel has migrated from the beginning of the word to

i found

the second syllable, and at the same time been lengthened to com-

sely as I

pensate for the vowel that is lost.

I take as an example the Dravi-

dian demonstrative pronouns, remote and proximate; and I select the

plural, rather than the singular, to get rid of the disturbing element

ntignous

of a difference which exists in the formatives.

gitem of

In Tamil those pro-

nouns are ‘avar,’ they, remote ; and ‘ivar,’ they, proximate, correspond-

y of the

O qnd 0

ing to “4lli’ and *he’

The Canarese adds ‘u’ to each word, so that

they become ‘avaru’ and ‘ivaru.’

e Dr&\l

By analogy this is the form we

should expect to find in Telugu also; but on examination, we find in

Jency 10

g charac-

Telugu ‘véaru’ instead of ‘avaru, and ‘virn’ instead of ©ivaru;

a change which has evidently been produced by the rejection of the

om which

second vowel, and the substitution for it of a lengthened form of

[ draw iS,

the first.

40 family

The neuter demonstrative pronouns of the Telugu being

dissyllables, there is no displacement in their nominatives (¢adi,’

e bee &

that, ¢idi,’ this, corresponding closely to the Tamil ‘adu,’ ‘1dui);

1 records

ther with

but when they become trisyllables by the addition of the inflexional

suffix ‘ni] we find a displacement similar to that which has been

described : e.g., “ adini,’ 4 or of it, becomes ¢ dni,’ and ¢idini’ becomes

¢dini.

Many ordinary substantives undergo in Telugu a similar change;

e.g., ‘ural, Tamil, @ mortar, pronounced ¢ oral,” should by analogy be

g fOuﬂd tU

‘oralu’ in Telugu; but instead of ‘oralu’ we find ¢ rolu.’

As soon as this peculiar law of the displacement of vowels is

,7 wllich bV

brought to light, a large number of Telugu words and forms which at

fhe S‘“‘ld

first sight appear to be widely different from the Tamil and Canarese,

1 10 th]s

are found to be the same or but slightly altered.

Thus ¢kadu,” Tel.,

; Lkul'idei :

it will not be, or it is not, is found to be the same as the Tamil ¢ Agadu;’

'I'ﬂm; i s

“lédu,’ there is mot, corresponds to the Tamil ‘illadu:’ and by an

el

extension of a similar rule to monosyllables, we find 15, Tel., within,

fhe 0P

142

SOUNDS.

As

to be identical with ‘ul,” Tam.; and ‘nu,” Tel., the copulative particle,

to be identical with ‘um, Tam.

be dist

vowel

A similar rule of displacement appears in the Tulu, though in

Intrans

a less degree.

syllablg

3. Rejection of Radical Consonants.

18 upon

The Telugu evinces a tendency to reject or soften away consonants

I8 mor

in the middle of words, even though such consonants should belong to

verh 1

the root, not to the formative.

Thus, ¢neruppu,” Tamil, fire, is

i, Th

softened into ‘nippu; ‘elumbu,’ @ bone, into ‘emmu ; ‘udal’ (pro-

of the

nounced ‘odal’); body, into ollu ; ¢ porudu,’ ¢ime, into ¢ poddu ;’ ‘erudu,’

second

an oz, into ‘eddu; ‘marundu,’ medicine, into ¢ mandu.’

Princip

Something similar to this process takes place, but not so systema-

the mg

tically, in vulgar colloquial Tamil.

Tests ¢

In a few instances, on the other hand, the Telugu appears to have

henee j

retained a radical letter which has disappeared from the Tamil.

For

tw0 ace

example, if we search for the origin of ¢odu,’ with, together with, the

The

suffix of the Tamil conjunctive case, no trace of its origin is apparent

in Tamil.

in the

On examining the Telugu, we find that the corresponding

Tani]

suffix is ‘toda.’

It has already been shown that ‘d’ in Telugu cor-

2

(in egeh

responds to ‘r

in Tamil; and consequently ‘t6da’ would become in

“Ody vi,

Tamil ¢ tora.’

‘tora’ (tora-mei) is actvally contained in Tamil, and

Bven iy

means companionship; and thus by the help of the Telugu we find

(13“}' 'm

that the Tamil ¢ 6du’ and ‘tbra’ are virtually identical ; that the mean-

iy

ing of the suffix ¢6du’ exactly accords with its use ; and that there is

sty

also reason to conclude another pair of similar words to be allied, viz.,

The

“udan,’ with, a suffix of the conjunctive case in itself a noun signify-

Tariag

ing connection, and ¢ tudar,’ a verbal root, to follow, to join on.

enoteg

4, Accent.

Teanipo

It is generally stated that the Dravidian languages are destitute of

L] Hahle, |

cA?

{53

accent, and that emphasis is conveyed by the addition of the

HOHH; g

emphatic alone.

Though, however, the Dravidian languages are

pmﬂ(l!l]]ce

destitute of the Indo-Greek system of accents, the use of accent is not

e‘{/'a ‘6duv

altogether unknown to them; and the position of the Dravidian accent,

always an accute one, accords well with the agglutinative structure

of Dravidian words.

The accent is upon the first syllable of the

word, that syllable alone, in most cases, constituting the base, prior to

every addition of formatives and inflexional forms, and remaining

always unchanged. The first syllable of every word may be regarded

as the natural seat of accent; but if the word is compounded, a

secondary accent distinguishes the first syllable of the second member

of the compound.

MINOR DIALECTIC PECULIARITIES.

143

article,

As in other languages, so in the Dravidian, accent is carefully to

be distinguished from quantity; and in enunciation an accented short

ugh in

vowel is more emphatic than an unaccented long one. Thus in the

intransitive Tamil verb, ‘adangugiradu,’ 4t s contained, the second

syllable ‘ang’ is long by position ; yet the only accent is that which

sonants

is upon the first syllable ¢ad,” which, though shorter than the second,

long to

is more emphatic. Another example is furnished by the compound

verb ¢ udeind’-irukkiradu, it ¢s broken, literally Aaving been broken it

fire, 18

(2

Though in this instance the second syllable of the first word

|’ (pro-

of the compound is long, not only by position, but by nature, and the

‘erudu,

second syllable of the auxiliary word is long by position, yet the

principal accent rests upon the first syllable of the first word, ¢ud,’

systema-

the most emphatic portion of the compound, and the secondary accent

1o have

rests upon ‘ir,’ the first syllable and crude base of the auxiliary ;

hence it is pronounced ¢ tideindirukkiradu,’ every syllable, except the

1. For

two accented ones, being enunciated lightly and with rapidity.

pith, the

The general rule of the Dravidian languages which fixes the accent

pparent

in the first or root-syllable, admits of one exception. In poetical

ponding

Tamil one and the same form is used as the third person of the verb

10 oot

(in each tense, number, and gender) and as a participial noun; e.g.,

oome I

¢6duvan,” means either he will read, or one who reads, v.e. a reader.

il aud

Even in the colloquial dialect, the third person neuter singular, espe-

| W6 ﬁﬂd

cially in the future tense, is coustantly used in both senses; e.g.,

he mean-

¢oduvadu,” means either # will read, or that which will read, or

there 18

abstractedly, yet more commonly still, @ reading, or to read.

lied) Viz"

The same form being thus used in a double sense, Tamil gram-

sigﬂifY‘

marians have determined that the difference in signification should be

denoted by a difference in accent.

Thus when ‘6duvan’ is a verb,

meaning e will read, the accent is left in its natural place, on the root

syllable, e.g., ¢ 6duvan; but when it is an appellative or participial

ginte of

the ‘¢’

noun, meaning ke who reads, the pronominal termination is to be

pronounced more emphatically, that is, it becomes the seat of accent,

ages Me

e.g., ‘6duvdn.’

b i5 00

1 acceﬂfv

puctur®

le Of ﬂ]e

A PTiOr t0

vemﬂiﬂing

, regﬂ,ﬂlel

1

)u]ldedf &

| peaber

of th

faithi

word

separ

agree

famil

:

conj

SECTION IL

I

Dréy

—_——

by i

A

ROOTS.

003,

Berore proceeding to examine and compare the grammatical

every

forms of the Dravidian languages, it is desirable to examine the

100t

characteristics of Dravidian roots, and the nature of the changes

the

which are effected in them by the addition of the grammatical forms.

fo an

The manner in which various languages deal with their roots is

unkng

strongly illustrative of their essential spirit and distinctive character ;

and it is chiefly with reference to their differences in this particular,

1

that the languages of Europe and Asia admit of being arranged into

ot an

classes.

in gen

Those classes are as follows:—(1.) The monosyllabic, uncom-

a the

pounded, or isolative languages, in which roots admit of no change or

nle,

combination, and in which all grammatical relations are expressed

eithel

either by auxiliary words or phrases, or by the position of words in a

perat;

sentence. (2.) The Semitic or intro-mutative langnages, in which

Jerson

grammatical relations are expressed by internal changes in the vowels

Which

of dis_sylla,bic roots.

(8.) The agglutinative languages, in which

thoge

grammatical relations are expressed by affixes or suffixes added to the

teon

In the latter class I include both the

root or compounded with it.

A

Indo-European and the Scythian groups of tongues.

They differ,

verhy

indeed, greatly from one another in details, and that not only in their

Case VA

vocabularies, but also in their grammatical forms; yet I include them

the Con

both in one class, because they appear to agree, or to have originally

Proba]

;

agreed, in the principle of expressing grammatical relation by means

be the |

of the agglutination of auxiliary words.

The difference between

them is rather in degree than in essence.

Agreeing in original

additigr

construction, they differ considerably in development. In the highly

Stareely

cultivated languages of the Indo-European family, post-positional

gr&mma

additions have gradually been melted down into inflexions, and some-

a8 tWiIl

times even blended with the root; whilst in the less plastic languages

f ths,

o

CLASSIFICATION OF ROOTS.

145

of the Scythian group, the principle of agglutination has been more

faithfully retained, and every portion and particle of every compound

word has not only maintained its original position, but held fast its

separate individuality.

In this particular the Dravidian languages

agree in general with the Scythian; and hence in each dialect of the

family, there is, properly speaking, only one declension and one

conjugation.

I here proceed to point out the most notable peculiarities of the

Dréavidian root-system, and of the manner in which roots are affected

by inflexional combinations.

ARRANGEMENT oF DRrAvIDIAN Roors inTo Crasses.—Dravidian

roots, considered by themselves, apart from formative additions of

‘,ﬁC&l

every kind, may be arranged into the three classes of—(1.) verbal

the

roots, capable of being used also as nouns, which constitute by far

nges

the most numerous class ; (2.) Nouns which cannot be traced up

rms.

to any extant verbs; and (3.) Particles of which the origin is

s 18

unknown.

ofer;

lat,

1. Verbal Roots.—The Dravidian languages differ from the Sans-

jnto

crit and Greek, and accord with the languages of the Scythian group,

in generally using the crude root of the verb, without any addition,

com-

as the imperative of the second person singular.

This is the general

rule, and the few apparent exceptions that exist are to be regarded

1ge or

essed

either as corruptions, or as euphonic or honorific forms of the im-

perative. In a few instances, both in Tamil and in Telugu, the second

smd

hich

person singular of the imperative has cast off its final consonant,

'owels

which is generally in such cases a soft guttural or a liquid ; but in

those instances the unchanged verbal theme is found in the less used

which

to the

seeond person plural, or in the infinitive.

A considerable proportion of Dravidian roots are used either as

th the

diﬂ'el‘,

verbal themes or as nouns, without addition or alteration in either

) their

case; and the class in which they are to be placed, depends solely on

the connection.

The use of any such root as a noun may be, and

o them

probably is, derived from its use as a verb, which would appear to

gin&“)’

means

be the primary condition and use of every word belonging to this

class; but as such words, when used as nouns, are used without the

oteel

pighsl

addition of formatives or any other marks of derivation, they can

scarcely be regarded as derivatives from verbs; but in respect of

highly

qiond

grammatical form, the verb and the noun must be considered either

as twin sisters or as identical.

The following will suffice as examples

] some-

of this two-fold condition or use of the same root :—¢ karei,” Tam., as

g

L

146

ROOTS.

a verb, means to melt, to be washed away; as a noun, a bank, a shore;

“alei; Tam., as a verb, fto wander; as a noun, ¢ wave.

In these

instances it is evident that the radical meaning of the word is unre-

I

strained, and free to take either a verbal or a nominal direction.

fl

Moreover, as the Dravidian adjective is not separate from the noun,

I¢

but is generally identical with it, each root may be said to be capable

I¢

of a three-fold use; viz., (1) as a noun, (2) as an adjective, and

V]

(3) as a verb. Thus, in Tamil, ‘kad-u,’ if used as the nominative

i

of a verb, or followed by case terminations, is a noun, and means

pungency or sharpness: if it is placed before another noun for the

d

purpose of qualifying it, it becomes an adjective; e.g., ¢ kadu nadei,’

a sharp walk; < kadu vay,” the tiger, literally sharp mouth : and when

li

it is followed by verbal suffixes, it becomes a verb; e.g., ¢ kadu-kkum,’

it v or will be sharp or pungent.

With the formative addition ¢gu,’

Iy

the same root becomes ‘kadu-gu,’” mustard.

&l

In these and in all similar instances, the quantity of the root

il

vowel remains unchanged; whereas in those few instances in which

0r

the Sanscrit root is not tied to a single condition, the nominal and

W1

verbal forms differ in the quantity of their root vowel; e.g., compare

1101

‘vach-as’ (for ¢vék-as’), of speech, with ¢ vik-mi,” 7 speak.

iy

It would appear that originally there was no difference whatever

fi0g

in any instance between the verbal and the nominal form of the root

bes

in any Dravidian dialect; gradually, however, as the dialects became

he

more cultivated, and as logical distinetness was felt to be desirable, a

separation commenced to take place.

This separation was effected

to

by modifying the theme by some formative addition, when it was

W]

desired to restrict it to the one purpose alone, and prevent it from

be

being used for the other also.

whi

In many instances the theme is still used in the poetry, in accord-

othe

ance with ancient usages, indifferently either as a verb or as a noun ;

iy

but in prose more commonly as a noun only,_ or as a verb only.

Jilk}

( Vel

(2.) Nouns.—In Sanserit and the languages allied to it, all words,

of {

with the exception of a few pronouns and particles, are derived by

frog

native grammarians from verbal roots.

In the Dravidian languages

the number of nouns which are incapable of being traced up or

419

L

resolved into verbs, is more considerable.

Still such nouns bear but a

Woxg

small proportion to the entire number; and not a few which are

Iy

generally considered to be underived roots, are in reality verbal nouns

deri“

or verbal derivatives.

Many Dréavidian dissyllabic nouns have for their second syllable

“al,” a particle which is a commonly used formative of verbal nouns in

(

anq

CLASSIFICATION OF ROOTS.

147

t)

Tamil, and a sign of the infinitive in Canarese and Gond. All nouns

N

{7

of this class may safely be concluded to have sprung from verbal

)it

roots. In some instances their themes are discoverable, in others no

trace of the verb from which they have been derived is now appa-

n,

rent.

I cannot doubt that the following Tamil words, generally

e

regarded as primitives, are derived from roots which are still in use:

nd

viz., ‘viral,} a finger, from ‘viri) to expand; ‘kadal, the sea, from

(%

‘kada,’ to pass beyond; ‘manal,’ sand, from ‘man, earth; ¢kudal,

15

I cannot

he

@ bowel, and ‘kural,’ @ pipe, from ‘kudei,’ to hollow out.

discover the derivation of ‘niral, shade, “séval, @ cock, and a few

g,

similar nouns; nevertheless, judging of them by analogy, I have

11}

little doubt that they also have been derived from verbal themes.

1l

There are many nouns denoting primary objects, which in most

‘ru’

languages are primitive words, but which in the Dravidian languages

are evidently derived from, or are identical with, extant verbal roots.

00t

Thus, “nilam, Tam., the ground, is from ‘nil,’ to stand ; ‘madu,’” an

ich

oz, 18 from ‘madu,’ Can., to do, to work; ‘4du,” @ sheep, is identical

nd

with ¢adu,” to frisk; ¢kurangu, a monkey, is from ¢kura,’ to make a

are

noise; ‘pagal,’ day, as distinguished from night, is from ¢pagu,’ fo

divide; ‘kan,’ the eye, is identical with ‘kan, to see; ¢miikku,’ the

Vel

nose, 1s from ‘migu,’ Can., to smell.

Probably also, ‘kei, the hand,

root

bears the same relation to ¢ gé, Can., to do, which ¢ kara,’ Sans., hand,

Ame

bears to ‘kri’ or ‘kar, the Sanscrit verb ¢o do.

o,

Though the greater number of Dravidian nouns are undoubtedly

cted

to be regarded as verbal derivatives, a certain proportion remain

Was

which appear to be underived and independent.

In this class are to

Tom

be included the personal pronouns; most of the nouns of relation

which are used as post-positions, answering to the prepositions of

ord-

other languages, such as ‘mel,’ above, ‘kir,’ below; and a considerable

un

number of common nouns, including names of objects, e.g., ‘kal,’ foot,

‘man,’ earth, ‘vin, the sky, and nouns of quality, e.g., ‘kar, black,

“vel, white, ‘se, red, &e.

A suspicion may be entertained that some

ouds,

of the apparently simple nouns belonging to this class are derived

| by

from verbal roots which have become obsolete.

Thus, ‘mun,” defore,

ages

a noun of relation, appears at first sight to be an underived radical,

D or

yet it is evident that it is connected with ‘mudal,’ first; and this

hut

word, being a verbal noun in ‘dal,’ is plainly derived from a verb in

) 1o

‘mu,; now lost; so that after all ‘mun’ itself may be a verbal

derivative.

juns

Jable

(8.) Particles.—A large majority of the Dravidian post-positions

and adverbs, and several of the particles employed in nominal and

¥ 2

i

148

ROOTS.

verbal inflexions are in reality verbs or nouns adapted to especial

uses. Every word belonging to the class of adverbs and prepositions

in the Dravidian languages is either the infinitive or the participle of

a verb, or the nominative case of a noun used in a locative sense;

and even of the inflexional particles which are employed in the declen-

sion of nounsand in conjugating verbs, several are easily recognized to

be derived from nouns. Thus, in Telugu, the signs of the instrumental

ablative, ¢ ché’ and ‘chéta, are the nominative and locative of the word

I

hand; and the same case in Tamil is formed by the addition of ‘al;

which is probably a corruption of ‘kél, in the seuse of @ channel. So

f

also the Tamil ‘locative of rest’ may be formed by the addition of any

noun which signifies ¢a place; and the ‘locative of separation,” a case

I

denoting ‘motion from a place, or rather ‘the place from whence

motion commences, is formed by the addition of ‘il’ or ¢in,’ which

means a kouse.

The same suffix added to the crude acristic form of the verb, con-

t

stitutes the subjunctive case in Tamil, e.g., ¢var-il,” 7 (he, she, it, or

I}

they) come, literally i (his or their) coming, that is, n the event of

4

(his or their) coming.

fo

Whilst all the post-positional adverbs and some of the inflexional

011

particles are certainly derived either from verbs or nouns, there are

g

several particles in use in the Drévidian languages which do not

LK)

appear to be connected with any nouns or verbal roots that are now

a0

extant, and of which the origin is unknown; e.g., the copulative par-

|

ticle, ‘um’ in Tamil, ‘nu’ in Telugu, and ‘0’ in Canarese ; the suffixes

il

of present time, which form the present tense of verbs; viz. ‘gir,’ in

Tamil ; ‘dap,’ in ancient, ‘utta,’ in modern Canarese ; and ‘chu’ or ‘tu,’

0

in Telugu; “d’ or ‘i, the suffix of past time, and ‘v’ or ‘b, the sign

(ar

of the future.

e

Of the post-positions, or suffixes, which are used as signs of case,

Bif

some distinctly retain their original meaning ; in some, the original

per

meaning shines more or less distinctly through the technical appropri-

gl

ation; but no trace whatever remains of the original meaning of ‘ ku,’

Tigy

‘ki,’ or ‘ge,’ the sign of the dative, or of ‘ei,” ‘e,” ‘annu,’ or ‘am,’ the

10|

sign of the accusative.

The Dravidian dative and accusative have, therefore, assumed the

(e

Cong

character of real grammatical cases; and in this particular the Dravi-

f()u[

dian languages have been brought into harmony with the genius of the

Indo-European grammar by the literary cultivation which they have

but

a0

gl

received.

It is impossible, I believe, to identify or connect any of the

One

above-mentioned particles with any verbal or nominal roots which are

now discoverable in the Dravidian languages, as will be shown respect-

a8

that

ROOTS ORIGINALLY MONOSYLLABIC.

149

I

ing each of them in order ; yet it is not only possible but probable

S

that some of them may have sprung from some such origin.

f

DrAvipiaN Roors oriGiNALLY MonNosyLLaBIC.—It may appear

at first sight scarcely credible that the Dravidian roots were originally

0

monosyllabic, when it is considered that the majority of the words in

al

every Dravidian sentence are longer than those of (perhaps) any other

d

language in Asia or Europe (e.g., compare ‘irukkiradu,” Tamil, ¢¢ s,

I

with the Latin ¢est’), and are inferior in length only to the words of

%0

the poly-synthetic languages of America.

1y

The great length of Dravidian words arises partly from the sepa-

156

ration of clashing consonants by the insertion of euphonic vowels, but

06

chiefly from the successive agglutination of formative and inflexional

ch

A considerable number of Dra-

particles and pronominal fragments.

vidian verbal themes, prior to the addition of inflexional forms, are

it

trisyllabic ; bat it will generally be found that the first two syllables

or

have been expanded out of one by the euphonic insertion or addition of

of

a vowel ; whilst the last syllable of the apparent base is in reality a

formative addition, which appears to have been merely euphonic in

nal

origin, but which now serves to distinguish transitive verbs from in-

are

transitives.

In some instances the first syllable of the verbal theme

00t

contains the root, whilst the second is a particle anciently added to it

0W

and compounded with it for the purpose of expanding or restricting the

Jar

signification.

The syllables that are added to the inflexional base are

368

those which denote case, tense, person, and number.

'

Hence, whatever be the length and complication of Dravidian

fu,

words, they may invariably be traced up to monosyllabic roots, by a

191

careful removal of successive accretions.

Thus, when we analyse

¢ perugugiradu,” Tam., i ncreases, we find that the final ‘adu,” repre-

Asey

sents the pronoun ‘it; ¢gir,’” is the sign of the present tense; and

rll]ﬁ»l

¢perugu,’ is the base or verbal theme.

Of this base, the final syllable

‘gu, is only a formative, restricting the verb to an intransitive or

)pfl

ko,

neuter signification ; and by its removal we come to ¢peru,” the real

the

root, which is used also as an adjective or noun of quality, signifying

greatness or great.

Nor is even this dissyllable ¢peru,” the ultimate

| the

condition of the root: it is an euphonized form of per,” which is

found in the adjectives ¢ per-iya’ and ¢ per-um,’ great ; and a lengthened

AL

f the

but monosyllabic form of the same is ¢pér.

Thus, by successive

have

agglutinations, a word of six syllables has been found to grow out of

f the

one

In all these forms, and under every shape which the word can

) att

assume, the radical element remains unchanged, or is so slightly changed,

that it can readily be pointed out by the least experienced scholar.

PeCt

1

J

»

0

ROOTS.

The root always stands out in distinet relief, unobscured, un-

1

absorbed, though surrounded by a large family of auxiliary affixes.

(

This distinctness and prominence of the radical element in every word

i3 a characteristic feature of all the Scythian tongues (e.g., of the

¥

Turkish and the Hungarian) ; whilst in the Semitic and Indo-Euro-

P‘

pean tongues the root is frequently so much altered that it can scarcely

be recognised.

11

It is desirable here to explain in detail the manner in which Dra-

vidian roots, originally monosyllabic, have been lengthened by the

18

nsertion or addition of euphenic vowels, or by formative additions, or

a

in both ways.

al

Y

Evpnonic LENeTHENING oF Roors. — There are two modes in

which the crude Drévidian root is euphonically lengthened.

al

First, by the ingertion of an' euphonic vowel between the two

th

initial consonants of the original base.

It has already been shown

€X

that in the Tamilian or oldest DraAvidian system of sounds, a double

1l

consonant cannot stand at the beginning of any word or syllable. A

vowel must be inserted. or ome of the consonants must be omitted.

001

This is invariably the rule in Tamil, and generally so in Telugu ; and

Jo

in the event of a vowel being inserted in the double initial, it is

fol

obvious that the root, if a monosyllable, will become a dissyllable.

ad

Thus, ¢viri, Tam., ¢o expand, the origin of ¢viral, « Jinger, was

pul

probably at first ¢vri.

The double consonant ‘vr,” was incapable

b

of being pronounced by Tamil organs, and was, therefore, converted

C

. into a dissyllable by the insertion of a vowel.

The probability of the

change in this instance is strengthened by the circumstance that

il

where the Tamil has ¢ viral, a finger, the Telugu has first ¢ vrélu,’ and

finally ‘vélu” In the same manner, where the Tamil has ‘maram,’

b

a tree (Canarese ‘ mara’), the Ku has ‘ mranu,” softened in Telugu into

the

‘méanu ;’ and where most of the Dravidian languages have ‘tala,’ head,

Car

the Ku has ‘tlava; the final ‘vu’ being an euphonic addition to

‘tla

The best proof that in the Dravidian languages dissyllables

4 S&]

Cay

were in this manner lengthened from momnosyllables, is furnished by

fou)

the circumstance that all Sanserit words and particles which com-

able

mence with a double consonant, are altered on this very plan when

thy

they are borrowed by the Tamil; e.g., “tripti, satisfaction, is converted

(l\a

into ‘tirutti’ and ‘pra,’ the preposition before, into ¢ pira.’

This

gl

euphonic lengthening out of the crude base by the insertion of an

1

euphonic vowel, is apparent also in those bases which become poly-

lent

syllabic by the further addition of formatives.

Thus, ‘tirumbu,” 7o

eup|

turn, is compounded of ¢ tiru,’ the original base, and ‘bu’ (euphonized

ot

EUPHONIC LENGTHENING OF ROOTS.

1

J

1

in the intransitive into ‘mbu’), a formative.

‘tiru’ itself, however

(answering to °tiri,’ fo wander, and to several other related words),

was doubtless originally a monosyllable, probably tri.

We find this

very form in the Telugu transitive verb, which is ‘tri-ppu,’ corres-

ponding to the Tamil ‘tiru-ppu; with which we may compare the

Greek ¢ 7péme,” a word which is almost identical in sound as well as

in signification.

The second mode in which crude Dravidian roots are lengthened,

is by 'the addition of an euphonic vowel to the base.

This euphonic

)

addition to the final consonant takes place in grammatical Telugu

and Canarese in the case of all words ending in a consonant, whatever

be the number of syllables they contain.

It

Vowel additions to roots which contain two syllables and upwards,

are made solely for the purpose of helping the enunciation ; but when

{1}

the additions which have been made to some monosyllabic roouts are

il

examined, it is found that they are intended not merely for vocalisa-

lle

tion, but rather for euphonization.

When it is desired merely to help the enunciation of a final

d

consonant, ‘u’ is the vowel that is ordinarily employed for this pur-

2

pose (in Malayalam ‘a’), and this ‘u

is uniformly elided when-it is

‘n.’l

b

18

followed by another vowel: but ‘u

1s not the only vowel which is

le

added on to monosyllabic roots, though perhaps it is most frequently

[as

met with; and in some of the instances under consideration, it

ble

becomes so intimately blended with the real base, that it will not

ted

consent to be elided ; e.g., ‘adu,” Tamil, ¢o be near, the final ‘u’ of

the

which does not admit of elision, though the crude base is probably

hat

¢ad.” Next to ‘u,’ the vowel which is' most commonly employed is

nd

¢i; then follows ‘a; then ‘e’ or ‘ei.’

Verbal roots borrowed from

the Sanscrit, have generally ‘i’ added to the final consonant in all

1,

nfo

the Dravidian languages; to which the Telugu adds ‘nchu,” and the

i,

Canarese ‘su, formatives which will be noticed afterwards.

Thus,

¢sap, Sans., to curse, is in Tamil < &abi; in Telugu, ¢sabinchu;’ in

10

bles

Can., ‘sabisu.’

On comparing the various Dréividian idioms, it is

by

found that all these auxiliary or enunciative vowels are interchange-

able. Thus, of Tamil verbs in ‘a,’” ‘kada,’ to pass, is in Telugu, ‘gada-

ik

?

hen

chu; ‘mara,’ fo forget, is in Canarese ‘ mare: of Tamil verbs in ¢i

2

‘kadi, to bite, is in Telugu ‘kara-chu; ‘geli,) o win, is in Canarese

grted

This

gilln.

Of Tamil verbs in ‘ei) ‘mulei, to sprout, is in Telugu,

‘moluchu.’ These final vowels being thus interchangeable equiva-

fan

lents, it is evident that they are intended merely for the promotion of

olf

£

euphony, and as helps to enunciation, that they are not essential parts

ied

152

ROOTS.

of the themes to which they are suffixed, and do not add anything to

their meaning.

1]

FormaTivE AvpITioNs 10 Roors.—Formative suffixes are ap-

pended to the crude bases of nouns, as well as to those of verbs. They

1l

are added not only to verbal derivatives, but to nouns which appear

to be primitive; but they are most frequently appended to verbs

properly so called, of the inflexional bases of which they form the

f

last syllable, generally the third.

Whatever may have been the

origin of these particles, they now serve to distinguish transitive

0

————

verbs from intransitives, and the adjectival form of nouns from that

i

In

which stands in an isolated position and is used as a nominative.

Tamil, in which these formatives are most largely used and most fully

il

developed, the initial consonant of the formative is single when it

[

marks the intransitive or neuter signification of the verb, or that

18

form of the noun which governs verbs or is governed by them: when

1l

it marks the transitive or active voice of the verb, or the adjectival

al

form of the noun, viz., that form of the noun which is assumed by

I

the first of two nouns that stand in a case relation to one another, the

Pa

initial consonant of the formative is doubled, and is at the same time

to

changed from a sonant into a surd. The single consonant, which is

be

characteristic of the intransitive formative, is often euphonised by

prefixing a nasal, without, however, altering its signification or value.

The Tamilian formatives are—(1.) ‘gu’ or ‘ngu,’ and its transitive

¢ kku, answering to the Telugu ‘chu’ or ‘nchu; (2.) ‘éu’ and its

transitive ‘&u’ or ‘chu; (8.) ‘du’ or ‘ndu,’ and its transitive ‘ttu;

0

and (4.) ‘bu’ or ‘mbu,” with its transitive ‘ppu.’

th

Though I call these particles ¢ formatives,” they are not regarded

by

in this light by native grammarians.

They are generally suffixed

even to the imperative, which is supposed to be the crude form of the

illh

verb; they form a portion of the inflexional base, to which all signs

al

of gender, number, and case, and also of mood and tense, are

the

appended ; and hence it was natural that native grammarians should

Wl

regard them as constituent elements of the root.

I have no doubt,

ad

however, of the propriety of representing them as formatives, seeing

y

i

that they contribute nothing to the signification of the root, and that

g,

it is only by means of a further change, 7.e., by being hardened and

Wi

doubled, that they express a grammatical relation, viz., the difference

Sa

n

which subsists between the transitive and the intransitive forms of

n

verbs, and between adjectival and independent nouns.

I

In this particular perhaps more than in any other, the high

finj

it

FORMATIVE ADDITIONS TO I#OOTS.

153

&1

grammatical cultivation of the Tamil has developed a tendency to

imitate the Indo-European tongues by retaining syllables of which it

has lost the original distinctive meaning, and combining such syllables

B

after a time with the radical element of the word, or using them for a

hey

new purpose.

gar

I proceed to consider the various formatives more particularly,

ths

with examples of their use and force.

the

(1.) ‘gu’ or ‘ngu,’ with its transitive ‘kku.’

Tamil examples ;

the

¢ peru-gu,’ intrans., fo become increased, peru-kku,” trans., to cause to

tive

So also in

tnerease; ‘ ada-ngu,’ to be contained, ¢ada-kku,’ to contain.

hat

the case of dissyllabic roots, e.g., ¢4-gu,’ to become, ¢ a-kku, to make;

In

‘ni-ngu,’ to quit, ‘ni-kku, ‘o put away.

There is a considerable

number of nouns, chiefly trisyllabic, in which the same formative is

ully

n it

employed.

In this case, however, there is no difference between the

that

isolated shape of the noun and the adjectival shape.

Whatever par-

hen

ticle is used, whether ¢gu,” ‘ngu,” or ‘kku,” it retains its position in

ival

all circumstances unchanged.

Examples: ¢ pada-gu,” a boat, ¢ kura-

ngu,’ a monkey, ‘sara-kku,” any article of merchandize.

From a com-

by

the

parison of the above examples, it is evident that ‘ng’ is equivalent

time

to ‘g’ and euphonized from it; and that ‘ng,’ equally with ‘g’

h 18

becomes ‘kk’ in a transitive connection.

| by

In a few instances, ¢ kku, the transitive formative, is altered in

colloquial Tamil usage to ¢chu,’ according to a law of interchange

lue.

itive

already noticed ; e.g., ‘ kajkku,” to boil (crude root ¢ kay ’), is generally

] its

written and pronounced ‘kaychu.’

This altered form of the sign

of the transitive, which is the exception in Tamil, is in Telugu

t;

the rule of the language, ‘kku’ being regularly replaced in Telugu

by ‘chu’

rded

ixed

In Telugu the intransitive formative ‘gu’ is not- euphonically

altered into ‘ngu’ as in Tamil; but an obscure nasal, the half

f the

‘anuswara, often precedes the ‘ gu,” and shows that in both languages

signs

1o

the same tendency to nasalisation exists.

It is remarkable, that

whilst the Tamil often nasalises the formative of the neuter, and never

iould

Oﬂb@

admits a nasal into the transitive formative, the Telugu, in a large

el

number of cases, nasalises the transitive, and generally leaves the

neuter in its primitive, un-nasalised condition.

Thus in Telugu,

that

aad

whenever the base terminates in ‘i’ (including a large number of

Sanscrit derivatives), ‘chu’ is converted into ‘nchu;’ though neither

rence

in this nor in any case does the ‘kku’ of the Tamil change into

ms ol

‘ngku’ FK.g., from ‘ratti, double, the Tamil forms °ratti-kka’ (in-

finitive), fo double; whilst the Telugu form of the same is ‘retti-ncha.’

|ﬁh

¢ manni-ncha,’ 7o forgive, in Telugu, corresponds in the same manner to

154

ROOTS.

its a

the Tamil ‘manni-kka.’

In some cases in Telugu the euphonic nasal

and

is prefixed to ‘chu,’ not after ‘i’ only, but after other vowels besides.

Verby

Thus, ¢ perugu,’ o increase, neut., is the same in Tamil and in Telugu.

few"

but instead of finding ¢peru-chu’ to be the tramsitive or active

(corresponding to the Tamil transitive ¢ peru-kku’), we find ¢ penchn,’

“Ding

is ey

corrupted from ‘peru-chu:’ so also instead of ‘pagu-kku,” Tam., to

for 1]

divide, we find in Telugu ¢panchu,’ for ¢pagu-nchu.’

The identity of the Tamil ‘k’ and the Telugu ‘ch’ appears also

nasal

3

‘ning

from the circumstance that in many cases ‘vu

may optionally be

used in Telugu instead of ¢chu’

This use of ‘vu’ as the equivalent

s'mlp

of ‘chu’ points to a time when ‘gu’ was the formative in ordinary

ing

(1} bO\

use in Telugu as in Tamil ; for ‘ch’ has no tendency to be converted

into ‘v,” ‘b, or ‘p, whilst ‘k’ or ‘g, constantly evinces this ten-

5

}

alwa

dency to change into ‘v, not only in Telugu, but also in colloquial

Tamil ; and ‘v’ is regularly interchangeable with ‘b’ and its surd

doat

¢

2

Beco

I conclude, therefore, that ‘gu’ was the original shape of this

sleep,

formative in the Drividian languages; and that its doubled, surd

I

shape, ‘kku,’ the formative of transitives, was softened in Telugu into

tive,

¢chu,” and in Canarese still further softened into ‘Su.’

100t

(2.) “$u, and its transitive ‘$Su,” pronounced ¢chu.—This formative

“tar.

“nily

is very rare in Tamil, and the examples which the Telugu contains,

though abundant, are not to the point, inasmuch as they are apparently

o §

tray

altered from the older ‘ku’ and ‘kku,’ by the ordinary softening

process by which ‘k’ changes into ‘6, and ‘kk’ ipte ‘ch. . A Tamil

e,

example of this formative is seen in ¢adei-8u, to lake r¢fuge, of which

or'

the

the transitive is ‘adei-chu,’ to enclose, to twine round.

130) du’ or ‘ndu,” with its trausitive form ‘ttu.’—There appears to

trapy

be no difference whatever between this formative and the other three,

¢ gu,

2556 %

S

u,’ or ‘bu, in meaning or grammatical relation; and as ‘gu’ is

the

euphonized in the intransitive to ¢ ngu, so is ‘du,’ to ‘ndu; whilst in

nap

the transitive the doubled ¢d’ (and its equivalent ‘nd’) changes by

&?,‘

rule into ¢ tt.” The euphonic change of ‘dn’ to ‘ndu,’ has so generally

11y,

taken place, that ‘ndu’ is invariably used instead of ‘du’ in the for-

but

matives of verbs; and it is only in the formatives of nouns that ‘du,

0]

the more primitive form, is sometimes found to have survived.

The formative ‘gu’ remains unaltered in the adjectival form of

fing

nouns; but ¢du’ changes into ‘ttu,” when nsed adjectivally, in the

Noyy

same manner as in the transitive voice of verbs.

Tamil examples of

‘kip

this formative ;—¢ tiru-ndu,” fo become correct, ©tiru-ttu,’ fo correct;

Ing

¢ maru-ndu,’ medicine, adjectival form of the same, ‘maru-ttu,’ e.g.,

¢ maruttu-(p)pei, @ medicine bag. The primitive unnasalised ‘du’ and

Oll"]

o

FORMATIVE ADDITIONS TO ROOTS.

15

9

sl

its a;djectival ‘ttu, are found in such words as ¢ eru-du,” a bull, an ox,

des.

and ‘eru-ttu-(p)plittu,” the fastening of an ox’s traces. N early all the

191,

verbs which take ‘du,’ or ‘ndu,” as a formative are trisyllabic.

Of the

tive

few dissyllabic verbs of this class in Tamil, the most interesting is

hn,

‘nindu,’ ¢o swim, of which I consider ‘ni’ as the crude form.

‘ Nindu,

, 10

is evidently an euphonized form of ‘nidu,” (‘du’ changed into ‘ndu’);

for the verbal noun derived from it, ‘nittal, swimming, is without the

als0

nasal, and the Telugu uses ‘nidu, for the verb itself, instead of

‘nindu.’

7 be

I have little doubt that the ‘du,” or ‘ndu’ of this word, is

Jent

simply a formative, and that the crude primitive base is ‘ ni, answer-

ary

ing to the Greek vé-w, the Latin ‘no, ‘nato’ and also to ‘nau,’” Sans.

tted

a boat, of which the Sanscrit does not contain the root.

ten

Derivative nouns formed from verbs which have formative suffixes

1uial

always prefer as their formative the transitive suffix, or that which

qurd

doubles and hardens the initial consonant.

Thus from °tiru-ndu,’ #o

become correct, is formed ¢ tiru-ttam,’ correction; and from ¢ tii-ngu,’ fo

this

sleep, ¢ ti-kkam, sleep.

surd

In some instances the crude root of a verb is used as the intransi-

1nto

tive, whilst the transitive is formed by the addition of ‘ttu’ to the

root. H.g. ‘padu,) to lie down, ‘padu-ttu, to lay; ‘tar, to be low,

tive

‘tar-ttu,’ to lower; ‘mil’ (Telugu ‘nilu’), fo stand, niru-ttu’ (for

‘nilu-ttu’), to establish.

In such cases the Canarese uses ‘du’ instead

ains,

ntly

of the Tamil ‘ttu,’ e.g., ‘tal-du, fo Jower, instead of ‘tar-ttu.”’ This

1ing

transitive formative is sometimes represented as a causal; but it will

gl

be shown in the section on ¢ The Verb, that ¢vi’ (euphonically ¢bi,

hich

or ‘ppi’) is the only real causal in the Dravidian languages. In all

the cases now mentioned, where ¢ ttu’ is used as the formative of the

£s 10

transitive by the Tamil, the Telugu uses chu’ or ‘pu.’

I class under the head of this formative all those nouns in which

1168

the ‘cerebral’ consonants ‘d, ‘nd, and ‘tt,’ are used in the same

;117 15

5t 1

manner and for the same purpose as the dentals ¢d,” ‘nd, and ‘tt A

e.g. ‘ kuru-du,’ blindness, adjectival form of the same, ¢ kuru-ttu, blind ;

5 by

‘ira-ndu,’ two, adjectival form, ¢ira-ttu,” double.

The Telugu hardens

1ally

for

but does not double the final d’ of such nouns; e.g., ‘0d-u,’ @ leak,

¢ Otl, leaky.

/ ‘du”

In some instances in Tamil, the hard rough ‘R, when used as a

p of

final, seems to be equivalent to ‘du,’” or ‘du,’ and is doubled and pro-

nounced with a ‘t; eg., ‘kina-ru, o well, ‘ kina-rRRu’ (pronounced

) the

¢ kinattru’), of @ well. On this point, however, see Section on Nouns.—

les of

Increment ¢ti, or ‘attu.’

n ]Wt ;'

0l

(4.) ‘bu’ or ‘mbu,” with its transitive ‘ppu.’—In Canarese, ‘bu,’ the

original form of this intransitive suffix, has been softened into ‘vu,’ and

'and

156

ROOTS.

il

in Tamil ‘bu,” has universally been euphonized into ¢mbu.

This

Al

Tamilian formative ‘mbu,” is in some instances softened in Telugu

It

nouns into ‘mu.’

The “bu’ or ‘mbu’ of Tamil verbs is superseded by

(d}

“vu’ or ‘gu’ in Telugu; and the forms answering to the Tamil tran-

0r

sitive ¢ ppu’ are ‘pu’ and ‘ mpu,’ rarely ¢ ppu.’

Example of the use of this formative by a verb:—¢nira-mbu,” Tam.

n

¢o be full, ‘nira-ppu,’ o fill; of which the crude base ‘nir,” re-appears

in the related verb ‘nir-ei, fo be full, or to fill.

The Telugu has

i

the

‘nindu’ instead of ‘nirambu; but the transitive ‘nimpu,” answers very

i

nearly to the Tamil ‘nirappu.’

Example of a noun in ‘mbu’ and

¢ ppu;—F‘iru-mbu,” Tam., ©ron, adjectival form, ¢iru-ppu, of iron, e.g.,

qu

‘iruppu-(k)kol,” an wron rod.

In Telugu ¢irumbu’ is softened into

the

‘inumu,’ adjectival form ¢inupa.’

The Canarese still adheres to the

of

original form of this suffix, generally softening ‘b’ into ‘v,” but leaving

par

it always unnasalised ; e.g., Canarese ‘havu, a snake, properly ¢ pavu?’

Tamil ¢ pAmbu,” nasalised from ‘pébu; adjectival form °péappu,’ e.g.,

gyl‘

tt

¢ pappu-(k)kodi, the serpent bannmer: Telugu, still further altered,

‘pamu.

This example clearly illustrates the progress of the formative

1l

in question, and confirms the supposition, that it was merely euphonic

0n |

in its origin, and that it was by degrees that it acquired the character

of a formative.

Sllp

Tefg

It has been mentioned that the Telugu uses ‘pu’ or ‘mpu’ as a

formative of transitive verbs, where the Tamil uses ¢ ppu.’

It should

Ve

Ty

be added that even in those cases where the Tamil uses the other

formatives previously noticed, viz., ‘kku’ and ‘ttu,” the Telugu often

prefers ‘pu’

Compare the following infinitives in Tamil and in

brg

Telugu, e.g. ‘méykka,” Tam. to feed cattle, ‘mépa,” Tel.; ‘nirutta,” Tam.

to establish, ¢ nilupa,” Tel.

ko

Where ‘kku’ in Tamil, and ‘pu’ in Telugu

o b

are preceded by ¢1i,” this formative becomes in Telugu either ‘mpu’ or

]iar];

‘nchu;’ e.g., compare oppuvi-kka,” Tamil, to deliver over, with the

corresponding Tel. infinitive, ¢ appavi-mpa,” or ‘ appavi-ncha.’

Pesp

fron

It appears from the various particulars now mentioned, that tran-

sitive verbs, and nouns used adjectivally, must have been regarded by

1oy

the primitive Tamilians as possessing some quality in common.

The

helg

COng

common feature possessed by each, is doubtless the quality of transition;

for it is evident that when nouns are used adjectivally there is a tran-

sition of the quality or act denoted by the adjectival noun to the noun

Syll:.

substantive to which it is prefixed, which corresponds to the transition

frop

($¢)

of the action denoted by the transitive verb to the accusative which it

I

governs.

It is manifest that the various particles which are used as forma-

tives do not essentially differ from one another either in signification,

Pring

FORMATIVE ADDITIONS TO ROOTS.

157

This

in the purpose for which they are used, in the manner in which they

are affixed, or in the manner in which they are doubled and hardened.

lngu

L ]

It was euphony only that determined which of the sonants ‘g

S

¢d; ¢d; or ‘b, should be suffixed as a formative to any particular verb

fran-

oI noun.

[am

Possibly, indeed, the use of these formatives originated altogether

in considerations of euphony. The only point in which a grammatical

Jears

has

principle appears to exist, is the doubling of the initial consonant of

the formative to denote or correspond with the putting forth of energy

very

which is inherent in the idea of active or transitive verbs, as distin-

and

el

guished from intransitives.

From the statements and examples given above, it may be concluded

into

) the

that wherever Dravidian verbs or nouns are found to terminate in any

of the syllables referred to there is reason to suspect, that the first

Aving

part of the word alone constitutes or contains the root.

The final

ave:

syllables ¢ gu,’ ‘ngu,’ ‘kku; ‘8u,’ ‘chu; ‘du, ‘ndu, ‘¢tu; ‘du,’ ‘ndu,’

] €‘g',

‘ttu; ‘bu, ‘mbu,’ ‘mpu,’ ‘pu, ‘ppu; ‘mu,’ ‘ vu; may, asa general

ered,

rule, be rejected as formative additions.

afive

This rule will be found on examination to throw unexpected light

honic

on the derivation and relationship of many nouns which are commonly

acter

supposed to be primitive and independent, but which, when the syllables

referred to above are rejected, are found to be derived from or allied to

' 958

verbal roots which are still in use. I adduce,as examples, the following

hould

Tamil words:—‘kombu,” @ branch, a twig ; ¢vémbu,’ the Margosa tree ;

other

¢ vambu,’ abuse ; ‘pambu,’ a snake.

As soon-as the formative final,

often

‘mbu,” is rejected, the verbs from which these nouns are derived are

pd 0

brought to light.

Thus, ‘ko-mbu,’” @ #wig, is plainly derived from

Tam

‘ko-y,’ to pluck off, to cut ; ‘vé-mbu,’ the Margosa tree, is from ©veé-y,

elugt

o be umbrageous, to screen or shade (the shade of this tree being pecu-

Pu’ or

liarly prized) ; ¢va-mbu,” abuse, is from ¢vei,” properly ‘va-y’ (cor-

ih the

responding to the Canarese ¢ vayyu’), fo revile ; ¢ pa-mbu,’ @ snake, is

from ‘ph-y,” to spring.

In these instances, the verbal base which is

- fran-

now in use ends in ‘y,” a merely euphonic addition, which does not

od by

belong to the root, and which disappears in the derivatives before the

The

consonants which are added as formatives.

gition;

The same principle applied to nouns ending in the other formative

) tran-

syllables will be found to yield similar results; e.g., ‘par-andu,’ a hawk,

) ﬂ()ﬂn

from ¢para,’ to fly; and ¢ kirangu,’ @ root, from ‘kir, o be beneath, the

psition

‘1’ of which, though long in Tamil, is short in the Telugu ‘kinda,’ below.

hich it

RepurricaTiON oF THE FiNAL CoNsONANT oF THE RooT.—The

formd-

principle of employing reduplication as a means of producing gramma-

catiOllz

158

ROOTS

I

tical expression is recognized by the Dravidian languages, as well as

by those of the Indo-European family ; though the mode in which the

man

char

reduplication is effected and the objects in view are different. It is in

to by

Tamil that this reduplication is most distinctly apparent, and it should

here be borne in mind, that when a Tamil consonant is doubled, it is

the

The final consonant of a Tamil

changed from a sonant into a surd.

eveg

root is doubled—(1) for the purpose of changing a noun into an

thre

adjective, showing that it qualifies another noun, or putting it in the

their

guag

genitive case, e.g., from ‘madu,’” an oz, is formed ‘matt-u (t)tol, ox-

hide ; (2) for the purpose of converting an intransitive or neuter verb

siimy

hag

into a transitive, e.g., from ¢6d-u,” to rum, is formed °ottu, to drive ;

(3) for the purpose of ‘forming the preterite,” e.g., ‘ tag-u,’ to be fit,

finst

“takk-a,’ that was fit ; and (4) for the purpose of forming derivative

86001

pean

nouns from verbal themes, e.g., from ‘erud-u,” fo write, is formed

¢ erutt-u,’ @ letter. [See this subject further elucidated in the sections on

€S8er

famy

‘ The Noun’ and ‘ The Verb.”] It is remarkable, that whilst the Indo-

European tongues mark the perfect tense by the reduplication of the

case

Jirst syllable, it is by the reduplication of the last letter that the

that

the {

Dravidian languages effect this purpose; and also, that whilst the

Tibetan converts a noun into a werd by doubling the last consonant,

conty

this should be a Dravidian method of converting a verb into a noun.

sylla

The rationale of the Dravidian reduplication is, that it was felt to be a

to thy

natural way to express the idea of transition both in the act and in

gy

the result.

Ace

Up to this point it has been found that all Dravidian pelysyllabic

Hel

roots are traceable to a monosyllabic base, lengthened either by

Dex

euphonic additions and insertions, or by the addition of formative par-

exhi

ticles.

An important class of dissyllabic bases remains, of which the

liken,

second syllable is neither an euphonic nor a formative addition, but an

or e

inseparable particle of specialisation, into the nature and use of which

It

we shall now inquire.

T00tg

e

L4

ParticLEs oF SproranisatioN.—The verbs and nouns belonging

lawy

to the class of bases which are now under consideration, consist of a

Hely,

monosyllabic root or stem, containing the generic signification, and a

second syllable, perhaps the fragment of a lost root or lost post-posi-

Tl

tion, by which the generic meaning of the stem is in some manner

dl\ 1de

modified. The second syllable appears sometimes to expand and some-

paly

times to restrict the signification, but in some instances, through the

1ntey

absence of synonyms, its force cannot now be ascertained.

As this

be d01

syllable is intended in some manner to specialise the meaning of the

l{lt 1e1

root, I call it ‘the particle of specialisation.’

glamy

PARTICLES OF SPECIALISATION.

159

ell as

The principle which is involved in the use of this partiéle, and the

h the

manner in which it is carried into effect, remarkably correspond to a

A

characteristic feature or law of the Semiticlanguages, which it appears

hould

to be desirable to notice here somewhat particularly. As far back as

1 18

the separate existence of the Semitic family of languages can be traced,

[amil

every root is found to consist of two syllables, comprising generally

0 an

three consonants. When Semitic bi-literal roots are compared with

n the

their synonyms, or corresponding roots, in the Indo-European lan-

o

guages, and especially with those which are found in Sanserit, a

' verh

simpler and more primitive root-system hasbeen brought to light. It

Ire

has been ascertained, in a large number of instances, that whilst the

be f,

first syllable of the Hebrew root corresponds with the Sanscrit, the

vative

second syllable does not in any manner correspond to any Indo-Euro-

omed

pean synonym. It is found also, that the second syllable has not any

Ons 01

essential connection with the first, and that a considerable number of

Indo-

families of roots exist in which the first syllable is the same in each

f the

case, whilst the second continually varies.

It is therefore inferred

t the

that in such cases the first syllable alone (comprising two consonants,

¢ the

the initial and the final, together with the vowel used for enunciation)

onant,

contains the radical base and generic signification, and that the second

noun.

syllable, perhaps the fragment of an obsolete word, has been appended

to the first and afterwards compounded with it, for the purpose of

obea

ad in

giving the generic signification a specific and definite direction.

According to this view, which appears to be in the main correct,

-Hebrew roots are to be regarded mnot singly and separately, as inde-

yHabiC

er by

pendent monads, but as arranged generically in clusters or groups,

exhibiting general resemblances and special differences. The family

(; paI‘-

ch the

likeness resides in the first syllable, the radical base ; the individuality

or special peculiarity in the second, ¢the particle of specialisation.’

hut an

which

It is true that in some instances the second syllable of Semitic

roots meets with its counterpart in the Indo-European languages, as

well as the first, or even instead of the first ; but the peculiar rule or

law now referred to is found to pervade so large a portion of the

nging

"Hebrew roots, that it justly claims to be considered as a characteristic

¢ of &

of the language.

and &

;t'pOSi‘

Thus, there is a family of Hebrew roots signifying generally ‘to

divide,” ‘to cleave,’ ‘to separate, &c. The members of this family are

jannet

‘palah,’ < palah, ¢ palag,’ ‘pala,’ “ palal;’ and also (through the dialectic

| some-

interchange of ‘1’ with r’), ‘parash,’ ‘paras;’ Chaldee ‘peras.’ It cannot

0

oh the

be doubted that in all these instances the first syllable “pal’ or ‘par,’ or

Ag this

rather ‘p-r,” ‘p-1’ (for the vowel belongs not to the root, but to the

of the

grammatical relation), expresses merely the general idea of ¢ division it

160

ROOTS.

whilst the second syllable (which is in some instances a reduplication of

the final consonant of the bi-literal) expresses, or is supposed to express,

the particular mode in which the ¢ division’ or ¢ partition’ is effected.

an

The first syllable, which is the same in all the members of this group

of roots, is that which is to be compared with synonyms in other lan-

guages, whilst the second syllable is merely modal.

In this instance

we not only observe a distinct analogy between the Hebrew roots, ¢p-r,’

bl

‘p-1; and the Greek ¢wop-w,” the Latin ¢par-s,” ¢par-tis, and the

Sanscrit ¢ phal,’ o divide, but we also discover the existence of a dis-

fin

tinct and remarkable analogy with the Dravidian languages. Compare

8y

with the Hebrew ‘p-r,” ¢p-1” the Tamil ‘piri,’ ¢o divide, and ‘pal, a

of

part; ‘pila’ and por, fo cleave; as also ‘pagir’ and ‘pagu,’ o

See also the ¢ Glossarial Affinities.

portion out, to divide.

On turning our attention to the root-system of the Dravidian lan-

an

guages, we are struck with the resemblance which it bears to the

ani

Semitic root-system referred to above.

We find in these languages

ane

groups of related roots, the first syllables of which are nearly or

any

ann

wholly identical, whilst their second syllables are different in each

instance, and in consequence of this difference produce the required

degree of diversity in the signification of each member of the group.

We also find in these languages, as in Hebrew, that the generic particle

or common base, and the added particle of specialisation, are so

thaf

The specialising par-

conjoined as to become one indivisible etymon.

{0

ticle, which was probably a separable suffix or post-position at first,

01

has become by degrees a component part of the word,—and this word,

ba

so compounded, constitutes the base to which all formatives and all

0

inflexional particles are appended.

whi

This root-system exists in all the languages of the Dravidian

S

family, but its nature and peculiarities are especially apparent in the

Tamil.

1

Out of many such groups of related Tamil roots, I select as

Varig

illustrations two groups which commence with the first letter of the

of gy

alphabet.

in g

Show

1. Roots which radiate from the syllable ¢ad »’

({7

6 ¢

adu

to come near ; also ‘adu,’ transitive, fo unite.

It iy

ada

to joim, to join battle.

ﬂlOSe

ada-ngu

to be contained, to enclose; verbs formed from ‘ada,” the preceding

ada-kku

}

verb, by the addition of the formatives ‘ngu’ and ‘kku.

When

able

adei

to attain, to get in, to roost : transitive, to enclose.

adeisu

to take refuge, from €adei,” with the addition of the formative ‘su;

of sp

also ‘adeigu’

to be close together, to be crowded.

T

adar

WPpey

aduk-(ku) to place one thing upon another, to pile wp. This verb is properly

Sf)nan

161

PARTICLES OF SPECIALISATION.

of

‘aduk,’ but final ‘k’ in Tamil is always vocalised by the help

of ‘u,” and often doubled, as in this instance, before receiving the

‘u

’

d

andu (Telugu ar_l':su), to approach. This verb seems to be identical with ‘adu,’

\]]P

!

the first in the list, and euphonized from it by the insertion of the

nasal.

106

I

It is obvious that all these roots are pervaded by a family resem-

e

blance. All contain the generic notion of ‘nearness,’” expressed by the

s

first or base syllable ‘ad; whilst each, by means of the second

e

syllable, or particle of specialisation, denotes some particular species

of nearness.

0

/1]

2. Roots which radiate from the base syllable < an 7—

all

anu

to touch.

the

anl

to put on, to adorn.

Lges

anei

o connect, to embrace ; as a noun, @ weir, @ dam.

anavu

or

to cleave to. (‘vu’ is probably an euphonic addition.)

ch

annu

to lean upon. (From this verb is derived ‘annal’ or ‘annan’ an

red

elder brother, one to lean upon, a derivation as poetical as it is

reliable).

up.

cle

The generic idea signified by the base syllable ‘an’ is evidently

80

that of ‘contact;’ and this group differs from the previous one as actual

pﬂI‘

‘contact’ differs from ¢contiguity’ or ‘nearness.’

Probably ‘ani,’

st

a nail, a fastening, is derived from the same verb, and it appears pro-

ord,

bable also that this is the origin of the Sanscrit ‘ani’ or ‘ani, the pin

[ all

of an axle.

At all events it seems a more natural derivation than that

which is given by the Sanscrit grammarians, viz., from ‘ana,” fo

fian

sound.

the

The illustrations given above prove, that the second syllables of the

a8

various verbs now adduced have not been added merely for purposes

the

of euphony, but have been appended in order to expand, to restrict, or

in some manner to modify and specialise the signification. It was

shown in a previous part of this section, that the vowels ¢ gl Sy

‘e, and ‘ei’ are sometimes added euphonically to monosyllabie roots.

It is obvious, however, that this is not the only purpose for which

those vowel additions are used; and it is of importance to know that

(i

il

when they are merely euphonic they are found to be interchange-

able with other vowels, whereas when they are used as particles

of specialisation they retain their individual character more firmly.

‘Uy

The examples already given may suffice to illustrate the use of

appended wowels as specialising particles. Syllables ending in con-

‘peﬂ)

sonants, especially in ‘1’ and ‘r, are also used very frequently for

i

M

162

ROOTS.

this purpose ; and it seems desirable here to adduce examples of the

use of particles of this class.

The following examples are mostly

The other

from the Tamil, in which ‘1’ and ‘r’ may stand as finals.

dialects add ‘i’ to the final consonant of each of these particles.

The

Tamil requires this euphonic addition of ‘u’ when a word ends in the

hard, rough ‘R, or.in any consonant besides the nasals and semi-

vowels.

Each root being considered either as a verb or as a noun according

to circumstances, I give examples of nouns as well as of verbs. Some

of the following roots, though used as verbs, are more commonly used

as nouns, and some, though used as nouns, are more commonly used as

verbs. Some of the examples, again, are used either as nouns only or

as verbs only :—

FinaAL PARTICLES.

VERBS.

Nouns.

ar

suvar, @ wall

valar, fo grow

1r

tulir, fo sprout

ugir, a finger nail

ur

nudur-u, Tel., the forehead

ar

idar, a flower leaf

pugar, to praise

i

magir, o rejoice

tamir, sweetness, Tamil.

aR-u

idar-u, to trip

kinar-u, @ well

iR-u

muyir-u, the red ant

A SN

al

sural, to wharl

iral, the liver

il

kuyil, to utter a sound

tigil, @ fright

ul

pagel-u, Tel., to break

al

tuval, to bend

tinggal, the moon

il

madil, e fort wall

ul

irul, darkness

urul, fo roll

ui;-(ku)

kaduk-(ku), to suffer pain

koduk-(ku), @ sting

Of all the fourteen specialising particles ending in consonants, of

which examples have now been adduced, only one appears occasionally

b

to be used as an equivalent for a vowel addition. ‘ar’ alternates with

fl

‘ei; e.g., ‘amar, Tam., to rest, and ‘amei,” are apparently equivalent.

Vi

The verb to grow, also, is in Tamil ¢valar, and in Canarese ‘bale,’

f

which in Tamil would be ¢valei.’

Similar instances, however, abound

in Hebrew, without invalidating the general principle ; and even with

L

respect to the latter of the two Dravidian illustrations, there is a

th

marked distinction in Tamil between ¢ valar,’ and a related theme,

il

¢vilei, ‘valar’ meaning fo grow ‘upwards, as a man or a tree,’

tl

whilst ¢vilei, means fo grow ‘as a crop ; hence as a noun ©vilei’

€)

means «a field.

I¢

I here subjoin an example of another peculiar and interesting set

th

of groups of roots which are found in the Dravidian languages, and

3(]

INTERNAL CHANGES.

163

which are formed upon a plan differing considerably from that which

has now been explained.

The roots referred to are dissyllabic, but they contain only one con-

sonant, which is preceded and followed by a vowel.

This consonant

appears to represent the ultimate or radical base, whilst the initial and

final vowels alter in accordance with the particular shade of significa-

tion which it is desired to convey. When we compare ‘idu,” Tam.,

to press or crush, ‘odu,’ to squeeze, to bring into a smaller compass, and

4

“idi,’ to bruise, to beat down, as also “adi, to beat ; or ‘odi, to break

d

in two, and ‘udei’ (pronounced ‘odei’), to break open ; we cannot

b}

avold the conclusion that the first four roots are closely related

)1

members of the same family or groap ; that the last two roots are in

like manner mutually related ; and that possibly the whole of them

have an ulterior relationship, in virtue of their possessing in common

the same nucleus or radical base, the central consonant ‘d,’ and the

same generic signification.

DrAvipiaN RooTs susTaiN No INTERNAL CHANGE ON RECEIVING

ForMATIVE or INFLEXIONAL ADDITIONS, OR IN COMPOSITION.—In

general this rule is so strictly adhered to, and the deviations from it

are so few and unimportant, that it may be regarded as a characteristic

of the Dréividian root-system, and a counterpart of the rigid unchange-

ableness which characterizes Scythian roots.

The vowels of Dravidian roots belong as essentially to the radical

base as the consonants.

They neither belong, as in the Semitic lan-

guages, to the system of means by which grammatical relations are

expressed, nor are they modified, as in the Indo-European languages,

by the addition of inflexional forms.

of

In the Semitic languages the radical base is destitute of vowels, and

|3,Hy

by itself unpronounceable. The insertion of vowels not only vocalises

pith

the consonants of the root, but constitutes it a grammatically inflected

ent.

verb or noun, the signification of which varies with the variation of

the interior vowels.

)‘(11,97,

und

In the Indo-European languages grammatical modifications are

produced by additions to the root; and though in the earliest period of

s‘viﬂl

the history of those languages, the root, generally monosyllabie, is sup-

15 &

posed to have remained unaltered by additions and combinations, yet

161116,‘

766

the existence of that rigidity is not capable of direct proof ; for on

examining the Sanscrit, Greek, Latin, and German, the most faithful

nle]

representatives of the early condition of those languages, we find that

g ¢

the root vowels of a large proportion of the words are modified by the

addition of the suffixes of case and tense ; and in particular, that the

: ad

M 2

164

ROOTS.

reduplication of the root, by which the perfect appears usually to have

been formed, is often found either to alter the quantity of the root-

vowel, to change one vowel into another, or entirely to expunge it.

In the Scythian family of tongues, not only does the vowel belong

essentially to the root, but it remains unalterable under all circum-

stances.

Neither the vowel nor the consonant (or consonants) of

which the root is composed, sustains any change or modification on the

addition of the signs of gender, number, and case, or of person, tense,

and mood ; which are successively agglutinated to the root, not welded

into combination with it.

This rigidity or persistency is characteristic also of the roots of the

Drévidian langnages, with a few exceptions which will shortly be men-

tioned. In general, whatever be the length or weight of the additions

made to a Dravidian root, and whether it stands alone or is combined

with other words in a construct state, it is represented as fully and

faithfully in the oblique cases as in the nominative, in the preterite

and future as in the present tense or in the imperative.

I proceed to point out the principal exceptions to this rule.

1. Buphonic Exceptions.

(1.) Some exceptions are purely enunciative, and consist only in

such changes as are necessary to enable Dravidian organs to enunciate

double consonants.

See the portions of this section in which the

lengthening of roots by the euphonic insertion or addition of vowels

is explained.

(2.) A second class of euphonic exceptions is connected with one

of the ‘minor dialectic peculiarities > noticed at the end of the section

on Sounds.

It consists in the occasional omission or mutation of the

final consonant of a root when it is followed by a formative or in-

flexional particle.

Most of the instances which I have noticed, occur

in Canarese or Telugu, especially in the latter.

They are such as the

following, viz., ‘eddu, Tel, an oz, instead of ‘erdu’ (in Tamil

I

erudu’); ¢ penchu,’ Tel., to increase, instead of ¢ perunchu’ (in Tamil

‘perukku’); ‘biddu,” Canarese, kaving fallen, for ‘bildu’ (Tamil ‘virdu’);

and ‘tiddu, Can., o correct, for ‘tirudu’ (in Tamil ‘tiruttu’).

This

1

omission, or softening, has no relation to grammatical expression, and

appears to have arisen chiefly from haste in pronunciation. A few

a

I

examples of this change are found even in Tamil; e.g. ¢ vandu, Aaving

In this case the omitted ‘r’

ol

come, instead of ¢ varndu’ or ¢varundu.’

has not a place in the imperative of the second person singular, which

i

¢

is ¢va,’ come, not ‘var; and hence it might be doubted whether the

‘1’ veally belongs to the root, or whether it is only an euphonic

T

fy

i

b

INTERNAL CHANGES.

165

addition. I suspect, however, that this ‘r’ is radical, for the Telugu

¢ pA?

imperative singular is

1a,

not ‘va,’ asif from ‘vara; and we find

in the Rajmahal dialect that fo come is bAri.

In Tamil also the

imperative of the second person plural is ¢ vAr-um.’

Hence ¢vandu,’

having come, seems really to be a softened form of ¢ varndu.” Another

example appears to be furnished by a Tamil verb meaning to give,

which is ‘tar,” in the infinitive, the present, and the future; ‘ta,” in

the imperative singular; and ti’ in the preterite, e.g. *tandén’ (for

‘tarndén’), 7 gave.

The resemblance or identity of the Tamil ‘ta’

and the Sanscrit ‘da,” o give, might lead us to suppose ‘ta’ to be a

Sanscrit derivative, in which case the ‘r

3

referred to would be an

euphonic addition.

It is difficult, however, to suppose that this ‘r’

1§

has been added euphonically, and the difficulty is increased by the

d

d

circumstance that in every part of this verb, with the exception of

the imperative, the form of the root which we find to be used, is not

19

“ta” but ©tar-u.

Hence it seems open to conjecture that ‘tar-u’ is

not derived from the present shape of the Sanscrit, though related to

it, but that it springs from an older source, of which a trace remains

in the Greek ‘éip-ov, and possibly also in the Hebrew base, ¢tan.’

(8.) A third class of euphonic exceptions to this rule is connected

1n

g

te

with another of the ‘minor dialectic peculiarities’ referred to.

consists in the occasional softening or rejection of the medial con-

he

sonant of a dissyllabic root or verbal noun, together with the

els

coalescence of the vowels that preceded and followed it.

It has been

shown that ‘g’ has a tendeucy to be softened into ‘v’ and then to

ne

disappear, and that ¢§’ changes in the same manner into ‘y,” when it

01

sometimes become absorbed. When either of these consonants is a

he

medial, it is apt to be thus softened down and rejected.

Thus,

10

“dogal-u,” Canarese, skin, becomes in Tamil ¢tol; ¢pefar, Canarese, a

pur

name, becomes in Tamil first ‘pejar’ and then ‘pér.’ So in Tamil,

he

‘togup-pu,’ @ collection, is softened into ¢tép-pu,” which has the

mil

restricted meaning of @ collection of trees, a tope.

mil

(4.) The most important class of euphonic exceptions to the

Uy

general rule of the unchangeableness of the root appears at first sight

s

to correspond to a characteristic usage of the Indo-European languages,

aml

and especially of the Sanserit. In those languages the quantity of the

fow

root vowel is sometimes altered when the crude or abstract noun is

g

changed into an adjective. Thus in Sanscrit ¢ Dravida,” a gentile

i

appellation, becomes ¢Dravida,” pertaining to the Dravidas, the ‘a’

CA D

A

hich

changing into

a;

and if the vowel is naturally long, as the ¢

e

n

1he

‘ Véda,” it becomes a diphthong when the word is changed to an adjec-

gnic

tive; e.g., ¢ Vaidika,” pertaining to the Védas.

In Tamil we discover a

166

ROOTS

class of changes which, though in reality they are purely euphonic

and unconnected with grammatical relations, appear at first sight to

resemble the above-mentioned Indo-KEuropean usage

Dravidian roots,

though originally monosyllabic, have very generally taken a dis-

1l

syllabic form by the insertion or addition of a vowel which is intended

to facilitate enunciation

In such cases the first syllable, always a

short one, represents the crude root, the added vowel constitutes the

euphonic suffix; eg.,

per-u, great

¢ kar-u, bleck

ar-u,

precrous

In Tamil, especially in the old poetical dialect and in the speech of

the peasantry, such dissyllabic adjectives, or nouns of quality, are often

1l

found to sustain a further change

The final euphonic vowel is

rejected, and to compensate for its loss, the interior vowel of the root

is lengthened

Thus

per-u

becomes

per

¢kar-u

“Bar, and

g

ar-u

‘ar

In the same manner ¢ or-u,’ one, become

or; and ‘ir-u

two

¢ A

1T

This lengthened monosyllabic form is considered to be

peculiarly elegant, and is much used in combinations

It is also used

il

more frequently than the dissyllabic form as a concrete noun of

quality

Thus ¢kar, black, is much used

by itself to denote ‘the

0f

or ¢ Coromandel monsoon

or

‘the rice orown at that

th

ralny season,

season

This euphonic lengthening of the

root vowel and rejection

al

of the final will be found to throw licht in the derivation of some

il

&

nouns of quahty ; eg., ‘par, desolate, a wilderness, is evidently derived

from

‘ para, old.

When the final consonant of the crude root belongs to the class

of hard letters (‘k, <&’ “t,” ‘t, ‘p, ‘®’) it cannot be enunciated by

’%

Tamilians without the help of an appended vowel

and in such

I

cases, though the interior vowel of the root is lengthened, the final

S

remains

£

paé-u,’ green, becomes in poetical and vulgar

b

2

usage, not ¢ pas,” but pas-

This final ‘u,” however, being retained

th

solely for the sake of enunciation, is considered like the Hebrew

br

sh’vd,” as only half the length of an ordinary short vowel

L1

At first sight the change in the interior vowels of Dravidian

to

roots now pointed out may appear to resemble the usage of the

by

Sanserit ; but on further examination 'the resemblance 1s found to dis-

appear

It is evident that the Dravidian increase of quantity is

118

wholly euphonic, and not, like that of the Sanserit, a means of pro-

th

ducing grammatical modification

for though that form of the Dravi-

dian noun of quality, or adjective, in which the root vowel is

1ig

lengthened, is more frequently employed as a concrete noun than the

st;

older dissyllabic form, yet the dissyllabic form is also used as a concrete,

¢

and both forms are used indiscriminately as adjectives; from which it

is obvious that the difference between them pertains, not to gram-

Tog

P —

-

INTERNAL CHANGES.

167

matical relation, but only to considerations of euphony.

Thus,

though ‘ar,’ precious, is more often used than ‘ar-u,’ to signify pre-

ciousness, or that which s precious, yet ‘ar-u’ also is used by the

poets in the same sense ; and either ‘ar-u’ or ‘a4r’ may optionally be

used in composition as an adjective.

2. Real Exceptions.

It has been stated as a general rule that the internal vowels of

f

Dravidian roots sustain no internal change on recciving formative or

1

inflexional additions or in composition; it has also been stated that

1S

deviations from this rule exist, but that they are few and unim-

ot

portant.

The apparent exceptions mentioned above have been shown

i

to be merely euphonie.

I proceed to notice the few real exceptions

which are observed.

(1.) In most of the Dravidian languages the quantity of the root-

he

el

vowels of the pronouns of the first and second persons, both singular

The nominatives

of

and plural, is shortened in the oblique cases.

16

of those pronouns are long; e.g., ‘nin,’ Tamil, Z, ‘nam, we; ‘ni,’

thou, ‘nir,’ you.

But in Tamil, Canarese, Malayilam, and Tulu, in

20

on

all the oblique cases the vowels are shortened before receiving the

e

suffixed inflexional particles.

Thus, in Canarese, to me is not ‘ nin-

The

el

a-ge,” but ‘nin-a-ge; ¢o thee is not ‘nin-a-ge, but ‘nin-a-ge’

Telugu, Gond, and Ku generally retain the quantity of the root-

vowel unaltered: e.g., in Telugu we find ‘ni-ku,’ ¢o thee, as well as

a5

‘ni, thou; but in the accusative, ‘ nin-u,” thee, the quantity is altered

by

in the same manner.

1ch

The only other instance of a similar shorten-

nal

ing of the root-vowel of a Dravidian word is that which is supplied

by the numerals. The radical portion of the Tamil numeral ‘miindru,’

gi\f

[4

three, is ‘mu; but this becomes

mu,” when used as an adjectival

ned

In

prefix, as in ‘ muppattu,’ thirty, and ‘munniru,’ three hundred.

Al

like manner when ‘ar-u,’ siz, is used adjectivally, it is shortened

to ‘ar-u; and ¢ér-u,’ seven, to ‘eru; eg., ‘arubadu,’ sizty, ¢eru-

an

badu, seventy. The oblique case of a noun or pronoun is identical

the

with that form which the same noun or pronoun takes when it is

ds

used adjectivally ; and hence both these classes of instances fall under

Vlb

the same rule.

prO"

The shortening of the root-vowel takes place in the personal pro-

V)

nouns and numerals alone.

All other pronominals and nouns sub-

] 18

stantive adhere to the general rule of the Dréividian languages of

the

preserving the root-vowels unaltered.

retes

Singularly enough, this exception from the general rigidity of the

it

root-vowels is a Scythian exception, as well as a Dravidian one. In the

il

168

ROOTS.

S

Seythian .Version of the Behistun tablets, whilst the nominative of the

pronoun of the second person is ‘ni, ¢hou, as in the Drividian lan-

U

guages, the possessive case is ‘ni,” thy, and the accusative ‘nin,” thee,

)

o

corresponding in quantity to the Dravidian oblique cases; e.g., Telugu

and Tulu, ‘nin-u,’ ¢thee, High Tamil ¢ nin,’ thy, and ‘ ninnei,’ thee.

le

(2.) Another class of exceptions appears in those few instances in

i

which the Tamil shortens the quantity of the long vowel of the root

001

in the preterite.

This shortening is occasionally observed in the

gr

Canarese, but the best illustrations are those which are furnished by

18

the Tamil: e.g., ‘végu,’ properly ‘vé,” ¢o burn, has for its preterite par-

ticiple, not ‘végundu’ or ‘véndu,” but ‘vendu; ‘négu,’ to be in pain,

¢!

properly ‘nd,” has in the preterite, not ‘négundu’ or ‘néndu,” but

fi

‘nondu ;' and ‘kan,’ fo see, not ‘kandu,’ but ‘kandu.’

The two classes of exceptions mentioned above evidently accord,

1l

as far as they go, with a prevalent usage of the Indo-European lan-

guages, inasmuch as they are examples of the shortening of the interior

I

vowels of the root on receiving the addition of the inflexional particles,

i

to make compensation for the additional weight which is thus

10

imposed on the root-vowel.

O

(3.) A third class consists of instances in which the quantity of a

ah

vowel is lengthened when a verbal root is formed, directly and without

Ta

K

any extraneous addition, into a noun.

The alteration which the root

of

If

vowel sustains is prior to any inflexional additions being made.

0

any formative particle is added to 2 verbal root to convert it into a

noun, the quantity of the root-vowel remains unchanged.

The

1y

lengthening of the root-vowel to which I refer takes place only in

fe

(some of) those cases in which the verbal base itself is used as a noun.

1

Thus, the verb ‘ked-u,’ ¢o destroy or to become destroyed, may become a

an

verbal noun by the addition of the formative ‘di, e.g., ‘kedudi,

aly

destruction, in which event the root-vowel remains unaltered ; but the

¢hs

verbal base may also be used without addition as a verbal noun, iu

W

which case ‘ked-u’ is lengthened into ¢kéd-u.’

‘k

The following Tamil examples of the lengthening of each of the

five primary vowels will suffice to illustrate this usage :

thy

From ¢pad-u,’ to suffer, is formed ¢ pid-u,’ a suffering ; from ‘min,’

st

to shine, ‘min, a star; from ‘Sud-u,” to burn, ¢§td-u,” keat ; from

Ya

‘per-u,’ to obtain, ‘pér-u, a benefit obtained ; and from ‘kol,” to

recewve, ‘ kol reception.

I am not aware of the existence of a sinﬁ]ar rule in any of the

Scythian languages, but it is well known to the Sanscrit (e.g., comp.

‘vach,’ to speak, with ‘vach,’ @ word ; ‘mar’ (‘mri’), to die, with ‘méara,’

death)

Nevertheless, I can scarcely think it likely that it is from the

E

|

F

INTERNAL CHANGES.

169

fthe

Sanserit that the Drividian languages have derived a usage which

Jan

prevails ameng them to so great an extent, and which has every

thee,

appearance of being an original feature of their own.

It may here be

luu

added, that in two instances in Tamil the root vowel has been

lengthened in the imperative of verbs: eg., ¢ tara,’ fo give, is in the

8 11

imperative plural ‘tar-um,” give ye; and ‘vara,’ fo come, ¢ vir-um,

100t

come ye.

I consider this change as euphonic, not pertaining to the

i

16

grammatical expression, for in the parallel forms in Telugu the vowel

' by

is short, e.g., ‘ra-(m)mu,’ come ye.

par

In concluding this section it seems desirable to notice an apparent

pain

change of interior vowels occurring in Tamil, which has been supposed

' but

to accord with the Sanserit change of a short vowel into a long one,

and of a naturally long vowel into a diphthong, on a noun being changed

cord,

into an adjective. It consists in the change of ‘pafum,’ green, in cer-

lan-

tain conjunctions, into ‘peim ; e.g., ‘peim-pon,” excellent (literally

or10r

green) gold.

It is certain, however, that this is merely an euphonic

jcles,

change, in no way affecting grammatical relations.

‘pasum,’ green, is

thus

not derived, as Beschi supposes, from ¢pasumei,’ greenness, by the

omission of the final ‘ei; for ‘mei,’ not ¢ei,” is the particle by which

of a

abstracts are formed, and the ‘m’ is the most essential part of that

thout

particle.

It is derived from ¢pa8,’ green, the crude adjective or noun

100t

of quality, with the addition of ‘um,’” the sign of the aorist, commonly

ik

called ‘the future,’ by which it is made an aoristic relative participle,

no &

a class of participles which all Scythian tongues delight to use as adjec-

tives.

It has already been shown that ¢S’ when medial, has a

The

tendency to be softened into ‘y,” and then to disappear altogether ; and

}y i

joul.

in consequence of this tendency, ‘pasum’ naturally became ‘pajum,’

and this again, by an easy change, and one which in pronunciation is

ne &

udi,

almost imperceptible, ¢ peim.’

We have a parallel instance of this

‘

change in the noun ‘kaSuppu,’ bilterness, which may optionally be

1 the

written and pronounced ¢keippu; ‘kaSuppu’ changing first into

n,

‘kajuppu,” and then into ‘keippu.’

It should also be observed that ‘peim’ has not superseded ¢ pasum,’

{ the

though it may optionally be used instead of it, for ¢pasum’ also is

still in use ; and this proves that both forms are grammatically equi-

i,

valent.

from

| 1

f the

0P

néfﬂ)’

|

) the

%

i

onl

Sem

gen

lang

ey

SECTION IIL

fam

iy

ped

for

THE NOUN,

i

gr

I~ this section it will be my endeavour to investigate the nature

and affections of the Dravidian noun, with the view of ascertaining its

P

Al

method of expressing the relations of gender and number, and the

principles on which that method proceeds, together with the charac-

wh

teristics and origin of its case-system, or system of means for expressing

1ou;

It will be shown

the relationship of nouns with other parts of speech.

L

at the close of the section oh ¢ The Verb,” how derivative nouns are

are

formed from verbal roots; and the various classes of participial nouns

ther

10

will then also be investigated.

fiye

Part I.—Gender and Number.

(N

lat

1. GENDER.

an

When the Indo-European laws of gender are compared with those

] mp‘

of the Scythian group of tongues, it will appear that in this point, as

ligge

in many others, the Dravidian languages accord more closely with the

‘he

Scythian than with the Indo-European family.

neyt

In all the more primitive Indo-European languages, not only are

tnly

words that denote rational beings and living creatures regarded as

Worg

masculine or feminine, according to the sex of the objects referred to,

h] fjh

but also inanimate objects and even abstract ideas have similar sexual

add;

distinctions attributed to them;

so that many nouns which are

naturally destitute of gender, and which ought therefore to be regarded

ﬁcat‘

as neuters, are treated by the grammars of those Janguages as if the

that

:

objects they denote were males and females, and are fitted not with

the

neuter, but with masculine or feminine case-terminations, and with

Sc),(

pronouns of corresponding genders.

This peculiar system is a proof

the

of the highly imaginative and poetical character of the Indo-European

]311 0

mind, by which principles of resemblance were discerned in the

ot ¢

GENDER.

171

midst of the greatest differences, and all things that exist were not

only animated, but personified. A similar remark applies to the

Semitic languages also, in which the same or a similar usage respecting

gender prevailed.

In the progress of the corruption of the primitive Indo-European

languages, a less imaginative but more natural usage gained ground:

nevertheless, in a majority of the modern colloquial dialects of this

family, both in Europe and in India, the gender of nouns is still an

important and difficult section of the grammar, and a standing im-

pediment in the way of the idiomatic use of those languages by

foreigners.

On the other hand, in the Manchu, Mongolian, Turkish, and

Finnish families of tongues—the principal families of the Seythian

ure

group—a law or usage respecting the gender of nouns universally

it

prevails, which is generically different from that of the Indo-European

the

and the Semitic idioms.

In those families, not only are all things

rac

which are destitute of reason and life denoted by neuter nouns, but no

ng

nouns whatever, not even nouns which denote human beings, are

regarded as in themselves masculine or feminine.

All nouns, as such,

oWl

are

are neuter, or rather are destitute of gender.

In those languages

s

there is no mark of gender inherent in, or inseparably annexed to, the

nominative of any noun (the crude root being generally the nomina-

tive) ; and in none of the oblique cases, or post-positions used as

case-terminations, is the idea of gender at all involved. The unimagi-

native Scythians reduced all things, whether rational or irrational,

animate or inanimate, to the same dead level, and regarded them all as

hose

impersonal.

They prefixed to common nouns, wherever they found it

{, 48

necessary, some word denoting sex, equivalent to ‘male’ or ¢female,’

‘he’ or ‘she;” but they invariably regarded such nouns as in themselves

, the

neuters, and generally they supplied them with neuter pronouns.

The

10

only exceptions to this rule in the Scythian languages consist in a few

words, such as ¢ God,” “man,” ‘ woman,” ¢ husband,” ¢ wife,” which are so

d a8

d to,

highly instinet with personality that of themselves, and without the

axuﬁl

addition of any word denoting sex, they necessarily convey the signi-

fication of masculine or feminine.

- are

When our attention is turned to the Dravidian languages we find

1led

£ the

that whilst their rules respecting gender differ generally from those of

the Indo-European group, they are not quite identical with those of the

yith

Scythian.

It seems probable, however, that the particulars in which

with

the Dréavidian rules respecting gender differ from those of the Scythian

Proof

Opeﬂll

languages, and evince a tendency in the Indo-European direction, are

not the result of Sanscrit influences, of which no trace is perceptible

] thp

S A A 5 e

172

THE NOUN.

all n

in this department of Drividian grammar, but have arisen from the

Tami

progressive mental cultivation of the Dravidians themselves.

more

Dravidian nouns are divided into two classes, which Tamil gram-

word

marians denote by the technical terms of ¢high caste’ and ¢ caste-less’

lpon

nouns, but which are called by Telugu grammarians ¢ mahat,” majors

which

and ‘a-mahat,” minors.

¢ High-caste’ nouns, or ‘majors, are those

whicl

which denote the celestial and infernal deities and human beings,’

comm

or, briefly, all things that are endowed with reason; and in all the

Ir

Dravidian dialects (with a peculiar exception which is found only in

word

the Telugu and the Gond) nouns of this class are treated in the

denty

singular as masculines or feminines respectively, and in the plural as

gend

epicenes, that is, without distinguishing between masculines and

the |

feminines, but distinguishing both from the neuter.

The other class of

peasa

nouns, called ¢caste-less, or ‘minors,” includes everything which is

destitute of reason, whether animate or inanimate. . This classification

vidiay

Tivers

of nouns, though not so imaginative as that of the Indo-European and

or ge;

Semitic tongues, is decidedly more philosophical; for the difference

Tefaln

between rational beings and beings or things which are destitute of

reason, is more momentous and essential than any difference that

Thu,

exists between the sexes.

The New Persian, which uses one plural-

singu]

the

ising particle for nouns that denote animated beings and another and

different one for things that are destitute of life, is the only Un-Dré-

1oup)

vidian Janguage in which nouns are classified in a manner which is in

Seyt

1 {or

any degree similar to the Dravidian system.* The peculiar Dravidian

law of gender which has now been described would appear to be a

Pén

fr

3

result of grammatical cultivation; for the masculine, feminine, and

gende

epicene suffixes which form the terminations of Dravidian ‘high-caste’

nouns, are properly fragments of pronouns or demonstratives of the

the b,

third person, as are also some of the neuter formatives.

It may,

jﬂsepar

lnent ¢

indeed, be stated as a general rule that all primitive Dravidian nouns

the Drﬁ

are destitute of gender, and that every noun or pronoun in which the

idea of gender is formally expressed, being a compound word, is

A

shoulq

necessarily of later origin than the uncompounded primitives.

The

Tgmb

technical term by which such nouns are denoted by the grammarians

is ¢ pagu-padam,’ divisible words, i.e., compounds.

Hence the poetical

and fy

dialects, which retain many of the primitive land-marks, are fond of

gendey

arg W]]

discarding the ordinary suffixes of gender or rationality, and treating

the fen

* This is not the only particular in which the Drividion idiom attributes

greater importance than the Indo-European, to reason and the mind. We make

Ty

our bodies the seat of personality.

When we are suffering from any bodily

Subst,

ailment, we say ‘Z am ill;’ whereas the Drividians denote the mind—the con-

Ordinal

scious self or ‘4tmd’—when they say J, and therefore say, more philosophically,

‘my body is ill.

GENDER.

173

n the

all nouns, as far as possible, as abstract neuters.

Thus in poetical

Tamil ¢Dév-u, God, a erude noun destitute of gender, is reckoned

more classical than ‘Dév-an,’ the corresponding masculine noun. This

fram-

Josy

word is a Sanscrit derivative, but the same tendency to fall back

'

upon the old Scythian rule appears in the case of many other words

jors

those

which are primitive Drividian nouns; e.g., ‘irei, « king, a word

ings,

which is destitute of gender, is more classical than ¢irei-(v)-an, the

commoner form, which possesses the masculine singular termination.

| the

In the modern Tamil which is spoken by the educated classes, the

ly in

words which denote ‘sun’ and ‘moon’ (‘sfiriy-an’ and ¢$andir-an,

n the

ral as

derived from the Sanscrit ¢ siirya’ and ¢ chandra,’) are of the masculine

s and

gender, in accordance with Sanscrit usage and with the principles of

the Brahmanical religion; but in the old Tamil of the poets and the

ass of

ich 18

peasants, ‘fijiyiru,’ the sun, and tinggal,’ the moon, both pure Dra-

vidian words, are mneuters.

All true Drividian names of towns,

cation

rivers, &c., are in like manner destitute of every mark of personality

nand

or gender.

orence

In some few instances the Malayalam and the Canarese

retain the primitive laws of gender more faithfully than the Tamil.

it of

that

Thus, in the Tamil word ¢peiyan,’ a boy, we find the masculine

singular termination ‘an ; whereas the Malayilam (with which agrees

,

Tural-

the Canarese,) uses the older word ¢peital,” a word (properly a verbal

or and

1-Drd-

noun) which is destitute of gender; to which it prefixes in a thoroughly

Scythian manner words that signify respectively ‘male’ and ¢female,’

) isin

to form compounds signifying ¢ boy’ and ¢ girl;’ e.g., ‘4n peital,” @ boy,

yidian

¢ pen peital,’ a girl.

) be &

The nature and origin of the terminations which are used to signify

) and

gender in the various Dravidian dialects, will be enquired into under

.cﬂ.ste’

the head of ¢ Number,” with the consideration of which this subject is

of the

inseparably connected. Under this head I restrict myself to a state-

) lﬂaya

ment of the general principles respecting gender, which characterize

pouns

the Drayidian languages.

i the

A peculiarity of the Telugu, which appears also in the Génd,

Dl’ll | 18

should here be mentioned.

Whilst those dialects agree with the other

The

members of the Drividian family in regarding masculines and feminines

uﬁriﬂﬂs

and both combined as constituting in the plural a common or epicene

etical

gender ; they differ from the other dialects in this respect, that they

jond of

are wholly or virtually destitute of a feminine singular, and instead of

the feminine singular use the singular of the neuter.

This rule includes in its operation pronouns and verbs as well as

fributes

[ make

substantives, and applies to goddesses and queens, as well as to

ordinary women.

The Telugu possesses, it is true, a few forms which

fhe con-

are appropriate to the feminine singular, but they are rarely used, and

phicaﬂﬁ'>

174

THE NOUN.

that only in certain rare combinations and conjunctures. ¢ He’ and

‘it are the only pronouns of the third person singular, which are

forn

ordinarily made use of by fourteen millions of the Telugu people;

iden

a Ve

and the colloquial dialect does not even possess any provnoun,

equivalent to our pronmoun ‘she,” which is capable of being applied

mat

addi

to women of the lower as well as of the higher classes.

Ordinarily

every woman is spoken of in Telugu as a chattel or a thing, or as we

forn

are accustomed to speak of very young children (e.g., ¢4 did so and

with

utll

so’), apparently in the supposition either that women are destitute of

reason, or that their reason, like that of infants, lies dormant.

Whilst

leas

each woman taken singly is treated by Telugu grammar as a chattel

Ppro

or as a child, women taken collectively are regarded with as much

wh

respect as by the other Drividian dialects.

In the plural they are

g

honoured with the same ‘high-caste’ or ‘rational’ suffixes and pronouns

that are applied to men and gods.

‘A

The Canarese and Malayilam agree in this point with the Tamil,

pro

and regard women, not in the plural only, but also in the singular, as

to g

pertaining to the class of ‘rationals:’ accordingly in those languages

beco

there is a feminine singular pronoun equivalent to ¢she,” which corres-

age,

ponds in the principle of its formation to the masculine ¢he.

With

e

those languages agrees the Ku, which, though the near neighbour of

the Telugu and the Gond, pursues in this respect a politer course than

an

either,

1

In the idioms of the Tudas and Kotas, the rude aborigines of the

of

Nilgherry hills, there is no pronoun of the feminine singular; but

e

instead of the feminine, those dialects appear to use not the neuter

but the masculine.

This extraordinary usage reminds one of the

an

employment in the Old Hebrew of the same pronoun, ht,’ to signify

any,

both ¢ he’ and ¢ she.

lhe1

itsel

2. NUMBER.

CHSQ;

The Dravidian languages recognize only two numbers, the singular

laty

and the plural.

The dual, properly so called, is unknown, and there

‘mg

is no trace extant of its use at any previous period. Several of the

Moy,

languages of this family contain two plurals of the pronoun of the first

the

person, one of which includes the party addressed as well as the party

eup}

of the speaker, and which may therefore be considered as a species of

1 I}o

dual, whilst the other excludes the party addressed. As, however,

this peculiarity is restricted to the personal pronouns, it will be

eleg

examined in that connexion.

Under the head of ¢ Number,” we shall

but

enquire into the Dravidian mode of forming the masculine, feminine,

(any

and neuter singular, and the epicene and neuter plural.

NUMBER—MASCULINE

SINGULAR.

175

"and

(L) Masculine Singular.—It has already been intimated that the

) are

formatives by which the gender of nouns is occasionally expressed, are

ople;

identical with the terminations of the demonstrative pronouns.

From

Doun,

a very early period of the history of these languages, particles or for-

plied

matives of gender were suffixed to the demonstrative bases, by the

atily

addition of which suffixes demonstrative pronouns were formed. Those

18 We

formatives of gender were not originally appended to or combined

] and

with substantive nouns; but their use was gradually extended as their

ite of

utility was perceived, and nouns which included the idea of gender,

Vhilst

learned to express that idea by suffixing the gender-terminations of the

hattel

prououns, whereby they became appellative nouns.

The manner in

much

which all these suffixes are added will be sufficiently illustrated by the

instance of the masculine singular.

Y are

nouns

The masculine singular suffix of the Tamil is ‘an,” ‘4n,” or ‘6n.’

‘An,’ the shorter formative, is that which appears in the demonstrative

amil,

pronoun ‘avan’ (‘a-(v)-an’), ke, and by suffixing any of these formatives

to an abstract or neuter noun, the noun ceases to be abstract, and

at, 88

1ages

becomes a concrete masculine-singular appellative.

Thus ‘mipp-u,’

OITES-

age, by the addition of ‘an’ becomes ‘mipp-an,’ an elder, literally

With

age-he, or age-man; and from ¢ Tamir’ comes ¢ Tamir-an,” a ZLamilian,

w of

a Tamil-man.

, than

These and similar nouns are called generically ¢ compound or divi-

sible words’ by Tamil grammarians.

They are obviously compounded

of a noun—generally a noun of quality or relation—and a suffix of

f the

gender, which appears also to have been a noun originally.

; but

euter

In the instances which have been adduced, the suffix of gender is

f the

annexed to the nominative or casus rectus; but in many cases it is

annexed to the oblique case or inflexional base, viz., to that form of

onify

the noun to which the case signs are suffixed, and which when used by

itself has the meaning of the genitive.

When the inflexion, or oblique

case, is employed instead of the nominative in compounds of this

nature, it generally conveys a genitival or possessive signification: e.g.

gular

there

‘malelyinan’ (‘ malei-(y)-in-an’), a mountaineer, literally a man of the

jf tlle

mountavn ; ‘pattinattan’ (‘ pattin’-att’-an’), a citizen, literally a man of

the city. Sometimes, however, the genitival ‘in’ is merely added

o fist

euphonically ; e.g., there is no difference in meaning between ‘villan,’

party

168 of

a bowman, and ‘villinan’ (‘vill'-ir-an’), which is considered a more

elegant form.

revel

Words of this description are in some grammars called ¢ adjectives ;

1l be

gl

but they are never regarded as such by any native grammarians: they

]iﬂi!lfx

cannot be simply prefixed for the purpose of qualifying other words ;

176

THE NOUN.

and it is evident from their construction that they are merely appella-

il

tive nouns.

il

A subdivision of appellatives consists of words in which the suffixes

“a

su

of gender are aunexed to adjectival forms; e.g., ‘kodiya-n,’ a cruel

man

I regard words of this class as participial nouns, and they will

pe

be investigated in the section on ¢ The Verb,” under the head of ¢ Appel-

In

lative Verbs; but whatever be the nature of ‘kodiya’ (the first part

of the compound), ¢kodiya-n,” is certainly not an adjective; for before

f

it can be used adjectivally we must append to it the relative participle

Cel

‘ana,’ that is; e.g. ‘kodiyan-ana,’ that is a cruel man, and as the com-

8

pound cruel man, cannot be called an adjective in English, neither is

‘kodiyan’ an adjective in Tamil: it is properly an appellative noun.

It may be said that the neuter plural of this word, viz., ¢ kodiya,” may

t

be prefixed adjectivally to any substantive: but ¢ kodiya,” cruel things,

the neuter plural of ‘kodiyan,” is not identical with the adjective

1

‘ kodiya,” cruel, but totally distinct from it, though so similar in appear-

ance.

I

The ‘a’ of the former word is the neuter suffix of plurality ;

whereas the ‘a’ of the latter is that of the possessive case and of the

relative participle, as will be shown at the close of this section (see

d

¢ Adjectival Formatives’) and in the section on ¢ Verbs.’

ik

. Another species of Tamil appellative nouns is said by Beschi to be

f.g,

formed by annexing suffixes of gender to verbal roots, e.g., ‘oduvéan,’

the

a reader, from ¢6du,’ to read ; but this, I believe, is an error.

Those

€a

words are to be regarded as participial nouns, and ‘6duvan,’ is literally

T

he who will read, t.e., he who is accustomed to read.

¥

In the same manner ‘6dinan,’ is the participial noun of the preterite

T

tense, and means ke who read or is accustomed to read : ‘6dugindravan,’

1l

the corresponding present participial noun, ke who reads, belongs to

the same class; and these forms are not to be confounded with appel-

f

lative nouns properly so called. On the other hand, such words as

den

‘kappan,’ a protector, are true appellatives; but ‘kappan’ is not

ST

formed from the future tense of the verb (though ¢képpén’ means Ze

ik

will protect), but from ‘kappu, protection, a derivative noun, of which

Cay

the final and formative ‘ppu’ is from the same origin as the corresponding

n

final of ‘mippu,” old age.

See the concluding part of the section on

or

¢The Verb.

bt

The suffixes of gender which form the terminal portion of appella-

0N

tive nouns vary somewhat in form; but they are one and the same in

g

origin, and their variations are merely euphonic.

It is the vowel only

Wi

that varies, never the consonant.

1f

When a neuter noun ends with a vowel which is essential to it,

ay;

of ¢

R

NUMBER—THE

MASCULINE

SINGULAR.

177

ollg-

and is incapable of elision, and also when a noun happens to be a long

monosyllable, ‘an,” or in poetry ¢6n,” is more commonly suffixed than

Ixes

‘an

b

In some cases ‘avan,’ ke, the full demonstrative pronoun, is

1]

suffixed instead of its termination only; and this mode is thought

will

peculiarly elegant.

Thus from ¢vill-u, @ bow, we may form ¢ vill-an,’

pel-

“vill-an,” and ‘¢vill-6n, an archer, a bowman, and also °vill-avan.’

part

Indeed ¢ 4n’ and ¢ 6n,’ have possibly been formed, not from ¢an,” but

fore

from ‘a-(v)-an,” by the softening of the euphonic ‘v, and the coales-

iple

cence of the vowels.

This corruption of ‘avan’ into ¢4an,’ appears

(0=

systematically in the third person masculine singular of the colloquial

erls

Tamil verb; e.g., ‘pon-4n’ (not ¢ pén-avan’), ke went.

oun,

The Canarese masculine singular suffix ‘anu,’ is identical with

may

the Tamil ‘an,’ the additiou of ‘u’ being a phonetic necessity of the

modern dialect.

ings

In the older Canarese, the termination which was

ofive

used was ‘am; a particle which is to be regarded as the equivalent

ear-

of “an ‘n’ and ‘m’ being interchangeable nasals.

The Malayalam

ity;

is, in this particular, perfectly identical with the Tamil.

f the

The Telugu masculine singular formative is ‘d-u,” ‘ud-u,” or

‘ad-u; eg., ‘“vadu’ (‘va-adu’), he; and by suffixing the same for-

(aee

mative to any substantive noun, it becomes a masculine singular;

o be

e.g., ‘mag-adu,” @ husband, a word which is identical in origin with

wén,'

the Tamil ‘mag-an,’ ¢ son (the primitive and proper meaning of

hose

each word being a male).

The masculine singular suffix of the

rl‘ﬁuy

Telugu often takes the shape of ¢ud-u, and in like manner the

epicene plural suffix, which is in Tamil ‘ar-u, is often ‘ur-u’ in

Telugu; but in these instances ‘a’ changes into ‘u’ through attrac-

erite

Mll,’

tion.

;rs to

As the Tamil forms masculine appellatives by suffixing the demon-

ppel-

strative pronoun ‘avan,” so does the Telugu sometimes suffix its full

demonstrative pronoun ‘vadu; eg., ‘chinna-vadu,’ @ boy (Tamil,

ls 4

. 0b

‘8inna-(v)-an’), literally Ze who vs little. It is probable that the Telugu

s e

masculine singular suffix was originally ‘an’ or ‘an-u,” as in Tamil-

Canarese.

‘adu,” ‘ud-u,” or ‘du, is found only in the nominative

,thh

in correct Telug;ru, and it is replaced in all the oblique cases by ‘ani’

ding

n 0

or ‘ni; and that this ‘ni’ is not merely an inflexional increment,

but the representative of an old masculine singular suffix, appears on

comparing it with ¢ri,’ the corresponding oblique-case suffix of the

3ella

masculine-feminine plural, which is certainly” formed from ‘ar-u.’

01D

only

When ¢ vaniki,’ ¢o Aim, i1s compared with its plural ‘variki,’ ¢o them,

it is evident that the former corresponds as closely to the Tamil

‘avanukku’ as the latter to ‘avarukku; and consequently the ‘ni’

0 i

of ‘vaniki’ must bg significant of the masculine singular. Probably

N

s R——

|

e

i

__

—

1

lod

{

8

THE NOUN.

the same termination survives in the demonstrative, °ayana,’ /e, a

form which is more rarely used than ¢vadu.

That the Tamil-Canarese masculine suffix ¢an,” and the Telugu

‘ad-u’ or ‘ud-u, were originally one and the same, will, I think,

appear when the derivation and connections of both are inquired

into.

The Ku, though one of the most barbarous of the Dravidian

dialects, throws more light than any other upon this point. It forms

its demonstrative pronouns in a simple and truly primitive manner by

prefixing ¢4, the demonstrative base, to common nouns, which sig-

nify man and woman.

Those nouns are Aafij-u, @ man, and ‘al-u, a

woman ; and ¢ 4afij-u’ (compare Tam., ‘a(v)an’), literally that man, is

used to signify 4e, and ¢ 44lu’ (compare Tam. ¢ a(v)al’) that woman, to

C A

signify she.

The Ku

anj

-u,” @ man, is certainly identical with the

Tamil noun ‘a4n,’ @ male: and we see the same root in the Ancient

Can. ‘4nma,’ a husband, a ruler, and ‘Anmu,’ to be brave (compare

the Tamil abstract noun ‘Aan-mei,’ strength).

In the use to which this

primitive root is put in the Ku word ¢4-Afij-u,” we cannot but see the

origin of ‘an,’ the suffix of the masculine singular in most of the

5

Dravidian dialects.

The final

Gt

n,

and probably the entire termina-

d

tion ‘fiju,’ of the Ku word ‘é&fi-ju,” being merely euphonic, the root

¢

h

appears to be ‘4n; and as ‘n

and

n’ have been shown to be

interchangeable, ‘an’ must be regarded as only another form of 4an.’

‘n,’ again, is not only often euphonised by suffixing ‘du’ (e.g., ‘pen,’

Tam., a female, colloquially and poetically °pend-u’), but it is also

sometimes directly changed into ¢d,” of which we have an instance

in the classical Tamil ‘ped-ei, a hen, a word which is derived by

this process from, and is identical with, ‘pen,’ a female.

Hence, the

1

Telugu suffix ‘ad-u,’ might naturally be derived from an older form

C

in ‘an,’ if it should appear that that form existed; and that it did

la

exist, appears from the vulgar use to the present day of ‘n’ instead

a

of ‘n’ in some of the oblique cases (e.g., ¢ vanni, him, instead of

Il

‘vani’), and from the ‘half anuswara, or obscure nasal, which pre-

n

cedes ‘du’ itself in the speech of the vulgar and in the written com-

positions of the pedantic; eg., ¢vandu,’ for ¢vadu, Ze.

A close

1

connection is thus established between the Tamil-Canarese ‘an’ aud

U

the Telugu ‘ad-u,’ through the middle point ‘an.

The only difficulty in the way of the perfect identification of the

Ii

¢

formative

all

with the Ku, ‘4dj-u, @ man, and with the Tamil

T

“an, a male, lies in the length of the vowel of the latter words.

a(

Here again the Ku comses to our assistance; for we find that the

i

vowel was euphonically shortened in some instances in the very

dialect in which the origin of the word itself was discovered.,

In Ku

A

NUMBER-—THE

FEMININE SINGULAR.

179

a

the ‘4 of ‘Afij-u’ is long, both when it is used as an isolated word

and in the demonstratives, Aafij-u, ke, and €4al-u,” she; but when

l

the demonstrative pronoun is appended to, and combined with, the

1k,

relative participle of the verb, so as to form with it a participial

ed

9

noun, the ‘4

of ¢Afij-u’ is shortened into ‘a,’ and in this shortened

kil

form the connection of the Ku formative with the Tamil-Canarese is

NS

seen to be complete.

Compare the Ku participial noun ¢ gitdfij-u,’ ke

by

who did, with the corresponding Canarese ‘géyidin-u; ¢gitar-u, Ku,

10

they who did, with ‘géyidar-u,’ Can., and also ‘gital-u,’ Ku, she who

A

did, with ¢ géyidal-u,” Can.

y 8

10

(2.) Feminine Singular.—Though the Telugu and the Gond gene-

the

rally use the neuter singular to supply the place of the feminine

ent

singular, the other Dravidian dialects possess and constantly use a

are

feminine singular formative which is quite distinet from that of the

this

neuter.

This formative is ‘al, in Tamil and Malayilam, ‘al-u,’ in

the

Canarese ; and by suffixing the sign of gender to the demonstrative

the

base, the feminine singular demonstrative pronoun ‘aval’ (a-(v)-al’),

it

she, is formed—a word which perfectly corresponds to ‘avan’ (a-(v)-an’),

00t

he

e

A numerous class of feminine singular appellative nouns is formed

al.

by suffixing the same particle to abstract or neuter nouns in their

o,

crude state ; e.g., compare ‘mag-al, Tam., a daughter, with ¢ mag-an,’

also

a son; and (with an euphonic lengthening of the vowel) “ill-al) a

e

house-wife, a wife, with ‘ill-an,” a husband.

by

The Telugu, in some few connexions, uses a feminine singular for-

the

mative which appears to be identical with that of the Tamil-

Canarese.

orm

That formative is ¢&l-u,” which is used by the Ku more

did

largely than by the Telugu ; and its identity with the Tamil-Canarese

end

“al,” will be found to furnish us with a clue to the origin and literal

| of

meaning of the latter.

As ¢anj-u,” in Ku, means a man, so ‘al-u,

means @ woman : ¢ 4al-u, ske, is literally that woman. The same word

p\e

01

¢ al-u,” means @ woman, @ wife, in poetical and vulgar Telugu also ; and

Jose

in Gond there is a word which is apparently allied to it, ‘ ar,} a

WOMAN.

2

aud

Even in Sans. we meet with ali,

a womaw’s female friend.

It is evident that ¢al-u,” would be shortened into ‘al’ as easily as

“anj-u’ into ‘an,’ and the constant occurrence of a cerebral <1’ in

the

Tamil and Canarese, where the Telugu has the medial 1 fully

ﬂﬂﬂl

accounts for the change of the one semi-vowel into the other.

The

Drda

the

unchanged form of this suffix appears in Telugu in such words as

very

¢ manama-(r)-alu, a grand-daughier, compared with ‘manama-dun, a

Ku

grand-son.

The abbreviation of the vowel of the feminine suffix,

N2

54

180

THE

NOUN.

which is characteristic of the Tamil and Canarése, is exemplified in

Telugu also, in the words ‘maradal-u,’ @ niece, and ‘kodal-u, @ daughter-

an-law;” in which words the feminine suffix ¢al-u,’ is evidentical

identical both with the Tamil-Canarese ‘al’ or ‘al-u,’ and also with

“al-u,’ the older and more regular form of this suffix, which is capable

of being used by itself as a noun.

Probably the Tel. ¢ 4d-u,” adj., female, is identical in origin with

“al-u,” through the very common interchange of ‘d’ and ‘1; an illus-

tration of which we have in ‘kei-(y)-4lu,” Tam., ¢o use, which is con-

verted in the colloquial dialect to ‘kei-(y)-Adu.’*

The feminine singular suffix, ¢al’ or ‘al-u,” appears in Tamil and

Canarese in the terminationsof verbs as well as in those of pronouns.

The Telugu, on the other hand, which uses the neuter demonstrative

instead of the feminine singular, uses the final fragment of the same

demonstrative as the termination of the feminine singnlar of its

verb.

It may be remarked that in some of the Caucasian dialects, ‘n’

and ‘1" are used as masculine and feminine terminals, exactly as in

Tamil: e.g., in Awar, ‘emen,’ is father, ¢ evel,’ is mother.

There is another mode of forming the feminine singular of appel-

lative nouns, which is much used in all the Dravidian dialects, and

which may be regarded as especially characteristic of the Telugu.

It

consists in suffixing the Telugu neuter singular demonstrative, its ter-

mination, or a modification of it, to any abstract or neuter noun. The

neuter singular demonstrative being used by the Telugu instead of the

feminine singular (¢t for ske), this neuter suffix has naturally in Telugu

supplied the place of a feminine suffix ; and though in the other dialects

the feminine pronounsare formed by means of feminine suffixes, not by

those of the neuter, yet the less respectful Telugu usage has crept into

f

the department of their appellative nouns.

In Tamil, this neuter-feminine suffix is ‘atti’ or tti.’

This will

g

appear on comparing ‘vellal-atti,” @ woman of the cultivator caste, with

* Tt is more doubtful whether the Génd-Telugu, ‘4l-u,” @ woman, is allied to

the Tamil common noun ‘4l @ person; and yet the existence of some alliance

seems probable.

‘41, means properly a subject person, a servant—male or

Jemale, a slave.

It is derived from ‘41’ (Tel. “él-u’), to rule, and this seems a

ri

natural enough origin for a word intended to signify a Hindu woman.

The

ordinary Tamil word which signifies a woman is ‘pen,” the literal signification

of which is desire, from the verbal root ¢ pen,’ to desire; but the word is generally

restricted to mean a young woman, a bride. Hence, taking into consideration

the subject position of women in India, the word ‘41, one who is subject to rule,

a person whose sole duty is to obey, is as natural a derivation for a word signify-

D

ing @ woman, a female, as ‘pen;’ and perhaps more likely to come into general

use as a suffix of the feminine singular.

h

NUMBER

THE NEUTER SINGULAR.

181

I

‘vellal-an,” @ man of the same caste ; ¢ oru-tti, one woman, ¢ una, with

“oru-(v)-an, one man, ‘wunus; and ‘vanna-tti, o washerwoman, with

“vanna-n,” a washerman.

“tt, a portion of this suffix, is erroneously

th

used in vulgar Tamil as a component element in the masculine appella-

le

tive noun ‘oruttan, one man, instead of the classical and correct

‘ oruvan.’

With this solitary exception its use is exclusively

th

feminine.

13-

The same suffix is “iti” or ‘ti’ in Canarese, e.g., ¢ arasiti, a queen

-

(corresponding to the Tamil rasatti’), ¢okkalati, o farmer’s wife.

The Telugu uses ‘adi’ or ‘di,’ e.g., ‘ komati-(y)-adi’ or ‘ komati-di,” a

9

d

woman of the Komtr caste; ‘méala-di, a« Pariar woman ; ¢chinna-di,

IN

a girl.

Ve

It seems to me evident, not only that all these suffixes are identical,

16

but that the Telugu form of the demonstrative neuter singular, viz.

iR

“adi, ¢, which is used systematically by the Telugu to signify ske, is

the root from whence they have all proceeded.

1

Another feminine singular suffix of appellatives which is occa-

1l

sionally used in the Dravidian languages, has been derived from the

imitation of the Sanscrit.

It consists in the addition of ‘i’ to the

J.

crude or neuter noun ; and it is only in quantity that this ‘i’ differs

nd

from the long ‘1, which is so much used by the Sanscrit as a feminine

It

suffix.

In the majority of cases it is only in connexion with Sanscrit

er-

derivatives that this suffix is used ; but it has also come to be appended

he

to some pure Dravidian nouns; e.g., ‘manei-(v)-i, Tam., a kouse-wife,

he

from ‘manei, a fouse; and ‘talei-(v)-i; Tam., a lady (compare

lgll

“talei-(v)-an,” @ lord), from ‘talel,” a head : compare also the Gond

ot

¢perdgal,’ a boy, with ‘perdgi,’ a girl.

This feminine suffix is not to

by

be confounded with i, a suflix of agency, which is much used iu the

\}

formation of nouns of agency and operation, and which is used by all

genders indiscriminately. See ¢ Verbal Derivatives,” at the close of

ill

the section on ¢ The Verb.’

ith

(8.) Neuter Singular.—There is but little which is worthy of

remark in the singular forms of neuter Dravidian nouns.

Every

| t0

Dréavidian noun is naturally neuter, or destitute of gender, and it

nce

or

becomes masculine or feminine solely in virtue of the addition of a

S &

masculine or feminine suffix.

When abstract Sanscrit nouns are

The

jon

adopted by the Dravidians, the neuter form of those nouns (ending in

ally

jon

¢am’) is generally retained ; and there are also some neuater nouns of

“lllf}

pure Dravidian origin which end in ‘am,” or take ‘am’ as their for-

jif

mative.

The Dravidian termination ‘am’ is not to be regarded,

Tk

however, as a sign of the neuter, or a neuter suffix, though such is un-

182

THE

NOUN.

It is merely one of a numerous

doubtedly its character in Sanscrit.

elass of formatives, of which much use is made by the Dravidian

1]

I

dialect, and by the addition of which crude verbal roots become deri-

vative nouns.

é

Such formatives are to be regarded as forming a part

See ¢ Verbal

f

of the noun itself, not of the inflexional additions.

Derivatives,” at the close of the section on ¢ The Verb.’

1]

All animated beings that are destitute of reason are placed by

Drévidian grammarians in the ‘caste-less, or neuter class, and the

gr

i

nouns that denote such animals, both in the singular and in the plural,

are uniformly regarded as neuter or destitute of gender, irrespective of

fi

the animal’s sex.

If it happens to be necessary to distinguish the sex of any animal

that is included in this class, a separate word, signifying ‘male’ or

‘female,” ‘cock ’ or ‘hen, is prefixed.

Even in such cases, however,

the pronoun with which the noun stands in agreement is neuter, and

notwithstanding the specification of the animal’s sex, the noun itself

f

remaing in the ‘caste-less’ or neuter class.

For this reason, suffixes expressive of the neuter gender, whether

th

{f

singular or plural, were not much required by Dravidian substantive

nouns.

The only neuter singular suffix of the Dravidian languages,

al

which is used in the same manner as the masculine ‘an’ or ‘adu,” and

¢

the feminine ¢al’ is that which constitutes the termination of the

y

neuter singular of demonstrative pronouns and appellative nouns.

This pronoun is in Tamil-Canarese ¢ adu,” that, ¢idu,’ this; in Telugu

§

‘adi, ‘idi ; in Malayalam ‘ata, ‘ita; in Gond ‘ad, ‘id.’

The same neuter demonstrative, or in some instances its termina-

t

tion only, is used in the conjugation of Dréividiun verbs as the sign of

I

the neuter singular of each tense, and in Telugu as the sign of the

th

feminine singular also.

The bases of the Dravidian demonstratives

fo

being ‘a’ and i’ (‘a’ remote, ‘i’ proximate), that part of each pro-

S

noun which is found to be annexed to those demonstrative vowels is

J I

evidently a suffix of number and gender ; and as the final vowels of

D

‘ad-u, ‘ad-i, ‘at-a,” ‘id-u,’ ¢id-i, ‘it-a,” are merely euphonic, and

to

have been added only for the purpose of helping the enunciation, it is

fa

evident that ‘d’ or ‘t’ alone constitutes the sign of the neuter sin-

80

gular,

This view is econfirmed by the circumstance that ¢d’s or 9%

never appears in the neuter plural of this demonstrative, but isreplaced

?

¢

v

OL ¢

by e, ‘u, i or short ‘a,’ with a preceding euphonic

I

e.g., compare ‘adu’ (‘a-d-u’), Tam., that, with ‘ava’ (‘a-(v)-a’),

81

It will be shown afterwards that this final “a’ is

Malayalam, those.

h

a sign of the neuter plural.

of

Appellative nouns which form their mase. singular in Tamil in.

N

—

——

FEE— P—

NUMBER

PLURALISATION.

183

1§

¢an,’ and their feminine sing. in ‘al,” form their neuter sing. by annex-

1

ing ‘du, with such euphonic changes as the previous consonant

happens to require; e.g., ‘nalla~-du,” @ good thing ; ‘al-du,’ euphonically

if

‘andru, a thing that is not; ¢ periya-du’ or ¢peri-du,’ great, a great

l

thing.

This neuter singular suffix ‘d,” is largely used in all the dialects

y

in the formation of verbal nouns, e.g., ‘pogira-du, Tam., the act of

16

going, ‘pona-du, the having gome, ‘pova-du,’ the being about to go.

i

This form has been represented by some, but erroneously, as an infini-

01

tive : it is a concrete verbal or participial noun of the neuter gender,

which has gradually come to be used as an abstract.

al

The affinities of the neuter singular suffix in ‘d’ or t, are ex-

or

clusively Indo-European, and they are found especially in the Indo-

Jr‘

European pronouns and pronominals.

We may observe this suffix In

d

the Sanserit “tad’ or *tat,’ that; in ‘tyad, that; in ‘adas,’ a weakened

!

form of ¢adat, that; in ¢ étad, this.

We find it also in the Latin

¢illud,” ¢id, &ec. (compare the Latin ¢id, with the Tamil ¢i-du,’

T

this); and in our English demonstrative neuter ‘it’ (properly ¢hit’),

(7

the neuter of “he,’ as also in ¢ what,” the neuter of ¢who.’

Compare

g

also the Vedic ¢it, an indeclinable pronoun, described as ¢ a petrified

m

neuter, which combines with the negative particle ‘na’ to form ‘nét,’

he

if mot, apparently in the same manner as in Telugu the aoristic

IN

neuter ¢16du, there is not, is compounded of the negative ‘la’ and the

2

!

sutlix ¢du

Thongh the Dravidian languages appear in this point to be allied

to the Sanscrit family, it would be unsafe to suppose that they bor-

I

of

rowed this neuter singular suffix from the Sanserit.

The analogy of

he

the Dravidian neuter plural in ‘a, which though Indo-European, is

es

foreign to the Sanscrit, and that of the remote and proximate demon-

strative vowels ‘a’ and ¢i, which though known to the Indo-Euro-

18

pean family, are used more systematically and distinctively by the

of

Dravidian languages than by any other class of tongues, would lead

to the supposition that these particles were inherited by the Dravidian

m‘(l

15

family, in common with the Sanserit, from a primitive, Pre-Sanscrit

1D

source.

t7

TaE PLURAL: PrINCIPLES oF PLURALISATION.—In the primitive

ce(g

Indo-European tongues, the plural is carefully distinguished from the

Iy

singular ; and with the exception of a few nouns of quantity which

l%

have the form of the singular but a plural signification, the ‘number’

15

of nouns is always clearly denoted by their inflexional terminations.

it

Nouns whose number is indefinite, like our modern English ‘sheep,’

0 4 AN (IR

—

B —

184

THE NOUN.

are unknown to the older dialects of this family. In the languages of

o

the Scythian group a looser principle prevails, and number is generally

left indefinite, so that it is the connexion alone which determines

il

whether a noun is singular or plural. The Manchu restricts the use

i

of its pluralising particle to words which denote animated beings: all

e

other words are left destitute of signs of number. Even the Tartar,

I

or Oriental Turkish, ordinarily pluralises the pronouns alone, and

leaves the number of other nouns indeterminate. In the Brahui also,

th

the number of nouns is generally left undefined; and when it is

e

desired to attach to any noun the idea of plurality, a word signifying

il

‘many’ or ‘several’ is prefixed to it.

Notwithstanding this rule,

N

Brahui verbs are regularly pluralised ; and the number of an inde-

of

terminate noun may often be ascertained from the number of t

he verb

with which it agrees.

&

With respect to principles of pluralisation, the Dravidian tongues

differ considerably from the Indo-European family, and accord on the

V1

whole with surprising exactness with the languages of the Scythian

bl

stock. ‘The number of Drévidian nouns, especially of neuter nouns, is

th

ordinarily indefinite ; and it depends aupon the connexion whether any

10)

It is true that when

noun is to be regarded as singular or as plural.

te)

more ‘persons’ than one are referred to, the high-caste’ or ‘rational’

R

pronouns that are used are almost invariably plural ; and that even

hi

neuter nouns themselves are sometimes pluralised, especially in polished

0o

prose compositions : but the poets and the peasants, the most faithful

0]

guardians of antique forms of speech, rarely pluralise the neuter, and

)

are fond of using the singular noun in an indefinite singular-plural

Cl

sense, without specification of number, except in so far as it is

S

expressed by the context. This rule is adhered to with especial

nei

strictness by the Tamil, which in this, as in many other particulars,

exhibits most faithfully the primitive condition of the Dravidian lan-

or

guages. Thus in Tamil, ‘méidu,’ oz, means either an oz or owen,

10y

according to the connexion ; and even when a numeral is prefixed

18§

—

which necessarily econveys the idea of plurality, idiomatic speakers

Yl\h

prefer to retain the singular or indefinite form of the noun.

Hence

00e

they will rather say ‘nélu madu méygiradu,” literally four oz 18 feed-

if

ing, than ‘nalu madugal méygindrana,’ four oxen are Jeeding, which

0ng

would sound clumsy and pedantie.

e

Even when a neuter noun is pluralised by the addition of a plura-

Us¢

lising particle, the verb is rarely pluralised to correspond ; but the

gy

singular form of verb is still used for the plural,—the number of the

Obj(

neuter singular being naturally indeterminate.

This is invariably the

eup

practice in the speech of the lower classes ; and the colloquial style

hu

185

NUMBER—PLU RALISATI ON.

5 of

of even the best educated classes exhibits a similar characteristic. The

ly

Tamil language contains, it is true, a plural form of the third person

Ines

neuter of the verb, and the existence of this form is a clear proof of

U5¢

the high cultivation of the Tamil ; but the use of the neuter plural

all

verb is ordinarily restricted to poetry, and even in poetry the singular

ttat,

number both of neuter nouns and of the verbs that correspond is much

and

more commonly used than the plural.

It should be remarked also,

also,

that the third person neuter of the Tamil future, or aorist, is altogether

t 1

destitute of a plural.

In this particular, therefore, the Tamil verb is

g

more decidedly Scythian in character than the noun itself. Max

rule,

Miiller supposes that a Dravidian neuter plural noun, with its suffix

nde-

of plurality, is felt to be a compound (like ¢animal-mass’ for

yeth

“animals,” or ¢stone-heap’ for ‘stomes’), and that it is on this

account that it is followed by a verb in the singular. The explanation

which I have given seems to me preferable.

The number of all Dra-

Zues

) the

vidian nouns, whether ¢high-caste’ or ¢caste-less,’ was originally

hian

indefinite : the singular, the primitive condition of every noun, was

18,18

then the only number which was or could be recognized by verbal or

] any

nominal inflexions, and plurality was left to be inferred from the con-

rhen

text.

As civilization made progress, the plural made its formal

nal’

appearance, and effected a permanent settlement in the department of

even

high-caste or masculine-feminine nouns and verbs ; whilst the number

shed

of caste-less or neuter nouns, whether suffixes of plurality were used

thful

or not, still remained generally unrecognized by the verb in the Dravi-

dian languages.

Even where the form exists it is little used.

It is

, and

Jural

curious, that in this very point the Greek verb exhibits signs of

it 1

Scythian influences, viz., in the use of the singular verb for the plural

neuter.

ecial

las,

The Drévidianulanguages ordinarily express the idea of singularity

Jan-

or oneness, not by the addition of a singular suffix to nouns and pro-

nouns, or by the absence of the pluralising particle (by which number

(el

fixed

is still left indeterminate), but by prefixing the numeral adjective ‘one.’

ket

Thus, ‘madu,” Tam., oz, does not mean exclusively either an oz or

ozen, but admits of either meaning according to circumstances ; and

[pnce

if we wish distinctly to specify singularity, we must say ‘oru madu,’

fel-

one or a certain ox.

ich

Europeans in speaking the Dravidian dialects

use this prefix of singularity too frequently, misled by their habitual

use of an indefinite article in their own tongues. They also make too

Jurd-

b the

free a use of the distinctively plural form of neuter nouns, when the

objects to which they wish to refer are plural.

Occasionally, when

f the

euphony or usage recommend it, this is done by Dravidians themselves,

y fhe

but as a general rule the neuter singular is used instead of the neuter

siyle

186

THE

NOUN.

plural, and that not in the Tamil only, or in the Drividian lan-

guages only, bat also in almost all the languages of the Scythian

group

Another important particular in which the Indo-European languages

differ from the Seythian is, that in the former the plural has a different

set of case-terminations from the singular, by the use of which the idea

of plurality is not separately expressed, but is conjoined with that of

case-relation ; whilst in the latter family the plural uses the same set

of case-terminations as the singular, and plurality is expressed by a

sign of plurality common to all the cases, which is inserted between

the singular or crude form of the noun and the case-terminations.

In

the Indo-European languages, each inflexion includes the twofold idea

of namber and of case.

Thus there is a ‘genitive singular’ and a

‘genitive plural,’ each of which is a complex idea; but there is no

inflexion which can be called ¢ genitive,” irrespective of number ; and

in many instances (this of the genitive being one) there is no apparent

connexion between the case-termination of the singular and that which

is used in, and which constitutes, the plural.

In those few cases in which the sign of number and the sign of

case seem to have been originally distinct, and to have coalesced into

T

one, the sign of case seems to have preceded that of number : e.g., the

Bxpm

Gothic plural accusative °ns,” is derived from ‘n’ or ¢m,’ the sign of

fhe

the accusative singular, and ‘s, the sign of plurality. When the

Sa

1

Seythian family of languages is examined, it is found that each of

their case-signs is fixed and unalterable.

It expresses the idea of

bage

3

‘case’ and nothing more, and is the same in the plural as in the sin-

abfa

gular, with the exception of those few trivial changes which are

direc

required by euphony. The sign of plurality also is not only distinct

Mm

from the case-sign, but is one and the same in all the cases. It is an un-

Smey

alterable post-position—a fixed quantity ; and it is not post-fixed to

of the

the case-sign, much less compounded with it, as in the Indo-European

by th

languages, but is prefixed to it.

It 1s attached direct]y to the root

Heng

itself, and followed by the variable signs of case.

Dty

In the Dravidian languages a similar simplicity and rigidity of

thoge

structure characterizes the use of the particles of plurality. They are

I

added directly to the crude base of the noun (which is equivalent to

theg

the nominative singular), and are the same in each of the oblique

and

cases as in the nominative.

The signs of case are precisely the same

Comyy

in the plural as in the singular, the only difference being that in the

Modg

singular they are suffixed to the crude noun itself, in the plural to the

Teta)y

pluralising particle, after the addition of that particle to the crude

bus

noumn.

“um

NUMBER—PLURALISATION.

187

lan-

For example, in Hungarian ‘haz, « kouse, is declined as follows :

hian

SINGULAR.

4 PrugaL.

Nominative,

haz

Nom

hiz-ak

ages

arent

Genitive,

hiznak

Gen

héz-ak-nak

hiznak

Dat.

héiz-ak-nak

Dative,

1dea

Accusative,

héz-at

Ace

hiz-ak-at

at of

6

et

In Tamil ‘manei,’ @ kouse, is declined as follows :

bya

Weel

SINGULAR.

PLURAL.

In

' Nominative,

manei

Non.

manei-gal

| 1dea

Accusative,

manei-(y)-ei

Ace

manei-gal-ei

nd a

Instrumental,

manei-(y)-al

Instr.

manei-gal-al

s 10

Conjunctive,

manei-(y)-6du

Conj.

manei-gal-6du

Dative,

manei-kku

Dat

manei-gal (u)-kku

and

)

Ablative,

manei-(y)-il-irundu

Ablat

manei-gal-il-irundu

arent

Gen

Genitive,

manei-(y)-in

manei-gal-in

Locative,

manei-(y) idatt-il

Locat

manei-gal-idatt-il

vhich

Vocative,

manei-(y)-é

Voe

manei-gal-é

! of

| into

The particular signs which are used to express plurality and as

., the

exponents of case, are taken from the resources of each langnage; but

g of

the manuer in which they are used in both languages is precisely the

same.

1 the

ch of

The neuter of DrAvidian nouns being identical with the crude

Jea of

base, when the pluralising particle is attached to a neuter noun, it is

'

16 S10-

attached to it not as a substitute for any suffix of the singular, but

directly and without any change: it is attached to it pure and simple.

I are

In the case of masculine and feminine nouns, including pronouns, a

stinct

somewhat different method of pluralisation is necessary.

The singular

1 un-

of the masculine and feminine is formed, as has already been pointed out,

ced to

by the addition to the root of particles denoting ‘a male,” or ‘a female.’

gpeal

Henee to pluralise those nouns, it is necessary either to add a pluralising

» 1000

particle to the masculine and feminine suffixes, or to substitute for

those suffixes an epicene pluralising particle.

/]

ity of

In all the Dravidian languages the primitive plan of pluralising

ey 418

these two classes of nouns was that of substituting for the masculine

ent 10

and feminine singular suffixes a suffix of plurality which applied in

blique

common to men and women, without distinction of sex.

This 1s the

» S0

mode which is still used in most of the dialects; but in Telugu it

n the

retains its place only in connexion with pronouns and verbs, and

fo the

has disappeared from substantives, which form their plural by means

cl’(](le

of a neuter suffix.

188

THE NOUN.

The classification of Dravidian nouns into ‘rationals’ and firra-

are

tionals,” has already been explained: it has also been shown that in

anal

the singular, the masculine of ‘rational’ nouns is distinguished from

hoth

]

the feminine.

In the plural both those genders are combined; the

sign

high caste particle of plurality, or plural of rational beings, is the

same for both genders, and includes men and women, gods and god-

thern

desses, without distinction of sex.

their

and

¢Irrational’ or neuter nouns have a particle of plurality different

neut

from this and peculiar to themselves.

Hence the Dravidian Janguages

have one form of the plural which may be called ¢ epicene’ or ¢ mascu-

Telo

line-feminine,” and another which is ordinarily restricted to the neuter ;

COIY

and by means of these pluralising particles, gender and number are

plur

plur

conjointly expressed in the plural by one and the same termination.

The masculine-feminine plural expresses the idea of plurality conjointly

T’

with that of rationality; the neuter plural, the idea of plurality con-

-l

1383

jointly with that of irrationality.

Arrangements of this kind for giving combined expression to

eollo

gender and number, are very commonly observed in the Indo-European

low |

family; and even the plan of classing masculines and feminines

ant

together in the plural, without distinction of sex, is also very common.

Thus the Sanscrit plural in

‘as

is masculine-feminine; so is the

18 e

Latin plural in “es,” and the Greek in © es.

epice

The chief difference with respect to this point between the Dra-

of 1)

‘g

vidian system and the Indo-European one lies in this, that in the

Dravidian languages, the masculine-feminine particle of plurality is

dial

carefully restricted to rational beings; whereas in the Indo-European

languages irrational and even inanimate objects are often complimented

?

with inflexional forms and pluralising particles which imply the

hut ¢

existence, not only of vitality, but even of personality, that is, rational

he a

self-consciousness.

dia

lec

A still closer analogy to the Dravidian system is that which is

T

exhibited by the New Persian.

That dialect possesses two pluralising

{h

16 1)

particles of which one, ‘4n,’ is suffixed to nouns denoting living beings,*

1ty

A

the other, ‘h4,” to nouns denoting inanimate objects.

The particles

doul

which are employed by the Persians are different from those which

avy

but

* Bopp derives ‘4n,’ the New Persian plural of animated beings, from the

Sanserit ‘4n,’ the masculine-plural accusative.

I am inclined with Colonel Raw-

One ¢

linson to connect this particle with the Chaldaic and Cuthite plural ‘&n,” allied

njp

to ‘“im’ and ‘in’ (e.g., ‘anin, Chald., we); the New Persian being undoubtedly

tinged with Chaldaco-Assyrian elements, through its connection with the Pehlvi.

iy

One is tempted to connect with this suffix our English plural suffix ‘en,’ in

like

brethren; a suffix which is regularly used by the Dutch as a particle of plurality.

the g

Bopp, however, holds that this ‘en,” is an ancient formative suffix, which was

originally used by the singular as well as the plural.

lhe (o

NUMBER—PLURALISATION.

189

-

are used in the Dravidian languages, but the principle is evidently

at 1n

analogous.

The Persians specialise life, the Dravidians reason,; and

from

both of them class the sexes together indiscriminately in the plural.

5 the

In Telugu some confusion has been introduced between the epicene

5 the

sign of plurality ¢ar-u,” and the neuter ¢lu.’

The pronouns pluralise

o0d

their masculines and feminines regularly by substituting ‘ar-u’ for

their masculine and feminine singular suffixes, whilst the substantives

ferent

and some of the appellative nouns append ‘lu,” which is properly the

b

neuter sign of plurality, instead of the more correct ¢ar-u.

Thus the

JUAZES

NasCll-

Telugu demonstrative pronoun ¢ var-u,’ they (the plural of ¢ vadu,’ Ze),

euter;

corresponding to the Canarese ‘avar-u,” exhibits the regular epicene

er are

plural ; whilst ‘magadu,” @ husband (in Tamil ‘magan’), takes for its

ation,

plural not “‘magaru,’ but ¢ magalu; and some nouns of this class add

‘lu’ to the masculine or feminine singular suffix; eg., “alludu,’ a son-

ointly

in-law, makes in the plural not ¢alluru,” nor even ‘allulu,’ but ‘allundlu,’

y con-

nasalised from ‘allud’-lu; and instead of ¢véru, they, ¢ vandlu,’ is

colloquially used, a word which is formed on the same plan as the

on f0

low Madras Tamil ‘avan-gal,’ they, instead of ‘avargal’ or the higher

"OPC‘HH

mines

and purer ‘avar.’

Perhaps the only case in which the ¢irrational’ pluralising particle

nmon,

s the

is used in the higher dialect of the Tamil instead of the ¢rational’

epicene, is that of ‘makkal’ (mag-gal”), mankind, people. The singular

of this word being ‘mag-an,’ the plural ought by rule to have been

, Dr-

in the

‘mag-ar ; and it is interesting to notice that there is in the higher

dialect a rarely used plural, ‘magar, in addition to the ordinary

dity i

‘ makkal.’

ropeall

nented

The Ku rational plural is ‘nga,” which is properly an irrational one,

but the pronouns and participial nouns form their rational plural by

]v the

the addition of ¢4ru,’ which is identical with the ‘aru’ of the other

tional

dialects.

The modern colloquial Tamil has been influenced in some degree by

ich 18

the usage of the Telugu, and has adopted the practice of adding the

lising

irrational plural to the rational one, thereby systematically forming a

eingﬁ{%

)

double plural ar-gal,’ instead of the old rational plural ‘a

5% g

1t fcles

which

‘avan,’ he, and © aval,’ she, properly take ‘avar,’ they, as their plural ;

but the plural which is preferred by the modern Tamil, is the double

o the

one ‘avar-gal’ So also the plural of the second person is properly

ol Rar-

1 gllie

“nir;’ but the plural which is most commonly used as ‘ning-gal’ (from

‘nim,” an older form of ‘nir,” and ‘gal’), which is a double plural

otedly

| Pehm'

like ¢ avar-gal.’

Two forms of the epicene plural being thus placed at

¢ en"’ in

the disposal of the Tamil people (the classical ‘nir’ and ‘avar, and

Josalif

ich ¥

the colloquial ‘ning-gal’ and ‘avar-gal’), they have converted the

B

THE NOUN.

190

the I

former, in colloquial usage and in prose compositions, into an honorific

singular, and the same practice has been adopted in Canarese.

This

TESPe

whicl

usage, though universally prevalent now, was almost unknown to the

poets.

Yowe)

I have not observed in the poets, or in any of the old inscrip-

T

tions in my possession, any instance of the use of the epicene plural as

(for

an honorific singular, except in connection with the names and titles of

be

the divinities, whether those names and titles are applied to the gods

Even in those

iy

themselves, or are conferred honorifically upon kings.

plura

cases, however, the corresponding pronoun follows the ordinary rule,

and is very rarely honorific.

In modern Telugu a double plural,

whic

similar to that of the Tamil, has gained a footing ; e.g., ¢ varu-lu’ (for

“may

¢ var-u’), they, and ‘miru-lu’ (for ¢mir-u’), you.

allie

The Telugu, as has been observed, pluralises masculine and

al

feminine substantive nouns by the addition, not of the rational, but

(I,

of the neuter or irrational sign of plurality: by a similar inversion

fixed

of idiom, the Gond sometimes uses the rational plural to pluralise

a

)

neuter nouns; e.g., ‘kawalor,” crows.

Such usages, however, are

suff

to th

evidently exceptions to the general and more distinctively Dravidian

Tami

rule, according to which the neuter pluralising particle is restricted to

plur

)

neuter nouns, and the epicene particle to rational or personal nouns

used

t.e., masculines and feminines.

Ny

We shall now consider in detail the pluralising particles them-

selves.

Tar

Tngy

Usg

1. Epicene Plurailsing Particle—This particle is virtually one

and the same in all the dialects, and the different forms which it has

may

taken are owing merely to euphonic peculiarities.

In Tamil nouns,

Pare

R I

pronouns, and verbs, it assumes the forms of ‘ar,” ‘ar

2

or;

24C ir’,

gy

2

SIe

in Canarese and Telugu, ‘aru,” ‘uru; ‘are,” ‘éru; ‘ri,) ‘ru? in

I§u; “aru ;) in Gound, <6r

The Brahui also forms the second person

ar

[4

plural of its verb in ‘ere, ‘ure, &c., the third person in

ur

or

0oy

‘ar.

I regard “ar’ (not simply ‘r’) as probably the primitive shape

Pa

ey

of this pluralising particle, from which the other forms have been

0y

derived by euphonic mutation.

It is true that ‘ni,’ thou, forms its

deng

plural in modern Tamil by simply adding ‘r; but this does not prove

of a]

that ‘r’ alone was the primitive form of the epicene plural, for an

Ingy)

older form of ¢nir, you, is ni-(v)-ir’ or ‘ni-(y)-ir,” from which ¢nir’

Ofnw

has evidently been derived.

It might naturally be supposed that in

2

tiop

this case

¢

1T

is used instead of ‘ar,

through the attraction of ‘the

My

]

preceding long vowel, ¢i; but we also find “ir’ used as a pluralising

ﬂ]e (

[4

ir,

particle in ‘magalir, High Tam., women, and also a longer form,

of 4

in ‘magalir:’ consequently ¢ir’ has acquired a position of its own in

“h](.

NUMBER

THE EPICENE PLURAL.

191

onific

the language, as well as ‘ar’ All that we can certainly conclude

This

respecting the original shape of this particle is that the final ‘r,

0 the

which is plainly essential, was preceded by a vowel, and that that

-

vowel was probably b9y

al as

The Canarese rational plural sufix ¢andar, e.g., ‘avandar-u,’

les of

(for ¢avar-u’), “4lls, and ‘ivandar-u’ (for “ivar-u’), ¢ ki, seems to

gols

be identical with the Tel. indefinite plural ‘andar-u, indar-u, so

those

many, the final ‘ar’ of which is the ordinary suffix of the epicene

ule,

plural.

lural,

The Tamil and Malayalam have another particle of plurality

(for

which is applicable to rational beings, viz., ‘mér,” or in High Tamil

‘mar,” which has a considerable resemblance to ¢ ar, and is probably

allied to it.

‘mar

5

and

is used to pluralise rational nouns substantive

], but

alone, and is not like ‘ar’ used by pronouns and verbs. It is suf-

15100

fixed to the noun which it qualifies in a different manner also from

¢

ralise

ar; for whilst ‘ar’ is substituted for the masculine and feminine

)

are

suffixes of the singular, not added to them, ¢ mar’ is generally added

idian

to the singular suffix by idiomatic writers and speakers. Thus in

od to

Tamil, ¢ purushan’ (a Sans. derivative), a man, a husband, when

pluralised by suffixing ‘ar

0Uns,

becomes ¢ purushar; but if ‘mar’ is

used instead of ‘ar,” it is not substituted for ‘an’ the masculine

them-

singular suffix, but appended to it, e.g., ¢ purushan-mér,” not ¢ purusha-

mar.” ‘Mar, it is true, is sometimes added to ‘ar, e.g., ‘purushar-

mar ; but this is considered unidiomatical.

¢ Mar’ is also sometimes

y one

used as an isolated particle of plurality in a peculiarly Scythian

'it has

manner, eg., ‘tay-tagappan-méar, Tam., mothers and Jathers,

parents; in which both mother and father are in the singular, and

Jouns,

“mir’ is separately appended to pluralise both.

;" ‘ir,’

g I

Probably there was originally no difference in signification between

eIl

‘ar’ and ‘mar,’ whatever difference there may have been in their

origin.

In modern Tamil,

I ; or

‘mar’ is suffixed to nouns signifying

shape

parents, priests, kings, &e., as a plural of honour, like the Hungarian

‘mek ; but it may be suffixed, if necessary, to any class of nouns

- heen

ms Its

denoting rational beings. . In Malayalam it is used with a wider range

of application than in Tamil, and in cases in which an honorific

pro\'e

meaning cannot be intended, e.g., ¢ kallan-mar,” thieves.

The antiquity

or an

of many of the forms of the Malayala grammar, favour

it

s the supposi-

tion that in ancient Tamil, which was probably identical with ancient

b 11

Malayalam, ‘mar’ may generally have been used instead of ‘ar, as

of the

the ordinary pluralising particle of ‘high caste’ nouns. A few traces

1,

of this use of the particle ‘méir’ survive in classical Tamil ;

¢ migng

il n

which is evidently equivalent to ‘mar, and probably older, being

192

THE NOUN.

tend

sometimes used in poetry instead of ‘ar,’ e.g., ‘ en-mar’ (from en,’ ¢o

count), accountants.

‘1

We have now to inquire whether ‘ar’ and ‘mar, the Dravidian

imp!

onig

plurals of rationality, sustain any relation to the plural terminations,

or pluralising suflixes, of other languages.

0

Dré

It might at first sight be supposed that the formation of the plural

Tely

by the addition of ‘r’ to the singular which characterises some of the

plur

Teutonic tongues, is analogous to the use of ‘r’ or ‘ar’ in the Dravi-

dian languages.

In the Icelandic the most common plural is that

forn

Wou

which terminates in ¢ r’—sometimes the consonant ‘r’ alone, some-

A relic

Tan

times the syllables ‘ar, ir, ‘ur, e.g., ‘ konungur,’ kings.

of this plural may be traced in the vulgar English ¢childer,” for

form

firgt

¢ children.’

The same plural appears in the Old Latin termination

“nar

of the masculine plural in ‘or’ which is found in the Eugubian

tables, e.g., ‘subator’ for ‘subacti,’ and ¢screhitor’ for ¢scripti.’

of ]

Compare also ‘mas,” the termination of the first person plural of

Unf

verbs in Sanscrit, with ‘mar,” the corresponding termination in Irish,

the ]

answering to the Doric ues and the ordinary Greek wuev.

ill 01

In these cases, however, the resemblance to the Dravidian plural

and

‘ar’ is rather apparent than real; for the final ‘r’ of these forms

£qoi

has been hardened from an older ‘s; whilst there is no evidence

of the existence of a tendency in the Drévidian languages to harden

i

s’ into ‘r, and therefore nothing to warrant the supposition that

e

the Dréividian epicene ‘ar’ has been derived from, or is connected

€0

with, the Sanscrit masculine-feminine ‘as.’

151

to ¢

It should also be noted that the Irish ‘mar’ is a compound of

two forms, ‘ma,” the representative of the singular of the personal

>

pronoun ¢ 7, and ‘r, the hardened equivalent of the plural suffix s;

the ;

and that, therefore, it has no real resemblance to the Dravidian

Prete

‘mar, which is entirely and exclusively a plural suffix of the third

0, t

person.

i

There is more probability of the Dravidian plural suffixes being

‘el

related to the pluralising particles of some of the Scythian languages.

‘ndy

The Turkish plural suffix, which is inserted, as in the Dravidian

an

languages, between the crude noun and each of the case terminations,

1t}

is ‘lar

or ‘ler, e.g., ‘an-lar,” they.

Dr. Logan says, but on what

Iy

authority does not appear, that ‘nar’ is a plural suffix in Kol. Mon-

ay

golian nouns which end with a vowel, are pluralised by the addition

teny

of ¢nar’ or ‘ner, a particle which is evidently related to, or identical

Thy

with, the Turkish ¢lar’ or ‘ler:’ and the resemblance of this Mongol

Pax

sufix ‘nar’ to the Dravidian ‘mar, both in the final ‘ar’ and in

tha

the nasal prefix is remarkable.

It is well known that ‘m’ evinceg a

ang

NUMBER—THE EPICENE

PLURAL.

193

tendency to be softened into ‘n’ (witness the change of the Sanserit

‘mama,’ my, into ‘mana’ in Zend); and in this manner it seems not

improbable that the Dravidian ‘mar’ may be allied to, or even the

origin of, the High Asian ‘nar’

Again, in the Scythian tongues ‘n’

is often elided or dropped, and the same peculiarity characterises the

Dravidian languages.

Thus, ‘nn,’ the conjunctive particle of the

2

6

Telugu, becomes ‘i

in Canarese.

In this manner the Dravidian

plural suffix ‘ar may have been softened from ‘mar; and if both

I

forms continued to be occasionally used, ‘mar,” the older of the two,

would naturally and regularly acquire an honorific signification.

The

6

Tamil ¢ileifijar’ (“ilei-fijar’), young people, a plural appellative noun,

)8

formed from ‘ilei, youth, exhibits a form of pluralisation which at

I

first sight seems very closely to resemble the Mongolian nar.’ Nay,

N

‘nar’ is actually used in this very instance instead of fijar’ by some

of the poets, and it is certain that ‘fij’ and ‘n’ often change places.

of

Unfortunately we find this ‘nj’ or ‘n’ in the singular, as well as

the plural; which proves it to have been inserted merely for euphony

in order to prevent hiatus, and therefore ‘ileifijar’ must be re-divided,

|

and represented not as ilei-fijar,” but as ‘ilei-(fij)-ar’ or ‘ilei-(n)-ar,’

1§

equivalent to ¢ilei-(y)-ar.’

(6

Probably the same explanation should be given of ‘manéir, the

7|}

epicene plural termination of the future tense in some of the poets,

b

especially Tolképpiyan, the most ancient Tamil grammarian; e.g.,

)

ol

¢ enmanar,’ they will say, instead of the more common ¢enbar.’

‘m

Is in this connection used as the sign of futurity, and is equivalent

to ‘b, and ‘enmér’ is equivalent to ¢ enmanéar.’

al

The insertion of an euphonic ‘n’ between the sign of tense and

the pronominal suffix is exceedingly common in the present and

Ll

preterite ; e.g., ‘nadanda-(n)-em’ (for ‘nadand’-ém’), we walked,; and if

9

S0, there seems no reason why the same ‘n

should not make its

1

appearance in the future also, converting ‘enmér’ (for ¢enba-ar’ or

“enbar’) into ‘enma-(n)-ar.

¢

2

If this explanation does not suffice,

“par

must, in this instance, be regarded as the equivalent of ¢ méar,

S,

an

and therefore as directly allied to ‘nar,’ the Mongolian plural suffix.

15

It is deserving of notice that the Turkish, besides its ordinary plural

9

‘lar’ or ‘ler,” uses ‘z

as a plural suffix of the personal pronouns,

8t

)

as may be observed in ‘biz,’ we, and ¢siz, you, and that the Turkish

on

terminal ‘z’ corresponds to the ‘r’ of some other Scythian languages

Thus ¢yaz,’ Turkish, summer, is in Magyar ¢ yar’ or ‘nyar’ (com-

al

pare the Tamil ‘nyayir, the sun).

It would almost appear, therefore,

gol

n

that the Turkisk suffix of plurality has undergone a process of change

and comminution which is similar to that of the Tamil, and that the

0

194

THE NOUN.

Turkish ¢z’ and the Tamil ‘r’ are remotely connected, as the last

remaining representatives or relics of ‘mar, ‘nar, and ‘lar.’

2. Pluralising Particles of the Neuter.—There are two neuter

pluralising particles used by the Dravidian languages.—

(1.) The neuter plural suffic ¢gal; with its wvarieties.—It has

already been noticed that ‘gal’ is occasionally but improperly used

in Tamil and Canarese as the plural suffix of ‘rational’ nouns and

pronouns ; and that the corresponding Telugu ¢lu’ is still more

systematically used in this manner.

Nevertheless, I have no deubt

that it was originally and is essentially a suffix of the neuter

plural.

This suffix is in both dialects of the Tamil ‘gal, eg., ‘kei-gal,

hands, with only such changes as are required by Tamilian rules of

euphony.

In accordance with one of those rules, when ¢g,” the initial

consonant of ‘gal,’ is doubled, or preceded without an intermediate

vowel by another consonant, ‘gal’ is regularly hardened into ‘kal’

or ‘kkal.’

Thus ¢ kal-gal,” stones, is changed by rule into ‘kar-kal.’

¢gal’ is occasionally lengthened in Tamil poetry into ¢gal.

In

Malayéalam this particle is generally ‘kal’ or ¢ kkal’ but sometimes

the initial ‘k’ coalesces with a preceding nasal and becomes ‘ng,

e.g., ‘ning-ngal,’ you, instead of ‘nim-kal,”—in Tamil ning-gal.’

In

The

modern Canarese we have gal-u,” in ancient ‘gal,’ as in Tamil.

three southern idioms are in perfect agreement with respeet to this par-

ticle, but when we advance further north we shall find its shape con-

siderably modified.

In Telugu, the corresponding neuter plural suffix is ¢lu,” of which

the ‘1’ answers, as is usual in Telugu, to the cerebral ¢1’ of the

other dialects : ‘1-u,’” therefore, accords with the final syllable of the

Canarese ‘gal-u’

The only real difference between the Telugu and

the Tamil-Canarese consists in the omission by the former of the initial

bl

consonant ‘k’ or ‘g

Traces, however, exist in Telugu, of the use of

a vowel before ¢lu.’

Thus, in ‘gurralu,” Aorses, the long

¢ A

a

1S

derived from the combination of the short final “a’ of the inflexional

base ‘gurra’ and a vowel, evidently ¢a,” which must have preceded

£ Jul

We thus arrive at ‘al-u,’ as the primitive form of the Telugu

plural ; and it is obvious that ‘al-u’ could easily have been softened

from ¢gal-u’ Conjecture, however, is scarcely needed, for in some

nouns ending in ‘n-u,” of which the Tamil equivalents end in ‘m,

the old Dravidian pluralising particle in ¢gal,’ is exhibited in Telugu

almost as distinctly as in Tamil.

Thus, ‘kolan-u,’ a tank (Tamil

‘kulam’), takes as its plural ¢ kolan-kul-u’ (Tamil ‘kulang-gal’), and

4

S

NUMBER—THE

NEUTER

PLURAL.

195

‘gon-u,” the name of a species of tree, forms its plural in ‘gon-gul-u.’

When ‘kul-u’ and ‘gul-u’ are compared with the Tamil-Canarese

forms ‘kal,’ ‘gal’ and ‘gal-u, it is obvious that they are not only

equivalent but identical.

An illustration of the manner in which the Telugu ‘lu’ has been

softened from ¢gal-u,’” may be taken also from colloquial Tamil, in

which ‘avar-gal’ they, is commonly pronounced ¢aval.’

‘kion &8

b

3

is dropped or elided in a similar manner in many languages of the

Scythian family.

The Tulu, though locally remote from the Telugu, follows its

example in many points, and amongst others in this.

It rejects the

‘k’ or ‘g’ of the plural, and uses merely ‘lu’ or <1’ like the

Telugu ; rarely ¢kulu.

)

The same form of the pluralising particle appears in the languages

|

of some of the tribes

of the north-eastern frontier-—languages which

possibly form a link

of connection between the Drévid_ian and the

Tibetan families.

In

the Miri or Abor-Miri dialect, ‘nd,” thou, forms

its plural in ‘ndlu, yow ; and in the Dhimal, ‘ni,” thou, is pluralised

1

into ‘nyél, you.

The pronoun of the Mikir is pluralised by adding

N

‘i e g., “na-li; you, whilst substantives have no plural form.

In the

i

Dhimal, substantive-nouns are pluralised by the addition of ¢ galai,’

which is possibly the origin of the pronominal plural ‘1’ though this

le

particle or word, ¢ galai, is not compounded with, or agglutinated to,

the noun, but placed after it separately. Though it is used as a sepa-

rate word it does not seem to retain any signification of its own inde-

pendent of its use as a post-position.

The resemblance of ¢ galai’ to

h

the Tamil-Canarese ‘gal’ or ‘galu,’ is distinct and remarkable.

The

0

pluralising particle of the Naga also is ¢khala.’

It is not an uncommon occurrence to find one portion of a much

used prefix or suffix in one language or dialect of a family, and

another portion of it in another member of the same family. Seeing,

il

of

therefore, that the Telugu has adopted the latter portion of the par-

1§

ticle ‘kal, ‘gal’ or ‘galu,” and omitted the initial ‘ka,’” ¢ ga,’ or ‘k,’

we may expect to find this ‘k’ used as a pluralising particle in some

al

d

other Dravidian dialect, and the final ‘lu’ or ‘1’ omitted. Accord-

ingly in Gond we find that the plural neuter is commonly formed by

I

d

the addition of ‘k’alone, e.g., ‘nai,’ a dog, ‘naik,’ dogs (compare

Tamil ‘naykal’ pronounced ‘néjgal’) The Seoni-Génd forms its

16

plural by adding ‘nk,” e.g., ‘neli,” @ field, ‘nelnk,” fields.

The Ku

h

i

dialect uses ‘nga,” and also ‘ska,” of all which forms ‘k’ or ‘g’ con-

stitutes the basis.

i

d

‘k’ is sometimes found to interchange with ‘t,’ especially in the

02

196

THE NOUN.

languages of High Asia.

This interchange appears also in the Gond

pluralising particle ; for whilst ¢k’ is the particle in general use, the

pronouns of the first and second persons form their plurals, or double

plurals, by the addition of ‘t’ to the nominative, e.g., ‘amat, we,

‘imat,” youw.

The same interchange between ‘k’ and ‘t’ appears in

the Brahui.

Though a separate word is usually employed by the

Brahui to denote plurality, a suffix in ‘k’ is also sometimes used ; but

this ‘k’ is found only in the nominative plural, and is replaced by

‘t’ in the oblique cases.

When we turn to the grammatical forms of the Finnish family of

languages, we find some tolerably distinct analogies to this Dravidian

plural suffix.

Compare with the Drividian forms noticed above the

Magyar plural in ‘k’ or “ak ; the Lappish in ‘k,’ ‘ch,’ or ‘b also

the ‘t” by which ¢k’ is replaced in almost all the other dialects of

the Finnish family: and observe the re-appearance of the sound of ‘1’

In Ostiak the dual suffix is ‘kan’ or

in the Ostiak plural suffix ¢tl.’

4

2

gan ;' in Samoied-Ostiak ‘ga’ or ‘ka ;

in Kamass ‘gai.’

Castren

supposes these suffixes to be derived from the conjunctive particle ‘ka’

or ‘ki,” also,; but their resemblance to the Dravidian signs of plurality

renders this derivation doubtful.

Even the Armenian forms its plural

in ‘k; e.g., “tu, thow, ‘tuk,” you; ‘sirem,” I love, ‘siremk,” we love.

In the Turkish also, ‘k’ is the sign of plurality in some forms of the

first person plural of the verb, e.g., ‘¥dum,” 7 was, ‘iduk, we were.

‘t,” on the other hand, is the sign of the plural in Mongolian, and in

the Calmuck is softened into ¢d.’

Even in Zend, though a language ot

a different family, there is a neuter plural in ‘t.’

Thus, for ¢iméani,’

Sans., these things, the Zend has ‘imat.’

In those instances of the interchange of ‘t’ and ‘k,” in which it

can be ascertained with tolerable clearness which consonant was the

one originally used and which was the corruption, ‘t’ appears to be

older than k.’

Thus the Doric ¢ 7fjros’ is in better accordance with

related words, and therefore probably older, than the Aolian ¢ kfjros,

the origin of ¢e-xéwos.” The Semitic pronoun or pronominal fragment

‘ta, thow (preserved in ‘attd’ and ‘antd’), is also, I doubt not, a

more accurate and older form than the equivalent or auxiliary suffix

‘ka

In several of the Polynesian dialects, ‘k’ is found instead

m

of an undoubtedly earlier Sanscrit or Pre-Sanserit ¢t.

1,

accordance with these precedents, where ‘k’ and ‘t’ are found

to be interchanged, ‘t’ is to be regarded as older than ‘k, it

would follow that kal,” the Dravidian plural suffix now under consi-

deration, may originally have been *tal’

I cannot think that the

Dravidian ‘gal’ has been derived, as Dr. Stevenson supposes, from the

NUMBER—THE NEUTER

PLURAL.

197

Sanserit ‘sakala’ (in Tamil ¢sagala’), all.

¢kal,” the base of

‘sa-kala,’” has been connected wich ¢ éX-o< ;’ but the root signifying al,

which the Dravidians have preferred to retain, viz., “ell,” is connected,

not with ¢ o\,” whole, the Hebrew ¢ kol,” &e., but with the Saxon ‘eal,’

English all.

This being the case, it is unlikely that they would have

preserved the other root also.

The Drévidian ‘tal-a’ or

dal-a,” a

host, a crowd, would give a good meaning ; but even this derivation of

“kal’ or ‘tal, is altogether destitute of evidence.

The supposititious

Dravidian ‘tal’ may be compared with the Ostiak plural suffix €t

but in the absence of evidence it is useless to proceed with conjectural

analogies.

The New Persian neuter plural, or plural of inanimate objects,

which corresponds generally to the Dravidian neuter plural, is ha,” a

It

form which Bopp derives with much probability from the Zend.

may here be mentioned, though I do not attach any importance to a

resemblance which is certainly accidental, that the Tamil plural ‘gal’

sometimes becomes ‘ha’ in the pronunciation of the peasantry,

e.g., ¢ irukkirargal,’ they are, is vulgarly pronounced ¢irukkiraha.’

'

(2.) Neuter Plural Suffiz vn ‘a.’—In addition to the neuter plural

in ‘gal’ with its varieties, we find in nearly all the Dravidian lan-

guages a neuter plural in short ‘a,” or traces of the use of it at some

former period.

Il

¢ gal,” though a neater plural suffix, is occasionally used, especially

in the modern dialects, as the plural suffix of rationals; but in those

dialects in which ¢a’ is used, its use is invariably restricted to neuters,

and it seems therefore to be a more essentially neuter form than ¢ gal’

i

|

itself.

|

We shall first exa;lline the traces of the existence and use of this

7

suffix which are contained in the Tamil.

h

g

‘gal’ is invariably used in Tamil as the plural suftix of uncom-

pounded neuter nouns; but ‘a’ is preferred in the classical dialect for

it

pluralising neuter compounds, that is, appellative nouns, or those which

are compounded of a base and a suffix of gender, together with demon-

strative pronouns, pronominal adjectives, and participial nouns. Even

d

in the ordinary dialect, ‘a’ is generally used as the suffix of the

N

e e

neuter plural in the conjugation of verbs.

d

The second line in one of the distichs of Tiruvalluvar's ¢ Kural,’

contains two instances of the use of “a’ as a neuter plural of appella-

i

tive nouns ; e.g., ‘ Agula nira pira,’” vain shows (are all) other (things).

0

The first of these three words is used adjectivally; and in that case

the final ‘a’ is merely that which remains of the neuter termination

0

198

THE NOUN.

‘am,’ after the regular rejection of ‘m ; but the next two words

‘nira’ and ‘pira,’” are undoubted instances of the use of ‘a’ as a

suffix of the neuter plural of appellatives.

The much used Tamil

words ¢ pala,” several, or many (things), and ‘sila,” some, or some

(things) (from ‘pal’ and ‘sil’), though commonly considered as adjec-

j

tives, are in reality neuter plurals; e.g., ‘pini pala,” diseases (are)

many ; ‘ pala-(v)-in pal,’ the neuter plural gender, literally, the gender

of the many (things).

The use of these words adjectivally, and with

the signification, not of the collective, but of the distributive plural,

has led some persons to overlook their origin and real meaning, but I

have no doubt that they are plurals.

So also ‘alla,” not, is properly a

plural appellative : it is formed from the root “al,’” not, by the addi-

tion of ‘a,’ the plural suffix, and literally means things that are not,

and the singular that corresponds to ‘alla’ is ‘al-du,’ not, euphonically

‘andru,’ literally a thing that is not.

In the higher dialect of the

Tamil, all nouns of quality and relation may be, and very frequently

are, converted into appellatives and pluralised by the addition of ¢a

e.g., ‘ariya,’ (Kural), things that are difficult, ‘dificilia.’ We have some

instances in High Tamil of the use of ‘a’ as the plural suffix even of

substantive nouns, e.g., ‘porula,’ substances, things that are real, realities

(from the singular ‘porul,’ @ thing, @ substance) ; also ¢porulana’ and

¢ porulavei,’—with the addition of ‘ana’ and ‘avei’ (for ‘ava’), the

plural neuters of the demonstrative pronouns.

The neuter plural of the third person of the Tamil verb, a form

which is used occasionally in ordinary prose as well as in the classical

‘ana

2

dialect, ends in ‘amna; eg., ‘irukkindrana,” they (neut.) are.

is undoubtedly identical with ‘ava’ (now ‘avei’), the neuter plural

—

of the demonstrative pronoun, and is probably an older form than

A

‘ava.’

It is derived from the demonstrative base ‘a,” with the addi-

tion of ‘a’ the neuter plural suffix, and an euphonic consonant (‘n’

or ‘v’) to prevent hiatus; e.g., ‘a-(n)-a’ or ‘a-(v)-a. Sometimes in

classical Tamil this ‘a,’ the sign of the neuter plural, is added directly

to the temporal suffix of the verb, without the addition of the demon-

strative base of the pronoun, e¢.g., ‘minda,’ they (neut.) returned,

instead of ‘mindana.’

This final ‘a’ is evidently a sign of the neuter

plural and of that alone.

Possibly we should also regard as a sign of the neuter plural, the

final ‘a’ of the high Tamil possessive adjectives ‘ena, my (things),

mea; ‘nama, our (things), nostra.

The final ‘a’ of ‘ena’ would, on

this supposition, be not only equivalent to the final ‘a’ of the Latin

‘mea,’” but really identical with it.

These possessive adjectives are

regarded by Tamil grammarians as genitives; and it will be shown

199

NUMBER—THE NEUTER PLURAL.

hereafter that ‘a’ is undoubtedly one of the forms of the genitive in

Is

the Dravidian languages.

The real nature of ‘ena’ and ‘nama’

1l

will be discussed when the genitive case-terminations are inquired

r’e

into. It should be stated, however, under this head, that Tamil

0~

grammarians admit that ‘ena’ and ‘nama,’ though, as they say,

genitives, must be followed by nouns in the neuter plural ; e.g., ‘ena

)

(o

keigal, my hands; and this, so far as it goes, constitutes the principal

i

arcument in favour of regarding the final ‘a’ of these words, not as

l,

a genitive, but as the ordinary neuter plural suffix of the high dialect.

In Malayalam, the oldest daughter of the Tamil and a faithful

&

preserver of many old forms, the neuter plurals of the demonstrative

pronouns arve ‘ava, those (things), and ‘iva,’ these (things).

The

Ji-

existence, therefore, in Tamil and Malayalam of a neuter plural in

0 [’

short ‘a, answering to a neuter singular in ‘d,” is clearly established.

ly

The Canarese appears to have originally agreed with the Tamil in

ho

all the particulars and instances mentioned above: but the neuter

‘]y

plural in ‘a’ is now generally hidden in that dialect by the addition

Ly

of a formative or euphonic syllable.

Thus ¢ pira,” Tam., other (things),

ne

is in Canarese ‘peravu,” of which the final syllable ‘vu’ is undoubtedly

of

s

an euphonic addition—an addition of which the Canarese is very fond.

nd

The neuter plural of the demonstrative pronoun is not ‘ava’ in

he

Canarese, as it is in Malayalam, and as it must have been in primitive

Tamil, but ‘avu.’ Though, however, the nominative is ¢avu, all the

oblique cases in the ancient Canarese reject the final ‘u’ before

il

receiving the case suffixes, and must have been formed from the base

al

of an older ‘ava; eg., ‘avara’ (‘ava-ra’), of those things.

i)

The Telugu plural neuters of the demonstratives are avi,’ those,

al

“ivi,” these, answering to the singular neuters ‘adi’ and ‘idi’ The

all

|

oblique forms of the same demonstratives, to which the case-termina-

li-

tions are suffixed, are ¢vA’ remote, and ‘vi’ proximate, which are

evidently formed (by that process of displacement which is peculiar to

n

the Telugu) from the primitive bases ‘ava’ and ‘iva, like ¢véru’

ly

from ‘avaru,” and ‘viru’ from ‘ivaru.’

-

The neuter plural of the Telugu verb is formed by suffixing ¢ avi

i,

OFs & Vi

.’

el

In Gond the singular demonstratives are ‘ad’ and ‘id;’ the cor-

responding plurals ‘av’ and ‘iv.’

he

If the Telugu and the Gond were the only extant dialects of the

/u‘);

Dravidian family, we should naturally conclude that as ‘d’ is the

on

sign of the neuter singular, so ‘v’ is the sign of the neuter plural.

fin

When the other extant dialects, however (the Tamil, Malayalam, and

e

Canarese), are examined, we perceive that this ‘v’ is not a sign

i

200

THE NOUN.

of plurality, nor a sign of anything but of abhorrence of hiatus; and

that it is merely an euphonic link between the preceding and succeed-

ing vowels.

The Telugu and Géond must therefore yield to the over-

powering weight of evidence which is adducible in proof of this point

from their sister dialects. Nor is there anything opposed to analogy

in the supposition that the Telugu has changed the ‘a,” which was the

sign of the neuter plural of its pronouns and verbs, into ‘i

)

and then

adopted to represent the idea of plurality a consonant which was used

originally merely to prevent hiatus. In the case of ‘avaru, they, “ille,

converted into ¢ varu,” and ‘ivaru,’ they, ‘hi,’ converted into fving " ¥

2

though only euphonic in its origin, has become an initial and apparently

a radical ; aud the old initial and essentially demonstrative vowels ‘a’

and ‘i,” have been thrust into a secondary place. The conversion,

therefore, of ‘ava’ into ‘v4,’ and of ‘iva’ into ¢ vi,” the oblique forms

of the Telugu plural demonstratives, is directly in accordance with

this analogy; and thus the Telugu cannot be considered as opposed to

the concurrent testimony of the other dialects, which is to the effect

that ‘v’ is merely euphonic, and that ‘a’ is the sign of the neuter

plural of the demonstrative prououns.

It may here be remarked as a curious irregularity, that in Tulu

‘v’ has become the sign of the neuter singular instead of ‘d,” eg.,

“avu,’ o

The Tulu ‘atu,” corresponding to the Tamil-Canarese ‘adu,’

which should have been used to signify 4, has come to be used for yes.

If short ‘a’ be, as it has been shown to be, a sign of the neuter

plural which is inkerent in the Dravidian languages, and most used by

the oldest dialects, we have now to inquire into the relationship which

it evidently sustains to the neuter plural suffix of some of the Indo-

European languages. I know of no neuter plural in any of the

Scythian tongues with which it can be compared ; and we appear to

>

be obliged to attribute to it, as well as to ¢d

, the suffix of the neuter

singular, an origin which is allied to that of the corresponding Indo-

European forms. In the use of ‘a’ as a neuter plural suffix, it is

evident that the Dravidian family has not imitated, or been influenced

by, the Sanscrit, and that it was not through the medium of the

Sansecrit that Indo—European influences made their way into this

department of the Dravidian languages; for the Dréividian neuter

plural <4, differs widely from the Sanscrit neuter plural ¢4ni,” and it

1s as certainly unconnected with the masculine-feminine plural ‘as’

(softened in modern Sansecrit into ‘ah >

.

It is with the short ‘a

which constitutes the neuter plural of the Zend, the Latin, and the

Gothic, that the Dravidian neuter plural ¢a’ appears to be allied.

Compare also the Old Persian neuter plural <.’

R —

—

CASE-FORMATION.

201

d

Part IT.—Formation of Cases.

1t

Principles of Case-Formation.—The Indo-European and the Scythian

4]

families of tongues originally agreed in the principle of expressing the

16

reciprocal relations of nouns by means of post-positions or auxiliary

i

words.

The difference between those families with respect to this

d

point consists chiefly in the degree of faithfulness with which they

have retained this principle.

In the Scythian tongues, post-positions or appended auxiliary

\i

words have rigidly held fast their individuality and separate existence.

In the Indo-European tonguues, on the contrary, the old post-positions

or suffixes have been welded into combination with the roots to which

I

1§

they were appended, and converted into mere technical case-signs or

h

inflexional terminations; whilst in the later corruptions to which those

0

languages have been subjected, most of the case-terminations have

b

been abandoned altogether, and prepositions, as in the Semitic tongues,

T

have generally come to be employed instead of the older case-signs.

It cannot reasonably be doubted, that the case-terminations of the

primitive dialects of the Indo-European family were originally post-

positions, which were added on to the root to express relation, and at

length blended into an inseparable union with it, through that love of

composition by which every member of the family was characterised.

In most instances the root and the original signification of those post.

4

positions are now unknown, or they are ascertained with difficulty by

h

means of analogy and comparison.

Both in Greek and in Latin some post-positions are used in a manner

0

which illustrates the conversion of a portion of this class of words into

case-endings; e.g., in Latin ‘nobiscum,” and in Greek such words as

CaypoOu, inthe country; < dNade,’ to the sea; and ‘dvpavelev,’ from heaven.

T

The post-positional auxiliary words which are used in those instances

are appended to their bases in a truly Scythian manner. If there is

5

any difference between them and the usage of the Scythian post-

4

positions, it consists in this—that in the Scythian tongues, €0’ ¢ ée,

¢ 9ev, would be appended to the nominative; whereas in Greek, they

b

T

are suffixed either to a crude form of the noun differing from the

nominative or to the accusative ; and also, that in most of the languages

t

:;:

of the Scythian group they would be written as separate words.

s

.i

&

One of the Greek post-positions quoted above, ¢3¢, signifying

direction to @ place, has been supposed to be allied to ‘de,” the dative

of the Manchu ; and the Greek 6cv’” has been conjectured to be allied

to the Tartar ablative ‘din’ or ‘den.’

I am doubtful whether any

202

THE NOUN.

such connexion can be established ; but in the manner in which the

particles are appended to their bases a distinct analogy may be

observed.

-

On turning our attention to the Dravidian languages, we find that

the principle on which they have proceeded in the formation of cases

is distinetively Scythian.

All case-relations are expressed by means

of post-positions, or post-positional suffixes. Most of the post-positions

of the Telugu are, in reality, separate words; and in all the Dravidian

dialects most of the post-positions retain traces of their original

character as auxiliary nouns.

Several case-signs, especially in the

more cultivated dialects, have lost the faculty of separate existence,

together with their original signification, and can only be treated now

as case-terminations; but there is no reason to doubt that they were

all post-positional nouns origiually.

There is another point in which the Scythian principles of case-

formation differ materially from the Indo-European.

In the Indo-

European family the case-endings of the plural differ from those of

the singular.

It is true, that on comparing the case-terminations

of all the members of the family, some traces have been discovered of

the existence of an original connexion between the singular and the

plural terminations of some of the cases; but in several instances, e.g.,

in the instrumental case, no such connexion between the singular and

the plural has been brought to light by any amount of investigation ;

and it may be stated as a general rule, that the languages of this

family appear to have acted from the beginning upon the principle of

expressing the case-relations of the singular by one set of forms, and

the case-relations of the plural by another set.

On the other hand,

mn all the languages of the Scythian group, the same case-signs are

employed both in the singular and in the plural, without alteration, or

In the

with only such alterations as euphony is supposed to require.

singular, the case post-positions are appended directly to the nomina-

tive, which is identical with the base: in the plural they are appended,

i‘i

not to the nominative or base, but to the particle of pluralisation

which has been suffixed to the base.

In general, this is the only

difference between the singular case-signs and those of the plural.

The only exception of importance is, that in some of the Scythian

tongues, especially in the languages of the Finnish family, the included

vowel of the case-sign differs in the two numbers : it is generally ‘a’

)

in the singular and ‘e

in the plural—a change which arises from the

¢law of harmonic sequences’ by which those tongues are characterized,

and which re-appears, but little modified, in the Telugu.

When the Dréavidian languages are examined, it is found that they

I

|

|

H%

I

—

NUMBER OF

DECLENSIONS.

3

differ from those of the Indo-European family, and are in perfect

accordance with the Scythian group, in their use of the same signs of

case in the plural as in the singular.

The only exception is the truly

Seythian one which is apparent in the Telugu, in which the dative

case -sign is either ‘ki’ or ‘ku,” according to the nature of the vowel

by which it is preceded or influenced ; in consequence of which it is

generally ‘ki’ in the singular and ¢ku’ in the plural.

This identity of the singular and plural case-endings in the

languages of the Scythian group, including those of the Dréividian

family, will be found greatly to facilitate the comparison of the case-

signs of one language of either of those families with those of the

other.

Number of Declensions.—There is only one declension, properly so

called, in the Dravidian languages, as in the Scythian family gene-

rally.

Those varieties of inflexional increments which have been called

¢ declensions’ by some European scholars, especially with reference to

the Canarese and Telugu, are considered by native grammarians to

constitute but one declension ; and in truth they do constitute but one,

for there is no difference between one so called declension and another

with respect to the signs of case.

Those signs are precisely the same

in all : the difference which exists relates solely to suffixes of gender,

or to the euphonic and inflexional increments which are added on to

the bases before the addition of the case-signs.

On proceeding to analyse the case-formation of the Dravidian

languages, we shall follow the order in which they have been arranged

by Dréividian grammarians, which is the same as that of the Sanscrit.

The imitation of the Sanscrit in this particular was certainly an error;

for whilst in Sanserit there are eight cases only, the number of cases

Every post-position annexed to

in Tamil, Telugu, &ec., is indefinite.

a noun constitutes, properly speaking, a new case; and therefore the

kot

number of such cases depends upon the requirements of the speaker

and the different shades of meaning which he wishes to express.

Notwithstanding this, the usage of Drévidian grammarians has

restricted the number of cases to eight; and though there are disad-

vantages in this arrangement, it will conduce to perspicvity to adhere

to the ordinary usage in the analysis on which we are about to enter.

Tamil grammarians, in following the order of the Sanscrit cases, have

also adopted or imitated the Sanscrii mode of denominating them—

not by descriptive appellations, as ¢dative’ or ‘ablative,” but by

numbers. They have affixed a number to each case in the same order

204

THE NOUN.

as in Sanserit, e.g., ‘first case,” ‘second case,’ &e., to ‘eighth case.’

Though a nominative, or ‘first case,” stands at the head of the

Drévidian list of cases, the only cases, properly so called, which are

used by these languages are the oblique cases.

Instead, therefore, of

proceeding to examine the Dravidian nominative, the particular which

now falls to be noticed is—

The absence of Nominative Case-Terminations.—The Dravidian

A

nominative singular is simply ¢pejr-

6

* “the noun ilself’—the inflex-

ional base of the noun—without addition or alteration; but it neces-

sarily includes the formative, if there be one.

The nominative plaral

differs from the nominative singular only by the addition to it of the

pluralising particle.

There are three apparent exceptions to this rule, or instances in

which the nominative might appear to have terminations peculiar to

itself, which it is desirable here to inquire into.

(1.) The neuter termination ‘am’ might at first sight be sup-

posed to be a nominative case-sign.

In Sanscrit ¢ am

is the most

common sign of the nominative neuter ; and in Tamil also, all nouns

ending in ‘am’ (in Telugu ‘am-u’), whether Sanscrit derivatives or

pure Dravidian words, are neuter abstracts. In Sanserit the accusative

of the neuter is identical with the nominative, but in the other cases

‘am’ disappears. In Tamil, ‘am’ is discarded by all the oblique

cases of the singular without exception : every case retains it in the

plural, but in the singular it is used by the nominative alone.

This

comprises the sum total of the reasons for regarding ‘am’ as a termi-

nation of the nominative. On the other hand, though ¢am’ disappears

in Tamil from the oblique cases in the singular, it retains its place in

every one of the cases in the plural. The particle of \plurality is

%

regularly suffixed to ‘am,’” and the signs of case are then suffixed to the

particle of plurality ; which is a clear proof that, whatever ¢ am’ may

be, it is not a mere termination or case-sign of the nominative.

The

;(

Telugu regards ‘am

or ‘am-u,” as part of the inflexional base,

retains it in each case of botk numbers alike, and suffixes to it in the

singular the case-signs, in the plural the particle of plurality.

The modern Canarese makes no use whatever of this termination

‘am,” In any case, or in either number.

The ancient Canarese uses

it, like the Tamil, in the nominative singular, but discards it, not only

in the oblique cases of the singular, but in every case of the plural

also. In that dialect a ¢re¢ is ‘maram,” as in Tamil, but the plural

nominative, rees, is not ‘maranggal’ (‘maram-gal’), but ‘mara-gal.’

Neuter nouns borrowed from the Sanscrit by the Tamil ordinarily

I

~

THE. NOMINATIVE.

20

retain (in the nominative alone, in the singular) the ‘am’ of the San-

scrit nominative singular : this ‘am’ is used in every one of the cases

in the plural ; so that even in Sanscrit derivatives, ‘am’ is regarded

in Tamil, not as a case-sign, but as a portion of the inflexional base.

Whatever be the origin of the Tamil ‘am, considered (as I

think we must consider it) as a formative, it does not appear to

have been borrowed from the Sanscrit, in which it is used for so

different a purpose ; and 1 question whether it does not spring

At all

from a source altogether independent of the Sansecrit.

events we find it added to many of the purest Dravidian roots,

and by the addition of it many verbs of that class are converted

into nouns.

Thus ¢ kulam, Tam., ¢ tank, is from kuli, o bathe ; and ‘nil-am,’

Tam., the ground, is from nil;" o stand. See ‘Derivative Nouns,” 1

the section on ¢ The Verb.

(2.) In Canarese the crude form of the personal pronouns is occa-

sionally used instead of the nominative, e.g., ‘nd,” instead of ‘nanu,’

7, and ‘t4, instead of ¢tAnu,’ self; and hence it might be supposed

that the final ‘n’ or ‘nu’ of those pronouns constitutes a nominative

termination. This supposition, however, is inadmissible ; for in all

the oblique cases, without exception, the final ‘n’ or ‘nu’ retains its

place, and it is to it that the signs of case are added. Consequently

it is evident that ¢n’ is not a sign of the nominative, but a formative,

which has been compounded with the inflexional base, or annexed to

it, though it is capable of occasional separation from it.

(3.) In all the Dravidian languages, the quantity of the included

vowels of the personal pronouns in some of the oblique cases (and in

Tamil-Canarese in all the oblique cases), differs from the quantity of

the same vowels in the nominative.

In the nominative the vowel is

invariably long, in the oblique cases generally short : e.g., in Canarese

we find ‘nanu, 7, ‘nanna,’ my; ‘ninu,’ thou, ‘ninna,’ thy ; ¢ thnu,’

self, ‘tanna,’ of one’s self. This is the only instance contained in these

languages in which there is a difference between the nominative and

stk

the oblique cases of such a nature as almost to constitute the nomina-

tive a case by itself.

In this instance, however, the nominative is the

true, unchanged, inflexional base, and the shortening of the quantity of

the vowel in the oblique cases, prior to the addition of post-positions,

The

has arisen from the euphonic tendencies of the language.

Telugu shortens the root-vowel in the accusative only. In Tamil the

shortened form, without any inflexional addition, is often used as a

possessive; e.g., ‘nin, thy, from the obsolete ‘nin, thou—a usage

which is in accordance with the ordinary Dravidian rule that the

206

THE NOTUN.

inflected form of every noun, or the basis of the oblique cases, is to be

regarded as of itself a possessive or adjective.

Before proceeding to consider the oblique case-signs seriatim, it is

necessary to enquire into the changes which the base sustains prior to

receiving the suffixes.

Inflexional base of the oblique cases.—In the majority of instances

that form of the Dravidian noun which constitutes the erude base, and

which is used as the nominative, constitutes also the inflexional base.

The nominative of this class of nouns and the base of the oblique

cases are identical ; and the case-signs are added to the base or nomi-

native without any link of connexion, whether inflexional or euphonie,

beyond the ordinary ‘v’ or ‘y,” which is inserted to prevent hiatus

between concurrent vowels.

In a smaller number of instances (a number which constitutes,

however, a very large minority), the base or nominative undergoes

some alteration before receiving the addition of the terminations, or

case-signs of the oblique cases.

In the solitary instance of the Tamil-Canarese personal pronouns,

as pointed out under the preceding head, the nominative sustains a cur-

tailment (viz, by the shortening of the quantity of the included

vowel) on becoming the inflexional base, or base of the oblique cases :

but in all other instances the alteration which the base sustains consists

in an augmentation, which is sometimes optional and sometimes neces-

sary ; and it is to this augmented form (augmented by the addition of

some inflexional increment) that the case-signs are attached. This

Dravidian rule may be illustrated by the Hebrew.

In Hebrew the

personal and other suffixes of substantives and verbal nouns are

attached, not to the base or nominative, but to the ¢construct state,’

v e, the state in which a noun stands when it is qualified by a subse-

quent noun. Just so in the Dravidian languages, in that large class of

nouns in which the inflexional base of the noun, or its adjectival form,

differs from the crude form or nominative, the signs of case are attached

not to the crude, natural form of the noun, but to the altered, inflected

form, viz., to that form which a Dravidian noun assumes when it

%

|

qualifies or is qualified by asubsequent noun, or when it stands to such

noun in the relation of an adjective.

This inflected form of the noun

is frequently used by itself, without the addition of any case-termina-

tion, and when so used it has a possessive or adjectival force. Tamil

:E

grammarians hold that the ¢ inflexion’ is not a possessive, though they

cannot but admit that for every purpose for which the possessive or

genitive is used; the ‘oblique case,” or inflected form of the noun may

i

INFLEXIONAL

INCREMENTS.

207

)¢

be used instead. They admit that it is used adjectivaliy: but it

appears to me that its use as an adjectival formative is a secondary

1§

one, and that it was originally, like many other adjectival formatives

0

Its use eventually as the

in various languages, a sign of the genitive.

inflexional basis of all the cases is in perfect harmony with this view

of its origin, and testifies to the existence of a period in the history of

)

the language when each of the post-positions of case was known and

d

felt to be a substantive, which required to be united to its base by a

sign of possession or adjectival relationship.

16

At present, however, it is our object to seek out and arrange

the various increments which are used for forming the inflexional base

Gy

of the oblique cases, without reference to the other uses to which those

13

increments are put.

§

© (1.) The inflexional increment “in, with its varicties.—The particle

“in’ constitutes the inflexion of certain classes of nouns in Tamil-

I

Canarese; and the corresponding Telugu particles are ni and ‘na.’

All these particles are, I believe, virtually one and the same. The

V]

Tamil uses ‘in’ in the singular and in the plural alike; and its

original signification has been forgotten to such a degree that it is now

often used merely as an euphonic link of connexion between the base

and its case-signs. For this reason its use both in Tamil and in Cana-

rese is optional.

In Telugu the corresponding particles are used only

in the singular ; and where they are used, their use is not euphonic

f

merely, but is intended to constitute the ¢inflexion.’

8

The Ku, which in this respect is more nearly allied than the

Telugu is to the Tamil, and more regular, uses ‘ni’ as the inflexion of

the plural as well as of the singular of all classes of nouns.

When ¢in’ is used in Tamil as the inflexion of the neut. sing.

demonstratives ‘adu, that, ‘idu, this, it is apt to be confounded with

¢an. a termination which those pronouns often take, especially in the

9

Instead of ‘adu’ and ‘idu, we may

oblique cases, instead of ‘u

say in Tamil ‘adan’ and ‘idan.’ In the nominative these forms are

very rarely used ; but the accusative, ‘adan-ei,” is more common, and

%

the dative, “adarku’ (‘adan-ku’), still more so.

“id-in-al,” through

i

s

this, ‘ad-in-al,” through that, and cases similarly formed, must therefore

The ¢an’

be carefully distinguished from ¢idan-al’ and “adan-al.

of the latter is a formative, which is probably of the same origin as

the ‘am’ of many neuter nouns (that ‘am’ being almost always con-

vertible into ¢an’); whereas ‘in’ is an inflexional increment, and

was originally a case-sign of the genitive.

The use of “in’ as an inflexional increment effects no alteration

Pe—

208

THE NOUN.

whatever in the meaning of the case-sign which is suffixed to it.

{

?

Where it is not followed by a case-sign, it becomes of itself a mode of

expressing the genitive ; but where a case-sign follows, it is merely

euphonic, and its use is optional.

Thus, we may say either ¢keiyal’

(‘kei-(y)-al’), with the hand, or ‘keiyin-al’ (‘kei-(y)-in-al); either

“kalal, with the foot, or ‘kalinal’ (‘kal-in-al’).

In the first of these instances (‘kei-(y)-in-al’), ‘y’ is used to keep

the initial vowel of ‘in’ pure, in accordance with the ordinary rule of

the language ; from the use of which, in this instance, it is evident

that ‘in,’ though merely euphonic in its present application, was in

its origin something more than a mere euphonic expletive.

‘In’ 1s not only attached as an inflexional increment to the crude

base of Tamil nouns, but it is appended also to other inflexional inere-

ments, viz., to ‘attu,” and to the doubled final ‘d’ and ‘R’ of certain

classes of nouns.

Thus, by the addition of ‘attu’ to ‘mara-m,’ @ tree.

we form ‘marattu,’ the inflexional base of the oblique cases, by suffix-

ing to which ‘al,’ the sign of the instrumental case, we form ‘marattal,’

by @ tree: but we may also attach ‘in’ to ‘attu,’ forming ‘attin’

(‘att-in’), a doubled and euphonized increment, e.g., ‘marattinal’

(‘mara-attu-in-al’).

As ‘in’ when standing alone, without the suffix

of any case-sign, has the force of the genitive, so also has the double

increment, attin ;' e.g., “marattin’ signifies of a éree.

In; Tamils Gt

is the ‘inflexion’ of all nouns, except those which end in ‘am,” or in

‘d-u’ or ‘rR-u: in Canarese ‘in’ is much more rarely used than in

Tamil ; but where it is used, its use is rather euphonic and optional,

than inflexional, and it cannot be used by itself to express the force of

the genitive.

As in Tamil ‘guruvil, in a priest, and ‘¢ guruvinil’ are

identical, so we may say in Canarese either ‘guruvalli’ or ¢ guru-

vinalli.’

In Telugu the corresponding particles ‘ni’ and ‘na’ constitute the

inflexion, or natural genitive of certain classes of nouns, and are also

attached as inflexional increments to the base before suffixing the case-

signs; e.g., ‘diniki’ (‘di-ni-ki’), ¢o i¢, ‘tammuniki’ (‘ tammu-ni-ki 2140

a younger brother, ‘guru-na-ku, to a spiritual teacher.

These incre-

ments are attached only to the singular in Telugu : they constitute

the singular inflexion,” 4.c., the genitival or adjectival base of the

e —

noun, and are not merely euphonic ; nor are they to be regarded as the

inflexion of masculine nouns and pronouns alone, though they are

chiefly used by them, for ¢daniki, to that, ¢diniki,’ to this, are

ii

neuters,

The Telugu ‘ni,” and the Tamil-Canarese ‘in,” are doubtless iden-

tical in origin.

The change in the position of the vowel is in accord-

iz

INFLEXIONAL

INCREMENTS.

209

A

ance with the change of il; Tam., the negative particle, into *18&; in

f

Telugu, and of ¢ul, Tam., witkin, into €16, in Telugu. It also cor-

responds to the change of the position of the vowel which is apparent

when ‘¢in,’ the Latin preposition, is compared with the corresponding

i\

Sanserit preposition ¢ni.’

(23 The inflewional increments ‘ad’ and ¢ ar’—The particles ¢ Gl

f

and ‘ar, are extensively used by the Canarese as inflexional incre-

ments.

Their use exactly resembles that of ‘in’ in the same language,

i}

though each is restricted to a particular class of words. ‘in’ is used

as an increment of the base solely in connexion with nouns which end

in ‘u,’ eg., ‘guru, @ priest; and ‘ad’ and ‘ar’ are used in connexion

with neuter nouns and demonstratives, and with those alone.

In the Canarese genitive case-endings, ‘ara,” ‘ada,’ ‘ina,’ and ‘a,

it will be seen that the real and only sign of the genitive is ‘a,’ the

final vowel of each; and therefore Dr. Stevenson has erred in comparing

‘ara’ or ‘ra’ (properly ‘ar-a’ or ‘ad-a’) with the New Persian ‘ra.’

¢ad’and ‘ar’ are prefixed to the signs of case, not by the genitive

only, but by three cases besides, viz, by the accusative, the instru-

mental, and the locative.

Thus we may say not only ‘idara’ (‘id-ar-a’),

e

of this, and ‘marada’ (‘mar-ad-a’), of a free, but also ‘idaralli’

(‘id-ar-alli’), in this, and ¢maradinda’ (‘mar-ad-inda’), by a tree.

Consequently ‘ad’ and ‘ar,” whatever be their origin, are not signs of

case, in so far as their use is concerned, but are used merely as incre-

)

ments of the base, or inflexional bonds of conjunction between the base

Moreover, the Canarese differs

f

and the case-signs, like ‘in,” “ni,” &e.

in its use of these increments from the Telugu and the Tamil in this,

that it never suffixes them alone without the addition of the case-signs,

and never gives them the signification of genitives or adjectival for-

matives.

‘ad’ and ‘ar’ are not only related, but are, I believe, really

identical.

Both are increments of the neuter alone; and where the

¢d’ and ‘r’ are known to

0

Canarese uses ‘ar,’ the Tulu uses ‘ad.

change places dialectically, as in the southern provinces of the Tamil

country, in which ‘adu,’ ¢, is pronounced ‘aru ;7 and the Canarese

increment ‘ad’ or ‘ar’ is, I have no doubt, identical with that very

word, viz., with the Tamil-Canarese demonstrative ‘adu’ or ‘ad,’ .

Though the Tamil has not regularly adopted the unchanged form

of this demonstrative, ‘adu,” as an inflexional increment of the base in

the declension of nouns, it makes use of it occasionally in a manner

“%

which perfectly illustrates the origin of the Canarese use of it.

In classical Tamil the neuter demonstrative may optionally be

B

210

THE NOUN.

added to any neuter noun in the singular, not for the purpose of alter-

ing the signification, but merely for the improvement of the euphony,

and for the purpose of meeting the requirements of prosody. ¢adu

may thus be added even to the nominative; e.g., we may not only

write ‘pon,’ gold, but also poetically ‘ponnadu,” gold, or etymologically

gold-that, i.e., that (which is) gold.

It is much more common, however,

and more in accordance also with the Canarese usage, to use ‘adu’ in

the oblique cases ; in which event it is inserted between the base and

{i

the case-sign, so as to become virtnally (yet without losing its proper

¢

character) an inflexional increment; e.g., instead of ‘ponnei,” the accu-

sative of ‘ pon,” gold, we may write ¢ ponnadei’ (‘ponn-ad-ei’).

I connect with the Canarese ‘ar,’” and therefore with ‘ad,’ and

ultimately with the neuter demonstrative itself, the euphonic consonant

b

tr,

which is used by the Telugu in certain instances to separate

between a Sanscrit noun of quality used as an adjective and the

1

feminine suffix ¢4lu,” e.g., ¢ sundaru-r-alu,” a handsome woman.

This

{1

would be quite in accordance with the peculiar Telugu usage of

employing the neuter demonstrative singular in place of the feminine

C

singular.

€4

al

(8.) The inflexvonal increment ¢ ti’—In Telugu €41’ or ‘ti’ is the

th

most common and characteristic inflexional increment of neuter singular

nouns, and it is used in Telugu, like the corresponding ‘attu’ in Tamil,

fi

not merely as an increment of the base, but as the ‘inflexion,” with the

signification of the possessive case or of that of an adjective, as the

context may require.

Two instances of the use of this increment will

suffice out of the very numerous class of neuter nouns which form

1l

their singular inflexion by the addition of ‘i’ or ‘ti’ (or rather by the

substitution of that particle for their last syllable); e.g., ‘vagili,” a door

!

b

way, inflexion ¢ vagiti; ‘nudaru,’ the forehead, inflexion ‘nuduti.’

In

(A

these instances of the use of ‘t1’ or ti,” the inflexional inerement is

substituted for the last syllable ; but it is certainly to be considered as

(r

Ig

an addition to the word—as a particle appended to it; and the blending

of the increment with the base, instead of merely suffixing it, has

arisen from the euphonic tendencies of the language.

{

I have no doubt that the suffixed particle which constitutes the

Telugu inflexional increment was originally ¢ti,” not ¢ ti’—the dental,

1l

i

1

not the cerebral.

This would account for the circumstance that ¢+’

i

I

alone follows words of which the final consonant is ‘r’ or ‘1;’ for

on the addition of the dental ‘t’to ‘r’ or ‘1’ both consonants dialec-

tically coalesce and become ‘t;’ the hard cerebral being regarded as

I

euphonically equivalent to the two soft letters.

In no case in Telugu

fo

INFLEXIONAL INCREMENTS.

P

)

11

is there a double ‘t’ in the inflexional increment.

It is sometimes,

y

however, euphonised by prefixing a nasal, e.g., ¢ tolli,’ antiquity, forms

its inflexion in ‘tonti’ (instead of °tolti), or ‘tollinti.’

The dental

J

“ti’ is used instead of the cerebral ‘ti, as the inflexion of nouns

y

ending in ‘yu’ after a pure vowel, e.g., ‘vayu,’ the mouth, inflexion

3

Cyati.’

This circumstance proves that it was the dental ¢ti’ which

was originally used in all cases.

The dental ‘t’ on being appended

to consonants changes naturally into the cerebral ; whereas the

T

cerebral rarely, if ever, changes into the dental.

If we now conclude, as I think we undoubtedly may, that the

Telugu inflexion was originally ¢ti,’ not ¢ti,’ this inflexional increment

d

may at once be connected with the Telugu neuter demonstrative, ‘adi,’

1t

in the same manner as the Canarese ‘ad,’ and the Tamil ¢attu,’ are

f

connected with the Tamil-Canarese neuter demonstrative ¢ adu.” This

16

I8}

identification is confirmed by the circumstance that ‘atti’ is some-

times used for ‘adi’ in Telugu, and ¢itti’ for ¢idi,’ just as ‘attu’ is

of

sometimes used for ‘adu’ in colloquial Tamil.

Though the identifi-

10

cation of the inflexion and the neuter sing. demoustrative could not

easily be established from the Telugu alone, or from any one dialect

alone, yet the cumulative argument derived from a comparison of all

10

the dialects has irresistible force.

An important link of evidence is

ar

furnished by the inflexion which follows.—

l

I

(4.) The inflexional increment ‘attu’ or ‘attrun.’—All Tamil nouns

he

which end in ‘am, whether Sanscrit derivatives or pure Tamil roots,

ill

reject ‘am’ in the oblique cases in the singular, and take ‘att-u’

instead ; and it is to this increment that the various case-signs are

I

suffixed: e.g., the locative case-sign “il’ is not added to ° aram,” depth,

)

but to the inflexional base ‘Ar-attu,’ so that, in the depth is not

n

“aram-il, but ¢ar-att-il.’

This rule admits of no exception in the

18

ordinary dialect of the Tamil ; but in the poetiéa,l dialect, which

a8

represents more or less distinctly an older condition of the language:

I

¢attu’ is sometimes left unused, and the case-sign is added directly to

49

the crude base: e.g., instead of ‘kay-attu-kku, to the depth (from

‘kayam,’ depth’), ¢ kaya-kku’ is used in the Chintdmani. When the

he

increment ‘attu’ is not followed by any sign of case, but by another

al,

noun, like the other inflexion ‘in’ and like the corresponding Telugu

t,

inflexion ¢ ti,” it has the force either of the genitive or of an adjective ;

or

e.g., ‘mar-atta koppu, the branch of a tree, ‘kul-attu min,’ tank fish.

id

This inflexion, like ‘ad’ and ‘ar’ in Canarese, and ‘ti,’ or ‘ti’ in

#

Telugu, is used in connexion with the singular alone.

‘am,” the

i

formative of the base, which is used only by the nominative in the

P2

212

THE

NOUN.

singular, is retained in the plural, not in the nominative only, but in

all the oblique cases. To it the sign of plurality is appended, and the

case-sign follows the sign of plurality; e.g., ‘maranggalil’ (‘ maram-

gal-i1"), in trees.

There are in Tamil a few naturally plural (neuter) pronominals

and nouns of relation (e.g., ‘avel,’ those (things); ‘sila, few,; ‘pala,

many; ‘ella,” all), which receive in their oblique cases the inflexional

increment ‘arru,’ pronounced ‘attru.’ Thus, from ‘ellam,” all, which

is properly ‘elli-um’ (‘um’ being the conjunctive and intensitive

particle even, and elld-um’ or ‘ellam’ signifying even all, all together),

the locative which is formed by the Tamil is ¢ellavattrilum, (ella-(v)-

attr’-il-um), én all, literally even wn all.

So also “avei,’ they (neut.),

forms its accusative not by adding ‘el the accusative case-sign,

to ‘avei, but by inserting ¢attru, and adding ‘ei’ thereto, e.g.,

‘avattrei’ (‘av-attr-ei’), them ; in which instance ‘ei’ (for ¢a’), the

sign of the plural, is rejected, and its place is supplied by attru,” the

inflexional increment of this class of plurals.

E

It is evident that the Tamil increments, ‘attu’ and ‘attru,” are

virtually identical.

The difference in use is slight, and in pronunci-

1

ation still slighter ; and in general ‘attru’ is pronounced exactly

like ‘attu’ by the vulgar.

We may, therefore, conclude that they

are one and the same, and on examining the Telugu we find additional

confirmation of their identity.

In Telugu, avi, they (neut.), answer-

ing to the Tamil ‘avei,” forms its inflexion in ‘vati’ (for ‘avati’)

This Telugn (supposititious) ‘avati’ is evidently identical with the

Tamil ¢avattru.’

The “ti’ of this inflexion is certainly the same as

the ti’ of Telugu nouns substantive : and if there is no difference

a

in Telugu between the ‘ti’ which forms the inflexional increment of

l

neuter singular nouns and demonstratives and the plural inflexion ‘ti’

I\(

of such words as ¢ vati,’ we may also conclude that there is no real dif-

P

ference between the singular ‘attu’ and the plural ‘attru’ of the Tamil.

i

Whence did the ‘r

which is included in ‘arru, or ¢attr-u,’

take its rise ?

4

We see its origin clearly enough in Canarese; for

in the ancient dialect ‘ar,” or ‘r,’ forms the inflexional increment of

I

every one of the plural pronominals which take ‘arru’ in Tamil:

0

e.g., ‘avara’ (corresponding Tam. ‘avarru’), of thosc things; ‘ellavara’

(Tam. ‘ellavarru’), of all things,; ‘kelavara’ (Tam. ¢silavarru’

/3

)

R ——

of some (things). The Canarese ‘r’ is, as we have seen, derived from,

and originally identical with, ¢d’ or ‘t;’ and hence the Tamil in

doubling ‘R’ gives it the sound °ttr.

Thus, not only the Tamil

increment ‘att-u,’ but also ‘arr-u,’ is clearly derived from the same

origin as the Canarese ‘ad’ or ‘ar,” and the Telugn ‘ti,’ viz., from

INFLEXIONAL INCREMENTS.

213

Both these inflexions have been

the neut. sing. demonstrative.

0

formed also by the same process; for ‘ar,” when doubled, becomes

-

‘arr-u’ (‘attr-u’), as naturally as ‘ad,’ when doubled, becomes

‘att-u ;

and in each case the doubling arises from the adjectival use

to which the suffixed pronoun is put. Tt is a recognized rule of the

Sw

l

Tamil that when a noun ending in ‘d-u’ is used adjectivally, the

al

td:n

may either become ‘d-in’ or ¢tt-u;

e.g., from ¢erud-u,’ an

h

ox, 1s formed either ‘erud-in’ or ‘erutt-u,’ of an ozx.

So also ¢ ad-u,’

b

6

it, which is now generally inflected by the addition of ‘in

2

seems to

’)7

have been inflected formerly as ¢att-u.’

“adu’ is vulgarly pro-

nounced in the oblique cases as ‘attu’ by the bulk of the northern

)

Tamilians.

The majority of the natives of Madras, for instance, use

1l

“atlei’ (‘attu-ei’) as the accusative of “adu,’ that, instead of ‘adei;

s

and in the neuter singular pronominal suffixes to the verb the same

he

pronunciation is not only commonly heard, but is often written:

he

e.g., instead of ‘irukkiradukku,” to its being (the dative of ‘iru-

kkir-adu,” it is, the being, or that which is), Madras Tamilians invari-

10

ably write ¢irukkirattukku; in which compound ¢attu’ is evidently

Cl

It is also

used as the neuter demonstrative singular instead of ‘adu.’

&‘{

deserving of notice, that the feminine singular suffix of a large class of

appellative nouns, which is ¢di

o

or ‘adi’ in Telugu, and which has

nal

been shown to be identical with the neuter demonstrative, is in Tamil

(3%

“tti’ or ‘atti, e.g., ‘TAsAtti, @ woman of the Rdjd caste, a queen. Even

)

in the nominative ¢atti’ is sometimes used in Telugu instead of ‘adi,’

the

that, and “itti’ instead of ¢idi,” ¢his.

48

Two instances will suffice to prove the identity of the Tamil ¢attu’

il

and the Canarese ‘ad,” and thus supply the only link that is wanting

of

to the perfect identification of ‘attu’ with the Telugu “ti,’ and of

both with ‘adu.

il

The Tamil ¢ plrv-att-il,) in ancient times, is com-

lif-

pounded of ¢ plrv-am’ (Sans. deriv.), antiquity, ‘att-u,’ the inflexional

il

increment, and ‘il,” the sign of the locative.

Compare this with the

b

v_u,

corresponding Canarese ¢ plrv-ad-alli,

in which it is evident that

for

“ad”’ is used in the same manner as ‘att-u,” and perfectly agrees with

it in signification.

Again, the Tamil ‘dyirattondru,” a thousand and

of

one, is formed from ¢ayiram, a thousand (the inflexion of which is

il

;

“ayir-attu’), and ‘ondru,’ one.

When this is compared with the

b

corresponding Canarese word saviradondu,” from ¢ savir,” @ thousand

18/]

(equivalent to the Tamil ¢Ayir’)— inflexional form sivir-ad’—to

0y

1

| m

which ‘ondu,” identical with ¢ondru,’” is appended, it is evident that

il

the Canarese increment ‘ad’’ and the Tamil ‘att’’ are one and the

%

g

same ; and also that in this instance the Canarese ‘ad’’ is used for

700

precisely the same purpose as the Tamil ‘att’,” viz., as an inflexional

increment with an adjectival signification.

214

THE NOUN.

(5.) The formation of the inflexion by means of doubling and

hardening the final consonant. — Tamil nouns ending in ¢d-u’ and

¢r-u’ form the basis of their oblique cases by doubling the final d’

and ‘R; and the doubled ¢d’ becomes by rule tt,” and the doubled

‘R, ‘ttr’ (though spelled ‘RR’): eg., from ‘kad-u’ @ jungle, is

f

formed ¢katt-(u)-kku,’ fo a jungle; from ¢ar-u’ a river, ‘attr-il’

(‘4RRr-il’), in a river.

I

This doubling of the final consonant of such nouns places them in

an adjectival relation to the succeeding noun.

It is to be regarded as

a sign of transition, for when intransitive or neuter verbs ending

in ‘d-u’ or ‘r-u’ double their finals, they acquire a transitive sig-

nification ; e.g., from ‘6d-u,’ to run, is formed ‘ott-u,’ fo drive; from

“tér-u, to become clear, comes ‘téttr-u’ (‘térr-u’), to clarify, to

5

comfort.

Properly speaking, therefore, this doubling of the final is an

adjectival formative, rather than an inflexion or case-sign basis: but

t

in this, as in many other cases, the same form is used in both con-

|

nections, in consequence of the case-sign which is appended to the

doubled final having originally been a mnoun, and still retaining in

d

compounds the force of a noun.

In Telugu the final consonant of nouns of this class is hardened,

fi

but not doubled, to form the inflexion or basis of the oblique cases;

)

e.g., the inflexion of ¢ ér-u,’ @ river, is not ¢ éttri’ (‘érri’), but ‘éti,’ of

a rwer; and that of ‘nddu, a country, is ‘nati] of a country.

In

some instances the Telugu corresponds more closely to the Tamil in

forming the inflexion of nouns in ‘RR’ by changing that into ‘®t:’

e.g., ‘arr-u,’ the neck; inflexion of the same ‘arti’

If we regarded

the Telugu alone, we should consider these examples, not as instances

1

of the doubling of a final ‘d’ or ‘®,” but rather as instances of the

f

incorporation of ‘ti,” the usual inflexional suffix with those finals ; and

we should suppose this view to be confirmed by the circumstance that

i

the Telugu does not, like the Tamil, double the final ‘d-u’ or ‘r-u’

i

of intransitive verbs on converting them into transitives, but adds a

1

formative ‘chu.’

Nevertheless, the Tamil rule is so clear and ex-

press and so evidently founded upon grammatical reasons, and the

Telugu words in question, ‘nati, &c., so exactly agree with the

Tamil, that we cannot but recognise in them the operation of the same

principle, though somewhat disguised. In other and parallel instances,

though the Telugu hardens, it does not double: e.g., from ¢pad-u,’

Tam. and Tel., to sing, the Tamil forms patt-u, a song, the Telugu

¢ pat-a.’

The final i’ of such Telugu inflexions as ‘néti,’ of a country

(from ¢nad-u’), instead of ‘nat-u,” which the Tamil would lead us to

expect, is owing, I have no doubt, to the influence of ti, which is

b

the ordinary suffix of the inflexion of neuter nouns.

{

E%

INFLEXIONAL INCREMENTS.

215

i

7. The inflexional increment ‘i’—The inflexion of the plural of

1

the Telugu epicene demonstrative pronoun consists in ‘i’ e.g., * varu’

d}

(from ‘avaru’), those persons; inflexion °vAari, of them, their.

?

2

o

The final ‘u’ of ¢var-u

of ¢vari’

is merely euphonic, but the ‘i

1§

is certainly an inflexivnal increment; and possibly the final ‘i’ of

I’

the singular masculine demonstrative inflexional ‘vAni’ is not to be

regarded as a portion of ‘ni,” the ordinary inflexional increment of

1

Telugu masculine nouns, but is identical with the final ‘i’ of ¢véri.’

a8

A small class of Telagu nouns form their singular inflexion also in

ng

$10 eg., “kal-i, of a foot, ‘iér-i, of @ car

What is the origin

j0-

of this “i?

I think we are guided to a true idea of its origin by

m

comparing it with the possessive pronoun ¢véridi,” Tel., that which s

f]

theirs, which in Ku also is ¢évaridi.

When ¢ varidi’ is compared

an

with the Tamil possessive ‘avaradu,’ the meaning of which is exactly

)b

the same, we see that in each language the termination is that ot the

it

neuter demonstrative pronoun, which is ‘adu’ in Tamil, ‘adi’ in

the

Telugu; and we also see that the penultimate ‘i’ of ‘varidi’ is

mn

derived by attraction, according to Telugu usage, from the succeeding

I

‘1,

which is that of the neuter demonstrative singular ¢adi.’

The

final €1’ of ‘vari’ may therefore be regarded as an abbreviation

ed,

of “adi, or at least as derived from it.

£

70/‘

In

(8.) ZTelugu plural inflexional increment in ‘a’—In Telugu ‘a’

1

constitutes the plural inflexion of most colloquial pronominals, and

p

of all substantive nouns without exception.

¢l-u,” properly ‘I, is

ed

the pluralising particle of all neuter nouns in Telugu, and of the

jceS

majority of ‘rational’ ones: the inflexion is eflected by changing

the

this ‘I-u’ into ‘la,’” or to speak more correctly, by suffixing ‘a’ to

nd

¢1°’—the final vowel of ‘lu’ being merely euphonic; and it is to this

hat

incremental ‘a,” as to ‘ni’ and ti, the singular inflexions, that all

Bl

the case-signs are appended, e.g., ¢ kattulu,’ knives; inflexion ¢ kat{rtu]a;'

instrumental ‘kattula-chéta,” by knives.

lsa

I have no doubt that this inflexional increment ¢a

1s identical

ex-

with ‘a,’ one of the Tamil-Canarese signs of the genitive, and of the

the

use of which as a genitive, in the singular as well as in the plural, we

the

have an illustration even in Telugu, in the reflexive pronouns ‘tan-a,’

e

of self, ‘tam-a,” of selves.

This increment also, therefore, is to be

66

vy

regarded as a genitive in origin, though in actual use merely an

i,

inflexion; and I have no doubt that each of the Dravidian inflexions

ugl

proceeds from some genitive case-sign.

it

g0

|

Before leaving this subject, I should briefly refer to one which

18

bears some relation to it, viz.:—

:;

216

THE NOUN.

L

Luphonic links of connection between the base and the inﬂexion,

00

the base and the case-signs, or the inflexion and the case-signs.

ch

In Tamil the dative case-sign ‘ku’ is generally preceded by an

a

euphonic ¢ u,” and through the influence of this ‘u’ the ‘k’ is doubled.

Thus, from ‘avan,” he, is formed not ‘avanku,’ ¢o &im, but ‘avanukku’

th

(‘avan-u-kku’).

The personal pronouns, both in the singular and in

2

in this connection, instead

hg

the plural, make use of an euphonic ‘a

il

of ‘u; eg., from ‘nan’ (or rather from an older ‘én’), 7, is formed

the inflexion ‘en; and this takes as its dative not ‘enku’ or

1

la

¢enukku,’ ¢o me, but ‘enakku’ (en-a-kku).

tl

In MalayAlam the personal pronouns require the insertion of an

:

euphonic ‘i’ between the inflexion and the case-sign, e.g., ‘inikka,’

to me, ‘nanikka,’ to thee.

In some instances in Tamil the euphonic

1S

vowel which is made use of in this connection is not ‘n’ or ‘a,” but

L

“lel.”

1t

Thus “nil, a day, forms its dative not in ‘nalku,’ ‘nalukku,

[

or ‘mnalakku,” but in *¢naleikku’’

In the higher dialect of the Tamil

I

the dative case-sign ‘ku’ is often directly attached to the noun,

(é

especially in those instances in which the noun terminates in a liquid

th

or semi-vowel ; e.g., we find in that dialect not ‘avarukku’ (‘avar-

In ancient Canarese also, the dative

di

u-kku’), to them, but ‘avarku.’

1n

case-sign was invariably attached in this manner.

a

Whenever concurrent vowels meet in Tamil ‘v’ and ‘y’ are

il

used, as has already been shown, to prevent hiatus; and accordingly

they are used between the final vowel of nouns and those inflexions

or case-signs which begin with vowels; e.g., ‘naduvil’ (‘nadu-(v)-il’),

Compare this

§

(’

wn the middle; ‘variyil’ (‘vari-(y)-il’), in the way.

(6

with the use of ‘v’ for a similar purpose in Magyar: e.g., from €16,

al

a horse, and ¢ at,” the sign of the objective case, is formed not ‘164t

‘v’and ‘y’ are

but “1é6vat,” precisely as would be done in Tamil.

I

used by the Canarese in the same manner as by the Tamil; but in

d

Telugu, as has already been shown, ‘n’ is used as a preventive of

fl

hiatus instead of ¢v.’

0

The way has now been prepared for the investigation of the

A

Dravidian oblique cases, and of the signs of case properly so called.

U

The accusative or “second’ case.—In the Indo-European languages

t

the case-sign of the accusative of neuter nouns is identical with that

of the nominative case.

This identity has arisen, T conceive, not

from the nominative being used as an accusative, but vice versé from

I

the accusative being used as a nominative. The accusative case-suffix

B

is a sign of passivity, or of being acted upon; and it was suffixed to

masculine and feminine nouns to denote that in that instance they

g

THE ACCUSATIVE.

21

(

lon,

were to be regarded not as agents, but as objects. Subsequently, I

conceive, it was adopted, because of this signification, as a general

characteristic of the neuter, objective, or dead class of nouns, and so

ya

ed,

came to be used as the nominative, or normal case-ending of nouns of

J\H’

that class.

1 n

In the Dréividian languages also an accusative case-sign seems to

ead

have been adopted as a formative termination of abstract neuter

med

nouns.

The Old Canarese accusative case-sign ‘am’ seems to be

0r

identical with, and is probably the origin of, the ‘am’ which is so

largely used by Dravidian neuters.

Notwithstanding this, the use of

fan

the nominative, or rather of the simple, unformed base, as the accu-

sative of neuter nouns, is the ordinary and almost universal colloquial

ko,

onie

usage of the Dravidians, and is often found even in their classical com-

but

positions.

The accusative case-termination may be suffixed whenever

ko,

it appears to be desirable to do so, either for the sake of euphony or

amil

to prevent ambiguity; but it is rarely employed except when it is

required for those purposes.

When this case-termination is used

oull,

without ilecessity, it sounds stiff and unidiomatic; and this is one of

qlli&

the peculiarities by which the Tamil of foreigners is marked. Dravi-

far

dian masculine and feminine nouns and their corresponding pronouns

tive

invariably take the accusative case-suffix when they are governed by

active verbs.

This probably proceeds from the principle that it is

are

more natural for rational beings to act than to be acted upon ; and

u«lv

hence when they do happen to be acted upon—when the nouns by

jos

which they are denoted are to be taken objectively—it becomes neces-

1)

sary, in order to avoid misapprehension, to suffix to them the objective

this

case-sign.

On the other hand, the difference between the nominative

o,

and the accusative of neuter nouns is often allowed to pass unnoticed,

bty

because such nouns, whether they act or are acted upon, are alike

ae

destitute of personality and inert.

Whether the accusative is used as

b 10

the nominative, as in the Indo-European languages, or whether, as is

0 Of

often the case in the Scythian tongues, the nominative is used for the

accusative, the principle involved appears to be one and the same.

the

The use of the nominative of neuter nouns for the accusative is not

!

unknown to the North-Indian vernaculars, and is one of those par-

ticulars in which those vernaculars appear to beallied to the Dravidian

1088

family. Ordinarily, however, the North-Indian vernaculars are dis-

that

tinguished from the southern by their use of the dative case-sign for

not

the accusative.

In the Dravidian family, with the solitary exception

rom

of the Gond, the dative case-sign is always quite distinct from the

accusative; whereas in the Gauda or North-Indian family, there is

| f

generally little or no difference between those two cases.

In most

hey

218

THE NOUN.

instances, the case-sign which is allied to the Drévidian dative suffix,

sofs

and which appears to be essentially a dative, is that which is used

fern

for both cases indiscriminately; and it is the connexion which

"

determines whether the dative or the accusative is to be understood.

‘e

mus

9 EENTD

€

(1.) Adccusative case-signs © ei,

and ‘a.’—The only sign of the

inve

accusative which the Tamil recognizes is ‘ei,” which is suffixed to both

COVE

numbers and to all genders; though, as has been mentioned, the

accusative of neuter nouns is often identical with the nominative or

the

base. Examples, ‘avan-ei,’ him, ‘aval-ei,’ her, < ad-ei, it. The accusa-

tive case-sign of the MalayAlam is ¢¢; and this is evidently a primi-

n ¢

tive form of the Tamil ¢ei.’

The Canarese ordinarily uses either ‘a’

1o!

her

or ‘annu,’ as its accusative case-sign; but in some instances (e. g.,

‘nanna,’ me, ‘ninna,’ thee,) it appears to make use of ‘na,’ instead of

all

4

aQ

This ‘a’ seems to be equivalent to the Malayala €&’ and the

1nfy

Tar

Tamil ¢ei,” into which the Canarese short <a’ is often found to change

by rule.

400!

’\)7

The Tamil-Malayila accusative case-sign ¢

e

or ‘ei, may be com-

Case

pared with ‘hé’ or €&’ the dative-accusative of Hindi pronouns; with

2

al

the Gujarathi dative-accusative singular ¢é

J

and with the preponde-

addlj

rance of the vowel ¢ &’ which is observed in the dative-accusatives of

1on)

the Bengali and Sindhi.

Compare also the Brahui dative-accusative

feen

‘ne’ or ‘e, and the Malay ‘e.’

fror

On pushing the comparison amongst the Scythian tongues, not a

few of their accusative case-signs are found to resemble the Tamil

of

accusative. Thus the Wotiak accusative is formed by adding ‘4’ to the

liag

root, e.g., ‘ton,” thow, ‘ton-a, thee.

The Turkish accusative is ‘1’ or

fore

‘yi; the Mongolian ‘i’ after a consonant: ¢dji, instead of the Turkish

app

¢ yi,” after a vowel.

el

e

The Turkish ¢

1

is doubtless a softened form of the Oriental

to g

Turkish accusative case-sign ¢ ni,” from which it has been derived, by

the same process by which the Turkish dative case-sign ‘eh’ or ‘yeh,’

arg

is undoubtedly derived from the old Oriental Turkish ¢ g4’ or ¢ ghah.’

an(

It would therefore appear that the Scythian accusative origina,lly

the

contained a nasal; and in accordance with this supposition we find in

an(

the Calmuck pronouns an accusative case-sign corresponding to the

fing

Oriental Turkish ‘ni’ e.g., ¢bida-ni, ws, from ‘bida,’ we, and also

ace

‘ na-mai,’ me, and ¢ dzi-mai,” ¢ee, from the bases ‘na’ and ¢dzi’ With

this we may again compare the Brahui dative-accusative ‘ne’ or ‘e’

10y

That the Oriental Turkish ‘ni’ could easily and naturally be softened

el

($45%7

1

into ‘yi’ or

appears from the Drividian languages themselves; in

which, for instance, the personal pronoun ‘nin,” Tam., 7, has been

(‘Xp

Illay

THE

ACCUSATIVE.

219

uffix,

softened first into ¢ yAn,” and then, in the oblique cases and the verbal

used

terminations, to ¢ én’ and ¢en.’

‘ni’ being evidently the basis of the

which

Turkish and Mongolian sign of the accusative, if the Dravidian ‘ei’ or

0d,

€&’ is allied to it, as we have supposed to be probable, this ei’ or ‘&’

must originally have been preceded or followed by a nasal; and in

of the

investigating the other Dravidian accusative case-signs we shall dis-

) both

cover some reasons for concluding this to have been actually the case.

, the

Ve o

(2.) Accusative case-signs ‘am,” ‘annu,’ ‘anna,’ ‘nu,’ &e.— am’ is

(CUSa-

the characteristic sign of the ancient Canarese accusative, and is used

-

in connexion with nouns and pronouns alike, e.g., ‘aval-am,” ker. The

)

more modern form of the Canarese accusativeis ‘annu,’ e.g., ‘aval-annu,’

2

(e.9

her; and this ‘annu’ is certainly identical with the older ‘am

ad of

‘am’ has in other instances besides this evinced a tendency to change

the

into ‘an;’ for Ae is ‘avam’ in ancient Canarese, though ‘avan’ in

Tamil.

ange

The change of the old Indo-European ‘m, the sign of the

accusative in Latin and Sanserit, into the Greek ‘v’ is also a parallel

com

case.

The ancient Canarese case-sign ‘am’ no sooner changed into

with

‘an,’ than it would irresistibly be impelled to euphonise ‘an’ by the

nde-

addition of ‘nu.’

Even in Tamil vin,’ the sky, is commonly pro-

s of

nounced ‘vinnu,’” and in Telugu it is vinnu’ by rule.

Hence we

seem to be quite safe in deriving ‘annu’ directly from ‘an,” and ‘an’

ative

from ¢am.

Another form of the Canarese accusative case-sign is ‘anna,’ instead

0t &

of “annu,” or simply ‘nna’ or *na, eg., ‘na-nna,’ me.

The final ¢ u,’

qmil

has in this instance been changed into ‘a,” through the attractive

o the

]"Or

force of the primitive ‘an:’ or rather, perhaps, the entire euphonic

kish

appendage ‘nu,’ has been rejected, and the original case-sign ‘an’

been softened to ¢a,” whilst the final ‘n’ of the base has been doubled

ontal

to augment or express the objectivity of the signification.

1, b

Y

The Tulu accusatives ‘nu’ and ‘n’ (e.g., ‘yanu’ or ¢ yannu,’ me)

are evidently identical with the Canarese, and also with the Telugu;

yeh)

pih,

and they are peculiarly valuable as tending to show the connection of

the Telugu accusative suffix ‘nu’ or ‘ni,” with the older Canarese ‘an’

]ally

and the still older ‘am.’

The Tuda accusative of the pronoun of the

d1mn

first person singular ends in ‘ ama,’ e.g., ‘en-ama,’ me : when the Gond

the

accusative differs from the dative it is denoted by ¢un.’

also

In Telugu the neuter accusative is ordinarily the same as the

V

ith

nominative, as in the other Dravidian dialects; but when the noun

‘ev

belongs to the class of ‘rationals’ or ‘majors,” the accusative must be

)I]Ed

expressed by the addition of a sign of case.

The accusative case-sign

1

may optionally be suffixed, as in Tamil, to neuter nouns; but whether

o0

i

220

THE NOUN.

the noun be a ‘major’ or a ‘ minor,” singular or plural, the sign of case

questi

must be suffixed to the inflexion, genitive, or obliqu’e-ca,se‘basis, not to

the

the nominative.

When the inflexion is the same as the nominative,

‘nm

the noun to which the case-sign is attached is still regarded as the

“nin-

inflexion, so that in theory the rule admits of no exceptions.

I6

el

¥

The sign of the accusative in Telugu is ‘nu’ or ‘ni:’ when pre-

acous

ceded by €i’ it is “ni] e.g., “inti-ni,’ ¢ dom-wm ;> where-it is preceded

In o

by any other vowel it is ‘nu,’ e.g., ¢ bidda-nu,” ¢ puer-um.’

these

A similar “ni’ or ‘na’ is used in Telugu (but not so systematically

(ans

as the corresponding ‘in’ in Tamil) as an euphonic inflexional incre-

ment; and ‘na

or

¢

ni

9

!

is also a sign of the locative in Telugu.

havi

Probably those locative and genitive suffixes were originally, and are

still to be regarded, as one and the same; but the sign of the accusa-

the

tive, though nearly identical in sound, proceeds apparently from a

i8h

different source.

Comparing it with the Canarese and especially with

orig

the Tulu accusative, we can scarcely avoid the conclasion that, though

in sound it is identical with the ordinary inflexional augment, it is to

tive

be regarded as a relic of the Canarese accusative case-sign ‘annu’ or

fanr

‘am.

The suffixes of the accusative of the Telugu personal pronouns

“nimy

can be explained on this supposition alone.

The “inflexions’ of those

dout

pronouns are essentially different from their accusatives,and incapable

proc

of being confounded with them ; and the accusatives of those pronouns

Proc

to

take of necessity, and not merely for euphony, the nasal suffixes < nu’

or ‘nnu’ in the singular, and ‘mu’ or ‘mmu’ in the plural.

Thus,

il

whilst n&,” of me, is the inflexion of ¢ nénu, 7, its accusative is ‘nanu’

10f

or ‘nannu, me; the accusative of the second person is ‘ninu’ or

Gar

‘ninnu,’ thee, and their plurals are ‘mamu’ or * mammu,” us, ‘mimu°

8

d

or ‘mimmu,” you, whilst the inflexions of those plurals are ‘mé’ and

h

3

“imis

Tar

When these accusatives are compared with the Canarese and Tulu,

especially with ¢ yanu,’ me, and ‘ninu,’ thee, in the latter, their vir-

tual identity, and therefore the origin of them all from the ancient

dif

Canarese ‘am,’ can scarcely be doubted.

Tel

We may now proceed to compare this acensative case-sign ‘am,’

loc

‘an,’ ‘annu,’ ‘nu,’ or ‘na’ with the Gujarathi dative-accusative ‘ne,’

;S

(tr

with the Panjabi ‘nu’ or ¢ num,” and also with the Brahui ‘né’ or ‘8

fle

and the Turkish and Mongolian “ni’ or ¢1.

In the Finnish tongues

the greater number of singular accusatives are formed by suffixing “en,’

gi

“an, &e., which are also used as signs of the genitive: in the plural

th

there is rarely any difference between the nominative and the accusa-

1]

tive. Ascending further towards the source of the Scythian tongues,

Te

we find in the language of the Scythian tablets at Behistun an un-

0

THE INSTRUMENTAL.

221

of ease

questionable link of connexion with the Dravidian.

The pronoun of

10t to

the second person singular in that language is ‘ni,’ thow, of which

ative,

‘nin’ is the accusative; and when this is compared with the Tulu

s the

‘nin-u,’ thee, we cannot fail to be struck with the closeness of the

resemblance.

We should also notice the extensive use of ‘m’ or ‘n’ as an

| pre-

ceded

accusative case-sign in the languages of the Indo-European family.

In Sanscrit, Latin, and Gothic, ‘m’ predominates, in Greek, ‘n; but

2

of the ancient

ieally

these consonants are virtually identical, like the ‘m

ncre-

Canarese, and the ‘n’ of the modern.

clug.

A similar form of the accusative being extensively prevalent, as we

d are

have seen, in the Scythian tongues, it would be unreasonable to derive

In this instance it

CCUSa~

the Dravidian case-sign from the Indo-European.

is better to conclude that both families have retained a relic of their

om 4

with

original oneness.

0ugh

It only remains to inquire whether the Tamil-Malayalam accusa-

150

tive case-sign ‘ei’ or ‘e’ cannot be connected with the Canarese ‘am,’

1

or

¢annu,” and ‘na.’

On comparing the ancient Canarese accusative

0uns

‘ninnam, thee, with the more modern °ninna,” it can scarcely be

hose

doubted that the latter is derived from the former by the ordinary

pable

process of the softening away of the final nasal.

Through this very

0uns

process the final ‘am’ of many substantive nouns has been softened

‘mn’

to ‘a, eg., ‘maram, Ancient Can., a tree, ‘mara’ or ‘mara-vu,

modern Can.

If then the sign of the accusative in ‘ninna,’ thee, is

[hus,

not ‘na’ but ‘a’ (instead of ‘am’), as is probably the case, there

ant’

l

or

cannot be any difficulty in deriving from it the Tamil accusative case-

sign ¢ei’ for the change of ‘a’ into ¢ ei,” takes place so frequently

jmy’

and

that it may almost be considered as a dialectic one, e.g., compare Old

Tamil ‘¢ila,” not, with the modern Tamil ¢illei.’

ulu,

The instrumental, or “third’ case.—Different particles are used by

VI

different Dravidian dialects as suffixes of the instrumental case.

In

jent

Telugu the most classical instrumental is identical with the inflexional

locative, and consists in changing ‘ti’ or °ti, the ¢inflexion,’ into

ally

‘ta’ or ‘ta; eg., ‘ri-ta,” with a stone, from ‘ra-yi’ @ stone, the in-

16,

flexion of which 1s ‘ré-ti.

) ‘67

This form of the instrumental was probably a locative in its ori-

;UQS.

ginal signification, and at all events it is identical with an old form of

el

the locative ; e.g., ‘inta,” @n @ house, from ‘illu,’ @ house, of which the

il

inflexion is ‘inti.

The more commonly used instrumental of the

184

1

Telugu is formed by the addition to the inflexion of any noun of ‘ché’

16%

or ‘chéta,’” which is itself the instrumental form of ¢ ché-yi’ (Tam.,

i

222

THE NOUN.

in th

‘kei’), the hand, signifying by the hand (of); eg., ‘nibbu-ché’ta,’ by

Jire, literally by the hand of fire.

(and |

se-§

The inflexion, or genitive, without the addition of any special suffix,

the !

is also occasionally used in Telugu, as in High Tamil, to denote the

instrumental case, as well as the ablative of motion and the locative.

the )

with |

The particle ‘na’ is also sometimes suffixed to neuter nouns to

denote all three ablatives.

and w

A

In Ancient Canarese the instrumental case-sign is ‘im; in the

(ase,

modern dialect ¢inda, an euphonised, adjectival form of the same

suffix.

The suffix of the Tulu is ‘d’da.’

Verne

‘to 1

I consider ‘im,” the old Canarese instrumental suffix, to be iden-

tical in origin with ‘in,’ the suffix of the Tamil ¢ablative of motion,’

£

or ‘locative.

It has already been seen how easily ‘m’ changes into

knif

1

and both in Canarese and in Tamil there is so close a connexion

hawi

between the ablative of motion and the instrumental, that the case-

I

sign of the former is very often used for the latter, especially by the

Soyth

poets; e.g., ¢ val-in aya vadu,’ Tam., @ wound inflicted by’ a sword, not

after

‘from’ a sword.

In Canarese also the ablative of motion is denoted

mere:

the T¢

more frequently by the suffix of the instrumental than by its own

suffix,

Through a similar tendency to confound these cases, the case-

the o]

Word

sign of the instrumental has disappeared from the Latin, Greek, &e.,

and the sign of the ablative has come to be used instead. Even in

the v

English, ‘by,’ originally a locative (e.g., ‘close by’), has lost this

peal

1

meaning altogether, and is used at present to form the ablative, or

more properly the instrumental.

Dré‘

In Tamil and Malayélam the suffix of the instrumental is ¢4l ; in

High Tamil ‘4n’ also.

“al’ is the case-sign of the ablative or instru-

loup

mental in Gond, though in Telugu, which is spoken between the

geniy

dian

Tamil country and the country of the Gonds, a different case-sign is

used.

This suffix ‘al’ is possibly derived from, or allied to, ¢kl

B s i e o

g,

Tam., a channel, a noun which is contained not only in the Dravidian

S&nsm

dialects, but also in Bengali.

tllyg

In some dialects ‘channel’ is a compound word (Tam., ‘kalvéay ;

been

ingty

Te., ‘kalava; Can., ‘kélive’), and the only meaning of ‘kal’ is «

Soot.

This meaning is contained in the Tamil, but that of a ¢channel,’

ot

which the Tamil contains also, suits better the supposed use which is

made of ¢kél,’ as a sign of the instrumental case.

‘kal’ may have

in’f

lost its initial ‘k’ in the same manner as ‘kal,’ the neuter sign of

st

oy

plurality, is known to have done in Telugu and Tulu, in which it has

become ‘l-u,’ by corruption from ¢kal-u’ or ¢gal-u.’

€ney

In the Indo-European family of languages there are no signs of

the instrumental case which at all resemble those that we have noticed

by

THE INSTRUMENTAL.

223

fa, by

in the Drividian family. The only analogies which I have noticed

(and probably they are illusory) are those which exist between the

case-sign of the Tamil-Malayélam and the corresponding case-signs of

suffx,

fe the

the Finnish tongues.

Compare

al’ with the instrumental suffix of

tive,

the Magyar, which is ‘al’ in the singular, ‘el’ in the plural ; and

108 to

with ¢alla,” ‘ella,’ &ec., the instrumental suffixes of the Finnish proper,

and which are euphonically augmented forms of ¢al’ and ‘el

n the

A secondary or periphrastic mode of forming the instrumental

) Sane

case, which obtains in the Dravidian languages, as also in the northern

vernaculars, is by means of the preterite verbal participle of the verb

o 1den-

‘to take, and the accusative or abstract nominative of any noun ;

otion,

e.g., ‘kattiyei (k)kondu,” Tam , with a knife, literally kaving taken a

63 10£0

knife : compare the corresponding Bengali ¢churi diya,” with (i.e.,

nexion

having taken) a knife.

This has arisen from the repugnance of the Drividian (as of all the

N

Scythian) languages to continue to make use of any inflexional form

by the

after it has ceased to express its original meaning, and has become a

yd, 00t

mere technical sign.

When that has taken place, as in the instance of

enoted

S

the Tamil ‘kal’ or ¢4l those languages are often found to abandon

the old form, or let it fall gradually into disuse, and to adopt some

p (8e-

word or phrase instead which has a distinct meaning of its own, and

k, &ty

the use of which recommends itself at once to the intelligence of the

yen i1

speaker.

¢ this

Ei\'e7 o

Under this head it is desirable to enquire into the force of the

Dréavidian coNJUNCTIVE cASE, aud the svffixes by which it is denoted.

Dravidian grammarians have arranged the case system of their

i/

nouns in the Sanscrit order, and in doing so have done violence to the

stro-

genius of their own grammar.

It is very doubtful whether the Dravi-

i the

dian ‘ablative of motion’ and the ¢locative’ are not one and the same

;&

;

ign 18

case, though represented as different by grammarians, in deference to

‘el

%

Sanscrit precedents ; and the Dravidian ‘social ablative,” as some have

1vidiﬂaﬂ

|

called it, or rather, as it should be termed, the conjunctive case,” has

f

been omitted in each dialect from the list of cases, or added on to the

lvif )

instrumental, simply because it is a case of which the Sanserit knows

55 0

nothing.

|allﬂel;

The only reason why the case-signs of the conjunctive are classed

jich 18

§

in Tamil with that of the instrumental is that the fact of their being

b

y hf{\'e

destitute of a proper place of their own is less obvious in that posi-

sig o

tion than it would be in any other.

Notwithstanding this, the differ-

it s

ence hetween those two cases is considerable.

The ‘instrumental is best rendered in English by the preposition

‘by,” ‘by means of ;' the force of the conjunective is that of the prepo-

uaticed

s

224

THE NOUN.

sition'¢with,” in the sense of the Latin ‘cum,’ or together with. Some-

the ab

times the English preposition ¢with’ is used in either sense; eg., ‘I

(@i

cut it with a knife’—‘1 went with him: but in the Dravidian lan-

tonshiy

guages the former ‘with’ would be represented by the sign of the in-

(. cong

strumental case, the latter by that of the conjunctive; e.g., ‘katti-(y)-al,’

of con

Tam., by a knife, ‘avan-6du,’ with him.

immed

Though the Sanscrit and the Indo-European languages generally

and ul

are destitute of this case, the Latin evinces a tendency towards it in

that a

such forms as ‘nobiscum ; whilst most of the Scythian tongues have

a regularly formed conjunctive case equally with the Dravidian

and

|

“den,” the conjunctive case-sign of the Calmuck, may even be com-

and |

pared (though probably the resemblance is accidental) with the Tamil

the ¢

conjunctive case-sign, ‘udan.’

only

v

The Tamil conjunctive case-signs are ‘udan,” ¢ odu,’ and ‘6du ; of

and.

which the two last have now no meaning of their own, and the first is

Dy

occasionally used as a noun signifying °conjunction’ or ‘continuity.’

to de

It is also capable of being combined with another word as an adjective,

000

e.g., ‘udan &l a fellow servant; and with the addition of the emphatic

dialee

“¢’ (‘udan-¢’), it is used also as an adverb to signify vmmediately.

family

The final ‘an’ of ‘udan’ (Tel., ¢ todan-u’), is probably a forma-

ane §)

tive addition to the root-syllable, for ‘udam’ is another and equiva-

T

lent Tamil form ; and the first syllable can scarcely be doubted to

Kk

be allied to ‘odu,” the other sign of the same case in High Tamil.

the

‘u’ is always pronounced as ‘o’ before ‘d,” and other cerebrals,

0l

whenever the word in which it appears has a second syllable.

Hence

Ed

and

‘udan’ is invariably pronounced ¢odan

5

and in the Canarese post-

OM

position ‘odane’ (Tel., ¢tdodane’), this pronunciation is written as

the o

well as heard.

¢0du’ (emphatically “6d-¢"), the third suffix of this

haye

case in Tamil, and the most common in the colloguial dialect (in

0f]

Malayalam “6ta’), is evidently allied to ‘odu, and through it to

In

‘udan.’

As neither ‘odu’ nor ‘6du’ has any meaning of its own in

Tamil, it is evident that they have undergone some alteration, and it

any g

tlll‘nir

is desirable to trace their connexions in the other dialects.

step,

On turning to the Telugu, we find that its conjunctive case-signs,

1

which are evidently allied to those of the Tamil, have the consonant

With

‘t’ prefixed to each of them, eg., ‘téda’ and °t6.

Supposing

‘toda,” Tel., with, to be identical with the Malayalam ¢ o6ta’ and the

mly

Tamil ¢6du” (and its identity is put beyond a doubt by comparing the

coll

Tamil adjective ‘ udan’ with the Tel. ‘tédan-u,” and the Tam. adverb

in |

¢udané’ with the Tel. ‘todané’), the conjunctive suffixes of the Tamil-

Dr

Malayalam, which were destitute of meaning by themselves; are now

found to acquire a very appropriate meaning ; for the Tamil ¢ téra’ (in

Bhy

THE DATIVE

22

J

Some

the abstract ¢téra-mei

which is phonetically equivalent to ‘toda

eg, ‘1

(‘d’ in Telugu corresponding by rule to ‘r’ in Tamil), means compan-

an lan

tonship

ctodu’ itself also is found, with the related signification of

the

a congeries, a collection ; and though “udan’ has by itself the meaning

()l

of conjunction, or continuity, yet when t’ is prefixed to it, we can

immediately detect its relationship to ‘tudar’ or todar,’ fo follow,

erally

and ultimately to ‘todu’ and ‘tora

Thus it appears highly probable

81t n

that all these words and forms are virtvally identical

have

- and

The dative or “fourth

case —In the North-Indian dialects one

)¢ GOl

and the same post-position or suffix is used as a sign of case both by

Tamil

the dative and by the accusative

In the Dravidian languages, not

only is the difference between the dative and the accusative essential

dn! 0

and strongly marked, but there is less discrepancy amongst the various

1018

Dravidian dialects with respect to the particular suffix which is used

ity

to denote the dative, than with respect to any other case-sign

The

Jective,

accusatives, instrumentals, ablatives, and genitives, of the various

up} atic

dialects, exhibit material diflerences; but in all the dialects of this

ly

family—in the rudest as well as in the most polished—there is but

formay

one suffix of the dative.

The dative is formed in Tamil by suffixing

‘ku’ (in construction

equl\ il

bted

¢kku’); in Malayalam ‘kka’; in Telugu ‘l\u or ‘Kki, according to

n

nil

the nature of the preceding vowel,—properly and naturally ¢ku

ehal

0Old Canarese

ge

or ‘ke;’ in the modern dialect ‘ge

(0]

¢ kke

Hence

and in construction

1ge

From a comparison of these forms it is

obvious that the guttural ‘k’ or

(followed by a vowel) constitutes

P()st

tten 48

the only essential part of this suffix ; and that, as the vowel seems to

of his

have been added chiefly for the purpose of helping the enunciation, it

Y1 (m

R

is of little moment what vowel in particular is used for this purpose.

b 1 to

In the primitive Indo-European tongues we discover no trace of

any such dative suffix or case-sign as the Dravidian ‘ku;’ but on

own I

and 1

turning to the Scythian family, interesting analogies meet us at every

step

.18,

In the vernaculars of Northern India, which are deeply tinged

sonaat

with Scythian characteristics, we find a suffix which appears to be not

only similar to the Dravidian, but the same

3}]0:11]”'

ﬂd hg

The dative-accusative in the Hindi and Hindustani is ¢ko,” or

5

colloquially ‘ku;

3

in the language of Orissa ‘ku;

in Bengali

ké

g hd

in Sindhi ¢ kheé

in Singhalese

ghai

in the Uraon, a Semi-

3(1‘ ¢l b

Dravidian Kole dialect,

Tami

‘ gai;

in the language of the Bodos, a

Bhutén hill-tribe, ¢kh6;’ in Tibetan ‘gya.’

e 007

1 (Iﬂ

The evident existence of a connexion between these suffixes and

Q

226

THE NOUN.

Of all the

itsel

the Dravidian dative case-sign ku’ is very remarkable.

analogies between the North-Indian dialects and the Southern, this is

0

the clearest and most important; and it cannot but be regarded as

betokening either an original connexion between the Northern and

have

Southern races, prior to the Brahmanic irruption, or the origination of

Jeart

both races from one and the same primitive Scythian stock.

with

The

dative-accusatives of the North-Indian vernaculars have

byt

are |

commonly been supposed to be accusatives in their original significa-

tion, and datives in a secondary application alone. This is the opinion

n

TES

of Dr. Max Miiller, who attempts to derive ‘ké,’ the Bengali dative-

accusative, from the Sanscrit adjectival formative ¢ka.’

I need not

the

here criticize the Professor’s arguments ; for the extensive use of this

daf

particle, or its equivalent, as a distinctively and exclusively dative

ole

suffix in the Dravidian languages, and also, as will be shown, in the

Scythian tongues, appears to me to prove, beyond reasonable doubt,

1

that it was a dative, not an objective suffix, originally ; and that its

%

Jef

origin was far earlier and more remote than the late Sanscrit genealogy

which is attributed to it by the Professor.

Dr. Kay is, I believe,

(u

right, in holding that the dative has a better claim than the

Teg]

accusative to the use of ‘ké’ even in the Northern vernaculars,

and in directing attention to the parallel use of the Semitic pre-

|

Scy

position ¢la.’

the

The suffix of the dative in the various languages of the Turkish

the

family perfectly corresponds to the Dravidian dative and to the North-

Indian dative-accusative.

The forms of this suffix which are found in

4

the Oriental Turkish are ‘ke,” ‘ka,” ‘ge,’ ‘ga,” ¢ ghah,’ and also ‘a

S

The Osmanli Turkish dative is ‘eh’ or ¢ yeh,” the initial ‘k’ or ‘g’

‘r

of the older dialect having been softened into ‘y,” and then discarded.

ha

The Manchu ‘de’ and the Mongolian “dou’ are possibly allied to

(01

%

the Tartar ‘ke;’ for it has already been remarked that the change of

~]

¢k’ into ‘t’ or ‘d, or wvice wersd, is not an uncommon one in this

¢

group of tongues, and that even amongst sister dialects belonging to

—

N

the same family or sub-genus, the pluralising particle in one dialect is

e

“ek, and in another ‘et.’ Perhaps, therefore, we may venture to

copnect with ‘ke’ not only the Mongolian ‘de,” but even the Uriya

‘te’ and the Singhalese ‘ta,” which are commonly supposed to have

a different origin from ‘ku’, and *ghai.’

In the Finnish family of languages the Turko-Dravidian dative

re-appears ;—though the Finnish proper has ¢le,” not ‘ke.

tg

In the Irtish and Surgutish dialects of the Ostiak the suffix of the

dative is ‘ga,” corresponding to the Oriental Turkish ‘ga’ or ‘ge.

The ordinary Ostiak has also ‘a,’ softened, as in the Oriental Turkish

THE DATIVE.

227

| the

itself, from °ga.’

Compare also the Mordwin adessive suffix ¢ va’

his 1

or ‘ga.

ed 2

The most interesting and remarkable analogies are those which

We

- and

have been brought to light by the Scythian tablets of Behistun.

on of

learn from those tablets that a dative suffix, which is almost identical

with the Dravidian, and also with the Turkish and Ostiak, was used

have

by the oldest Scythian dialect of Central Asia of which any remains

1fica-

are extant. The dative case-sign or suffix which is most largely used

Mr. Norris noticed the

Inion

in the Scythic tablets is ¢ikki’ or ¢ikka.’

tive-

resemblance of this suffix to the Magyar genitive-dative ‘nek’ and

1 not

the Telugu genitive post-position ¢ yokka;’ but its resemblance to the

this

dative suffix of the Telugu and of the other Dravidian dialects is

lative

closer and more reliable.

n the

The ¢Tamil ‘ku’ becomes, as we have seen, ‘akku’ or ¢ukku’

Joubt,

in construction ; the Canarese ‘ge’ becomes ‘ige,’ and the Malayala

at 1§

‘kka’ becomes ‘ikka;

which last form of the suffix is identical,

alogy

letter for letter, with the Scythian of Behistun.

Compare, e.g., the

eve,

Cuneiform Secythian ¢ni-ikka’ or ‘ni-ikki} ¢o thee, with the cor-

the

responding Malayala ¢ nani-kka, and the Telugu ‘ni-ku.

tlars,

It has thus been shown that the principal languages of the

e

Scythian family accord very exactly with the Dravidian languages in

the nse of ‘ka,” ‘ki, ‘ku, or some related particle, as the suffix of

ish

the dative.

It may be noticed also, that in the language of the Malays there is

orth-

a prefix, ‘ko’ or ‘ka,’ which signifies fo or for, and that there is a

nd ir{

)iti8

similar preposition even in Russian.

It is difficult to determine whether the Finnish dative suffix ‘le’

g’

rded.

has any connexion with ke.’

It certainly seems much more closely

connected with the Tibetan, Pushtoo, and Marathi dative suffix €14 ;’

o t0

<

2

o 0f

—which ¢la

is evidently equivalent to the New Persian

ra

this

[Compare, e.g., the Marathi ¢ tu-14,’ to thee, thee, with the corresponding

iff

New Persian ¢ to-rd.’]

1w 10

och 18

The Malayalam alone of all the Dravidian dialects appears to

e t0

possess two suffixes of the dative, viz., ‘kka, which is the suffix most

largely used, and ¢inna,’ ‘na,’ or ‘a,’ which is occasionally used in

Jriys

have

the dative singular only. This ‘inna’ is a compound form; and is

The Tamil is fond

evidently euphonized and softened from ¢in-ka.’

of adding to the base of nouns which are to be declined the euphonic

alive

increment ‘in’ (originally a genitive), before suffixing the signs of

case.

The same practice prevails in Malayélam also.

Consequently,

f the

10

this exceptional Malayéla dative is not ¢inna’ or ‘mna,’ but is simply

ish

“a; and the doubled ‘n’ which sometimes precedes it (e.g., ‘awanna,’

Q 2

228

THE NOUN.

it has

to him) is an euphonic compensation for the loss of the ¢ k/

9

The ¢k’

or ‘g

of ‘ka’ or ‘ga’ has been softened away in some dialects of

ghlati

locati

the Turkish and Ostiak, precisely as in Malayalam.

T

The ablative of motion or fifth’ case.—This case appears to have

(ana

Tami

been included in the list of cases by Drividian grammarians out of

deference to the grammatical principles of the Sanscrit.

locati

It is true, that if we look at the construction and meaning of a

(ana

Dravidian sentence, the signification of an ‘ablative of motion’ will

form,

be found to exist ; and it will be found to be expressed much more

clearly even than in Sanscrit: but a distinction is to be drawn between

f i.mz'

“Im

the existence of a case and the existence of a case-sign, or regular,

suff

technical suffix of case.

The Dravidian languages have undoubtedly

Ingt

an ‘ablative of motion,’ and a great many other ablatives besides ;

mot

but I doubt whether they have any case-suffix which belongs exclu-

hut

sively to the ablative of motion.

diff

On comparing the suffixes of the ablatives of motion (which are also

ing

used sometimes in an instrumental sense) with those of the locatives in

the various dialects of this family, no real difference is apparent between

Subs

the one class and the other; or at least, no adequate reason appears

that

for regarding them as distinet and independent suffixes; for whatever

ql

difference does exist is to be attributed, not to the signs of case, but to

the

the verbs or verbal participles which are annexed to them. The

the

object of the ablative of motion is to furnish an answer to the

the

question, whence ? and this answer is obtained in the Dravidian tongues

by suffixing to a noun of place the sign of the locative, and annex-

sigl

(m

ing to that sign a verb of motion.

By this means the locative is

181

converted into what is called the ablative, without changing its case-

this

suffixes, and the idea of change of place is thus naturally and neces-

hav

sarily educed.

Native Tamil grammarians appear to hold that ¢il,’

€0n

the ordinary suffix of the ablative, and ¢il,” the most largely used sign

Mag

of the locative in the colloquial dialect, though written and pronounced.

sig

alike, are different particles with different significations.

I am per-

iy

suaded, however, that this view is erroneous; and that a natural

an

system of case classification would determine that the Dravidian

Ii

languages have no ablative, properly so called, but only a variety of

th

locative and instrumental suffixes, which are capable of becoming

(X4

ablatives by the addition of appropriate verbs.

t}

In Tamil, the suffixes which are used in forming the fifth * case, or

ablatives of motion, are €il’ and ‘in.” €il’ (Tel. ‘illu’) signifies by

itself a house, a place, e.g., ‘ko-(v)-il,’ a temple, God’s house; and it is

TI

i

therefore well suited for becoming a sign of the locative. Accordingly

of

THE ABLATIVE OF MOTION.

229

s

it has a place in the list of locative suffixes, as well as in those of the

ts of

ablative; and in the colloquial dialect it is used as a sign of the

locative far more frequently than any other particle.

The other suffix, ¢in,’ is identical, I conceive, with ‘im,” the Old

have

Canarese sign of the instrumental : it is used as an instrumental in

1t of

Tamil also; but probably both that ‘im’ and ‘in’ were previously

locative suffixes, and were originally suffixes of the genitive. In

of &

Canarese the proper suffix of the ablative is ¢ attanim,” which is itself

wil

formed from the demonstrative adverb ‘attana’ (identical with

more

“attal-u’ or ‘atta, there, or ‘attal, that side), by the addition of

ween

“im,” the old instrumental suffix, from which inda,’ the more modern

ular,

suffix, is derived ; and this ¢inda,’ though the ordinary sign of the

edly

instrumental. is also ordinarily used, with the addition of a verb of

des ;

motion, as the sign of the ablative. Whilst I think that not only ¢ il

Yelu-

but also ‘in’ and ¢im, were originally locative suffixes, it is more

difficult to determine whether ¢il’ and ‘in’ were originally identical

also

in sound and signification, as well as in application.

5 11

In every instance in which ‘il’ is used in Tamil, ‘in’ may be

o6l

substituted for it poetically ; and it is almost exclusively by the poets

gars

that ¢in’ is used. Moreover,in Telugu, ¢illu,” @ house, identical with

ever

“il, is euphonized into ¢in,” in the inflexion ¢ inti, of @ house. On

1t 0

the other hand, ¢il> and ¢im’ do not seem to have been regarded by

The

the Canarese as identical ; for ¢il’ is in that dialect ‘li, the base of

the demonstrative local suffixes ‘alli’ and ¢illi,;’ which are used as

the

signs of the locative exclusively, whilst “in’ is in Canarese ‘im

gues

(modernized into ¢inda), and though possibly a locative in its origin,

nexl-

is used not as a locative, but as an instrumental and ablative. Besides

618

a5

this, if we regard ‘in

as originally a locative, it will be found to

Ces

have a far wider range of analogies than ¢il’ and may therefore be

concluded to have sprung from a different root.

In Finnish and

Al

éj

sigh

Magyar we find ‘an,’ ‘en, and still more frequently ‘in,’ used as

Even in Sanscrit we find ‘in’ used as a loca-

1ced

|

signs of the locative.

tive case-sign of pronouns of the third person, e.g., tasmin,” % hum

pEI'

mal

and though this ¢in’ may have been euphonized from ‘i, yet in the

Godb 9

Latin locative preposition ‘in > and the Greek

€V,

corresponding to

[jan

the Sanscrit *ni, we find the existence of a very remarkable analogy.

ol

g

¢il, on the other hand, has no apparent affinities out of the pale of

the Dravidian family.

e St A AN

It seems probable that ¢in, one of the signs of the locative in

, OF

Tamil, is identical with ¢in,” a sign of the genitive, or inflexional

by

increment, in Tamil-Canarese : and if so, a new and very wide range

{15

| y

of affinities is disclosed, as will be seen when the case-signs of the

230

THE NOUN

genitive are inquired into

attu,” whieh is often used in Tamil as a

locative, is undoubtedly a genitive suffix, and this shows the possi-

form

bility of the use of ¢in’ as a locative being derived from its use as a

yal

genitive

(1

The Tamil ¢il’ and

in’ agree in this, that when they are used

the'

as suffixes of the ablative, they both require to be followed by verbs

the

of motion

In the spoken dialect of the Tamil, the verb of motion is

|

1l

preceded by the verbal participles

nindru,’ standing, or ¢irundu

of a

being. 'The use of these participles strengthens the supposition that

1t 18

i1’ and

in’ are properly to be regarded as locatives

In the

i1’ or

6.

higher dialect, however, they are ordinarily dispensed with, and

m

is followed by a verb of motion alone: e.g., ‘malei-(y)-in virum

1t,

10f

aruvi, the cataract which falls from the mountain

In this expression

the

the idea of ‘motion from a place

is plainly implied in the aoristic

101

relative participle

virum, which fualls; and hence

in,” whatever it

Ca

may have been in origin, acquires the force of a sign of the ablative of

motion

of

In Canarese the compound ablative suffixes

attanim

and

inda,

the terminal

alj

adeseyinda

are not so commonly used as

member of the second compound suffix; and though

inda

is des-

ad

(ua

cribed to be the sign of the instrumental, I have no doubt that it is

identical with

im’ and

n,

and a locative in its origin

inda

1

beg

to-

not only used by itself to form the ablative, but is also added te alli

or

jul

illi,/ the sign of the locative, for the purpose of denoting the

ablative

Compare the Canarese

allinda’ or

illinda,” from, with

40

1l-irundu

il-nindru

IN

the corresponding Tamil compound

In Telugu the particle ‘na, which corresponds to the Tamil ¢in

0n

sta

and the Old Canarese ‘im,’ is more distinctively a locative than an

ablative of motion

This particle is

1

after ¢

2

and if this is its

the

normal form it may at once be identified with the Tamil ¢

det

ha

The Telugu ablative of motion is ordinarily formed by means of

the verbal participle

nundi

or ‘nunchi

alone, without the aid of

i)

na or

¢

0t Sal éor Sin

any such suffix as

2

consequently this

ablative has still less of the character of an independent case than in

b

Tamil and Canarese

A locative particle, however, viz

1

which

Ty

ul’ and the Canarese

ol 1s often

corresponds to the Tamil ¢il” or

suffixed in Telugu to the noun of place (precisely as ‘il or “in’ is in

0]

Tamil), before the addition of the verbal participle ¢nundi

This

i

participle is properly ¢ unchi

from a verb signifying to place, which

has been euphonised by pleﬁxmg to it the nasal ‘n.

It corresponds

in use, though not in origin, to the participle nindru,’ from ‘nil,

to stand, which is used by the Tamil.

¢

— T

B

231

THE GENITIVE.

a8 &

The genitive, or siwth’ case.—The genitive or possessive case is

s

formed in the Dravidian languages in various ways and by means of

) 888

various suffixes, each of which requires to be examined separately.

used

(1.) The abbreviated pronominal genitive—The personal pronouns of

the Tamil form their inflexion,” or ordinary genitive, by shortening

rerhs

the included vowel of the root; e.g., ‘ni’ (properly ‘nin’), thou,

on 1

This shortened form has the force

‘nin,’ thy,; ‘nAm,” we, ‘ndm, our.

ndu,

of a genitive in Tamil without any suffix or addition whatever, though

that

it is often strengthened by the addition of a suffix in the other dialects:

! {he

e.g., in the Canarese it requires to have a genitive suffix appended to

il or

it, and of itself is merely an inflexional basis. It may be worth

irum

noticing that in the Scythian of the Behistun tablets the nominative of

8101

the pronoun of the second person is long, viz., ‘ni, whilst the inflex-

ristic

ional form and enclitic possessive ‘ni’ is short, precisely as in Tamil-

er 1t

Canarese.

ve of

We shall best understand the origin and force of this peculiar form

and

of the genitive of personal pronouns, by considering it as a pronominal

adjective. Every Dravidian noun of quality or relation becomes an

inal

adjective on being prefixed to a noun-substantive for the purpose of

des

qualifying it ; and ordinarily the only changes which it undergoes on

118

becoming an adjective are such petty euphonic changes as are intended

1§

The change

to facilitate the combined enunciation of the two words.

alli’

in the quantity of the personal pronoun, to which I have now referred,

‘

the

appears to have this origin alone: it is simply euphonic, and euphony

with

is certainly promoted by this conversion of a long vowel into a short

one prior to the addition of the case-suffixes, or of the governing sub-

‘I

stantive.

We find a similar euphonic shortening of the quantity of

n an

the vowel of the root, on the conversion of the abstract noun into an

is 1t6

adjective, in the section on Numerals ; e.g., ‘4ru,’ Tam., sir, ¢ iRu-

badu, sizty ; ¢ éru, seven, ‘€rubadu,’ seventy. The principle which is

s of

involved in both classes of instances is precisely the same.

id of

(2.) The neuter inflexional genitive.— The neuter inflexions ‘attu,’

this

cattru,’ ‘ti, ¢ti, &c., are largely used in forming the genitive in

il in

Jhich

Tamil and Telugu.

The various suffixes which are used to form the ‘inflexion’ were

often

originally, I conceive, signs of the possessive case : but in process of

510

This

time they have come to convey either a possessive or an adjectival sig-

nification, according to the connexion; and in many cases, as has been

fhich

shown, they have shrunk into inflexional increments of the base, or

i’

"IJ’L

become mere euphonic links of connexion between the base and the

;

case-suffix.

The inflexion which is now under consideration is in

S

o ——

232

THE NOUN.

Tamil ‘attu,” and is used by the singular of neuter nouns alone.

fhe b

a0

‘arRru,’ pronounced ‘attru,” is occasionally used by neuter pronominal

plurals.

The same inflexion, for I believe I have shown it to be the

¢uph

suff

same, is in Telugu ‘ti’ or ‘ti.’

The inflexional suffixes being, as I conceive, genitive or possessive

oblig

suffixes in their origin, their adjectival use naturally flowed from their

a8 C

use in forming possessives. There is little difference in signification

between the genitive and the adjective (e.g., ¢ a mountain of gold’ and

the

‘a golden mountain’ come to the same thing) ; and in several lan-

tree,

forr

guages besides the Drividian, the adjectival formative either appears

to have been derived from the possessive suffix, or to be identical with

der

1t

Thus, in Tamil, it matters little whether ¢ knlattu min’ (from

tre

“kulam,’ a tank, and ‘min,’ fisk) be translated adjectivally tank fish, or

(as

genitivally the fish of the tank; whether we render ‘Attru manal’

for

(from ¢4ru, a river, and ‘manal, sand), the sand of the river or

We

river sand ; or whether ‘mattu-(t)-t6l’ (from ‘madu,’ an oz, and

“t0l,” hide’), be translated ox kide or the kide of an ox. The adjectival

an

rendering is ordinarily the more natural one, but if a few words be

I]lO.I

added to the compound expression, so as to bring out the full force of

sele

the inflexional suffixes, it will be evident that those suffixes must have

con

been signs of case, or genitives, originally, and that their adjectival

o

use s secondary to their use as signs of the possessive.

suf

Thus, when we say in Tamil, ‘i-(k)kulattu min perugittru,’ to

81y

render the sentence this tank fish has increas-d, would not only be bar-

barous, but would partly fail to express the meaning, which is, the fish

(!

of t'uas tank have increased.

In this instance it is evident that the

suffix “attu,’ has in itself the force of a sign of the genitive, though

{18

capable of acquiring in certain connexions the force of an adjectival

8

formative.

So also, ‘marattu (k)koppu, can only be rendered the

of

branch of a tree, and @ tree-branch would be as barbarous as it is un-

€l

necessary. Moreover, this same suffix ‘attu,” has sometimes in Tamil

(as ‘atta’ in Malayalam) the force of a sign of the locative, like the

8

corresponding inflexional suffixes in Telugu ; and when used as a suffix

W

of the locative, it is governed by a verb not by a noun ; from which

it is absolutely certain that it is a case-suffix in origin,

I have already mentioned the connexion which subsists between

the inflexional suffix ‘attu’ and ‘adu,’ 4, the neuter singular demon-

strative pronoun. It is deserving of notice in this place that ‘adu’

(the very same demonstrative, I doubt not) is one of the recognized

suffixes of the possessive case in Tamil, and is occasionally used as a

possessive in the other dialects also. Thus we may say in Tamil either

“marattu (k)koppu’ (from “maram,” a tree, and ¢ koppu,’ @ branch),

oy

THE GENITIVE.

233

ilone.

the branch of a tree, or ‘marattinadu koppu’ (‘mar-attin-adu’). ‘mar-

minal

amadu’ may also be used, though not in ordinary use, because in-

e the

euphonic ; but the possessive case-sign ‘adu’ is quite as frequently

suffixed to the crude form of the noun, or the nominative, as to the

S51Ve

oblique form : e.g., ‘varei-(y)-adu param,’ the fruit of the plaintain, is

as common as ‘varei-(y)-in-adu param,’ and is even more elegant.

th'eir

ation

I have no doubt of the identity of the ‘adu’ of ‘vérei-(y)-adu’ and

and

The old crude base of ¢ maram, a

the ‘attu’ of ‘marattu’ in origin.

| lag-

tree, is ‘mara,” as found in Canarese, the final ‘am’ or ‘m’ being a

peats

formative; and on ‘adu,’ the sign of the possessive (originally a

with

demonstrative) being added to ‘ mara,” we shall have ‘maradu,’ of a

from

\

{ree (in Canarese ‘marada’); of which the ‘d’ has only to be doubled

sh, or

(as it is colloquially by the Tamil people, many of whom say ‘attu’

anal’

for “adu’), when the word becomes ¢ marattu,” the very form in which

er or

we now find it.

and

In Telugu, the inflexional suffixes “ti’ and ‘ti’ are used without

fival

any additional particle as signs of the possessive or genitive, even

5 be

more frequently than in Tamil.

The post-position ‘yokka’ is but

¢ of

seldom added to it, and needs not ever be added.

In Telugu also the

have

connexion subsisting hetween this suffix and the neuter demonstrative

fival

pronoun is still more obvious than in Tamil. ‘adi,” ¢, is systematically

suffixed in Telugu to nouns and pronouns, to convert them into posses-

, 10

sives (e.g., ¢ varidi,’ their or their’s), and the relation subsisting between

‘adi’ (or di, as it is in some instances) and ‘ti’ or ‘ti) is very

bar

fish

close.

the

In Canarese the corresponding particles ‘ad’ and ‘ar, though

used as inflexional increments of the base, prior to the addition of

jugh

ival

several of the signs of case to certain classes of nouns, have not now

the

of themselves a possessive signification.

Their present use is purely

euphonic, and does not contribute to grammatical expression.

Ul

il

Nouns in which ‘ad’ and ‘ar’ are introduced form their posses-

the

%

sives in ‘ada’ and ‘ara ; and in these forms the final ‘a’ is that

which contains and conveys the possessive signification.

‘ad’ and

ifix

ich

“ar’ have only the same incremental or euphonic force in ‘ad-a’and

¢ar-a, that ¢in’ has in ‘in-a, which is a corresponding Canarese

possessive.

eel

101

du’

(3.) The neuter-demonstrative genitives.—adu,’ t, and its eupho-

nically lengthened equivalent ¢adu,’ are often used, especially in

zed

classical Tamil, as signs of the possessive, and they are ranked by

s

‘adn’ is the neuter

het

native grammarians amongst genitive case-signs.

bl

singular demonstrative (derived from ‘a,

the remote demonstrative

]

f

234

THE

NOUN.

base, and ¢d,’ the sign of the neuter singular). Its meaning when

§

[

standing alone is invariably that of a demonstrative pronoun, but by

usage it has acquired the signification of a genitive or possessive, when

il

annexed to any noun as a suffix.

‘avan-adu,’ is literally Ae—that,

equ

but by usage it means /is.

This use of ‘adu,’ as a possessive suffix, is

for

derived from its use as the formative of nouns of possession.

y1

doe

By the addition of this demonstrative to any noun or pronoun

(generally it is added to the inflexion,—in the case of prononns it is

e

always to the inflexions that it is added) a compound noun of posses-

thy

sion or relation is formed, which, like all Dravidian nouns of relation,

S

1s capable of being used as an adjective ; and it is the use of nouns

1I(

with this termination as possessive adjectives which has led to ‘adu,

and its equivalents, being regarded as signs of the possessive case. The

al

noun to which ‘adu’ is appended may be used, and often is used,

f

without any addition or modification, as the nominative of a verb or

o

a sentence. Thus, ‘enadu,” Tam. (from ‘en, my, and ‘adu,” that),

i

signifies properly that (which is) mine; and this compound possessive

may either be used adjectivally, e.g., ‘enadu kei,’ my hand, literally ¢he

0

kand that is mine (in which instance ‘adu’ is called by grammarians

U

a genitive case-sign) ; or it may be used as a possessive noun, and as

W

;;

such it becomes the nominative of a verb, e.g., <enadu poyittru,” mene

9

(or my property) is gone.

Thus ‘adu, which at first meant that,

il

became secondly the formative of a possessive noun (‘avan-adu,’ #hat

which us hus, literally he—that), thirdly the formative of a possessive

adjective (‘avan-adu,’ %is), and lastly a sign of the possessive case gene-

rally, signifying of or belonging to. Another reason for regarding the

genitive case-sign ‘adu’ as originally and properly the formative of a

noun or adjective of possession, is that it cannot be followed indiscri-

b

minately by any kind ot noun, but by neuter nounsalone, and properly

by the neuter singular alone. Thus we may say ‘enadu kei,’ my

{

hand, but not ‘enadu keigal,’ my hands ; except indeed in the colloquial

dialect, in which the singular is used for the plural more frequently

than in the higher dialect, or by the poets.

The higher dialect would prefer in this instance ‘ena keigal,—¢ena,’

instead of ‘enadu,’ i.e., ‘mea’ instead of ‘meum. ‘adu’ is not only

a formative, therefore, but is distinctively a neuter singular formative,

employed to give a possessive signification to the noun to which it is

suffixed. Like all other nouns, these possessive nouns in ‘adu’ are

capable of being used as adjectives, by being prefixed without altera-

tion to other nouns ; and when so prefixed, ‘adu’ came to be used and

regarded as a possessive case-sign.

This explanation seems to account

for all the phenomena, and therefore to be the true explanation.

THE GENITIVE.

[N

3

O

vhen

A similar use of the neuter singular of the demonstrative as a pos.

by

sessive suffix obtains in Telugu also ; e.g., ‘ nadi,” mine, literally that

vhen

(which is) mine, from ‘na,” my, and ‘adi,’ that, a form which is exactly

0t

equivalent to the Tamil ¢enadu.’

The Telugu uses a similar suffix to

X, I

form a plural possessive to correspond with ‘enadu’ or ‘nadi, viz.,

‘vi, which bears the same relation to ‘avi’ those (things), which ¢di’

10un

does to ‘adi,” that (thing); e.qg., < varivi) theirs or the (things which

it

18

are) theirs.

In this respect the Telugu acts more systematically than

8868

the spoken Tamil.

It is not so fond, however, of using these posses-

tion,

sive nouns adjectivally as the Tamil, and therefore ¢ di’ and vi’ have

ouns

not in Telugu come to be regarded as case-signs of the genitive.

The Canarese and the Tamil not only form neuter possessive nouns

ad,

The

and adjectives by adding to them the neuter demonstrative, but they

1sed,

form also masculine and feminine possessives, or possessive appellatives,

' or

of both numbers, by adding the masculine and feminine formatives to

the genitive case or ¢ inflexion’ of nouns and pronouns.

fat),

38176

All the Dravidian dialects agree in appending the demonstrative-

the

possessive suffixes to the inflexion not to the nominative, as a general

rule, wherever the nominative differs considerably from the inflexion.

1318

| as

When nouns receive in Tamil a double inflexional increment, e.g.,

e

‘attu’ and ‘in’ (in combination ‘attin’), the possessive suffix is

added to this double increment, e.g., ¢ mar-attin-adu koppu,” the

Tt

branch of @ tree.

that

5Ive

ene

(4.) The possessive suffiz ‘in, and its varieties—"in,’ in Tamil,

and ‘ni, in Telugu, and corresponding particles in the other dialects,

the

are not only used as inflexional augments of the base and euphonic

of 8

i

bonds of connexion between the base and the case-signs, but also as

suffixes of the possessive and as adjectival formatives.

I have no

ly

doubt that ¢in’ and ‘ni,’ of themselves and originally, were genitive

i

or possessive suflixes, and that every other use to which they have

nial

|

Native

been applied grew out of their use as signs of the genitive.

ptly

Tamil grammarians do not include ‘in’ amongst their genitive suffixes,

but describe it as a formative angment or adjectival increment alone :

na

but on comparing its use in Tamil with its use in the other dialects, I

lnly

am convinced that it was originally and distinctively a sign of the geni-

1ve,

tive, and that it is still to be regarded, notwithstanding its subsidiary

f 18

uses, as one of the most characteristic of the genitive suffixes.

are

In Tamil, of all genitive case-signs, ‘in’ is that which is most fre-

o1

quently used. ‘attu’ is used in the neuter singular alone, and ‘arru’

qod

(‘attru’) in the neuter plural alone; but ‘in’ is used in connexion

Mﬂt

with both numbers and with all genders. A similar use of ‘in’ appears

236

THE NOUN.

in the Malayéalam

In Canarese, on the other hand

in’ is used only

and

One of the so-called

n

as an inflexional augment, not as a sign of case

declensions of the Canarese is said by grammarians to take ‘ina’ as

10-)

1ts genitive case-sign ; but in this instance the final

1s the real

sign of the genitive, as it invariably is in Canarese ; and this genitive

e

‘a’ is found to be preceded by various euphonic increments—¢in,

the

@, o

S§

i:

oty accordlng to mrcumstances

Doubtless the ‘in’ of ‘in-a,” was a genitive suffix originally, but it

fror

has long ceased to contribute to grammatical expression, and therefore

110§

Wi

cannot now be regarded as a sign of case

In Telugu

na’ or ‘ni,

the dialectic equivalent of ‘in

is used as a possessive suffix, as in

In

Tamil, though not so frequently. The only difference in principle is

Sl

Sl

that ‘ni’ is used in Telugu in connexion with the singular alone, and

might be called a genitive singular case-sign, if the Telugu stood in an

th

isolated position ; whereas in Tamil it is used in connexion with plural

nouns as frequently as with the singular

Wi

gé

In Ku, which has special

resemblances to the Telugu, ‘ni’ constitutes the inflexion (in reality

be

the genitive) of all classes of nouns, whether singular or plural, pre-

2

10

cisely like the Tamil

The Gond uses as genitive case-signs ‘na

bl

of

and

‘na

‘da

and ¢a’—forms which are probably allied one to

as

another, as well as to the Brahui

na,” and to the Telugu and Gond

an

‘ni

and the Tamil ‘in

bﬂl

Though ‘in’ is not regarded by Tamil grammarians as a sign of

%

the genitive, yet when those particles which are regarded as genitive

18

case-signs are suffixed to any noun, ‘in’ is ordinarily inserted between

the noun and those case-signs ; so that all auxiliary or additional par-

a

ticles are appended to this incremental ¢in,

’

not to the noun itself

i

e.g., from ‘adu,’ #, is formed not ‘ad-udeiya,” but ¢ad-in-udeiya,” of

n

from ‘tambi,’ @ younger brother, is formed not ‘tambi-(y)-adu,

toJ

but more commonly ‘ tambi-(y)-in-adu,” of @ younger brothes

and this

il

rule seems to indicate that ¢in’ is more essentially a genitive case sign

il

than the genitive particles which have subsequently been suffixed to it

The same inference is still more clearly deducible from the circumstance

)

that in a large number of instances, both in the singular and in the

plural, each of the case-suffixes in succession is appended, not to the

crude form of the noun, but to the increment “in

These case-suffixes

are not mere post-positional fragments, but were, or are still, nouns of

relation ; and ‘in,’ the particle by which they are united to the base,

serves as a bond of connexion, in virtue, as I conceive, of its own ori-

ginal and natural signification as a suffix of the genitive. Thus, in the

colloquial Tamil, ‘kallinidattil (‘kal(l)-in-idattil’), i @ stone, ‘idat-

til, the local ablative or locative suffix, literally means i the place

THE GENITIVE.

237

mly

and this suffix evidently requires, cr at least desires, the possessive

lled

‘in’ (with the signification of’) to connect it with the base. Hence ‘ kal(l)-

a8

in-idattil,’ literally signifies in the place of (or occupied by) a stone.

real

The adjectival meaning of ‘in,’ though not its only or original

ftive

meaning, is one which is recognised by native grammarians, and which

in,

they prove by examples ; e.g., ‘ponnin’ (‘pon(n)-in’) kudam, a golden

vessel.

This adjectival use of ‘in’ is not only allied to, but is derived

it 1t

from, its use as a sign of the genitive, and in the illustration which has

fore

now been adduced it is evident that ‘ponnin kudam,” might be rendered

It will be found also in the

‘n

with equal propriety, @ vessel of gold.

§ 1

Indo-European analogies which will presently be adduced, that the

e is

similarity or identity of the adjectival formative,and the genitive case-

and

sign which is apparent in this instance, has a wider range than that of

1 all

the Dravidian languages.

ural

There is another particle resembling ¢in,’ and possibly identical

with it in origin, viz., ‘am,” which is occasionally used in Tamil for

lal

lity

both those purposes, and, like ‘in,’ it is sometimes appended to the

We see this fusion

pre-

noun itself, and sometimes to the neuter inflexion.

it}

of the adjectival and the genitive signification of ‘am,” in such forms

t0

as ‘4lam (‘al-am’) pu,’ the banyan flower or the flower of the banyan,

dnd

and ‘attrang karei’ (‘attru,’ the inflexion of ‘a4ru,’ @ river), the river-

bank or the bank of the river.

Evidently ‘attram’ (before the ‘k’ of

1 of

‘karei’ ‘am’ changes into ‘ang’) is equivalent to ‘4ttr-in’ (a form which

is also commonly used), and ‘am’ to ‘in; and as ‘am’ or ‘an’ and

tive

een

‘in,’ are identical in meaning, though not used with equal frequency,

p&l‘

and so nearly alike in sound, I think we may safely regard them all

as sprung from one and the same origin.

‘am,” indeed, changes by rule

elf;

into ‘an,” when it is followed by a dental, e.g., ¢ panan’ (‘panei-am’)

f

d,

toppw,” @ palmyra tope.

The same adjectival formative is much used

in Malayéla also ; eg., ‘mal-am puli’ (‘mala-am puli’), @ mountain

this

tiger or a tiger of the mountain, a royal tiger.

igh

o1t

We have now to inquire whether any trace of the genitive case-

sign or adjectival formative in ‘in,” ‘an

‘ni,’ or any related form,

nee

the

can be found beyond the circle of the Dravidian dialects.

i

Of all the North-Indian vernaculars the Gujarathi is the only one

the

which contains a form of the genitive resembling that which we have

e

gof

been examining.

That language has a genitive suffix in ‘n’ (‘né

‘ni,’ ‘nun’), which cannot but be regarded as allied to the Telugu

156y

. piy Snay el

In the language of the Bodos, a Himalayan tribe, the

11

the

pronominal genitive is regularly formed by suffixing ‘ni,’ e.g., ‘ang-ni,’

of me, ‘ nang-ni,’ of thee, ¢ bi-ni,’ of him.

Jat:

In Sanscrit the ‘n’ which precedes the ‘ah’ or ‘as’ of certaip

ft

238

THE NOUN.

genitives is undoubtedly euphonic; but both in Sanscrit and in other

plu

inte

members of the Indo-European family, we may observe distinct traces

of the adjectival or genitival use of a particle of which the consonant

L‘clp

[4

n

Ed

is the most essential element.

Compare with the Dravidian

plur

P

particle ¢ an-a,” the Sanscrit adjectival formative, and an,’ the suffix

of appellatives; the Greek possessive suffix ¢ wv;’ the adjectival use of

&e

[4

Ly

2

in Greek words like ¢A/6-w-o0s,” and of ‘en,” in the Germanic

“wooden; and also ‘in,’ the Sanscrit suffix of agency, which is pre-

fam

served in the adjectives of the New Persian.

These forms are, it is

plu

evident, reciprocrally related ; and it also appears probable that there

Bel

is some ulterior relationship between them and the Tamilian ‘in.” There

S

are also traces in the Indo-European family of languages of the use of

‘In’as a distinctively genitival suffix.

The Celtic forms its genitive

systematically by means of ¢n,” ‘an,” ¢en,” &ec.: nor is it the genitive

1§

plural only of the Celtic dialects which uses this case-sign (as in the

Bt

Sanserit family), but it is employed to form the genitive singular also.

8l

It should be noticed too that in the ancient Egyptian ‘n’ (alternating

Bl

with ‘m’) was used to express all case-relations, but particularly

con

that of the genitive.

Compare also the Sanserit genitive or possessive

‘mama’ (‘ma-ma’) of me, my, with the Zend ‘mana,” the Old Per-

as~]

i}

sian ‘mand,’ and the Gothic ‘meina, mine, °theina, thine, seina,’

Wit}

kis; in each of which examples the final ‘na,” or its Sanscrit equiva-

0f¢

lent ‘ma,’ resembles the Dravidian ‘in’ or ‘ni,’ not only in sound,

but also in the union of an adjectival signification with that of the

8l

possessive or genitive case.

i}

The Lithunian goes further than any other Indo-European tongue

in resemblance to the Tamil in this point, for it not only uses ‘n’ as

or

a sign of the pronominal possessive (of the first person), but it adopts

per

this genitival ‘man’ as the inflexional base of all the rest of the

oblique cases of the same pronoun.

Was

In the languages of the Scythian stock we find a large number

fon

of still more essential analogies with the Drividian genitival suffix

1

fin?” or ¢ni’

for

Compare both with the Dravidian and with the Indo-European

possessives the Mongolian and Manchu ¢mini’ (‘mi-ni’), of me, my ;

gﬂ

and the Mongolian ¢tchini’ and the Manchu ‘sini’ (‘si-ni’), of thee,

thy

fu

In the languages of the Finnish family, the prevailing form of the

2

T(

genitive is that which corresponds to the Dravidian: it is ‘n,’ ‘an,

ak

en,” ‘un, &ec., not only in pronominal inflexions, but universally.

ch

Thus in Mordwin and Cheremiss, the genitive is formed by suffixing

8

‘n’or ‘en; eg., ‘kudo,’ @ house, ‘kudo-n, of a house.

The genitive

frg

THE GENITIVE.

239

ofher

plural of the Mordwin is “mnen,’ possibly a reduplication of ‘n,

ra0es

intended to symbolise the plural; e.g., ‘kudot-nen,’ of houses.

The

onant

Lappish genitive takes ‘n’ or ‘en’ in the singular, and ‘i’ in the

idian

plural.

¢¢’ forms the ordinary possessive suffix of the Magyar. The

uffix

)

Finnish proper forms the genitive by suffixing ‘n,” ‘un,” ‘in

‘an,

156 of

&ec., e.g., ‘mind’ (‘min-a’), I, ‘min-un,’ of me, my.

nanie

The prevailing form of the genitive in the Tartar or High Asian

§ pré-

families, corresponds to ‘nen,” the reduplicated suffix of the Mordwin

; it i

plural, and to its equivalent reduplication in the Old Scythian of the

there

Behistun tablets; but whilst the reduplicated suffix is very frequently

There

used, it systematically alternates with the simpler suffix ‘un’ or ¢in.’

15¢ of

The Oriental Turkish forms its genitive by suffixing ¢ning’ or

nifive

fmin,’ or ‘ning’ or ‘nin’

In the Ottoman Turkish the initial nasal

litive

is only occasionally used: the genitive plural is uniformly ‘un; the

n the

singular takes ‘un’ or ‘nun,’ according as the noun to which it is

also.

suffixed ends in a consonant or in a vowel.

A9

In the Mongolian, the

9

sign of the genitive is *

u

after the consonant ‘n;

after every other

ating

Jazly

v

consonant, ‘in; and after a vowel, ‘yin.

The personal pronouns,

:ssive

as has already been observed, from their possessive by suffixing

Per

‘ni, e.g., ‘mi-ni,) my. Compare the Mongolian ‘kél-tn,’ of the jfoot,

eing,

with the ordinary Tamil genitive of the corresponding noun ¢kéal-in,

of o foot.

[uim-

Olm‘l}

The Calmuck dialect of the Mongolian forms its genitive by

)f the

suffixing ‘i’ to nouns ending in ‘n,’ and ‘yin’ to all other nouns.

2259

The Tibetan postfixes in like manner °

1

or ¢yin.

ngue

The Manchu makes much use of a possessive relative suffix ¢ ngge,’

n' 88

or ‘ningge,’ signifying which has; but it also forms genitives, pro-

perly so called, by suffixing ‘ni’ or ‘i

dopfs

[ the

In the language of the Scythian tablets of Behistun, the genitive

was ordinarily formed by suffixing ‘na:’ the first personal pronoun

formed its genitive by suffixing a reduplicated form of this particle,

mber

quffix

‘ni-na,’ e.g., ‘hu-ni-na,” of me; whilst the genitive plural was generally

formed by means of the addition of ‘inna,’ probably softened from

fpEana.

The nearest direct resemblance to the Behistun—Scythian

»pean

s

genitival ‘na,’ is the Brahui ‘n4,” and the Gond ‘na’ or ¢4’

This interesting record of the speech of the ancient Scythians,

ﬁlt’ei

furnishes us, I think, with a clue to the origin of ‘nun’ or ‘nin,’ the

j:;

Tartar genitive suffix.

f the

In the Tartar tongues ‘nun’ is interchange-

able with and equivalent to ‘uxn; and ‘un’ or ‘in’ is also inter-

‘au

aHV

changeable with ‘ni

or ‘nuj in Mongolian, ‘yin’ and ‘un’ are

suffixed to substantives, ‘ni’ to the personal pronouns.

It appears

1%

from the Behistun tablets that ‘na,’ the ordinary genitive suffix, was

fire

et

9

40

THE NOTUN.

sometimes euphonically changed into ‘ni-na,’ and that this again was

sign

softened into ¢inna.’

I conceive that the Tartar ‘un’ was in this

‘I

same manner, by the reduplication of the nasal, converted into ¢ nun;’

bl

which in Manchu became ‘ngge’ or ningge

Possibly also ‘ni’ or

‘nu’ was nasalised by the addition of a final ‘n’ or ‘ng,’ of the use

1oun

of which we have an instance in point in the final euphonic ‘n’ of the

CODS(

alre

first and second personal pronouns in most of the Scythian languages.

A parallel instance of the reduplication of a nasal is apparent in the

‘W

Telugn itself, in the conjunctive or copulative particle.

This particle

the

18 mm ) vin v Pamil, 4G

in Canarese, and ‘nu’ in Telugu; but this

and

Telugu ¢ nu

becomes euphonically ‘nnu,’ and by reduplication

‘nunnu’ in particular instances.

gen

(5.) The genitival suffiz ‘a.’—This sign of the genitive or possessive

stal

claims to be regarded as equally with ‘in’ or ‘ni,” a distinctively

ohe

Dravidian suffix.

It is little used in Tamil, though placed first in the

taf

list of genitive case-signs by Tamil grammarians; but if we take all

Ise

the Drividian idioms into consideration, it is perhaps more largely

infl

used than any other suffix of the genitive—a proof of the accuracy

suff

of the Tamil classification.

GXPD

I conceive this suffix to be identical with ‘a,’” the formative of the

aldi

most frequently used Dravidian relative participles (see the section

hase

on ‘The Verb’), but totally distinct from ‘a,’ the neuter particle of

the

pluralisation, which bas already been investigated.

hot

In Canarese ‘a’ is the only sign of the genitive which is ever

the

used.

It is sometimes preceded by an euphonic consonant, which is

of

inserted between it and the base, to form a link of connection between

nt

them, viz., by ‘v’ or ‘y,’ the use of which is purely of an euphonic

plet

nature, and by ¢in

¢ad’) or ‘ar’, which are inflexional increments

Teflg

of the base, and old petrified genitives; e.g., ‘ guru-(v)-a, of a priest;

by g

‘kuri-(y)-a,’ of a sheep; ‘kis-in-a,” of @ child; ‘ mar-ad-a,’ of a tree;

iﬂ C:

‘ad-ar-a,” of that (thing), or of it.

When this genitive ‘a’ is added

!

to the abbreviated inflexional form of the Canarese personal pronouns,

oo

the final nasal of those pronouns is doubled, e.g., ‘nanna’ (from

‘nin,’ I), of me; ‘namma’ (from ‘nam,” we), of us.

A comparison

ity

of these forms with the Tamil and Tulu ‘nama, of ws, our, proves

Q“k

that the doubling of the final nasal arises from an euphonic source.

o

¢a’ forms the genitive suffix not only of the singular of Canarese

an

nouns and pronouns, but also of the plural, whether the noun belongs

to the ‘rational’ or to the ‘irrational’ class, e.g., ‘avar-a,’ of them

i}

(epicene), ‘avugal-a,’ of them (neuter).

fo

These examples prove that ‘a’ is the true Canarese genitive case-

g

241

THE GENITIVE.

| Was

sign: and it is also to be noted that this case-sign is never used, like

{lis

‘in’ in Tamil, as the common fulcrum of the suffixes of all the

;)

oblique cases, but is used solely as the case-sign of the genitive.

or

In Tulu ‘a’ forms the genitive of by far the larger proportion of

) use

nouns. In many instances it is preceded by “d’ or ‘t:’ but this

f the

consonant is merely the equivalent of the Canarese ‘ad,’ which has

ges.

glready been referred to; and in the genitive of the personal pronouns

1 the

‘a’ is preserved purer in Tulu than in Canarese.

Thus, instead of

rticle

the Canarese ‘nanna,’ of me, the Tulu has ‘yan-a’ (for ‘nan-a’),

- this

and instead of ‘ninna,’ of thee, it has ‘nin-a.’

ation

The language of the Kotas of the Nilgherry hills forms all its

genitives by suffixing ‘a

.’

In Telugu ‘a’ forms the plural inflexion or genitive of all sub-

Ve

stantive nouns without exception.

“lu,” the pluralising particle, is

ively

changed into ‘la;’ and as the ‘u’ of ‘lu’ is added merely to facili-

n the

tate enunciation, and ‘1’ alone coustitutes the suffix of the plural, it

ke all

is evident that the ‘a’ of ‘la’ is a suffix of case.

As the plural

oely

inflexion, ¢a’ constitutes the fulerum to which the other case-signs, or

racy

suffixes of the oblique cases, are added; and as the genitive plural, it

expresses the signification of the genitive, without any auxiliary or

f the

additional particle.

The Telugu personal pronouns use their crude

otion

bases adjectivally as their inflexion and genitive.

The pronouns of

the third person, or the demonstratives, generally form their genitives

cle of

both iu the singular and in the plural by adding ‘i’ to the root: in

gver

the singular a few of them suffix ¢ ni,” as is done by the greater number

of nouns in the singular.

One of the Telugu pronouns uses ‘a’ both

ioh 18

ween

in the singular and in the plural, as the sign of the genitive, in com-

plete accordance with the Canarese and Tulu.

The genitive of the

honic

1ents

reflexive pronouns ¢tan-u,’ self, ‘thm-u,’ selves, is formed in Telugu

st

by shortening the quantity of the radical vowel and suffixing ‘a,’ as

in Canarese ; e.g., ‘tan-a,’ of self, ‘tam-a,” of selves.

The adjectival

free;

1dd€d

ca’ of some Telugu substantives is evidently identical with this

genitival ‘a; eg., ‘tUr-a kavi, a village poet or a poet of the village.

0UNS,

In Tamil, though “a’ is placed first in the list of genitive suffixes,

(from

it is less used than any other sign of the genitive, and indeed is used

LriSOH

only as the classical genitive of the personal and reflexive pronouns ;

p0Ves

uree:

e.g., ‘nam-a,’ our (from ‘ném, we), like the Sanscrit ‘mama,” my,

and ‘tava,’ thy.

a1est

It is difficult, indeed, to determine whether this suffix has retained

Jongs

in Tamil any genitival signification whatever. Whether it be attached

e

to a singular or to a plural pronoun, it must be followed by, and be in

g

agreement with, a neuter plural noun ; and this circumstance would

R

4

242

THE NOUN.

i

lead to the conclusion that in Tamil it is a suffix of plurality, not a

othe

sign of the genitive. On this supposition, in the words ¢ena keigal,’

my hands, ‘ena’ would signify not ‘mei, of me, but ©mea,’ (the

it !

things that are) mine. It would be a pronominal adjective or posses-

this

sive plural, not a genitive ; and the fact that ‘a’ is largely used in

classical Tamil as a sign of the neuter plural (e.g., ‘sila, few,

anal

Kol

literally « few things, ¢ pala’ many, literally many things), proves that

this supposition would be a very natural one.

poss

On the other hand, “a’ is classed with genitive suffixes by Tamil

The

Grammarians themselves, and those grammarians, who are remarkably

res

well acquainted with the principles of their own language, are perfectly

Bu

aware that ‘a’ is also a sign of the plural of ¢irrationals’. Moreover,

ch

th

though it is stated by Tamil grammarians that the genitive in ‘a’ must

always be in agreement with a plural noun, yet they admit that the

sigl

f

noun with which it agrees is sometimes singular in form though plural

mn

g

in signification ; e.g., the expression ‘nun-a §ir'adi,” thy small foot ;

but

oceurs in the Chintamani. They say that foot is here used for feet, and

m

this is certainly true ; but it does not follow that ‘nun-a’ is determined

sig

thereby to be a plural, for the use of the singular with a plural signifi-

the;

cation, yet with the declensional and conjugational forms of the singular,

e

is a fixed usage of these languages. I think, therefore, that we may con-

con

fidently regard this ‘ nun-a’ as an illustration of the use of ‘a,’ even in

Witk

Py

Tamil, in connection with the singular.

In Tamil, it is true, ‘a

18

(ot

ordinarily followed by the neuter plural alone; but in Canarese and

Do

Telugu it may be followed by any gender or number; and the ‘a’ of

oy

the Tamil ¢ tan-a,” of self, is evidently identical with that of the corre-

101

sponding Telugu ‘tan-a; whilst the ‘a’ of ‘nam-a, of us, our, is evi-

of |

dently identical with the Canarese ‘ namm-a.” Hence, as the one ‘a’ is

0rg

unquestionably a genitive, so must the other have been originally ; and

of ¢

thus we are led to the supposition that the Tamil rule which requires

Tent

‘a’ to be followed by the neuter plural is merely a secondary,

(Y

recent, dialectic peculiarity, which has arisen from the influence of its

\ln(}

accidental resemblance to the sign of the plural of ‘irrationals.’

This

Sing

peculiarity of the genitival ‘a’ in Tamil may be compared with the

somewhat parallel case of the use in Hindustani of one possessive

?;

suffix rather than another, out of the three that exist in it, according

the

to the gender of the noun which follows and governs that to which it

a8

is suffixed.

of

Though in grammatical Tamil ¢a

is always followed by the

of

plural, yet the vulgar in the rural districts commonly use it without

ol

discrimination of number, as in Canarese and Telugu. Thus, they

will say “nama’ (or more commonly, as in Canarese, ‘namma’) dr,

the

THE

GENITI1VE.

243

not a

our village ; and this confirms the supposition that in Tamil, as in the

2

¢

D

eigal,

other dialects, the original use of this

was simply that of a suffix

' (the

of the genitive.

0856S

We have now to inquire with what language or family of languages

ed in

this genitive suffix should be affiliated.

There is no direct Scythian

for,

analogy for it, and the only affinities which I have observed are

3suthat

Kole and Indo-European. In the Ho,a Kole dialect, ‘a’ is a common

possessive suffix ; and it is also, as in Tamil, an adjectival formative.

Tamil

The most direct and reliable Indo-European analogy is that which is

kably

presented by the personal proncuns, which in some of the Indo-

rfectly

European dialects have a possessive in ‘a,” strongly resembling this

BOVEL,

Dravidian possessive.

If we look only at the Gothic ‘meina, my ;

' must

‘theina,” thy; ¢seina, his or i«ts; we should naturally conclude the

at the

sign of the possessive in these words to be, not ¢a,’ but ‘na’ (answer-

ing to the Old Scythian and Brahui ‘na’ and to the Telugu ‘ni’);

plural

but on comparing the forms which this sign of the possessive assumes

foot

in various languages, it appears probable that ‘a’ alone conveys the

#,and

mined

signification of the possessive ; and that the nasal which precedes it in

the Sanscrit ¢ mama,” the Zend ‘mana,” and the Gothic ‘meina,” may

it

merely have been inserted euphonically for the purpose of keeping the

gulat,

contiguous vowels pure.

Compare ‘mama,’ Sans. my, (from ‘ma,’ /),

y con-

with ¢tava,’ thy, (from ‘tva,’ thou); and especially compare the

yen I

Gothic ‘meina, ¢theina,” ¢ seina,” with the corresponding Lithuanian

0 8

2

possessives mana-s,

‘ tava-s,’

¢ sava-s.

In these

1nstanees

Cv-

e and

euphonic is used as the equivalent of ‘n.’

The Indo-European pro-

'’ of

%

is exceptional : for the primitive languages

CoITe-

nominal possessive in ‘a

ig evi-

of that family evince an almost perfect agreement in the use of ‘as)’

‘3’fs

or some closely related form, as the sign of the genitive singular, and

In the later

of ‘sAm’ or ‘Am,” as the sign of the genitive plural.

i and

|

Teutonic dialects, however, a genitive case-sign in ‘a’ becomes

:quires

exceedingly common, and is found in the plural as well as in the

ndary,

of Its

singular.

Thus in the Frisian all plural substantives and such

This

singulars as end in a vowel form their possessive by suffixing ‘a’: in

the Icelandic all plurals and all masculine and neuter singulars use

th the

‘a’ as their case-sign; and in the Anglo-Saxon all plurals.

Though

G

the oldest Gothic possessives accorded with the ordinary Sanscrit forms,

ording

‘as’ and ‘4m; yet the resemblance between the possessives of some

hih i

of the Teutonic vernaculars and the Dravidian possessive is deserving

of notice.

The use of ‘a’ as a sign of the possessive by all plural

)y [he

substantives in Telugu is especially remarkable.

Has the Dravidian

ifhott

s

£a

ander consideration been softened from ‘as’ (of which, however,

L

there is not the smallest trace or analogical probability)? or has it

IIfy

R 2

244

THE NOUN.

been softened from ‘na,’ the old Scythian suffix ?

The latter suppo-

sition, though unsupported by direct evidence, is not an improbable

‘Re

one; for we have seen that the Gond ‘na’ alternates with “4;

the

JeIsC

Scythian ‘ni-na’ with ¢ inna;

the Turkish ¢ nun’ with ‘un;’ and

the ¢

‘nu, the Telugu particle of conjunction, with ‘i,’ its Canarese

and

equivalent.

(4

Engl

(6.) The Malayila genitive singular suffiz, ‘re’ or ¢de.’—In most

cases this Malayéla genitive takes the shape of “indre’ or ‘inde,” of

‘me

which “in’ is the genitival suffix and inflexional increment, which

Canl

has already been described.

In ‘en-de,’ my, the inflexional base is of

Wit

itself a genitive, and the addition of “in’ is not required; hence it

the

appears that ‘de’ or ‘dre’ is an auxiliary genitive suffix, like the

mof

‘adu’ which is so often added to ¢in’ in Tamil, and is probably from

adj'

the same origin.

This suffix is written ‘wre; but it is always added

to ‘n,” and when it is thus added, the compound is regularly pro-

uf

nounced, not as ‘nre,” but as ‘ndre’ or ‘nde.’

Neither the Tamil nor

den

the Malayilam possesses any other method of producing the sound

sing

which is indicated by these letters (a peculiarly euphonic ‘nd’), but

Uses

that of conjoining the final ‘n’ of those languages and the hard ‘r;’

bf[ 01

which, when pronounced in combination, have the sound of ‘ndr’ or,

e,

as some pronounce it, ‘ ndz,’ or more commonly still ‘nd.’ Thus, from

The

“ en,’ fo say, and ¢ du, the regular formative of the preterite participle,

fro

the Canarese forms ¢ endu,’ saying or having said; and this in Tamil is

Th

written ‘enru; but it would be erroneous to suppose ‘Ru’ to be

W

the sign of the preterite in Tamil instead of ¢du, for ‘enru’ is

tiy

intended to be, and is pronounced ‘endu’ or ‘endru,’ nearly as in

({0

Canarese.

po—

be

Hence some analogies to the Malayala ‘re’ (in reality ¢de’)

bein

The

which might be suggested, appear at once to be illusory.

f

uff

Malayala ‘re,’ has been connected by Dr. Stevenson with ¢the

H

Ty

Canarese genitive’ ‘ra

It has been shown that ‘a, not ‘ra,” is the

Tay

genitive suffix of the Canarese, and that the ‘R’ which precedes it is

Whi

properly ¢ar,” an inflexional increment (like ‘ad’ and ¢in’), which is

sing

inserted between the root and the case-signus of three cases, besides

10

the genitive, of certain classes of nouns.

The Malayala ‘re’ (de), on

Wl

the other hand, is suffixed exclusively to the genitive, and no other

Nevertheless, as I connect ¢ de’

suffix of case is ever appended to it.

Nl

with the Tamil ¢adu,” 2¢; and as with this I connect also the Canarese

Vi)

T

¢ad’’ and its hardened form

‘ar,

it may be admitted that in this

modified and remote manner, the Malayala and the Canarese forms

a8

g

are allied.

{

THE GENITIVE.

245

Uppo-

Still more illusory is the apparent resemblance of this Malayala

bable

‘re’ or ‘de’ to the adjectival possessive suffixes of the Hindustani

" the

and

personal pronouns, ‘rA’ and ‘ri’ (e.g., ‘méra,’ meus, ¢ méri, mea) ; to

the corresponding New Persian inflexion ‘r,’ (e.g., ‘ to-rd, thy, thee) ;

larese

and to ¢ ra,’ the Gothic genitive plural suffix of the personal pronouns

9

of our

(¢.g9., ‘unsara,’ owr, ‘izvara,’ yowr), from which the final ‘r

English ¢ our’ and ‘your’ has been derived.

1 oSt

The Hindustani ‘r,’ is supposed by Bopp to be derived from ¢ d;’

de,’ of

¢méra, meus, being derived from the Sanscrit ‘madiya,’ my;” but I

which

cannot suppose that the Malayala form has any connexion whatever

66 15 of

with the Hindustani and the Persian, except on the supposition that

once 1t

the ¢d’ of the Tamil demounstrative neuter singular, ¢adu

is re-

ke the

motely connected with the formative ‘d’ of the Sanscrit possessive

y from

adjective.

added

The Malayila ‘de,’ like the Tamil ‘adu,” is used as a genitive

y pr-

suffix of the singular alone, a confirmation of the opinion that it is

nil ot

derived from ‘¢ adu,” which in its original signification is the neuter

sound

singular of the demonstrative.

In the genitive plural, the Malayalam

), but

uses ‘ ute,” answering to the colloquial Tamil ‘udeiya’ (from ‘udei’),

1]

belonging to, of. Compare the Malayala € enre,” ‘endre,” or ‘ende, of

h‘ , 0ry

me, with the corresponding Tamil ¢enadu,’ of me, that whick is nine.

from

The Malayéla possessive noun wmine, or that which is mine is ¢ endeta,’

tiCiP]e7

from ‘en-de, my, and ‘ata,’ i¢, corresponding to the Tamil ¢ enadu.’

amil 18

This latter ‘enadu, however, is not the genitive ‘enadu, sy, with

fo he

which I have compared ‘en-de,” but a possessive noun in the nomina-

Rll, iS

tive case; and though I suppose the Malayala ‘de’ to be itself a

7 88 n

corruption from ¢ ada’ or ‘ata,” i, yet the demonstrative suffix would

be appended a second time, on the origin and true meaning of ‘de’

“de’)

being forgotten.

We see illustrations of this repetition of an ancient

The

sufix in many languages; e.g., ‘malei-(y)-in-in,” High Tam. from «

‘the

mountain; and this very demonstrative ‘adu,’ i, is twice used in the

is the

Tamil negative participial noun ‘illadadu,’ the thing which is not; in

5 1t 18

which the first ¢d,” though a representative originally of the necuter

singular demonstrative, has lost its proper signification, and become a

jich 18

esides

mere euphonic link of connection, or technical sign, in consequence of

le) ; on

which ¢d ’ is required to be repeated,

In Tulu the genitive of neuter mouns is commonly formed by

- other

1 de’

suffixing <d,’ “da, or ‘ta, eg., ‘katti-da,’ of a knife, ‘kei-ta,” of a hand.

nares

The “d’ of this “da,” or © ta,” is not, however, as in the Canarese, used

as the inflexional base of any other case; but is restricted to the

:

1 this

foruis

genitive alone : hence it bears a close resemblance to the Malayala

genitive suffix.

246

THE NOUN.

(7.) Auxilvary suffizes of the genitive tn Telugu and Tamal

Inea

and §

(1.) In Telugu

yokka,” or ¢ yoka,

s sometimes appended to the

inflexion, or natural genitive, as an auxiliary suffix of case; e.g., from

distin

the ordinary possessive ‘na,’ my, is formed optionally, the equivalent

I

18 g1V

form na-yokka, my, of me

This suffix is rarely used, and seems foreign to the idiom of the

Asa

langnage ; for no other pure Dravidian dialect possesses any suffix

look!

resembling it.

mean

A suﬁix somewhat resembling ¢ yokka, is found in the Rijmahal

sed

and Uron languages, which econtain an overwhelming prepon-

s1gn

derance of Kol elements, though formed probably upon a Dravidian

quia

basis

Comy

The possessive suffix of the Rajmahal is “ki

that of the Uraon

o pl

ghi

and

If these particles are at all connected with the Telugu ¢ yoka

which seems doubtful, we should be warranted in connecting the whole

(il

with the ordinary possessive or adjectival suffix of the Hindustani, the

Prep

feminine of which is ‘k

(masculine k& ’), and through that suffix

Place

with the formative ‘ka,” of the Sanscrit possessive adjectives ‘mamaka,

distix

my, ‘tavaka, thy,

asmakam,’ of us, our, &c

A closer analogy to

suffix

yoka, is that of the dative post-fix of the Mikir, which is €yok’ or

aotua

ayok

locat

(ii.) In Tamil

udeiya ’ is commonly appended to the inflexion of

verh

nouns and pronouns, as an auxiliary possessive saffix

udeiya

wit]

udei~(y)

) means belonging to, or, literally which is the property of;

and is derived from the noun

udei

property, possession, by the

a8 ]

addition of “a,” the sign of the relative participle, on the addition of

adw

which to any noun it is converted into an adjective

Thus,

enudeiya

adye

kei,” my hand, means literally the hand which is my property, for <en

G

a4

of itself signifies my. Through usage, however, there is no difference

oy,

in signification, or even in emphasis, between ‘en’ and ¢ en-udei-(y)-a

and

The Malayalam dispenses with “ya’ or “a,’ the sign of the relative

suffy

<

u

participle, ‘and uses

(in Tamil ‘udei’), the uninflected noun

|

itself, as its auxiliary suffix of the genitive

m

udeiya’ is very largely used as an auxiliary genitival suffix in

1nig

collogquial Tamil

and in some grammars written by foreigners it is

classed with the signs of the genitive; but, properly speaking, it is not

\"eSe

a case-sign, or suffix of case at all, but the relative participle of an

1dgy

appellative verb used adjectivally, and it is to be compared not with

By

our preposition of, but with the phrase belonging to

a8

tion

the

gy

Locative or ‘seventh’ case.— Dravidian grammarians state that any

g

word which signifies ‘a place’ may be used to express the locative

4¥g,

R

—

THE LOCATIVE.

247

In each dialect, however, some words or post-positions are so frequently

to the

and systematically used for this purpose that they may be regarded as

, from

distinctively locative suffixes.

valent

In Tamil, ¢ kan, an eye, which has also the signification of a place,

is given in the grammars as the characteristic suffix of the locative.

of the

As a verbal root ‘kan’ means Zo see : its secondary signification was

7 suffx

look! its third there, its fourth @ place; and in consequence of the last

meaning it came to be used as a sign of the locative. It is very rarely

ijma.hal

used; and I have no hesitation in saying that the most distinctive

sign of the Tamil locative is ‘il,’ @ place, literally a house.

In collo-

[)I'Ep()ll-

Avidian

quial Tamil the most commonly used sign of the locative is ¢ idattil,” a

compound suffix, which is derived from ¢idam,” the ordinary word for

Urion

a place, ‘attu, the inflexion or basis of the oblique cases (‘id-attu’),

and ‘il an older, purer word for @ place, which is added to €id-attu’

“yoka,

¢ whole

(‘id-att-il), as the real sign of the locative, with the meaning of our

ani, the

preposition in.

The signification of the whole suffix is literally in the

{ suffix

place of or in the place occupied by ; but it is evident that what really

maka,

distinguishes the locative in this compound is ¢il, sn—the suffix of a

gy o

suffix ; and that the meaning which the entire compound receives in

In the lowest patois of colloquial Tamil the

ok’ or

actual use is simply un.

locative suffix which is most used is ‘Kkitta,” near, the infinitive of a

xion of

verb.®

The higher dialect of the Tamil uses also ‘ul’ and ‘uri,

ideiya’

within, amonyg, as signs of the locative.

The ancient Canarese used 01, corresponding to the Tamil ¢ul;

ey O

as its Jocative snffix ; whilst the modern dialect uses “alli’ or ¢illi,’ an

by the

ition of

adverbial form which answers to the Tamil ‘il

“alli’ is properly an

adverb of place, compounded of ‘li’ and the remote demonstrative

nudeiy?f

‘a ; and its fellow is ¢illi,) compounded of the same root and i, the

g ‘on

proximate demonstrative.

These words mean literally that place

ference:

and this place, or there and here ; and their use as locative

(72

suffixes betokens a later state of the language than the use of ‘i1’ and

elative

¢ul’ in Tamil, and of ¢6l’ in Canarese.

Compare the change of ‘il’

1 nond

Sk

in Tamil to ‘li’ in Canarese, with the similar change of ‘in’ in Latin

into ‘ni’ in Sansecrit.

offix 0

s it 8

* 1 cannot forbear noticing the remarkable (though doubtless accidental)

resemblance between the double meaning of ¢il’ in Tamil (which is, perhaps,

{is ot

identical with ‘in’ the sign of the ablative of motion) and of ‘in’ in Latin. Each

, of 4l

is used as a locative suffix or affix, with the meaning of iz ; and each is used also

of With

as a particle of negation. The Latin ‘in’ not only means ¢», but has also the addi-

tional meaning of not in such compounds as ‘ indoctus’ (like the Gothic ‘un’ and

the Greek and Sanserit ‘a’ or ‘an’ privative); and in like manner the Tamil €il’

means not only e, but also not.

Moreover, as the Latin ‘in’ privative is ‘an’

in some other dialects, so the Tamil ‘il,” not, takes also the shape of “al,” with

hat 8]

a very slight difference, not in the meaning, but only in the application.

248

THE NOUN.

In Telugu the sign of the locative, which is most commonly used,

the

‘16

1s more

whic

is ‘162’ another form frequently employed is ‘andu.’

intensely locative in its signification than ‘andu:’ it means within, and

Was

is obviously identical with the Canarese ‘61’ and the Tamil ‘ul.

0 be

‘andu’ means simply in, and like the Canarese ‘alli’ is properly an

adverb ; and is derived in a somewhat similar manner from ¢a,’ the

ih

an

remote demonstrative, with the additiou of a formative ‘d,” whilst

i

11§

‘indu,’ its correlative adverb of place, is derived from ¢i,” the proxi-

l-u

mate demonstrative.

The Canarese also possesses adverbs correspond-

cati

ing to these, viz., ‘anta’ and ‘inta,” ‘antalu’ and ‘intalu ; but uses

R E——

them chiefly to express comparison, like our adverb than. The Telugu

blay

locative suffix ‘andu’ (meaning ¢z) bears some apparent resemblance

[nd

to the Sanscrit ¢ antar,” among, but this resemblance is wholly illusory:

for “andu’ is derived from ‘a,’ that, by the addition of the neuter

formative ‘du,” which becomes euphonically ‘ndu,’ and corresponds

not]

_—

not to the Sanscrit, but rather to ‘anda, that, the demonstrative

Yoc;

adjective of the Tamil.

Sien

In Telugu the post-position ¢na,” which becomes ‘ni’ after i

)

18

per

used as a locative suffix in connexion with neuter nouns.

‘ni’ (and

hence its equivalent ‘na’ also) is evidently identical with ¢in, the

“lmp

sign of the ablative of motiou in High Tamil, which I have supposed

bys

to be properly a sign of the locative ; and probably both are identical

9

Lon

with “in,

the Tamil, and “ni’ and ‘na,’ the Telugu, genitival or

ay

inflexional suffixes,

The locative is more likely to be derived from

4g

the genitive, than the genitive from the locative.

With this Telugu

the

locative ‘na,’” we may compare the Ostiak locative ‘na,” ‘ne; and

fon

the Finnish and Magyar locatives ‘an’ and ‘en.’

1af]

In Telugu, and in the higher dialect of the Tamil, the inflexion or

af

s s

——

basis of the oblique cases, which has naturally the force of a genitive,

is sometimes used to denote the locative also.

In Tamil the inflexion

the-

—

which is chiefly used in this manner is “attu ; e.g., ‘nilattu, upon the

earth. The Malayalam uses ‘atta’ in a similar manner: and in Telugu a

tnly

fuag

corresponding change from ‘ti’ to ‘ta’ converts the inflexion or

ot

obsolete genitive into a locative ; e.g., ‘inti, of a house, ‘inta,” in a

house.

The same inflexion in ‘ta’ denotes the instrumental in Telugu,

fhe

as well as the locative ; e.g., compare ‘chéti,’ of a hand, with ¢chéta,’

Sony

by a hand, but this form seems to have been a locative originally.

a

This fusion of the meaning of the genitive and locative suffixes corres-

i

ponds to a similar fusion of the signs of those cases which a comparison

In

of the various Indo-European tongues brings to light. The genitive

Da

and locative case-signs are often identical in the Finnish family of lan-

on|

guages also.

Bearing this in mind, may we not conclude that ¢in,.

)

THE VOCATIVE.

49

y used,

the Tamil sign of the ablative of motion, probably a locative, and

y more

which is identical with ‘im, the Canarese sign of the instrumental,

in, and

was originally a genitive, and identical with in,’ which we have seen

1l

to be so exceedingly common as a genitival suffix ?

etly an

In all the Dravidian idioms the locative suffixes are used like our

4 the

Sometimes the locative alone is used for

than, to express comparison.

whilst

this purpose : oftener the conjunctive particle is added to it; e.g.,

proxie

¢il-um,” in Tamil, ‘l6-nu,” in Telugu, which compound has the signifi-

spond-

cation of our even than.

b uses

None of the Dravidian suffixes of the locative bears any resem-

Telugu

blance to the locative case-signs of the Sanscrit, of any other of the

blance

Indo European languages, or of the North-Indian vernaculars.

lusory:

neuter

The wocative or “eighth’ case.— In the Dravidian languages there is

3sponds

nothing which properly deserves to be styled a suffix or case-sign of the

trative

vocative.

The vocative is formed merely by aflixing or suffixing some

sign of emphasis, or in certain instances by suffixing fragments of the

i

personal pronouns.

" (and

\

The most common vocative in Tamil is the emphatic ‘&, which is

), the

simply appended to the noun. Sometimes, also, the vocative is formed

pposed

by substituting ‘4’ for the formative of gender, eg., from ‘kartan,

entical

Lord, is formed ‘kartd,” O Lord ; by converting the final vowel into

yal ot

“4y’ (a fragment of the old pronoun of the second person singular),

4 from

e.g., from -tangei,’ sister, is formed ‘tangay,” O sister; or by lengthening

the vowel of the pluralising particle, e.g., from ¢ pavigal,” sinners, is

Telugu

)

and

formed ¢pavigal,” O sinners.

Sometimes, again, especially in poetry,

rational plurals are put in the vocative by appending to them ¢ir,

on 0

a fragment of ‘nir, you, e.g., ellir, literally °ell-ir,” all ye.

nitive,

|

In the Indo-European languages the nominative is often used for

Jexion

the vocative, and what appears to be a vocative case-ending is often

on the

only a weakened form of the final syllable.

In the Dravidian lan-

Jugud

guages, in like manner, the crude-root, deprived of all increments, is

often used as the vocative.

on OF

In Telugu the vocative singular is ordinarily formed by lengthening

' 0

!el llgu)

the final vowel of the nominative (and all Telugu words end in

‘ara’ or

Chéma‘

some vowel), or by changing the final ‘u’ into ‘a’ or ¢4’

‘ara, from the same root as the Tamil pronominal fragment ‘ir’ (viz.

nally:

[4

I1e8°

nir,’ ye), is post-fixed as the vocative of masculine-feminine plurals.

qpisol

In addition to these suffixes, various unimportant vocative particles, or

particles of exclamation, are prefixed to nouns; some to one number

)niti"e

only, some to both.

In Canarese the vocative is ordinarily formed by

)f Jape

L

appending ‘4,” by lengthening the final vowel of the nominative, or

250

THE NOUN.

by adding ‘e’ or ‘&’

Masculine-feminine plurals form their vocative

In

2

with 1

not only by means of ‘e

or ‘&’ but also by suffixing ‘ira’ or

¢ira,” from the same source as the Telugu ‘ard,’ viz., the old ‘nir,

ye

Such being the origin and character of the Dravidian signs of the

vocative, it is evident that we cannot expect to find allied forms in any

other family of languages.

Compound case-signs.—As in the Hungarian and other Scythian

tongues, and in some of the languages of the Kastern islands, so in

Dravidian, two or more case-signs are occasionally compounded

1 th

together into one.

We have already noticed the custom of annexing

the various signs of the oblique cases to the inflexion or sign of the

Thus,

genitive ; but other combinations of case-signs are also in use.

there is a combination of the dative and locative, e.g., ¢ vittukkul’

(‘vittu-kk’-ul’), colloquial Tam., within the house, in which the locative

“ul’ is combined with the dative or directive ‘kku,” for the purpose of

intensifying ¢n, and educing the meaning of within.

The higher

I\

dialect would in this instance prefer ¢vittul,” the simple locative ; but

Iangu:

The ablative of motion in each of the

)

‘yittukkul’ is also idiomatical.

Dravidian dialects is generally a compound case, being formed of the

over,

locative and a verbal participle, or even of two locatives ; e.g., ‘ mane-

appe

(y)-ill-inda, Can., out of the house, from €illi’ or ‘alli/ the sign

of the locative, and ‘inda, a sign of the instrumental, which is

ton

used also as a sign of the ablative, but which was, I conceive, a

Sty

locative originally, and identical with ¢ im,” the Canarese form of the

Tamil ¢in.’

The Malayala ‘inikkulla’ (‘in-i-kka’ and ‘ulla’), my, is a com-

pound of the dative of the personal pronoun (which is itself a com-

pound), and a relative-participial form of ‘ul, within ; in colloquial

the §

Tamil also a similar form is used as a possessive.

8 v¢

Such compounds may indeed be formed in these languages at

pleasure, and almost ad wnfinitum.

Arother instance of them in

qua‘:

Tamil is seen in the addition of the dative to the locative (e.g.,

of

¢idattir-ku’ or ‘kat-ku’), to constitute the locative-directive, which

lay

is required to be used in such expressions as / sent to him.

g

tio

Pre

Possessive compounds.—The Dravidian languages are destitute of

Ing

that remarkable and very convenient compound of nouns and prono-

dig

minal or possessive suffixes which is so characteristic of the Turkish,

are

Ugrian, and other Scythian families.

H.djq

9

51

ADJECTIVES.

pative

In Hungarian they form the following compounds

of “ur,” master,

3 o

'

with the pronominal fragments, used as possessives :—

“nir,

ur-am,

my master

ur-aim,

my masters

of the

ur-ad,

thy master

ur-aid,

thy masters

ur-a,

his master

ur-ai,

his masters

m any

our master

our masters

ur-un-k,

ur-ain-k,

ur-at-ok,

your master

ur-ait-ok,

your masters

their master

their masters

ur-ok,

ur-ai-k,

ythian

§ I

These compounds are regularly declined like uncompounded nouns

?

unded

in the usual way, e¢.g.—

1exing

of the

uramnak (ur-am-nak), to my master

Thus,

urunknak (ur-un-k-nak), to our master

kkal’

5

uraimnak (ur-aim-nak), fo my masters

urainknak (ur-ain-k-nak), {0 our masters

ative

0se of

The entire absence of compounds of this nature in the Dravidian

igher

; hut

languages, notwithstanding their agreement with the Seythian group

of the

in so many other points, is very remarkable: it is the only point, how-

ever, in which any structural difference of a generic, or class type,

of the

appears to exist.

mane-

In all the Dravidian languages the possessive pronouns are prefixed

) Sigl

to nouns, as in the Indo-European tongues, never post-fixed as in the

ich 18

Scythian.

ive, 8

of the

Part ITI.—Adjectives, or Nouns used Adjectivally.

, Com-

The difference between the Indo-European languages and those of

con

the Scythian group, with respect to the formation and use of adjectives,

)quial

is very considerable.

The agreement of adjectives with the substantives which they

s 06

qualify, in gender, number, and case, forms an invariable characteristic

n 1

of the languages of the Indo-European family ; whilst in the Scythian

(glvfl,a

languages adjectives have neither number, gender, nor case, but are

nhiCh

mere nouns of relation or quality, which are prefixed without altera-

tion to substantive nouns. In this particular the Dravidian languages

present no resemblance to the Sanscrit, or to any other member of the

te Of

Indo-European stock, but are decidedly Scythian in character. Dravi-

jponos

[}

dian adjectives, properly so called, like those of the Scythian tongues,

rkiihx

are nouns of quality or relation, which acquire the signification of

adjectives merely by being prefixed to substantive mouns without

252

L4

THE NOUN.

declensional change ; and, i’n virtue of that acquired signification, they

IEpug il

that th

are called by Tamil grammarians ‘uri chol,” qualitative words.

Parti-

ciples of verbs, and nouns with the addition of participial formatives,

the ma

used ac

are also largely used as adjectives in the Dravidian, as in the Scythian,

In

family.

gven In

Such being the simplicity of the construction of Dravidian adjec-

form o

tives, it will not be necessary to occupy much time in the investiga-

tion of this department of grammar.

It may suffice to state, seriatim,

five n

the various modes in which words are used as adjectives, and the

many,

and a

formative or euphonic modifications which they undergo on being

‘nal’

prefixed to the substantives which they qualify: nor will it be neces-

“mals

sary to state @/l the modifications which are discoverable in each

dialect, but only those which appear to be most characteristic, or

2

T

which are peculiarly worthy of remark.

1. The majority of adjectives in all the Dravidian dialects, as in

to of

the dialects of the Scythian group, are nouns of quality or relation

qood

Tl

which become adjectives by position alone, without any structural

change whatever, and without ceasing to be, in themselves, nouns of

from {

quality. Thus, in the Tamil phrases, ‘ pon aridu,” gold (is) scarce,

4 (SOIH[.'

and ‘pon mudi, a golden crown, ‘pon, gold, is precisely the same in

of the

both instances, whether used as a substantive, in the first, or as an

Py

adjective, in the second.

adject

In a similar manner in English and the other modern Indo-

fion

hard

European dialects the same word is often used as a noun in one

connexion, and as an adjective, without addition or change, in another

0y

connexion ; e.q., ‘gold’ is more ductile than silver; a ‘gold’ watch:

a8 al

suffy

but this is contrary to the original genius of languages of this family,

and is the result of a process of corruption.

Whilst adjectival nouns

titery

of this class undergo in the Dravidian languages no structural

deriy;

change, their combination with the nouns to which they are prefixed

“atty

is facilitated in certain instances by unimportant euphonic changes,

ogt,

to th

such as the assimilation of the final consonant of the adjective

ota——

and the initial consonant of the substantive, in accordance with the

¢ ay&,

requirements of Dravidian phonetics (e.g., ‘por chilei’ (for ‘pon

Or g

chilei), @ golden vmage’) ; the softening, hardening, or doubling of the

t

«

initial of the substantive; or the optional lengthening of the included

they

vowel of the adjectival word, to compensate for the abandonment of

Sign

the euphonic final ‘u,’ e.g., ‘kar, black, in place of ‘karu,’ or vice

Wit}

versd. These changes are purely euphonic; they differ in the diflferent

Cous

dialects; and they contribute to grammatical expression only in so

fory

far as they serve to indicate the words which are to be construed

of {]

together as adjective and substantive.

It is only on the ground of the

the

FORMATION OF ADJECTIVES.

253

n, they

repugnance of the Dravidian ear to certain classes of concurrent sounds

Parti-

that the changes referred to are required by Dravidian rules; and in

atives,

the majority of instances nouns sustain no change whatever on being

used adjectivally.

ythian,

In the poetial dialects, adjectival formatives are less used than

1 adjee-

even in the colloquial dialects; and it is generally the crude ultimate

form of the noun of quality which performs the functions of the adjec-

vestiga-

eriatim,

tive in classical compositions.

Thus, whilst ‘nalla,” good, and ¢pala,’

nd the

many, are commonly used in spoken Tamil, the higher idiom prefers,

| being

and almost invariably uses, the crude nouns of quality and relation

) 116Ces-

‘nal’ and ‘pal;’ eg., ‘nal vari,’ the good way, and ‘pan’ (for ‘pal’)

0 each

‘malar,” many flowers.

stic, or

2. Sanserit derivatives (neuter nouns of quality) ending in ‘am’

in Tamil, and in ‘amu’ in Telugu, become adjectives when prefixed

to other nouns by rejecting the final ‘m’ or ‘mu;’ eg., ‘subam,’

5 48 1

elation

goodness, and ‘dinam, a day, become ‘suba dinam, a good day.

This, however, is a Sanscrit rather than a Drividian rule; and it flows

nctural

from the circumstance, that when two Sanscrit nouns are formed into

s of

scaee,

a compound, the crude form of the first of the two nouns is used instead

me 1

of the nominative,—¢ subha ’ instead of ¢subham.

Pure Dravidian nouns ending in ‘am’ or ‘amu’ rarely becomie

as an

adjectives in this manner; and when they do, it is through imita-

tion of Sanecrit derivatives.

Indo-

In Telugu, final ‘amu’ is sometimes

hardened into ‘ampu; e.g.,from ‘andamu,’ beauty, is formed ¢ andapu’

in 00é

or ‘andampu,’ beautiful.’

In Tamil, when a noun of this class is used

nother

as an adjective ; ‘am’ is generally rejected, and ‘attu,” the inflexion,

wateh:

f&mil )

suffixed instead ; e.g., from ¢ puram, externality, is formed ¢purattu,’

external.

Sometimes also the Tamil deals in this manner with Sanscrit

n0uDs

derivatives, converting them into adjectives by means of the inflexional

chural

“attu:’ but in all instances of nouns ending in ‘am’ or ‘amu,’ the

efived

most common method of using them adjectivally is that of appending

»ange%

to them the relative participle of the verb to become (‘é4na,” Tam.,

jec»tive

‘ayana,’ Tel., or ¢4da,” Can.), without any change, whether structural

th the

or euphonie, in the nouns themselves.

{ pon

3. Many Tamil nouns ending in ‘§-u,” ‘d-u,’” ‘nd-u,’ or ‘®r-u,” double

of the

their final consonants when they are used as adjectives, or when case-

;Iuded

signs are suffixed to them : e.g., compare nad-u,” Tam., the country,

0 of

with ‘natt-u varakkam,” the custom of the country, or ¢ natt-il,’ in the

or 'l'l'ca’

country. From the corresponding Telugu ‘nid-u,’ the country, is

ferent

formed ‘nati, of the country.

In these instances the final consonant

m &

of the root is doubled and hardened (or in Telugu hardened only), for

i

ged

the purpose of conveying the signification of an adjective: but in

ffhe

2

THE NOUN.

another class of instances the root 'remains unchanged, and it is the

the pe

monn

consonant of the formative addition that is doubled.

When Tamil nouns ending in the formative ‘mbu’ are used

fi tirp

(prope

adjectivally, ‘mbu’ changes into “ppu;’ eg., from ‘irumbu,’ iron,

and ‘kol, a rod, is formed ¢iruppu (k)kol, an iron rod. A similar

(f-y: ‘

change sometimes takes place in Telugu, in which ‘inumu,’ ron,

J

1nto 1

becomes inupa,’ e.g., ‘inupa pette, an iron bozx.

are la

Tamil nouns ending in the formative ‘ndu’ and ‘du’ change in

the same manner to ‘ttu’ on being used as adjectives.

E.g., compare

e 18

‘marundu,’ medicine, and ‘erudu, an oz, with ‘maruttu (p)pei,’ @

High

medicine bag, and ‘eruttu (p)podi, an ox load.

I

of Iy

Nouns ending in the formative ‘ngu’ do not, as might have been

Both these

Insta

expected, change into ‘kku’ on becomming adjectives.

classes of changes precisely resemble those which neuter or intransitive

form

verbs ending in ‘d-u’ or ‘r-u’ (or with the formative additions of

fo th'(

‘mb-u; ‘ng-u,” ‘nd-u,” &ec.) undergo on becoming active or transitive,

Telaf]

disle

and a similar principle is in each instance apparent in the change; for

when nouns of quality are prefixed to other nouns adjectivally, there

by the

v

is a transition of their signification to the nouns which they are

fll Tan

intended to qualify, which is analogous to the transition of the action

feiple

of a transitive verb to the object which it governs.

(See the Section

Idere

on ‘Roots,” and also that on ¢ The Verb’).

|

Qf)‘ Il

4. Each of the inflexional increments, or petrified case-signs of the

woul

genitive, is used for the conversion of substantives into adjectives.

Bt

These are ‘in’ in Tamil and ‘ni’ in Telugu, ‘attu’ in Tamil and

the

In those instances in which ‘in

2

in Tamil

I8 1

“ti” or ‘ti’ in Telugu.

and ‘ni’ in Telugu are used as adjectival formatives, their use is

a §)x

|

optional ; e.g., in Telugn we can say either ¢ tella,” white, or tella-nij

§

and in Tamil either ‘miral] skady (literally shade, a noun used

adjeg

adjectivally), or (but in the poetical dialect only) ¢niral-in.’

So also,

|

186q g

we may say either ‘mara (k)koppu,” Tam., the branch of a tree, or

ey

‘mara-ttu (k)koppu.” In Tamil ‘am, an inflexional increment which

b?C(!'/ilf

is apparently equivalent to ‘in,’ is often used as an adjectival forma-

the f

The

tive; e.g., ‘panan toppu’ (‘panei-am toppu’), a palmyra tope.

Partie

same formative is used in Malayalam also; e¢g., ‘malam pAmbu’

}sz’iw;

(‘mala~am pambu’), @ rock snake.

fhig

Tt has been shown that the inflexions or inflexional augments,

@ by

N

“attu’ and “ti,’ are in reality genitive or possessive case-signs ; and

{

that they are used to convert substantives into adjectives through the

the P

nltimate relation subsisting between genitives, e.g., of gold, and adjee-

Part)

tives, e.q., golden.

In consequence of the frequency of tteir use in this

Pl‘ete

connexion, they have come to be appended even to adverbial forms for

1d

)

FORMATION OF ADJECTIVES.

255

Is the

the purpose of giving to them an adjectival meaning. Thus, from

‘monna,’ Tel., before, is formed the adjective ¢ monna-ti” (e.g., ‘monna-

% used

ti tirpu,’ the former decision’); and in Tamil from ¢vadakku,” north,

, rom,

(properly a dative) is formed the adjective ¢ vadakk’-att-u,’ northern

similar

(e.g9., ‘vadakkattiyan, a northern Tamilian’).

) A0,

5. Relative participles of verbs, and nouns of quality converted

into relative participles by the addition of participial formatives,

nge i

are largely used as adjectives in all the Dravidian languages. Much

OMpare

use is made of relative participles as adjectives by the languages of

High Asia also.

el 0

It often happens that the same root is used, or at least is capable

e been

of being used, both as a verb and as a noun; and hence, in many

h these

instances of this kind in the Dravidian languages, two methods of

nsitive

forming adjectives are practicable, viz., either by prefixing the noun

1ons of

to the substantive which we wish to qualify, or by using one of the

nsifive,

relative participles of the related and equivalent verb. The colloquial

og; for

dialect of the Tamil prefers the latter method: the former is preferred

; there

by the poets on account of its greater simplicity and brevity. Thus,

in Tamil either ‘uyar,’ height (adjectivally high), or the relative par-

ey are

action

ticiple ¢ uyarnda,” Aigh, literally that was ligh (from ‘uyar’ con-

Section

sidered as a verb signifying to be high), may be used to expres high or

lofty; eg., ‘uyar malei’ or ‘uyarnda malei,” @ loffy Aill: but ¢ uyar’

of the

would be preferred in poetical compositions, whilst ¢uyarnda’ is

afives

better suited to prose and colloquial purposes, and is consequently

il and

the form which is commonly used by the Tamil people. This usage

Tamil

is not unknown to the Indo-European tongues also, but it constitutes

a special characteristic of the Scythian group.

158 18

iy

6. The past verbal participle of Telugu verbs is sometimes used

adjectivally in Telugu; hence when Sans. neuter nouns in ‘am’ are

] used

used as adjectives ¢ ayi,” having become (the verbal participle), is often

0 also,

peey OF

annexed to them instead of ¢ayi-na’ (Tam. ‘4na,’ Can. ‘4da’), that

became, that s (the relative participle). It is evident, therefore, that

yhich

the final ‘i’ of many Telugu adjectives is that by which the past

forma-

- The

participles of verbs are formed; e.g., ‘kindi,’ low, from ‘kinda,’ adverb,

below; e.g., ‘kindi illu,’ the lower part of the house. The addition of

smba’

this <1

2

converts substantives also into adjectives; e.g., from kin-u,

@ hump, is formed ¢ kini,’ hump-backed.

:I]]eDtS;

7. A very numerous class of Dravidian adjectives is formed by

)

and

oh t

he

the addition to ecrude nouns of quality of the suffixes of the relative

participles, more or less modified.

adjee

‘uyarnda’ is a perfectly formed

15

preterite relative participle, comprising, in addition to the verbal root,

10

i

o

‘nd,’ the sign of the preterite tense, and ¢ a,” the sign of the relative ;

s

256

THE NOUN.

and though the idea of time is in this connexion practically lost sight

parici

became

of, yet that idea is included and expressed. On the other hand, in the

class of words now to be considered, the signs of tense are modified

always

founs

or rejected, to correspond with their use as adjectives, and the idea of

time is entirely merged in that of relation.

It is words of this class

having

which are commonly adduced by native grammarians as specimens of

SiR

qualitative words, or adjectives; and if the name can correctly be used

any re

at all in the Dréavidian family of tongues, it is to this class that it is

aonistl

applicable.

I am convinced, however, that it is more correct to regard

(reat,

these words simply as relative participles; and I class them under

they g

this head, immediately after the investigation of the noun, because in

* periy

most instances, the root to which the relative signs are suffixed is used

aljet

by itself not as a verb, but only as a noun of quality or relation, or as

and ar

an appellative.

/

of {Gé’l‘

(1.) Many Tamil adjectives of this class are formed by the addition

It

of “iya’ to the root, e.g., ‘periya,’ great, ¢ siriya,” small.

The roots of

many t

v)

those words are ‘per-u’ and ‘sir-u; and as ‘u

is merely a help to

sive, o

enunciation, I do not say that ‘u’ is changed into ‘i,” but prefer to say

9

“

I have no doubt that we shall be able

that ‘iya’ is added to the root.

of the

to explain each part of this addition grammatically, without having

of tengg

recourse to arbitrary mutations.

‘iya’ (‘i-y-a’), is, I conceive, com-

Tel. g

pounded of ‘i,” a sign of the preterite tense, and ‘a,’ the sign of the

dQTiVet

relative participle.

It has probably been originally softened from

Tamy

‘ida,” the suffix of the preterite relative participle in ancient Canarese,

but i

to which ¢ina’ corresponds in colloquial Tamil.

In Telugu, the past-

dil‘ect

e

participle alone is often used adjectivally without the suffix of the

Prege

relative, as we have already seen; and the i’ with which that parti-

%

ciple terminates, explains the ‘i’ which precedes the final a’ of such

Which

Tamil adjectives as ‘peri-(y)-a.” ‘i’ is the sign of the verbal participle,

i

and the addition of “a’ or ¢ ya,” transforms it into a relative participle.

éimply

In classical Tamil compositions ‘iya’ is generally used instead of ‘ina,’

by i

as the sign of the preterite relative participle of ordinary verbs; e.g.,

Tamil,

‘panniya,” instead of ‘pannina,’ that made.

When the same suffix is

Fl/)fr(

added to a noun of quality like ¢per-u’ great, it converts it into a

Ty ¢

relative participle, which, with the form of the preterite, contains in it

iy f

80

no reference to time, and which may therefore be called an adjective.

The suffix ‘iya,” being somewhat archaic, readily loses the idea of

L

time; whereas that idea is firmly retained by ‘ida,” ‘ina,’ and the

Al

¢y

other preterite relative suffixes which are in ordinary use. A good

SOme {

illustration of the adjectival use of ‘iya’ is furnished by the very roots

of bej

to which we have referred, viz., ¢ peru,’ great, ‘siru,” small.

100t y

When these roots are regarded as verbs, their preterite relative

Telat)

thig

) |

FORMATION

OF ADJECTIVES.

257

t sight

participles are ¢ perutta,’ that was or became great, ¢ sirutta,” that was o

1 the

became small; in which participles the ideas of time and change are

odified

always included: whereas, when ¢ peru’ and ‘siru’ are regarded as

e of

nouns of quality, they are adapted for general use as adjectives by

18 class

having ¢iya’ suffixed to them, eg., ¢periya, ¢siriya,’ (‘per-iya,’

mens of

¢sir’-iya.’) In this shape they mean simply great and small, without

be used

any reference to time; and in consequence of ¢ iya’ being so purely

at 1t 18

aoristie, adjectives of this mode of formation are largely used. ‘periya,’

tegand

great, ‘kodiya,” cruel, may properly be styled adjectives, seeing that

1 under

they are used as such; but it is a mistake to regard ‘periya-(v)-an,” or

alse 1

‘ periya-n,” a great man, ‘kodiya-n, « cruel man, and similar words as

s used

adjectives.

They are compounds of adjectives and suffixes of gender;

1, OF a8

and are properly appellative nouns, as has been shown under the head

of ‘Gender,” and as appears from the manner in which they are used.

ddition

It is remarkable that ‘a” or ‘ia’ is post-fixed in Kole also to

oots of

many adjectives; and that the same participle is a sign of the posses-

sive, as ‘a’ is in Dravidian.

help to

' 0 say

(2.) Some adjectives are formed by simply suffixing ¢a,’ the sign

>

e able

of the relative participle, without the preterite ‘i,

or any other sign

having

of tense whatever; e.¢., ‘nalla,” Tam. good ; ‘dodda,’ Can. great; ‘pedda,’

Tel. great.

The examples here given may be, and doubtless are,

i, coll-

of the

derived from preterite relative participles (‘nalla’* from the high

4 from

Tamil ‘nalgiya’ and ‘dodda’ from the ancient Canarese ¢ doddida *);

ATese,

but in some instances, ‘a,’ the sign of the relative participle, is appended

o past:

directly Lo nouns, without borrowing any portion of the sign of the

preterite.

We have an instance of this even in colloquial Tamil, viz.,

of the

‘udeiya’ (“udei-(y)-a’), the ordinary colloquial suffix of the genitive,

11 Pﬂ,fﬁ'

3

of such

which literally signifies that belongs to, that is the property of, from

“udei,” property, to which ‘a,” the sign of the relative participle, is

rticipley

simply saffixed. This mode of forming adjectives from substantives

iiple.

of ingy

by directly suffixing ‘a’ is very common in the classical dialect of the

Tamil, especially in connexion with substantives ending in “ei’ or i

985 64

€.g., from ‘malei,’ « %ill, comes © malei-(y)-a,” adj., killy, or of a hill;

auffi 18

o &

from ‘sunei,’ a spring, comes ‘sunei-(y)-a,” that relates to a spring. So

also from ‘ti, evil, is formed ‘ti-(y)-a,” adj., evil. The circumstance

s dn it

jectire

idea of

* “Nalla’ is generally considered to be a primitive word, and a bond fide

adjective : but if ‘ketta,” bad, is admitted to be a relative participle, from

nd the

‘ked-u,’ to become bad, it is reasonable to suppose that ‘nalla,’ good, has also

some such origin.

Accordingly we find a root, ‘nal,” goodness, which is capable

A good

of being used adjéctivally, and then signifies good; and connected with the same

ry 1‘00{3

root we find also the verb malg-u,’ to be bountiful, to be good. The preterite

relative participle of this verb is ‘nalgiya,’ that was, or s, bountiful ; and from

this, I believe, that the much-used adjective ‘nalla,” good, has been derived.

elaf"®

S

;

9

()

THE NOUN.

that in most of these examples, the signification of the genitive is as

(ua

was

natural as that of the adjective, shows how intimately the genitive and

the adjective are allied.

Nevertheless, as used in these examples, I

gre

regard ‘a’ as an adjectival termination, rather than as a sign of the

genitive, and as acquiring this force from its being the sign of the

Tar

relative participle.

Indeed I would define these qualitative words

pa

(‘malei-(y)-a,” &c.) to be the relative participles of ¢appellative

T6g1

verbs.’

See that class of words investigated in the section on ¢The

181

Verb.

This usage, perhaps, explains the origin of the Tamil adjectives

by

7 )

|

‘pala, many, and ‘sila,” few, viz., from the roots ¢pal’ and ‘sil

bee

(which are used in their crude state in the poets), and ‘a,’ the sign of

Jen

the relative participle.

It is true that these words are also regarded

uy

as neuters plural,—and that in some instances they are correctly so

higf

regarded appears from the phrase ¢ palavin’ (¢ pala-v-in’) ¢pél, the

oon

Tamil designation of the neuter plural, literally the gender of the many

ang

(things). But when we look also at such phrases as ¢pala arasar,

and

many kings—phrases of constant occurrence, not only in the collo-

quial dialect, but in the classics—it is evident that the ‘a’ of this

ha\'f

latter ¢ pala’ is used, not as a suffix of the neuter plural, or as a sign

die

of plurality of any sort, but as a sign of the relative participle, by

low

the use of which ¢ pal-a’ becomes an adjective.

fron

(3.) Many adjectives of this class are formed by the addition to

hay

nouns of quality of the sign of the relative participle of the future or

400

aorist, which is ‘um’ in Tamil, e.g., ¢ perum,” great.

Beschi supposes

ap

this adjective to be derived from the abstract noun °perumei,” great-

3

g

ness, by the rejection of the final ‘ei;

and to all other adjectives of

be

this class he attributes a similar origin.

‘mei,” however, not ‘ei,” is

ffe

the suffix by which abstract nouns are formed (vide the section on ¢ The

It is much better to

befy

Verb’), and as such it is one and indivisible.

itig

derive ‘perum’ from ¢per’,} the un-euphonised form of the root

verk

‘peru,’ greatness, great, and ‘um,’ the ordinary relative participle of

Tan

the aorist; in the same manner as ‘ periya’ has been seen to be derived

2

and

from ¢ per’ and ‘iya,’ the relative participle of the preterite.

‘um

is ordinarily called the relative participle of the future, but this future

will be shown, in the section on ‘The Verb,” to be properly an aorist,

g

and as such to be used very indeterminately, with respect to time.

tivg

¢ Vipnil minang-um &udar,” Tam., means, not tkhe stars that will shine

for

in the sky, but the stars that shine in the sky, this tense being especially

ag

fitted to denote continued existence : and in consequence of this loose-

Ing

ness of reference to time, ‘um,’ the sign of the relative participle of

W

this tense is better fitted even than ‘iya’ to be suffixed to nouns of

ad)

FORMATION OF

ADJECTIVES

J

9

) 18 48

quality, as an adjectival formative.

Hence ‘perum,’ literally that s

veand

was or will be great, is a more expressive and more classical word for

ples, 1

great than ¢ periya.’

of the

It has already been shown, in the section on ¢ Sounds,” that ‘peim,’

of the

Tam., green, is not a distinet form of adjective, but is softened from

words

‘pasum’ (‘payum’) by a dialectic rule, whilst ¢ pagum’ is derived

llative

regularly from ‘pas-u,’ greenness, green, and ‘um,” the particle which

1 “The

is now under consideration.

7. Dravidian nouns of every description may be used adjectivally

octives

by appending to them the relative participles of the verb signifying to

d ‘sl

become, which are in Tamil ‘4na’ and ‘agum’ (also ‘ulla,” an equiva-

sign of

lent word), in Telugn ‘agu’ and ‘ayana,” in Canarese ¢ ada I’ e.g.,

ggarded

“uyarvana’ (‘uyarv’-ana’), Tam., lofty, literally that was or has become

atly s0

ligh or a height. This mode of forming adjectives is especially used in

1 the

connexion with Sanscrit derivatives, on account of their greater length

0 many

and foreign origin.

Such adjectives, however, are phrases not words;

arasar,’

and they are incorrectly classed amongst adjectives by Europeans who

- collo-

have treated of Dravidian grammar.

of this

I may here also again remark, that certain words have been styled

a sign

adjectives by some European writers, which in reality are appellative

ple, by

nouns, not adjectives, and which ascquire the force of adjectives merely

from the addition of the relative participles of the verb ¢o become, which

fion to

have been referred to above.

Thus, the Tamil words ‘nallavan,’ «

ture O

good (man), ‘nallaval,” a good (weman), ‘nalladu,” @ good (thing), are

pposes

appellative nouns formed by the suffix to a noun of quality of the for-

matives of the three genders; and the addition of ‘ana,” that has

gre’r.‘tt-

ves of

become, to any of these words, though it constitutes them adjectives in

‘ei,’ s

effect, leaves them in grammatical form precisely what they were

before.

Bonws may either qualify another noun, e.g., bonus vir, when

] ¢ The

fer 10

it is an adjective, or it may stand alone and act as nominative to a

¢ 1006

verb, when it is a qualitative noun, e.q., bonus virtutem amat.

The

Tamil ‘nallavan,’ @ good (man), can only be used in the latter sense,

lple Of

rived

and therefore is not an adjective at all.

!’

Comparison of adjectives,—In all the Dravidian dialects comparison

future

aotisty

is effected, not as in the Indo-European family by means of compara-

fime.

tive or superlative particles suffixed to, and combined with, the positive

form of the adjective, but by a method closely resembling that in which

| shine

ially

adjectives are compared in the Semitic languages, or by the simpler

Joose:

means which are generally used in the languages of the Scythian group.

When the first of these methods is adopted, the noun of quality or

plef

¢

adjective to be compared is placed in the nominative, and the noun or

uns of

s 2

260

THE NOUN.

nouns with which it is to be compared are put in the locative and pre-

compa

fixed.

It is generally stated in Tamil grammars that it is the ablative

phrast

of motion which is thus used, but I am persuaded that even when the

follow

case-sign is that of the ablative of motion, the signification is purely

fals)

that of the locative; and that in Tamil ‘il

and ‘in,’ have in this

Intens

connexion the meaning of in (i.e., are locatives), rather than that of

is pre

Jrom : e.g., ‘avattr’-il idu nalladu,’ Tam., this s Obetter than those,

in (i

literally in those things this s good.

It

The conjunctive particle ‘um,” and, even, is often added, especially

Super

in the colloquial dialect, as an intensitive, e g., ‘avattr’-il-um idu

differ

nalladu,” Tam., t&is is better than those, literally even-in-those this is good.

Buro

Sometimes the noun with which comparison is to be made is put in the

comp:

dative instead of the locative. Sometimes, again, comparison is effected

yenie

by means of an auxiliary verb.

The noun with which comparison is

doned

to be made is puat in the accusative ; it is followed and governed by

point

the subjunctive or infinitive of a verb signifying to see, to show, or to

accor

leave ; and the phrase is concluded by the subject of the preposition,

Patis

with the adjective to be compared. Thus, in Tamil we may say

R

‘adei-(p)parkkilum idu nalladu,” literally even though looking at that

m T

this (is) good, or ‘adei vida idu nalladu,’ quetéing that this (is) good, 1.e.,

adher

this s so good as to induce one to abandon that.

Such modes of comparison, however, are stiff, cambrous, and little

used except by Europeans; and in the Dravidian dialects, as in those

I

that

of the Scythian group, direct comparison of one thing with another is

wff

ordinarily left to be understood, not expressed. The effect which is

the

aimed at is secured in a very simple manner by prefixing to the posi-

fory

tive form of the adjective some word signifying muck or wery, or by

Stoo

3

appending to the subject of the proposition a sign of emphasis, or a

a Jp

word signifying indeed, e.g., ‘id-¢’ (or ‘idu tan’) nalladu,” Tam., THIS

8 th

wndeed is good.

to be

In Telugu and Canarese the conjunctive particles ‘nu’ and ¢4’

are not necessarily required to help forward the former method of com-

parison, like the Tamil ¢ am ;’ nor is this particle generally used in the

higher dialect of the Tamil itself. The Canarese makes use also of the

particles ¢ anta’ and ‘inta,” ‘antalu’ and ‘intalu’ (which, in their

origin, are compounds of locatives and demonstratives), to assist in

effecting comparison.

In all these dialects the superlative is generally expressed by means

A

of prefixed adverbs signifying muck or wvery, or by the primitive

Scythian plan of doubling of the adjective itself, e.g., ‘periya-periya,’

very great, literally great-great. 1f greater explicitness is required, the

method by which it is effected is that of putting the objects with which

COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES.

261

L pre

comparison is made in the plural and in the locative-case.

Thus the

lati

\(

phrase, the tiger s the fiercest animal, would be expressed in Tamil as

on the

follows,—¢ vilangugalil puli kodidu,” amongst animals (literally in amni-

pute

ly

mals) the tiger is cruel.

Sometimes, for the purpose of increasing the

n thig

intensity of the superlative signification the adjectival noun ¢ella, al/,

hat of

is prefixed to the plural noun which denotes the objects compared, ¢.g.,

th

03¢

in (t.e., amongst) all animals the tiger vs cruel.

It is evident that the modes of forming

the comparative and

01

lly

superlative degrees of adjectives which have

now been described,

m idu

characterize the Indo-

differ greatly and essentially from those which

(004

European family of tongues.

If Drividian adjectives had ever been

i the

compared like those of the Sanscrit, it is inconceivable that so con-

focted

venient and expressive a plan should so completely have been aban-

SO 1

doned. The Dravidian modes of comparison agree, up to a certain

1ed by

point, with those of the Semitic tongues ; but they are in most perfect

, 00 10

accordance with the Turkish method, and with the modes of com-

gition,

parison which are employed in the languages of Tartary generally.

Robert de Nobilis and the Jesuit writers endeavoured to naturalise

y sy

¢ that

in Tamil the Sanscrit superlative particle ‘tama; but the Tamil

1, 16

adhered resolutely to its own idiom, and the attempt failed.

ittle

PrepositioNs or Post-PosiTions. — It has already been stated

‘When

those

that all the Dravidian post-positions are, or have been, nouns.

et 18

suffixed to other nouns as post-positions, they are supposed to be in

ich 18

the locative case ; but they are generally suffixed in their un-inflected

form, or in the nominative ; and the locative case-sign, though under-

) ptM

or by

stood, is rarely expressed.

It seems quite unnecessary to enter into

o @

an investigation of the post-positions in a work of this kind, inasmuch

THIS

as they are sufficiently explained in the ordinary grammars, and are

)

to be regarded simply as nouns of relation.

K

f com-

1

in the

of the

;

fheir

i

st 10

means

miti\’e

SI’i}'ﬁz’

3(1, tlle

Whi(’ll

Th

found

numer

of nur

adject

ments.

langu:

SECTION 1V,

the n

T

the 1

hund,

THE NUMERALS.

of the

which

In the Dravidian languages, each of the cardinal numbers presents

briefes

itself to us in a two-fold shape. The first and more primitive form is

It

that of numeral adjectives : the second and more largely used is that

of neuter nouns of number.

appel

The numeral adverbs (‘twice,” ‘thrice,

two p

&ec.) and also the distributive numerals (‘ by twos,” ‘by threes,” &c.)

numb

are formed from the nameral adjectives; whilst the ordinal numbers

the ug

(“second,” ‘third,” &ec.) are formed from the abstract numeral nouns.

colloq

In the colloquial dialects the neuter nouns of number are often

|

forme

used, without change, as numeral adjectives: e.g., in Tamil, we may

‘oruy

say ‘irandu pér,’ two persons; though ¢ iru pér,” or the still more

“ling

classical appellative noun, ¢iruvar, might have been expected to be

but

used.

H

This use of the noun of number instead of the numeral

fives

adjective is not ungrammatical ; but is in accordance with the charac-

]

teristic Dravidian rule that every noun of quality or relation, though

e

in itself neuter and abstract, becomes an adjective by being prefixed

of th

to a substantive noun in direct apposition.

The numeral noun

“ondru,” Tam., ¢okati,” Tel., one, is the only numeral which is never

(

used in this manner even in the colloquial dialects ; the adjectival

Deiy

numerals, ‘oru,” ‘ oka,” &c., being invariably prefixed to substantive

;

allied

nouns as numeral adjectives: the same forms are employed also as

indefinite articles.

fhe [

The abstract or neuter nouns of number are sometimes elegantly

g

post-fixed, instead of being pre-fixed to the substantive nouns which

Cong

they are intended to qualify. Z.g., instead of ‘nal’ erudu,” Tam.,

sg

Jour oxen, we may say, not only ‘néng’ erudu’ (using the noun of

Do

number ‘nangu,” instead of the numeral adjective ‘nalu’), but also

(o

“erudu nangu;’ a phrase which literally means a quarternion of oxen.

tiy,

This phrase affords an illustration of the statement that the Dravidian

iy

nouns of number are properly abstract neuters.

1)

ONE.

263

The primitive radical forms of the Dravidian numerals, will be

In investigating the

found to be those of the numeral adjectives.

numerals one by one, it will be seen that the neuter or abstract nouns

of number have been formed from the shorter and simpler numeral

adjectives by the addition of neuter formatives and euphonic incre-

ments.

It is, therefore, the numeral adjectives of the Dravidian

languages, not their numeral nouns, which are to be compared with

the numerals of other families of languages.

The compound numbers between ‘ten’ and ¢ twenty,” and especially

the higher compounds (‘twenty,” ¢thirty, ‘two hundred,’ ‘three

hundred,” &e.), afford much help towards ascertaining the oldest forms

of the Dravidian numeral roots; seeing that the numeral adjectives

which are employed in those compounds exhibit the numerals in their

sents

briefest, purest, and most ancient shape.

I 1§

It is the adjectival form of the numerals which is used in forming

that

appellative nouns of number, such as ‘iruvar’ (‘iru-(v)-ar’), Tam.,

irice;

two persons.

The basis of this word is not ‘irandu,” the noun of

number wo, but the numeral adjective ‘iru,’ with the addition of ‘ar,

‘&C.}

ibers

the usual suffix of the epicene or masculine-feminine plural.

In the

NS

colloquial dialects, adjectival or appellative nouns of number are

formed in this manner from the first three numeral adjectivesalone; e.g.,

often

¢oruvan, Tam., one person, (mase.), ‘unus,;” ‘orutti,’ one person (fem.),

| may

\e

‘una; Ciruvar, two persons; ‘mivar, three persons (both epicene

)

more

but in the higher or poetical dialects, almost all the numeral adjec-

to be

tives are converted in this manner into appellative nouns.

neral

From these circumstances it is evident that the Dravidian numeral

arac-

ough

adjectives are to be regarded as the only essential portion of the roots

of the cardinal numbers, and probably as the very roots themselves.

fived

nous

?

One.—Two forms of the cardinal numeral ‘one’ are found in the

ey er

Dravidian languages, which will appear, I think, to be remotely

fival

allied.

The first, < oru, is that which is used in all the dialects except

ntive

the Telugu ; the latter, ‘ oka,’ is used in the Telugu alone.

50 a5

(1.) The basis of the first and most commonly used form of this

numeral is ‘or, to which ‘u’ is added for euphonisation; and this

antly

constitutes the numeral adjective ¢ one,” in all the dialects which make

thich

use of this base.

¢or-u, in colloquial Tamil, becomes ¢06r’ in the

[am,y

poetical dialect ; the essential vowel ‘o’ being lengthened to €6’ to

i Of

compensate for the rejection of the eaphonic addition ‘u.” The adjec-

also

tival form used in Tulu is * ori, in Ku ¢ra; with which the Behistun

00N

The Canarese

numeral adjective ¢irra’ or ‘ra’ may be compared.

dian

numeral adjective is identical with the Tamil, though its true cha-

|

264

THE NUMERALS.

racter 1s somewhat concealed.

antlo

Instead of ‘oruvan,’ Tam., ¢ unus,’ the

Jias ]

Canarese has ‘obban-u’ (or-b-an’), and instead of “oruval,” ‘una,’

‘obbal-u’ (¢ or-b-al’).

The ancient Canarese, however, uses ¢ 6rvyam’

‘il

for the former, and ‘6rval’ for the latter; the base of which, ¢ 6r, is

Can,,

the numeral root, and is identieal with the Tamil or-u’ or ¢ 6r.

“kan

The abstract neuter noun ‘one,” meaning literally one thing, or

“an

Tam

unity, is in Canarese ‘ondu; in grammatical Tamil ‘onru’ (pro-

nounced ‘ondru’ or ‘ondu,” and in vulgar Tamil ¢ onnu) ; in Malaya-

and

lam ‘onna; in Tulu ‘onji; in Génd undi ; in Tuda ¢vodda, ¢od

oL

softe

¢ood,’” or ‘vood; in Urfon “tinta.’

perc

‘or” being the adjectival form of this numeral, it claims by rule

L

- T R

to be the representative of the erude root, as well as the basis of the

the

abstract or neuter nouns of number signifying ‘one’ or *unity,” which

anee

e i

are used in the various dialects.

It remains to be seen whether the

I

-

derivation of each of those nouns of number from ¢ or’ can be clearly

aboy

made out.

of ¢

At first sight the Canarese ‘ondu,’ and especially the Malayala

WI‘:,’

‘onna,’ appear to resemble the most common form of the Indo-

our ]

i

European numeral ‘one, which is in Latin ‘un-us’ (in an older form

hard

“oin-0s’), in Greek ¢év,” in Gothic ‘ain’s.’ In the Koibal, a Samoiede

empl

dialect, there is a similar word for ‘one,’ viz., ‘unem: and we find in

e

%

the Tungusian ¢ um,’” in the Marchu ‘emu.” Even in Sanscrit, though

T

‘€ka’ is invariably used for one, a form has been mnoticed which

Proc

(

appears to be allied to the first numeral of the Western languages, viz.,

OR

‘lina-s,” less, which is prefixed to some of the higher numerals to

Was

express diminution by one (e.g., ¢ tnavinshati, nineteen), like the cor-

nt

responding prefix ‘un’ in the Latin ‘undeviginti’ It would be an

interesting circumstance if the Malayéla ¢ onn-a’ and the Latin un-us’

“on

were found to be allied; but the resemblance is altogether illusory,

i%

%

and vanishes on the derivation of ‘onna’ from ‘or’ being proved.

Iy

It is reasonable to suppose that the numeral adjective of the Tamil,

fory

“oru,’ and its numeral noun ‘onru,’ must somehow be related.

Now,

Ty

-

whilst it is impossible on Dravidian principles to derive ‘oru’ from

ot}

“onru,’ it will be shown that the derivation of ‘onru’ from ‘oru’ is

E

the

in perfect accordance with Dravidian rules: and if the Malayala

{he

‘onna’ be simply an euphonised form of the Tamil ‘onru,’ as it

|

certainly is, every idea of the existence of a connection between any

i

n

of these forms and the Latin ‘un-us’ must be abandoned.

-

of

It was shown in the section on ‘Sounds’ that the Dravidian

of

languages delight to euphonise certain consonants by prefixing nasals

1ig

to them.

If the ‘r’ of ‘oru’ is found to have been converted in this

manner into ‘nr,’ the point under discussion will be settled,

What

1§

B E—

ONE.

26

(9]

P

-

i) the

analogy, then, is there for this conversion ?

“muru,” Canarese, three,

“una,

has through this very process become in Tamil, ‘minru’ (pronounced

vyam'

‘mlndru, ‘mindu, or ‘minu’); in Malayilam, ¢minna.

¢karu,’

o, Is

Can., a calf, becomes in Tamil, ‘kanru’ (pronounced ‘kandru’ or

‘kandu,’ and vulgarised in colloquial Tamil into ¢ kannu’); in Malayala

¢ kanna.’

1, of

Again, ‘kiru,’ the verbal suffix denoting present time in

' (pro-

Tamil, has become in the poetical dialect ‘kinru,” pronounced ‘kindru ;

alayd-

and this, in the Malayalam present tense, is found to be still further

In all these instances we

‘a {Od;

softened into ‘kunnu,” and even ¢unnu.

perceive that very euphonic alteration by which ‘oru’ has become

y Tule

progressively ‘onru,’ ¢ ondru,” ‘ondu,’ ‘onnu,” and ‘onna;’ and thus

of the

the derivation of ‘onna’ from ‘oru’ is found to be strictly in accord-

which

ance with analogy.

er the

It may be objected that the illustrations which have been given

above exhibit a change of the hard ‘R’ into ‘ndr, whereas the ‘r’

Jearly

of ‘oru’ is the soft medial ; and that, therefore, the analogy, though

very remarkable, is not complete.

I answer that, though the ‘r’ of

.13)“&1&

Indo-

our present Tamil ‘oru’ is certainly the medial semi-vowel, not the

» form

hard ‘w,’ yet originally the hard ‘R’ must have been the very ‘r’

oiede

employed. This appears from the Tamil adjective, odd, single. That

nd In

adjective is ‘orrei’ (pronounced ¢ottrei’); and it is derived from the

numeral adjective, one.

It has been derived, however, by the usual

hougl

which

process of doubling the final consonant, not from ¢or-u, but from

‘¢ or,—evidently a more ancient form of the word, in which the ‘r’

| Vil

ils to

was the hard, rough ¢R,’—that very ‘r’ which is usually enphonised

0 001

into ¢ndr.

be an

It appears, therefore, that the origin which I have ascribed to

iln-US’

é

“onru’ is in complete accordance with analogy.

Moreover, if the

‘n’ of ‘ondru,’ ‘ondu,” or ‘onna,” were part of the root of this

18015,

od

numeral, the ‘du’ which is suffixed to it could only be a neuter

amil,

formative ; and in that event ‘on’ should be found to be used as the

¢

Now,

numeral adjective.

on,” however, is nowhere so used ; and therefore

from

both the use of ‘or-u,” instead of ‘on,” as the numeral adjective, and

117 I8

the existence of the derivative ‘ or(Rr)ei’ (‘ ottr-ei’), single, prove that

the root of this numeral must have been ‘or,” not ¢on.’

ayé}a

a8 it

Though ¢or,” in its primitive, unnasalised shape, is not now found

in the cultivated Dravidian dialects as the first abstract neuter noun

o

) any

of number for one, or unity ; yet it appears in one of the ruder dialects

of the family, viz, in the Rajmahal or Male; in which the numeral

idian

msals

noun one is ‘art,’ or ¢ort, which is evidenly formed directly from

¢

Y]

ar

or ‘or.

If it is true, as has been asserted that the Male art’

) thiﬁ

is appropriated to human beings, it must be identical with the Tamil

Vhat

266

THE

NUMERALS.

‘orutt-an,’ one man, ‘orutt-i,” one woman; the ‘tt’ of which is a for-

10t Mf

mative, and is derived from the pronoun of the third person. See ¢ The

! Cl\d

Noun.’

MM

Compare also this form with the Brahui ¢asit,” one, of which

Dravic

“as,” the crude root, seems to bear as close an analogy to ‘or-u’ as

Th

‘mus,’ the crude root of ¢ musit, the Brahui for #hree, undoubtedly

does to the Canarese ¢ miir-u.’

If in the latter case the ‘s’ and ‘r’

i 01,

are mutually convertible, it cannot be considered improbable that

ally (3

‘asit’ and ‘art,} and consequently ‘as’ and ‘or, bear a similar

rami

relation one to the other.

This

(2.) The basis of the Telugu numeral signifying one seems to be

Lol

essentially different from that which is used in the other Dravidian

ot

dialects.

There is nothing extraordinary in the discovery in any

0ne-¢)

language or family of languages of two roots for one.

This would

follow

naturally arise from the very concrete character of this numeral, and

abbre

the variety of uses to which it is put.

Even in Sanserit we find both

(a

‘éka’ and ‘prathama.’

Two also is represented in Latin by ¢duo,

doub

“ambo,” and ¢secundus.’

some

The Telugu neuter noun of number for one is © okati, literally one

Telug

thing, of which the adjectival form is oka.’

“okati’ is formed from

poun

‘oka’ by the addition of the neuter and inflexional formative, “ti:’

otie

Conng

and by annexing the usual masculine and feminine suffixes, the

Telugus form ¢okandu’ or ¢okadu,” one man, and ¢ okate,” one woman.

inth

‘oka’ being found to be the crude root of this numeral, we have now

um

to inquire into its affinities.

add

Is the Telugu ‘oka’ derived, as has sometimes been supposed,

e

from the Sanscrit ¢éka, one ?

It seems not improbable that the

Leen

Telugu word has some ulterior connexion with the Sanscrit one, to

(ar

which it bears so great a resemblance: but it is impossible to suppose

the

it to have been directly derived from the Sanscrit, like the Bengali

may

ok, or even the Persian ‘yak;’ for the Telugu has borrowed and

tion

)

occasionally uses the Sanserit numeral ¢éka,” in addition to its own

the

‘oka;’ and it never confounds ‘oka’ with ‘éka, which Telugu

off |

It will

grammarians regard as altogether independent one of another.

|

‘k

be seen also that words closely analogous to ‘oka’ are used in the

ef

whole of the Finnish languages, by which they cannot be supposed to

have been borrowed from the Sanscrit.

Thus the numeral one is in

F,

iy

Wotiak ‘og, ‘odyg;

in Samoiede ¢okur,” ‘ockur,” ‘ookur;’ in

2

A

Vogoul ‘ak,” ‘aku;

in Magyar ‘egy;

in Lappish ¢akt;’ in Fin-

1¢

nish ‘yxi’ (‘yk-si);’ in Tcheremiss ik, ¢iktd ; in the Scythian of

ih ok

the Behistun tablets ¢

In the Sub-Himalayan languages, we find

i

“ako’ in Miri, ¢ akhet” in Naga, and ‘katka’ in Kuki.

o

These remarkable analogies to the Telugu < oka’ prove that it has

an

ONE.

267

s a for

not necessarily, or even probably, been derived from the Sanscrit

0 ‘The

‘gka:

7

and if the two roots are allied, as they appear to be, it must

which

be in consequence of the relation of both the Sanscrit an‘cul the Lappo-

M as

Dravidian families to an earlier form of speech.

ibtedly

The Tamil infinitive ¢ okka,” which is used adverbially to mean

md ‘r’

in one, all together, and which forms the ordinary Malayala word for

lo that

all, (with which compare Mordwin ¢ wok,” all), is supposed by the

similar

grammarians to be derived from the obsolete verbal root ¢o,’ to be one.

This root ‘o’ is sometimes used adjectivally in Canarese instead of

s to be

¢or-u, in which case it doubles the succeeding consonant; e.g.,

avidian

‘ottaleyu’ (‘o-(t)tale’), one head; ¢okkannanu’ (‘o-(k)kannan’),

in any

one-eyed man.

It is evident from this, that o

was originally

would

followed by a consonant; and that it must have been derived by

al, and

abbreviation either from the Tamil € or,” or the Telugu ok’

Can ‘oka’ and ‘or

d both

be in any way allied?

It appears very

doubtful whether there is any relation between them ; and yet

duo,

some few traces of affinity may be discovered. On examining the

lly one

Telugu word for eleven, ¢ padakondu,” the latter part of this com-

| from

pound numeral presents some peculiarities which are deserving of

notice.

}

tl

We should have expected to find ¢okati’ used for one in this

connexion ; instead of which we find ¢ kondu,” a form which is found

5, the

)

0N

in this compound alone.

‘kondu’ is here used as a neuter noun of

6 NOW

number, and like all such nouns is formed from a crude base by the

addition of some formative.

If the ‘k’ is euphonic and intended to

>posed,

prevent hiatus, like the ‘h’ of ‘padihédu’ (¢ padi-(h)-édu,”) seven-

teen, ‘kondu’ is identical with ¢k-ondu,” and ‘ondn’ is allied to the

Al the

Canarese ‘ondu,’” from the root ‘or:’ but if, as appears more likely,

ne, 10

,Ippose

the ¢k’ is radical, the erude adjectival form from which it was derived

may have been ‘kor:

and if we are at liberty to adopt this supposi-

engali

| and

tion, we may at once conclude that ‘kor’ was the original form of

the Tamil-Canarese ‘or;’ for the initial ‘k’ might easily be softened

oWl

off (and there are several instances of the disappearance of an initial

elugy

t will

i

“k’), whilst it could not have been prefixed to or,” if it had not stood

before it originally.

n the

Supposing ‘kor’ to be an older form of ¢or, it is not diffienlt to

sed to

s dn

suppose ‘kor’ and ‘oka’ to be allied, by the corruption of both from

a common root.

If the old Scythian word for one was ‘okor, cor-

!

}Fin-

responding to the Samoiede °okur,’ both ‘kor’ and ¢or,” and also

‘oka,” would naturally be derived from it. A change analogous to this

il Of

appears in the Behistun tablets, in which we find that the numeral for

0 ﬁntl

one which is used in the oldest extant specimen of the language of the

ancient Scythians was ‘kir’ (corresponding to our supposititious

t b

268

THE NUMERALS.

of ‘in,

Telugu ‘kor’), and that the numeral adjective derived from it was

“irra’ or ‘ra.’

Here we have an ancient and authentic illustration

of its

especi

both of the existence of a word for one containing both ‘k’ and ‘r,’

and of a derived

persons

numeral adjective from which the ‘k’ had been

softened off: and

and th

it deserves special notice that ‘ra, the Behistun

Tundre

numeral adjective,

is identical with ‘ra,” the numeral adjective of the

‘INUR

Ku, a Dravidian dialect.

In the Turkish, one is represented by

of ‘i

¢ bir,” which seems to be allied rather to the Persian ‘bar’ in ¢béri,’

“irabg

once (and ulteriorly to the Sanscrit ¢ var,’ zime), than to the Tamil ‘or.’

In

The Caucasian numerals for one exhibit a closer resemblance to the

instea

Dravidian, viz., Lazian ¢ar, Mingrelian ¢arti,” Georgian °erthi ;

stands

and it may be noticed that as in the Dravidian ¢or, one, and ¢ir,” two,

the ¢

so in those Caucasian dialects, ¢ v’ forms an essential part of both those

numerals.

adject

Tamil

Dravidian indefinite article—The Dravidian numeral adjectives,

CDI]]pO

‘oru’ and ‘oka,” are used like similar numerals in most languages, as

facilit

a sort of indefinite article.

The Turkish uses ¢bir,” one, in a similar

b, ¢

furthe

manner; and a corresponding usage prevails in the modern European

charg

languages, as well as in the colloquial dialects of Northern India.

tirenn

The only thing which may be considered as distinctive or peculiar

Tela

in the use of the Dravidian numeral adjective one, as an indefinite

g

ever,

article, is the circumstance that it is not used in the loose general way

diale

in which in English we speak of a man, or a ¢ree, but only in those

and

cases in which the singularity of the object requires to be emphasized,

Can

when it takes the meaning of a certain man, a particular kind of tree,

of {

or a single tree.

Europeans in speaking the native languages make in

general too large and indiscriminate a use of this prefixed numeral,

begn

forgetting that the Dravidian neuter noun, without prefix or addition,

Pats

becomes singular or plural, definite or indefinite, according as the

|

connexion requires.

i s L

haye

T

Two.—The abstract or neuter noun of number signifying two, or

Orig]

duality, is in Canarese “eradu,” in Tamil ¢irandu,” in Telugu ¢rendu,’

Tan

in Tulu ¢erad-u,” ‘raddha,” or ‘randu; in Malayilam ‘renda; in

The

Gond ‘rend’ or [‘ranu;’ in Seoni Génd ‘rund; in Tuda ‘aed’ or

Tay

‘yeda.’

The Singhalese word for double is ‘iruntata.’

In all the

earl

Dravidian® dialects ‘the corresponding numeral adjective is ‘ir,” with

heg

such minor modifications® only as euphony dictates.

This numeral

1§ |

U3y

adjective is in;Tamil ‘iru;’ in the higher dialect ‘ir, the increase in

the quantity of the radical ‘i compensating for the rejection of the

eup

final euphonic ‘u.’ The ‘r’ which constitutes the radical qonsonant

(du

—

TWO.

269

1t was

of ‘ir, is the soft medial semi-vowel ; and it evinces in consequence

ustration

of its softness a tendency to coalesce with the succeeding consonant,

)

especially in Canarese and Telugu.

Thus, for ‘iruvar,” Tam., two

and y,

persons, the modern Canarese uses ‘ibbar-u’ (ancient dialect ¢irvar’),

ad been

Behistun

and the Telugu ‘iddar-u.’

Instead, also, of the correct ¢iruntru,’ two

hundred, of the Tamil, both the Telugu and the Canarese have

ve of the

‘inntru; and the Canarese word for twenty is ¢ippattu,” instead

ted by

of ‘irupattu,” which would be in correspondence with the Tamil

n ‘b,

¢jrubadu’ and the Telugu ¢iruvei.’

mil “or.

<

b4

In the Canarese neuter noun of number ¢eradu,’ two,

€

is used

e to the

instead of i’ as the initial vowel; but in this point the Canarese

“orthi

stands alone, and in all the compound numerals, even in the Canareses

“Ir, o,

the ‘i’ re-appears.

Were it not for the existence of the numeral

oth those

4

adjective ‘ir-u’ or

ir, we might naturally suppose the ‘i’ of the

Tamil ‘irandu’ and of the obsolete Canarese ‘iradu’ to be, not a

component element of the root, but an euphonic prefix, intended to

Jectives,

¢

facilitate pronunciation.

i’ is very commonly so prefixed in Tamil;

lages, 3

?

Qigis. S 14,

night (from the Sanscrit €ratri’), becomes ¢ira,’ and by a

similar

further change ¢iravu.” This supposition with respect to the euphonic

9

h'u'opean

character of the ‘1

of ¢irandu,” might appear to be confirmed by the

lia,

circumstance that it disappears altogether from the numeral nouns of the

peculiar

Telugu, the Malayalam, and several other dialects. The existence, how-

definite

ever, of the numeral adjective ¢iru’ or ‘ir,” in every one of the Dravidian

mal way

dialects, and its use in all the compound numbers (such as ¢ twenty’

1 those

and ‘two hundred’), suffice to prove that the ‘i’ of the Tamil-

hasized,

;

Canarese numeral noun ‘iradu’ is not merely euphonie, but is a part

) of e

%

of the root itself, and that ‘iradu,” the neuter noun of number, has

nake 10

A com-

been formed from ‘ir’ by the addition of a formative suffix.

umeral,

parison of the various forms shows clearly that ¢ir, euphonised into

ddition,

‘iru, was the primitive form of the numeral adjective fwo: and we

8 the

have now only to inquire into the characteristics of the numeral noun.

The Canarese ‘eradu’ (or rather ‘iradu,” as it must have been

originally) is the earliest extant form of the noun of number.

The

funo, 0F

Tamil is ¢irandu, ¢d’ having been euphonically changed to ‘nd.

] ref"(.iﬂ,y

Though there is a nasal in the Tamil word which is now in use, the

0a; i

Tamil noun-adjective double bears witness to the existence of an

ned’ o

earlier form, which was destitute of the nasal, and which must have

{1” ﬂ]e

been identical with the Canarese.

The Tam. word ¢iratt-u, double,

D, with

is formed directly from ¢irad-u, by the doubling of the ‘d as is

et

usually done when a noun is converted into an adjective; and the

rease 1

euphonic change of ‘dd’ into ‘tt’ is according to rule.

‘du’ or

of fHe

‘du’ is a very common termination of neuter nouns, especially of

I

5000

2

Ll

(

0

THE NUMERALS.

fsit,

appellative neuters, in all the Dravidian languages.

Thus, from the

root ‘kira,” Tam., old, is formed ‘kiradu, that which s old.

The

howev

‘n’ which is inserted before ¢d’ in the Tamil ¢irandu’ is evidently

initial

euphonic, and is in perfect accordance with the ordinary phonetie

appeat

usages of the Dravidian languages.

In Telugu every word ending in

Magy:

shown

‘du,’ receives in pronunciation an obscure nasal, whether it has a place

Soythi

in the written language or not; and there are many instances in

Tamil also of the insertion of this nasal before a final ‘du’ for the

(f(fr ‘]

{)

sake of euphonisation, when it is quite certain that there was no such

mi

)

nasal originally in the word in which it is found : e.g., ‘4ndu,’ there,

vidias

‘indu,’ here, and ¢ yandu,” where ?’ are euphonised forms of ¢Aadu,

by ‘k

can b

¢idu,” and °yadu’

Compare also ¢ karandi,” @ spoon, Tamil, with the

more primitive Telugu ¢ garite.’

The Tamil noun of number, signify-

1

ing two, must, therefore, have been ‘iradu’ originally.

In the Gond

T

|

‘ranu,’ the ‘d’ of ‘irandu’ has disappeared altogether ; a change

i Ca

which is in accordance with the Malayala corruption of ¢ ondu,’ one,

by Pl

‘miln

into ‘onna.’ The Uréon word for two, ‘enotan,’ is probably Dravi-

dian. Tn Urdon ‘otan’ (from the Hindi ¢ gotan’) is a suffix of each

ﬁlmp

of the first three numerals ; consequently ‘en’ is to beregarded as the

il] [r‘

2

Uréon root, and this seems to be analogous to the Dravidian ‘er

1

There are no analogies to ‘ir,” fwo, in any of the Indo-European

fhirty

The

languages, and I am doubtful whether any real analogies to it are

aoun

discoverable even in the Scythian group, except perhaps in the

Caucasian.

e

‘my

The Brahui vindicates its claim to be regarded as in part Drivi-

Whi

dian, or at least as the inheritor of an ancient Drividian element, by

§6e

and

the close affinity of its second and third numerals to those of the Dra-

In Brahui ¢wo is ‘irat ; and when this word is

I

vidian tongues.

compared with the Brahui ¢asit,” one, and ‘musit,’ three, it is evident

I

9

that in each of these instances the final ‘it

or ‘at, is a formative

ey

suffix which has been appended to the root.

Consequently ©ir,” the

Sime

‘

root of ¢ir-at,’ is absolutely identical with the Dravidian ©ir

Even

1o

the Brahui formative evinces Dravidian affinities ; e.g., compare ¢irat’

with the Canarese noun of number ‘eradu,’” and especially with the

oltey

Tamil derivative ¢iratt-u,” double.

ey

The nearest analogies to the Dravidian ¢ir’ which I have noticed

y lllfn

in other families of tongues, are in the Cauncasian dialects; e.g., in the

e\‘im

Georgian “ori; in the Suanian (a dialect of the Georgian) “eru’ or

9

hag

‘ieru; in the Lazian ‘zur;

thy

and in the Mingrelian ¢ shiri: compare

also the Armenian ergov.

n

In the Samoiede family of tongues, several words are found which

bear at first sight some resemblance to the Dravidian ¢ir.’

These are

fo

THREE.

271

4

om the

sit

‘side, and especially ‘sire’ or ¢siri.’

It seems improbable,

;T

however, that the Dravidian ¢ ir

arose from the softening off of the

-

9

ridently

initial ‘s

of these words; for in the Finnish family this same ‘s

honetic

appears as ‘ k; whence two is in some dialects of that family ¢kit;’ in

ding in

Magyar ‘ket,” ‘ketto ; and in Lappish ¢quekt.’

It has also been

a place

shown that an initial ‘k’ is a radical element in the majority of the

nces 1n

Scythian words for fwo; and hence, though the Mongolian ¢kur-in’

for the

(for ‘kayar-in’), twenty, becomes in Manchu ¢or-in,” in Turkish ¢igir-

no such

mi ;’ we cannot venture to compare this Manchu ¢or’ with the Dra-

J thers,

vidian “ir’ or ‘er ; for it is certain that the latter was never preceded

iy

by ‘k,” or any other consonant, so far back as the Dravidian languages

ith the

can be traced.

signify-

o Grond

Three.,—The neuter noun of number signifying three or a triad, is

change

in Canarese ‘muru ; in Telugu ‘mtdu ;’ in ancient Telugu, as quoted

I, one,

by Pliny, and testified to by native grammarians ‘modoga ;’ in Tamil

Drévi-

‘minru’ {pronounced ‘mindru,” ‘mindu,’ and ‘minu’) ; in Malay-

b

f each

ﬁla,l}l ‘mlnna ;’ in Tulu ‘miji ;

in Génd ‘mind ; in Tuda ‘mad’

in Urdon ‘man-otan.’

as the

I

The numeral adjective tkree, which is employed in three persons,

Z‘OPGHII

thirty, three hundred, and similar compounds, is either ‘mi ’ or ‘mi.’

it are

The long ‘mt’ is found in the Tamil and modern Canarese epicene

n the

nouns,

‘muvar,’

‘muvar-u,” three persons, and in the Canarese

‘muapattu,” thirty. The shorter form ‘mu,’” is used in three hundred ;

Drivie

which in every one of the Dravidian dialects is ‘miinniru ; and we

see it also in the Tamil ‘muppattu,” and the Telugu ‘ mupphei,’ thirty,

of, by

i

and in the Telugu ‘muggar-u,’ three persons.

o Dri-

The primitive and most characteristic form of the neuter noun of

ord 18

number is evidently that of the Canarese ‘miir-u,” from which it is

yident

£

®

clear that the Tamil ‘ minr-u’ (‘mundr-u ’) has been derived, by the

native

same nasalizing process as that by which ‘oru,” one, was converted

1‘” the

into ¢ onru.’

fiven

It was shown in the section on “Sounds, that the Tamil ‘r’ is

Gt

often changed into ‘d’ in Telugu : hence ‘mir-u’ and ‘m{d-u,’ are

h the

identical ; and it is more probable that ‘m{d-u’ has been altered from

‘mfr-u, than that ‘mir-u’ was altered from ‘mid-u.

‘s’ and ‘r;

oticed

evince in many languages a tendency to interchange, generally by the

i the

hardening of ‘s’ into ‘r ;' consequently the Brahui ‘ mus’ (‘ mus-it’),

'll’ or

three, is closely allied to the Canarese ‘mir’ (possibly‘it was the ori-

ppare

ginal form of the word), and still more closely to the Tulu ¢ miji.

It is doubtful whether the ‘r’ of ‘mfr-u,” should be considered as a

Whi(‘}l

formative, or as a part of the ancient root.

On the whole, it seems

o 0

el

s

272

THE NUMERALS.

f

probable that the ‘r’ is radical, for I have not met with any reliable

instance of the use of a final formative in ‘r-u.

bl

The final consonants

Tan

‘nal

of ‘aru,” Tam,, siz, and of éru,’ seven, belong unquestionably to the

nsf

roots of those numerals; and the existence in the Brahui word for

bl

three of an ‘s,

chan

corresponding to the Tamil-Canarese ‘r,” would seem

Test

to decide the question, especially seeing that this ‘s’ is followed by the

particle ¢ it,” which is itself a formative.

Moreover, when we compare

pare

Alan

‘ mun-niiru,’ three hundred (the same in all the dialects), with

“ nil

‘in-ntiru,” two hkundred, in Telugu and Canarese ; and when it is

Tel

remembered that the latter has certainly been softened from ¢ ir-nliru’

(in Tamil ‘iru-nGru’), it seems to be probable that ‘ mun-niiru’ has

been formed in a similar manner from ‘mur-niiru,” and consequently

‘R

that ‘mur,” not ‘mu,” was the original root of this numeral. The same

a(

conclusion is indicated by a comparison of the Telugu ‘iddaru,’” ¢wo

0N

persons, and ¢ muggaru,’ three persons.

41‘

It seems probable, therefore, that ‘mu’ originally was followed by

a consonant ; and the softening off of this consonant would naturally

account for the occasional lengthening of ‘mu’ into ‘mi.’

il

I have not been able to discover any analogy to this numeral,

tie,

either in the Scythian orinthe Indo-European tongues. The only Extra-

‘h

Indian resemblance to it is that which is found in the Brahui ; and

fua

this circumstance is a striking proof of the existence in the Brahui of

Tan

a distinctively Dravidian element.

The total absence of analogy to

hut

the Dravidian ‘mur,” in other families of languages, leads me to sup-

i

pose that it must have been derived directly from some Dravidian

a

verbal root.

The Latin ‘secundus, is undoubtedly derived from

Ta

‘sequor ;’ and Bopp connects the Indo-European ¢tri,” ¢three, with the

Do

Sanserit root ¢ tri,” o pass over, to go beyond, signifying that whick * goes

beyond’ two. If this derivation of ‘tri’ be not regarded as too fanciful,

i

lﬂ‘ bl

10ste

a similar derivation of ‘mur,” from a Dravidian verbal root, may easily

be discovered.

In those languages there are two verbal roots which

e

present some points of resemblance, viz., ‘mir-u,” Tam. and Can., to go

10 be

beyond, to pass, to exceed, to transgress; and ‘mur,’ to turn, an obsolete

root, which is contained in ‘mur-ei, Tam., order, succession, a turn

chau;

Whie

(e.9., ‘idu un murei,” this is your turn). ‘ mar-u,” Tam., Tel., and Can.

th0u<

to change, and the Tel. noun ¢ méar-u,’ @ time, & course, seem to be cor-

of il

relative roots.

lay

that

Four.—The Drividian noun of number signifying four, or a qua-

oy

ternion, is in Canarese ‘nélku ;’ in Telugu ‘nélugu;’ in TAamil ‘nan-gu;’

9

Iy

in Tuda ‘nonku’ or ‘nonk;

in Gond ¢ nald ;

in Uraon ¢ nikh-

otan.’

i

b

FOUR.

273

eliable

The adjectival or crude form of this numeral is “ nal’ or ¢nal.

In

onants

Tamil it is ‘nal-u,’ in Malayalam ‘nal-a,’ in some Telugu compounds

to the

‘nal ; and this adjectival form is often used as a noun of number

ord for

instead of ‘mnalku,’

&e.

In composition ‘nél’ undergoes some

4 seem

changes.

The quantity of the included vowel, which is long in all the

Dy the

rest of the dialects, is short in Telugu compound numbers : e.g., com-

ompare

pare the Tamil tnénpadu,’ the Canarese ‘nélvattu,” and the Malay-

- with

alam ‘nélpadu,’ forty, with the Telugu ‘nilubhei; and the Tamil

n it 1§

‘nan-ntiru,” and the Canarese ‘nal-niru, four hundred, with the

-nlRe’

Telugu ‘ndn-niiru.’

1’ has

The final “1’ also is subject to change. In Tamil it is changed into

juently

‘R’ before ‘p,” as in ‘narpadu, forty ; and before ‘n’ it is assimilated

6 Same

and becomes ‘n,’ in both Tamil and Telugu ; e.g., ‘nnniiru’ (in the

u, fuo

one), and ‘nanniiru’ (in the other), four hundred. These changes of

‘l,” however, are purely euphonic.

ved by

It is evident from a comparison of the above forms, that ‘nal’ (o,

turally

as the Telugu seems to prefer it, ‘nill’) was the primitive shape of this

ey

numeral ; to which ‘ku’ or ‘gu’ was subsequently added as a forma-

meral,

tive, in order to constitute it a neuter noun of number. This formative

Fxtra-

‘ku’ (pronounced ‘gu’) isa very common one in the Dravidian lan-

i and

guages ; e.g., ‘kadu-gu, Tam., mustard, from ‘kadu, pungent.

In

hui of

Tamil the only numeral to which ‘ku’ or ‘gu’ is appended is ‘nal

gy b

but in Telugu we find it used not only by ‘nalu-gu,” four, but also by

fo sup-

Jive, sux, seven, eight, and nine, in forming rational plurals ; e.g., from

2

jvidian

“aru,’ siz, is formed ¢Aarugur-u,

SUX PErsons.

In such connexions the

| from

Tamil uses

[4

v’ euphonic instead of ‘g’ (eg., ‘aru-(v)-ar), which

ith the

proves that ‘gu’ does not add to the grammatical expression, but is

‘g0

a mere euphonic formative.

Even in Telugu ‘Aruvur-u’ may be used

eiful,

|

instead of ¢arugur-u.’

/ easily

The change of ‘1’ in Tamil, into ‘n, before the ‘k’ of this

which

appended formative, ‘ku,” is an euphonic peculiarity which requires

to be noticed.

, 1000

In modern Tamil ‘1’ in this conjunction, would be

bsolete

changed into ‘R; but the change of ‘1’ into ‘n,’ before ‘k’ or g

o furt

which we find in the Tamil noun of number, ‘nan-gu,” is one which,

d Can.

though now obsolete, appears to have been usual at an earlier period

he cor

of the history of the language; e.g., compare ¢ Pang-guni, the Tamil

name of the month March — April, with the Sanscrit name of

that month, ¢Phalguna, from which it is known to have been

o qur

derived. This change of ‘1’ into ‘n, in ‘nan-gu,” must have been

|én'gﬂi'

made at a very early period, seeing that we find it also in the Tuda

ik

‘nonk.’

In the entire family of the Indo-European languages there is not

T

——

)

74

THE NUMERALS.

Tan

one language which contains a numeral signifying four, which in ‘the

smallest degree resembles the Dravidian ¢nal’

Here the Brahui also

fun

fails us ; for it is only in the first three Brahui numerals that we find

‘e

traces of Dréividian influences, and the rest of the numerals of that

five,

language from four to ten inclusive, are derived from the Sanscrit.

it

Though other analogies fail us, in this instance Ugrian affinities

(‘e

The resemblance between the Finnish

int

are more than usually distinet.

tongues and the Dravidian, with respect to the numeral four, amounts

not

to identity, and cannot have been accidental.

Compare with the Dra-

Tel

vidian ‘nal,” the Tcheremiss ¢nil ;7 the Mordwin ¢nile,” ‘nilen; the

adj

Vogul ‘nila ;* the Ostiak ‘niil,’ ‘nel,” ‘njedla,” ¢ nieda,” ‘ njeda ; the

ad

Finnish proper ‘mnelji; the Lappish ¢nielj,” ‘nelje,” ‘nella; the

Si

The root of all these nume-

Magyar ‘négy’ (pronounced °neidj’).

W(

0!

rals is evidently ‘nil’ or ‘mel,’” the analogy of which to the Dréavidian

‘nal’ or ‘mal, is very remarkable.

The Magyar ‘negy,” has lost

¢

the original ¢1,” through the tendency, inherent in the Finnish idioms,

S

The Ostiak ‘njedla’ or

the

to regard ‘1’ and ‘d’ as interchangeable.

‘nedla,” in which ‘d’ and ‘1’ form but one letter, a cerebral, consti-

tutes the middle point of agreement.

A similar softening down of

al

the ‘1’ of ‘nal,” appears in the Tulu, in which fourtcen (ten-four) is

flex

¢ pad’naji.’

Five.—The Dravidian numeral noun five, is in Canarese and

den

Telugu ‘eid-u ; in Tamil ‘eind-u; in the poetical and colloquial dialects

of the Tamil ‘anj-u; in Malayalam ‘afijcha ; in Tulu ‘ein-u’ or

Sar

‘ein-i; in Tuda “Gtsh’ or “0j.” The Gond has ‘seighan’ or ¢seiyan,

al

—a word which is derived like ° sarun,” siz, from the use of ‘s’ as an

%

it

euphonic prefix : ‘eiyan’ is to be regarded as the correct form of the

fron

Gond numeral. The ﬁréon, and other rude dialects of the North-

?

4 (0

Dravidian family, exhibit no analogy to any of the Dravidian nume-

fom

rals above four. In Telugu compounds, the word for five is not ‘eid-u,’

anl

In this case the initial ‘h’ is

but hén-u ; eg., ‘padibén-u,’ fifteen.

Teng

purely euphonic, and used for the prevention of /kiatus, as in the

.'Onn

parallel instances of ‘pada(h)aru,’ sizteen, and ‘padi(h)édu,’ seventeen.

The Telugu possesses, therefore, two forms of five, ‘eid-u’ and ‘én-u;

o

and the Tamil ‘eindu’ shows how ‘eidu’ was converted into ‘énu,” viz.,

ity

by the insertion of an euphonic nasal and the subsequent assimilation

to it of the dental.

five

Al

The numeral adjective five, is in most of the Dravidian dialects

por

‘el

in Telugu “é

In Tamil, and also occasionally in Canarese, ‘ei’

In;

is in combination converted into ‘ein’ or ‘eim,” by the addition of an

-

ey

bej

euphonic nasal.

Thus fifty (five tens) is in Canarese eivatt-u;’ in

(d]

S T T e

FIVE.

275

i the

Tamil ‘eimbad-u’ (‘ei-m-pad-u) ; in Telugu ¢ ébhei’ (‘ é&-bhei).” Five

i also

hundred is in Canarese ein-ntir-u, in Tamil ¢eifi-fijira, in Telugu

e find

¢é-nlir-u.” We see the numeral adjective five, and the noun of number

‘el

{)f that

Jive, in juxta-position in the Tamil ¢ ei-(y)-eind-u,’ five times five.

I

remains also in its pure, unnasalised form in the Tamil ¢eivar’

finities

(“ei-(v)-ar’), five persons.

The nasal ‘n’ or ‘m, which follows € ei,’

linnish

in the compounds ¢ eimbad-u,” fifty, and °eififijir-u,” five hundred, is

mounts

not to be confounded with the ‘n’ of the Tamil eind-u,” or the

16 Drd-

Telugu ¢ én-u,” but proceeds from a different source. It is an euphonic

1 the

adjectival increment ; and is added by rule, not only to this numeral

1 the

adjective “ei, five, but to many similar words which consist of a

) the

single syllable, of which the final is a long open vowel, when such

nume-

words are used adjectivally. Thus, we find in Tamil not only such

aridian

compounds as ¢ eintinei’ ( ei-n-tinei’), the five conditions, and ‘eimpulan’

ag lost

(‘ei-m-pulan’), the five senses; but also ‘keinnodi’ (‘ kei-n-nodi’), @

idioms,

snap of the finger, and “ mangkai’ (“ mi-ng-kai’), @ mangoe, literally

dla’ or

the fruit of the < mi.

consti-

This adjectival, euphonic addition is an abbreviation of ‘am’ (or

ywn of

“an’ before a dental), and is probably from the same origin as the in-

our) 18

flexional increment ‘in’ or €an.

See the section on ¢ Nouns.’

)

It may be doubted whether the Tamil-Canarese ¢ ei,” or the Telugu

‘e

Y

is the better representative of the original numeral ; but the evi-

0 ad

dence of the various dialects preponderates in favour of ei.

dialects

A remarkable resemblance must have been noticed between the

4 O

Sanscrit panchan,” five (in Tamil ¢panja’), and the true Tamil

‘anju,” and the Malayéla ‘afijcha.’

The resemblance is so great that

SEiyanJ

" asan

it has been supposed by some that the Dravidian word was derived

i}j

he

from the Sanserit ; but instead of this supposition being confirmed by

l?f f

a comparison of the various Dravidian idioms, and of the various

North

nume

forms under which this numeral appears, as would be the case if the

‘eld 1,

analogy were real, it is utterly dissipated by comparison, like the appa-

1‘]1’15

rent analogy which has already been observed between the Malayéala

“onna, one, and the Latin ¢ un-us.’

n the

yenteens

The primitive, radical form of the Dravidian numeral five is ‘ei’

| Gpelly

or ‘& as appears from its use as a numeral adjective.

The abstract

L

0, Vi

or neuter noun of number is generally formed from the numeral adjec-

tive by the addition of some formative.

The formative suffix which is

milﬁli(}ﬂ

added to ir-u, two, is “du ; and by the addition of <d-u,” & corres-

ponding formative, ¢ ei’ becomes ¢ ei-du, five, or five things; which is

dialecf;q

in itself a neuter noun, though, like all such nouns, it is capable of

1086 o

fan

being used without change as an adjective.

This formative suffix

on 0

tH

!

i

“d-u” is an exceedingly common formative of neuter appellative

T 2

2

oy

{

6

THE NUMERALS.

nouns in the Dravidian languages, particularly in the Tamil ; and is

‘ot

doubtless borrowed from, or allied to, the termination of ¢ad-u, ¢, the

801

¢ eid-u,” the numeral

neuter singular of the demonstrative pronoun.

bla

noun of both the Canarese and the Telugu, is evidently the original

for

and most regular form of this word.

¢eid-u’ could not have been

1101

corrupted from ©anj-u,” or even from ¢eind-u,’ but the corrnption of

“u

‘eind-u’ and ‘anj-u’ from an original ¢eid-u’ will be shown to be in

el

perfect accordance with usage.

The first change was from ‘eid-u’ to €eind-u,’ by the insertion of

ha

an enphonic nasal, as in the former instances of ‘irad-u,’ two, changed

of

into irand-u.’

This euphonic insertion of ‘n,’ after certain vowels, is

e

80 common in Tamil, that it may almost be regarded as a rule of the

th

language ; and hence preterite participles which end in Canarese in

{h

‘ed-u,” always end in Tamil in ‘n-du; e.g., compare ‘aled-u,’ Can.,

fro

having wandered, with ¢aleind-u,” Tam.

When ¢eid-u’ had been

aw.

changed into ‘eind-u,” Tamil usages of pronunciation necessitated a

‘ke

further change into ‘einj-u’ or ‘anj-u.’

It is a rule of the colloquial

i

Tamil that when ‘nd’ is preceded by ‘ei’ or ‘i’ it is changed in pro-

ik

nunciation into ‘nj.’

This change is systematically and uniformly

and

practised in the colloquial dialect ; and it has found its way into the

hag

classical and poetical dialect also.

5:

e

Moreover, in changing ‘eind” into ©einj,” there is a further change

of the vowel from ‘ei’ to ‘a, in consequence of which ‘einj’ becomes

4

e

anj

This change is almost always apparent in the Malayalam, and

E

also in the pronunciation of the mass of the people in Tamil.

Thus,

[

¢ pareindu,” Tam., having spoken, becomes in Malayélam °parafifiju ;

and in this instance we see illustrated the change both of ‘ei’ into ‘a,’

W

and of ‘nd’ into ‘fij ° consequently the perfect regularity of the

fiv

change of ‘eind-u, five, into ‘anj-u’ and ‘afijch-a’ is established.

~ o~ b4

Where the Malayalam does not change ‘nd’ into

‘ nfij,

it changes it into

‘nn ; e.g., ‘nadandu,’ Tam. having walked, is in Malayalam ‘ natannu.’

to

This illustrates the process by which ¢ eind-u’ became ein-u’ in Tulu,

E

al

and ‘én-u’ in the Telugu compound, ¢ padi(h)én-u,’ fifteen.

T;

It is thus evident that the apparent resemblance of the Dravidian

1

“anju’ to the Sanscrit ¢panchan’ is illusory.

It entirely disappears

8

on examination, and the slight resemblance which does exist is

found to arise from the operation of DraAvidian principles of sound.

Consequently ‘ei’ or ‘&’ must be regarded as the sole representative

I¢

of the Dravidian numeral, and with thisit is evident that neither ‘pan-

6

chan,” nor any other Indo-European form has any analogy whatever.

In some of the Finnish tongues the word for fve has some slight

resemblance to the neuter Dravidian numeral ¢eid-u.’

U

The Vogoul is

“a

277

SIX.

nd s

at 7 the Ostiak ‘uut’ or ‘wet; the Magyar ‘ot’ (pronounced

{ the

somewhat like ¢ét.’

I am doubtful, however, whether this resem-

mera:

blance is not merely accidental ; for the final “t’ of the Ugrian words

1212

for five appears to be radical ; whereas the final ‘d’ of the Dravidian

been

The Chinese

noun of number, ‘eid-u,” is simply a neuter formative.

0n 0

‘u

be In

[4

.’ may, perhaps, be compared with the Dravidian numergl adjective

2)

el.

In some languages the word used to signify five properly means @

jon. of

hand, or is derived from a word which has that meaning,—the number

need

of fingers in each hand being five.

In Lepsius’s opinion, the word for

618, 18

ten which is used in all the Indo-European dialects, had its origin in

of the

the Maeso-Gothic ‘tai-hun,’ two hands.

Applying this principle to

ese 10

the Dravidian languages, ¢ ei,’ five, might be presumed to be derived

(an,,

from ‘kei, Tam., @ hand, by the very common process of the softening

been

away of the initial consonant.

On the other hand, I do not consider

ited &

I have

‘kei,’ @ hand, to be itself a primitive, underived word.

mquial

little doubt but that it is derived from ‘ki,’ ‘gé,’ ‘géy,” or ‘chey,” to do,

i} pl’O'

like the corresponding Sanscrit word ¢ kara,” a kand, from ‘kri’ to do ;

ormly

and in accordance with this opinion, I find that ‘kei’ Tam., a hand,

to the

has in Telugn become ‘ché,’ just as the Canarese ‘géy, to do, has

become ¢ chey,”in both Tamil and Telugu.

hange

Hence the derivation of ¢ ei,” five, from “ kei, a hand, becomes im-

ooomes

peded by the previous question, is not “ kei” itself a derivative?

1, aﬂd

Possibly ‘ei’ may be more nearly allied to the High Tamil abstract

Thus,

noun ‘ei-mei,’ closeness, nearness, a crowd, from an obsolete verbal rvot

In this case the use of “ei’ as a numeral,

fiju )

“ei, to be close together.

nto 4,

would take its origin from the close juxta-position and relation of the

of the

five fingers of the hand.

Jised.

Six.—In all the Dravidian dialects, the difference which is found

it Into

to exist between the neuter noun of number stz and the numeral

mmm."

The numeral noun is

‘4ru’

mn

) Tulty

adjective is extremely small.

Tamil, Telugu, and Canarese; “4ra’ in Malayalam; and €ar’ or <6r’

in Tuda; in Gond ‘s-artn.’

In Tulu it is “4ji,” a form which bears the

yidian

:i:

same relation to ¢ 4aru’ that ‘mdji,” Tulu, three, does to the Canarese

[ppeﬁys

¢ muru.’

{ish 18

The numeral adjective differs from the noun of number with

souﬂd'

respect to the quantity of the initial vowel alone; and in some cases

mtative

even that difference does not exist.

In all Tamil compounds in which

P

tevel:

o b D A b4

‘4r-u’ is used adjectivally, it is shortened to “#r-u; e.g., <arubadu,

stzty. The vowel is short in the Can. ‘aravattu,” and the Telugu

o8

gt

caruvel,” sizty; whilst it is long in the higher compound ¢aruniiru,

ag()ﬂl is

278

THE NUMERALS.

hos |

Can., and “ Arn(ru,” Tel., stz hundred.

In Tamil 1t i1s short in sz

Wwas

hundred, but long, as in the other dialects, in siz thousand. Probably

‘4r-u’ was the primitive form of this numeral, the initial vowel of

which, like the included vowel of the personal pronouns, was euphoni-

supp

cally shortened in composition.

(ans

No analogy whatever can be traced between this Dravidian

numeral and any word for siz that is contained in the Indo-European

I

languages; and I am very doubtful whether any Scythian analogies

as th

are discoverable.

thos

In Magyar siz is ‘hat;” in the Turkish languages

“alty,’ <alte, &e.

It may be supposed to be possible that the first

they

syllable of the latter word, ¢4l is allied to the Dravidian ‘AR’ in

16ga

virtue of that interchange of 1’ and ‘r,” which is so common in the

and

Scythian tongues.

It may be couceived also, that the Turkish alt,

and the Magyar ‘hat’ are allied.

I have no faith, however, in these

the

indistinet resemblances of sound; for the Magyar “at’ seems originally

whic

to have had an initial consonant.

“kot’ is the corresponding numeral

in Lappish, and ‘kisi’ in Finnisk; in Tcheremiss ‘kut; whereas,

[ fe?

e

there is no reason to suppose that the Dravidian ‘4R’ ever commeneed

i t

with a consonant ; nor do I suppose it very likely that in the rude

“het

Scythian tongnes, in which even the numerals of cognate dialects

differ from one another so widely, any real analogy with the Dravidian

Nag

numerals above four or five would be discoverable.

hotk

par

Seven.—The Dravidian noun of number sewen is ¢ ér-u’ in Tamil,

or

“ér-a’ in Malayalam, < él-u’ in Canarese and Tulu, ‘éd-u’ in Telugu.

These differences are in accordance with the rule that the Tamil deep,

liquid, semi-vowel ‘r’ becomes ‘d,’ in Telugu, and ‘1’ in Canarese.

1S

In the Tuda this numeral is “ér’ or ‘iid;’ in Mahadeo Gond ‘¢ y-ént

fam

or ‘ y-étli; in Seoni Gond ¢ éro.

“att

bt

The numeral adjective seven, which is used in the compound

L

numbers seventy, seven hundred, &e., exhibits a few trivial differences

)

U

from the noun of number.

In Tamil ‘ér-u

is shortened to ‘er-u’

e ——

‘et

when used adjectivally, like ¢4Rr-u,’ siz, which is similarly shortened

dEl‘i\

to ‘ar-u.’

A

thoy

In Canarese seventy is ‘eppattu,’ in which not only is ¢

e

shortened

ang

to ‘e, but the radical conmsomant 1’ answering to the Tamil

Tege

‘;',’ has been assimilated to the initial consonant of the succeeding

word.

i

In ‘élntiru, Can., seven hundred, this assimilation has not taken

i

1

place. In Telugu, the ‘d” of -éd-u’ does not appear to be very

0f

persistent. In ‘élnru,’ seven hundred, ‘d’ becomes ‘1’ as in the

Canarese ; and in ‘ debhei,’ seventy (for ¢ edubhei’), the initial vowel ‘e’

the

w—

EIGHT.

279

L 8

has been displaced, according to a peculiar usage of the Telugu, which

by

was explained in the section on ¢ Sounds.’

wel of

This displacement of the initial vowel shows that the ‘e’ of the

phont-

suppositious ¢ edubhei’ was short, as in the corresponding Tamil and

Canarese compounds.

ridian

It cannot be determined with perfect certainty which of the three

Opeal

consonants, ‘r,” “d,’ or ‘1, was the primitive one in this numeral; but

logies

as the Tamil ‘r’ changes more easily into ‘1” or €d,’ than either of

TIges

those consonants into ‘r,” and could also be changed more easily than

o finst

they into the ‘n’ of the Gond, probably ¢ér-u,” as in Tamil, is to be

R, i

regarded as the primitive form of this numeral; from which ¢éd-u’

in the

and ‘él-u’ were derived.

alt,

No resemblance to this Dravidian numeral is to be found in any of

these

the Indo-European languages; and the slight apparent resemblances

;inally

which may perhaps be traced in some of the Scythian tongues, are not

meral

I fear, trustworthy. Compare with the Telugn ‘éd-u,’ the Turkish

1eI6AS;

‘yedi; the Turkish of Yarkand ¢yettah’ (the root of which appears

enced

in the Ottoman Turkish ¢ yet-mish,” seventy); and the Magyar

rude

¢ hot:?

alects

In Armenian, seven is € yotn,” in Tahitian ¢hetu.’

The ¢h’ of the

vidian

Magyar numeral and the ¢y’ of the Turkish seem to be identical; but

both have been derived from a harder sound, as will appear on com-

paring the Magyar ‘het’ with the Lappish ‘kietya, and with the

Tamil,

corresponding Finnish ¢ geit,” in ¢ seitzeman.’

elugt,

deep;

Eight,——The Tamil numeral noun ‘ettu,” eight, bears a remarkable

resemblance to the corresponding numeral of the Indo-European

1&1‘6?&

’

entl

family, which is in Latin ¢octo,” in Gothic ‘ahtau; and especially to

‘atta,” the manner in which ¢ashtan, Sans. eight, is written and pro-

nounced in classical Tamil, in which it is occasionally used in com-

ound

g008

pounds; hence it has naturally been supposed by some, that the Tamil

‘ettu’ has been derived from, or is identical with, this Sanscrit

§ er»ll’

derivative ¢atta.’

It will be found, however, that this resemblance,

rtened

though so close as to amount almost to identity of sound, is accidental ;

and that it disappears on investigation and comparison, like the

fened

resemblance between € onna’ and ‘unus,” ‘anju’ and ‘pancha.’

Tamil

eding

The Dravidian noun of number eight is in Tamil ¢ ettu,” in Malay-

alam ©ett-a,” in Canarese ‘ent-u,’ in Telugu enimidi’ or ¢ enmidi,” in

Tulu ‘enuma,’ in Génd ¢ anumar’ or ‘armir, in Tuda etthu, ‘vet,

taken

¢ oet’ or ‘yeta.

vely

The corresponding numeral adjective, which should by rule exhibit

] fhf’

;g

oK

the primitive form of the word, is generally ‘en’

In Tamil ‘en’ is

280

THE NUMERALS.

used adjectivally for eight in all compound numerals; e.g., ‘en-badu,

consi

esghty, < en-ntru,’ eight hundred, as also in miscellaneous compounds,

eight,

such as ‘en-kanan,’ ke who has eight eyes.

The same form is used

ten?

adverbially in en-éru,” eight times seven. In Canarese, in which the

It

numeral noun is ‘entu, ‘en’ is used as the numeral adjective in

nne

‘envar-u,’ eight persons; whilst in ¢ embattu,’ etghty, ‘n’ is changed

wouid

into ‘m,” through the influence of the labial initial of the second

‘enin

member of the compound. In ‘entu-niiru,’ etght hundred, the numeral

to ‘e

noun is used adjectivally instead of the numeral adjective. The

I

Telugu noun of number ¢enimidi, eight, differs considerably from the

that

Tamil ‘ettu,” and the Canarese ‘entu; but the difference diminishes

|

Tely

when the numeral adjectives are compared. The Telugu numeral

above

adjectivé used in ‘enabhei,” eighty, is ‘ena,” which is obviously identical

simils

with the Tamil-Canarese ‘en.’ In ¢ enamandru,’ or ‘enamandugur-u

’)

woul

eight persons, and € yenamann{iru,’ eight hundred, the ‘m’ of ¢ enimidi,’

}Er

‘e

ewght, evinces a tendency to assume the place of an essential part of

|

the root. It will be shown, however, that ‘ midi’ is not a part of the

elght

root of this numeral, but a suffix; and consequently ‘en’ or ‘en,’

0ne.

without the addition of ‘ m,’ may be concluded to be the true numeral

adjective and also the root itself.

¢ight

iy 1]

Thus, the apparent resemblance of the Tamil ¢ ettu’ to the Sanscrit

heg

T

derivative ‘atta’ (euphonised from ¢ ashta ’), disappears as soon as the

(

various forms under which it is found are compared.

B

The primitive form of the neuter noun of number derived from ‘en,’

e,

Wit

is evidently that which the Canarese has retained, viz, ‘entu,” which

10f}

is directly formed from ‘en’ by the addition of ¢tu,” the phonetic

61,

equivalent of ‘du’—a common formative of neuter nouns, and one of

which we have already seen a specimen in ¢ eradu,” fwo

The Tamil

B

1gng

‘ettu’ has been derived from ‘entn’ by a process which is in accordance

with many precedents.

regm

It is true that in general, the Tamil refrains

from assimilating the nasal of such words as ‘entu,” and oftentimes it

I {

nfly

inserts a nasal where there is none in Canarese; e.g., irandu,” Tam.,

fory

:;

two, compared with the Can. “eradu:’ still this rule, though general, is

not universal, and is sometimes reversed.,

Thus, ¢ pente,” Can., a hen,

Sﬂp

Cay

(in modern Canarese “henteyu,’) has in Tamil become ‘ pettei’—a

Dy

change exactly parallel to that of ¢ entu’ into ‘ettu.’

Wi

Some difﬁculty is involved in the explanation of ‘enimidi,’ the

Telugu noun of number which corresponds to ‘entu.

‘eni’ or ‘ena’

(as in ‘enabhei,’ eighty), is evidently identical with the Tamil-

lay

|

Canarese ‘en :’ but what is the origin of the suffix ‘midi?’ This

be

‘midi’ becomes ‘ma’ in some instances ; ei:;

Dy

‘enama-ndru,’ eight

persons; and the Tulu noun of number, elght, is ‘ enuma.’ Shall we

fo

dia

EIGHT.

281

‘o0 bady,

consider ‘midi’ to be synondmous with ‘¢ padi,’ fen; and ¢enimidi,’

ompounds,

eight, to be a compound word, which was meant to signify two from

11 used

ten ?

which the

It will be shown under the next head that in the Telugu ‘tommidi,’

jective in

nine, ‘midi’ is without doubt identical with padi,” ten

If so, there

5 changed

would seem to be a valid reason for supposing that the ‘midi’ of

he second

“enimidi,’ eight, is also derived from the same source, and appended

evnumeml

to ‘en’ with the same intent.

ive, The

It will be shown in our examination of the Dravidian numeral Zen

from the

that ‘padi’ has become greatly corrupted in compounds, especially in

[iminishes

Telugu ; in which the second syllable has disappeared in compounds

| nameral

above twenty.

If ‘midi, identical with ‘padi, were liable to a

ridentical

similar corruption, as is probable enough, we may see how ¢enimidi’

ndugur-y,

would be softened into ‘enama’ (in ‘enamandru), and also into

¢ enimid,

“enuma’ in Tulu.

1 part of

It is a characteristic of the Scythian languages that they use for

art of the

eight and nine compounds which signify ten minus two and ten minus

o ‘en)

one

In some instances an original uncompounded word is used for

numeral

eight: but nine is always a compound.

The Dravidian word for nine

is, I have no doubt, formed in this very manner; and this seems to

» Sanserit

be a rational explanation of the origin of the Telugu word for eight.

on as the

On the other hand, in the Tamil-Canarese idioms, ‘en’ by itself

is used to signify eight, without any trace of the use in conjunction

rom ‘GH;

with it of the word ¢pattu’ or ¢ padi,’ ten

It is also deserving of

1 which

notice that in the Telugu ¢enabhei, eighty, the second member of

“enimidi’ has disappeared.

phonetic

d one of

It is difficult to determine whether the disuse of fen as a compo-

e Tnmil

nent element in the numeral eight of the Tamil and Canarese is to be

(;ordilllce

regarded as a corruption, or whether the use of ¢en by the Telugu

pofrains

in the construction of eight is itself a corruption, arising from the

ptimes it

influence and attraction of the principle which was adopted in the

g, Tamy

formation of the next numeral nine. On the whole, I consider the latter

eneral 8

supposition as the more probable, and therefore regard the Tamil-

Canarese ‘en’ (in Telugu ‘ena,’) as the primitive shape of this

), 0 ety

Dréavidian numeral.

Max Miller’s supposition that ‘en’ is identical

el b

3

with €er, properly ‘ir, fwo, is quite inadmissible.

idi, the

‘en’ has no resemblance to any numeral belonging to any other

language, whether Indo-European or Scythian; and it cannot, I think,

i fens’

be doubted, that it was first adopted into the list of numerals by the

- Tanil

Dravidian people themselves.

We have not to go far out of our way

7 This

Lo

to seek for a derivation.

[‘ll: M/”

‘en’ is a primitive and very common Dravi-

dian root, signifying either ¢o reckon or a number, according as it is

Shal 78

282

THE NUMERALS.

used as a verb or as a noun.

searel

In Tamil it is ‘en, in Telugu fenn-u,’

in Canarese ‘en-usu.’

We have an instance of its use as a noun in

‘fomp?

thirty,

‘en-suvadi, Tam., @ book of Arithmetic, literally a number book. After

the cor

the Dravidians of the first age had learned to count seven, they found

the ins

they required a higher numeral, which they placed immediately above

certain

seven and called ‘en,’ @ number—an appropriate enough term for

e 1

perhaps the highest number which they were then accustomed to

reckon.

into tk

In

A similar mode of seizing upon a word which denotes properly a

‘pade

number or any number, and using it restrictively to denote some one

(Cana

number in particular —generally a newly invented, high number—is

found in other languages besides the DrAvidian.

concl

Thus, in Lappish,

“onds

¢lokke,” ten, means literally, a number, from ¢lokket,” Zo count.

witl

Nine.—In all the Dravidian idioms the numeral nine is a com-

prefix

pound word, which is used indifferently, and without change, as a

to ‘o

noun of number and as a numeral adjective.

that |

The second member of the compound numeral nine is identical

other

with, or evidently derived from, the numeral ten, the differences

0 prig

between it and that numeral being such as can be accounted for by

Telug

the phonetic tendencies of the various Dravidian dialects.

T

The principal forms which this numeral assumes are the following :

expre

in Tamil it is ‘onbad-u, in Canarese ‘ombhatt-u,’ in Telugu

1§ n

‘ tommidi,” in Tulu ‘ormbo,” ‘orambu,’ or ‘worambu,” in Tuda yen-

finst

J

bot,” in Kota ¢ worpatthu:

in each of which instances the second

give

member of the compound plainly represents zen.

|

b

In Tamil ten is ¢ patt-u;

nine is ‘ onbad-u’ (“ on-pad-u,” euphoni-

varig

cally, ‘on-badu’) : and not only is it evident that ¢patt-u’ and

idion

‘pad-u’ are allied, but the resemblance becomes identity when

Conlp(

‘pad-u,’ the second member of ¢ onbad-u,’ is compared with the repre-

onbg

sentative of ten in ‘irubad-u,’ twenty’—literally twice ten

and

—

‘T

similar compound numerals.

Moreover

¢ onbad-u’

itself becomes

in th

‘onbatt-u’ when used adverbially, e.g., ‘onbatt'—eér-u, nine times

‘ol

seven.” In ancient Canarese ten was ¢ patt-u,” as in Tamil. In modern

hut I

Canarese it changes by rule into ‘hatt-u;’ nevertheless the original

ﬂlﬁ‘ug

labial retains its place in the compounds ¢ombhatt-u,’ nine, and

Plag

¢ embatt-u,” eighty ; from which it is evident that in Canarese nine is

formed from fen, by means of an auxiliary prefix, as in Tamil. TIn

iy

Telugu alone there is some difference between the word which separately

signifies ten and the second member of ¢tommidi, the compound

the

numeral nine. Ten is in Telugu padi,” whilst nine is not ¢ tompadi,” or

[0

“tombadi,” but ‘tommidi;’ and nine personsis ‘tommandugur-u.’ It can

Schu

NINE.

283

e,

scarcely be doubted, however, that ‘tommidi’ has been euphonised from

1000 in

‘ tompadi.’

In the other compound numerals of the Telugu (‘fwenty,

o After

thirty, &c.,) in which ‘padi’ forms of necessity the second member,

ey found

the corruption of ¢ padi’ into ‘bhei’ or ¢ vei’ is still greater than in

the instances now before us.

ly abore

It may be regarded, consequently, as

term for

certain that the second member of the various Dravidian words for

omed to

nine 1s identical with Zen.

We have, therefore, now to inquire only

into the origin and signification of the first member of the compound.

opetly 1

In the Tamil ‘onbad-u,’” ‘on

is the auxiliary prefix by which

ome one

‘padu’ is specialised ; and this ‘on’ is evidently identical with the

mber—is

Canarese

[4

om,

)

in

¢ ombhatt-u.’

Max Miller, naturally enough,

Lappish,

coucluded it to be derived from ¢on,” the first portion of the Tamil

il

“ondru,” one:’ bnt this derivation, though plausible, is inconsistent

with many facts which will be adduced.

In Telugu the auxiliary

4 C0-

prefix of ‘tommidi,” nine, is ¢ tom,” which is undoubtedly equivalent

to ‘om

ge, a8 8

in Canarese, and ‘on’ in Tamil; and as it is more likely

that the ‘t’ of ‘tom’ should have been softened away in the

identical

other idioms than arbitrarily added by the Telugu, it seems probable,

a priort that the original form of this numeral prefix was ‘tom,” as in

ferences

for by

Telugu, rather than ‘om,” or ‘on.

The Tuln appears to have preferred a different prefix ; nine being

expressed in that language by ¢ wormbn’ or ¢orambu’—a word which

llowing:

Telugu

is probably identical with the Kota ¢ worpatthu,” and of which the

first member ¢ wor’ or ‘or’ seems to be allied to ‘or,” one, so as to

la ‘yen-

give the compound the meaning of one from ten.

, seeond

When the various compounds into which nine enters, and the

various shapes in which it presents itself in the different Dravidian

euphoﬂi-

1 ﬂHd

idioms are compared, it is evident that the first member of the Telugu

/ when

compound ‘tommidi,’ of the Canarese ¢ ombhatt-u,” and of the Tamil

‘ onbad-u,” must originally have commenced with ‘t.

Though this

6 IEPTE‘

n—and

“t’ is not found in the Tamil ‘ombadu,’ yet it has retained its place

in the higher and less used members, viz., ¢ tonnir-u,” niney, and

becomes

‘ tol-ayiram,” nine hundred.

In Telugu it is found not only in nine,

0 Tnes

modern

but in all compound numerals into which nine enters: and in Canarese,

i:

though it has disappeared from nine and nine hundred, it retains its

Original

place in ‘tombatt-u,’ ninety.

e,

1

aine 18

Additional light is thrown upon this prefix by the Tamil ¢tol-

e

ayiram,” nine hundred, in which ¢ tol’ is used as the equivalent of ¢ton’

i

| In

or ‘tom;’ and this is evidently the most primitive shape in which

arafel)

the prefix appears.

Even in the Tamil ¢tonniir-u,’ ninety, the prefix

mp[)lmd

to ‘niRu is not ‘tom’ or ‘ton, but is really ‘tol,” as every Tamil

_uadi; or

scholar knows. The ‘1’ is assilllilgted to the ‘n’ of ‘nir-u, and

e

ot

2

84

THE NUMERALS.

used

both nasals are changed into the nasals of the cerebral row, by a

is onl

recognized Tamil law of sound. The operation of the same law is

apparent in the trite word ‘enney,” Tam., oi/; which is properly ‘el

pOllll(

(ana

ney, the oil or ghee of the ‘el’ or sesame, and in which the concur-

pkm {

rent consonants ‘1’ and ‘n’ are converted by rule into ‘nn.’

Seeing that the ‘ton’ of the Tamil compound ‘tonniru,’ ninety,

comp:

on th

thus resolves itself into ‘tol, in accordance with the higher number

of I

“ tol-dyiram, mine hundred, it is evident that ¢on,” ‘om,” ‘tom,” and

thoss

“ton,” are but different forms of the same word ; and that ¢tol,” being

frue,

the most distinctive form, must be the parent of the rest, and the

« b

truest representative of the root.

In composition ‘tol’ will become

n

‘ton,” or ‘tom,” without difficulty; but none of those forms can be

converted into ¢ tol’ under any circumstances whatever.

A final “1°

reg:

but

is constantly and regularly euphonised in Tamil, through the influence

: i

of the initial consonant of the succeeding syllable or word ; and this

the

rule especially applies to the final ‘1’ of the first syllable of com-

nea

pounds.

When ¢1° is followed by ¢d, it is changed by rule into ‘n,’

e.g., ‘kol-du,’ having taken, becomes ‘kondu in Tamil; and this

1neal

e

euphonised form of ¢1d’ occupies in the Telugu ‘konu’ the position

V

of the root of the verb. When ‘1’ is followed by ‘p’ or ‘b, it is

ordinarily changed into the cerebral ‘t;” and this is the consonant

the |

of {

which we should expect to find in the compound numeral nine, viz.,

“otpad-u’ or ‘totpad-u,’ instead of ‘onbad-u,’ ‘ombhatt-u,” and ‘ tom-

Can

Wi

midi.’

The true explanation of the change of ‘tolpad-u’ into

(a

¢ tonbad-u’ is furnished by the poetical dialect of the Tamil, in which

there are traces of the existence of a system of euphonic changes,

dial

the

somewhat different from those which are now in use. Thus, from nal;

a verbal root, the ordinary Tamil even of the poets forms ‘natpu,

poin

|

{l

friendship ; but we also occasionally meet in the poets with ‘nanbu,’

a rarer and older form ; and this shows the possibility of tolpad-u’

I

fo

?

becoming, by the earlier euphonic process, ¢ tonbad-u.

The possibility

Tetp

San

becomes a certainty when we find in the Tamil classiecs a word for

nine of which the basis is actually not ‘on,’ but “ton,’ viz., ‘tondu,

nine, a word which is unquestionably and directly devived from ¢tol,

Pref

01y

and which shows, not only that ‘onbadu’ must originally have been

¢ tonbadu,” but also that tol’ is the basis of the first member of every

1N

o

Dravidian form of this compound numeral.

When the Telugu and Canarese compounds ninety, nine hundred,

the

frg

&c., are compared with their equivalents in Tamil, we cannot fail to

be struck with the great simplicity and regularity of the Tamil com-

A

pounds.

In Telugu and Canarese, ninety is ¢ tombei’ and ¢ tombattu’

iy

(literally nine tens), in each of which compound numerals tom’ is

ga}

o

NINE.

285

ow, by 4

used to signify nine, though properly it does not represent nine, but

e law is

is only the first member of the numeral nine, which is itself a com-

pound.

In like manner nine hundred is in Telugu ¢ tommanntru,’ in

petly ‘el

¢ concur-

Canarese ‘ombayniru;

compounds which are formed on the same

]

i

plan as nenety, though with a fuller representation of both parts of the

| minel,

compound nine, which they adopt as their first member.

In Tamil,

1 number

on the other hand, the composite numeral nine is altogether lost sight

of in the construction of the compounds ninety and nine hundred; and

fom," and

those compounds are formed (by means of the same expedient, it is

ol, being

1)

true, as nine, but independently of it) by prefixing ¢tol’ to the word

and the

|| become

@ hundred in order to form minety, and the same ‘tol’ to a thousand

in order to form mnine hundred.

s can be

In these instances ‘tol’ must be

final ‘1

regarded as an adjective, not signifying any one numeral in particular,

but having some such general signification as defect, diminution, or

nfluence

manus, and thus we arrive at the conclusion that it must have had

and this

the same meaning in nine also.

As ‘tonnir-u’ (‘tol-nir-u’), ninety,

of com-

] iﬂtﬂ ‘Hj,

means the ‘ tol’ (or defective) hundred, and as ‘tol-Ayiram,” nine hundred,

and this

means the ‘tol’ (or defective) thousand; so ‘onbad-u’ (¢ tonbadu’),

nine must mean the ‘tol’ (or defective) ten.

; positiou

We have here, doubtless, the primitive Dravidian mode of forming

P, it 38

the higher compounds of which nine is the first member.

The absence

consonant

of this idiom in the higher compound numerals of the Telugu and

pint, Vit

Canarase is an illustration of the greater antiquity of the Tamil;

nd ‘ tom-

whilst the formation of nine on this peculiar plan in both Telugu and

. into

Canarese shows that originally 1t was the common property of all the

n which

dialects.

Its mode of forming the higher compounds corresponds to

changes,

the Scythian mode of forming eight and nine, as has already been

o ‘aly

pointed out.

The higher as well as the lower compounds are formed

: ‘ﬂﬂt])ﬂy’

in this manner in Ostiak ; e.g., from nit,” eight, and st a hundred,

‘Hﬂl}bu;

is formed ‘nit sot, not only eight hundred, but also eighty.

It cor-

;jol'pil(l'u /

responds also to the use of ‘ln’ to denote diminution by one in the

bty

Sanscrit ¢ Gnavinshati,” nineteen, and the parallel Latin ¢ undeviginti.’

gord for

It only remains to inquire into the origin and meaning of the

, ‘fOI}(,I“):'

prefix ¢ tol.”

It is not to be confounded with ‘tol,” ancient, the <1’

o ‘toly

of which belongs to a different ¢ varga:’ and yet that ‘1’ also supplies

qve been

us with several good derivations.

Though ancient is the meaning of

of every

5

“tol” in Tamil, it is used to signify jfirst in Telugu; e.g., ‘toli-viram,’

the first day of the week, and the meaning, first, might naturally flow

]z//Zfl"ﬂ”l’

‘

from an earlier meaning, one, of which however no trace remains.

of fﬁd fo

b

Another possible derivation is from ‘tol-a,” Tel. and Can., a b3, or

mil com

division (as in an orange or jack-fruit) ; and a better one still is ¢ tola-

e

ity

ga,” Tel., an infinitive, which is used adverbially to signify of; e.g.,

:tollll I

286

THE

NUMERALS.

The objection to all these derivations is that

from ¢

‘tolaga tiyu,” to take of.

the Tamil numeral prefix is not ‘tol, but ‘tol; and that those con-

pound

fenty

sonants are most carefully discriminated in all Tamil dictionaries.

There are two similar roots containing the surd ‘1’ in Tamil, viz.,

‘bbhe

“tol,” loose, lax, and ‘tul-ei’ or ‘tol-ei’ (Can., ¢ toll-u’), ¢o ollow, to

by th

would

perforate ; as an adjective, perforated; e.g., ‘tollei kadu,” a long, pen-

In

dent, perforated ear.

These meanings do not harmonize very well

1§ usu

with the use of ‘tol’ as a diminuent prefix to the higher numerals,

and yet it appears probable that the word is the same.

We must,

I8

whicl

therefore, take refuge in the supposition that originally ‘tol” conveyed

“hatt

the meaning of deficient or diminished.

It seems scarcely necessary now to add that there is no affinity

[n tl

of n

whatever, as some have surmised, between the initial portion of the

Tamil ‘onbadu’ and the Greek ¢<évvéa.

The Manchu ‘onyan, nine,

and s

has not only some resemblance to the Dravidian word, but seems to be

Iemaj

Nevertheless the ulti-

T

a compound formed on similar principles.

mate component elements of the Manchu word—¢emu,’ one, and ‘juan,’

Tume;

ten—have no resemblance whatever to the Dravidian.

Tt

derivs

Ten.—In all the Dravidian languages the words used for ten are

uncon

(R)Q

virtually the same; in Tamil ‘patt-u,’ in Canarese ¢hatt-u,’ in Telugu

“padi,” in Tuda ‘pota,” in Gond ¢ pudth.’

mo\og

In those Tamil compound numerals in which ten is the second

in, 1

member; e.g., ¢ irubadu,” twenty, ¢ pattu’ becomes ¢ padu’ (euphonically

ot

“badu’), which is apparently the oldest extant form of this numeral,

Tecg]

deciy

and in close agreement with the Telugu ¢ padi.’

In the Tamil compound numerals under fwenty, in which ten con-

‘pady

stitutes the first number, e.g., ¢ padin-ARru,’ sizteen, literally fen 4 siz ;

0 pag

“pad-u’ becomes converted into ¢ pad-in,” the “in”’ of which I consider

Tami]

to be either an adjectival formative used as an euphonic augment, or

have

In ‘patton-

an euphonic augment used as an adjectival formative.

di‘d‘ec

badu,” nineteen, pattu, which I regard as an adjectival form of

Tesey

¢padu,” is used instead of ¢ padin’—the prefix of all the rest of the

1

teens in Tamil, except ¢ pannirandu,” fwelve.

That is simply a cor-

any ]

ruption of ¢padin-irandu.’

from

The Telugu ¢ padi,” tem, is evidently identical with the Tamil

that

‘padu; as ‘adi, Tel., 4, is identical with the Tamil ‘adu.” The

Telugu ¢ padi’ undergoes more changes in composition than its equi-

A

valents in the other idioms.

In the compounds under twenty, in

Tequj

which ten is represented by ‘pad,” ‘padi, ‘pada,’ or ‘padd,’ the

of a

changes are trifling ; the principal being in ¢ pandhommidi” (‘ pan,” for

Word

“padin,’ ten, and ‘tommidi, nine), nineteen; but in the compounds

I

N

TEN.

287

18 that

from twenty upwards, in which ten is the second member of the com-

56 C0D-

pound and is a numeral noun, ‘padi’ is materially changed.

In

maries,

twenty and sixzty it is altered to vei; in thiréy to ‘phei; in seventy to

1, viz,,

‘bbhei; and in the other numbers to ¢ bhei.’

This change is effected

llon, to

by the softening of the ‘d’ of ¢ padi, after which ‘pa-i’ or ¢ba-i’

g por

would naturally become “bei,” and then ¢ vei.’

1y well

In Canarese, ten is ‘hatt-u,” by the change of ‘p’ into ‘h,” which

merals,

is usual in the modern dialect: in the ancient dialect, as in Tamil, it

¢ s,

is ¢ patt-u’

In the compounds from eleven to mineteen inclusive, in

which ten is nsed adjectivally, and is the first portion of the word,

uveyed

“batt-u’ is represented by hadin,’ as ‘patt-u’in Tamil by ¢padin.’

affinity

In the compounds in which ¢en is placed last, and is used as a noun

of the

of number (from twenty and upwards), ‘patt-u’ is found in twenty

) i

and seventy, ‘batt-u’ in eighty and ninety, and ¢ vatt-u’ in all the

remainder.

s to be

e ulti-

The Tulu uses patt’’ for the noun of number, and ‘pad’’ as the

¢ jnan,'

numeral adjective.

The vocabulary of the Dravidian languages throws no light on the

derivation of ‘pad’) the normal form of this numeral.

It is quite

fen, ate

unconnected with ¢ parru,” Tam. (pronounced ‘pattru’), o receive, the

‘w’ of which is radical, and connected with ¢ pari,’ to catch.

Ety-

Telugu

mologically, the nearest Tamil root to ‘pad-u’ is ‘padi,’ to be fized

second

wm, to be imprinted.

The noun ‘ padi’ hence may mean anything that vs

noted down, imprinted, or recorded; and the numeral Zen might have

mically

meral,

received this name from the use to which it has always been put in

decimal calculation.

Another possible derivation is the Telugu

‘padu-vu’ or ‘padu-pu,’ @ collection, a crowd; e.g., ¢ kukka padu-pu,

), 001

48105

a pack of hounds.

This word, however, is not recognised by the

Tamil.

The only analogy or resemblance to this numeral which I

)nsidel‘

have observed in any other language, is in the ¢ Koibal,’ a Samoiede

ent, O

dialect, in which ten is ¢ bet.’

It seems improbable, however, that the

patton—

resemblance is other than accidental, seeing that none of the other

om of

numerals of that language, with the exception of ‘okur, one, bears

of the

q €O

any resemblance to the Dravidian.

It is only in the lower numerals,

from ome to four, that any real affinity is to be found or looked for in

that rude and distant Scythian dialect.

Tamil

) The

A Hundred. — The only cardinal number above ten which

g eqlli-

requires to be noticed in a Drividian Comparative Grammar is that

rltya i

of a hundred.

In all the Dravidian dialects, without exception, this

e

word is ‘mur-u.’

aﬂ;’ fOT

I have not been able to discover any resemblance to this numeral

Pouﬂds

288

THE

NUMERALS.

in any other family of tongues. In no two Seythian stems do we find

signif

the same word used to express this high number ; nor indeed amongst

of fir

such rude tribes could we expect to find it otherwise.

of ‘A

One and the same word for Aundred, slightly modified, is used in

itself

When

every language of the Indo-European family, a remarkable proof of

the unity and ancient intellectual culture of the race; and the Finnish

ticipial

word for a hundred, ¢ sata, has evidently, like some other Finnish

‘modal

words, been borrowed from that family of tongues.

the po

The Tamil has a verbal root ‘nfiru,’ Zo destroy, which is identical

Texior

and

in sound with ‘nlru,’ @ hundred; and there is also a related root

‘nir-u’ (in Tel., ‘nlir-u’), to reduce to powder; but it cannot be sup-

Eump

posed that the numeral ‘niir-u’ proceeded from either of these roots.

“prath

A word which may be supposed to be the origin of it is ‘nfir,’ to keap

allied

up, the suppositious verbal root of ‘ nliril,’ Tamil, a Aeap.

ultimat

Tam,,

A Thousand.—The Dravidian words for thousand are ‘ayiram,’

‘mudy]

Tam. and Mala.; ¢sivira,” and also ‘savara,” Can.; ¢ vélu,’ softened

numer

into ¢ veyyi,” Tel.; ¢sara,” Tulu.

‘sAvira’ or ‘¢ savara, and ‘sara,’ are

1001,

evidently identical; and we may safely derive both from the Sans.

the oo

¢ sahasra.’

Probably also the Tam ¢Aayira-m’ was originally ¢ asira-m’

these

or ¢ Asra-m,” and therefore an old corruption of the Sans.

A priory we

(muJ i

might have expected to find the Dravidian languages borrowing from

{ pra; ?

the Sanserit a word for expressing this very high numeral.

The

Proper]

Telugu word for thousand, ¢ vél-u,’ is a purely Dravidian word, and is

of

py

The origin of ‘veyi’

the plural of ‘veyi’ or ‘veyyi’ (‘veyu-lu’).

In

does not appear; but I am inclined to connect it ultimately with the

Upwer

Tamil root ¢ ve,” to be excessive, to be hot, harsh, &e.

tion of

in Sueg

OrDINAL NumBERS. — It is unpecessary in this work to devote

suffy it

much attention to the Ordinal numbers of the Dravidian languages,

The

seeing that they are formed directly, and in the simplest possible

- mﬁq;{\-

manner, from the cardinal numbers, by means of suffixed verbal

N

participles or participial forms.

ﬂdding

The only exception is that of the first ordinal, viz., the word

signifying first, which in most of the Dréavidian languages, as in the

certaiy

Vulgay

Indo-European, is formed, not from the cardinal number one, but

iHHStra

from a prepositional root.

In the Canarese and Malayalam, the

numeral one is the basis of the word used for first.

Which,

The base of the first ordinal in Tamil and Telugu is ‘mudal,” a

verbal noun, signifying priority—in time or place, or a beginning.

The

Uggapg |

This, like all other Dravidian nouns, may be used adjectivally with-

10 begg,

out any addition or change; and therefore ‘mudal’ alone, though

\'évadu"

S

ORDINALS.

289

e find

signifying @ beginning, is often used as an ordinal number in the sense

ongst

of first.

More frequently, however, it receives the addition iu Tamil

of ‘4m, which is the usual suffix of the ordinal numbers, and is in

el In

itself an aoristic relative participle of the verb ‘4g-u,’ to become.

of of

When ‘mudal’ is used in Telugu without the usual ordinal or par-

nnish

ticipial suffix, it requires to be put in the inflected form; e.g., not

nnish

The verbal noun ‘mudal’ is connected with

“modal,” but ‘modati.’

the post-position ‘mun,” Tam., before; so that there is the same con-

ntical

nexion between the ordinal number first in the Dravidian languages,

| 100t

and the post-position before, which is observed to exist in the Indo-

6 SUp-

European languages between the preposition ¢pra, Sans., before, and

roots,

prathama,” ¢ mp7os, &ec., first.

Though the Tamil ‘mun, before, is

) hetp

allied to ‘mudal,” first, yet neither of those words exhibits the

ultimate root.

The ‘n’ of ‘mun’ appears in the verb ‘mundu,’

Tam., to get before; but it does not appear to have had any place in

iram,

‘mudal;” of which ¢dal’ is a formative termination belonging to a

frened

numerous class of verbal nouns, and ‘mu’ alone is the (suppositious)

2, a8

root.

Mudal,” though itself, T believe, a verbal noun, is also used as

I have no doubt that all

Sans.

the root of a new verb, signifying to begin.

oy

these words and forms spring from ‘mu,’ as their ultimate base.

1 We

‘mu’ is evidently a word of relation, signifying like the Sanscrit

, from

¢ pra,” priority; and with it I would connect ‘mi,’ Tam., ¢o be old,

The

properly ‘mu, as found in ‘mudu,’ antiquity, which is a species

:md I

of priority, viz., priority in tume.

In all the Dravidian idioms, the other ordinal numbers from zwo

‘ \'eyi ’

th the

upwards, are formed directly from the cardinal numbers by the addi-

tion of formative suffixes.

The same suffix is added to every numeral

in succession, without change either in the cardinal number or in the

suffix itself.

Jevote

The ordinal suffix of the grammatical Telugu is ‘va’ or ‘ava,’ eg.,

19265

;gsible

‘midava, ¢hird: the Canarese adds ‘ni’ or ‘ani’ to the cardinal

numbers, e.g., ¢ miranf,” third : the ordinal of the Tamil is formed by

\'el‘b i

adding ‘4m’ to the cardinal; e.g., ‘mindram, third. The clear and

yord

certain origin of the Tamil suffix ‘Am’ from ‘4gum,” poetically and

vulgarly ‘4m,” the aoristic relative participle of ‘agu,’ to become,

i the

g, bt

illustrates the origin of the suffixes of the Telugu and Canarese,

which, though considerably changed, are undoubtedly identical with

], the

the Tamil in origin.

(1'11)’ s

The adverbial forms of the Drividian numerals are formed by

means of another class of suffixes from the same auxiliary verb ‘agu,’

il

r “I[b

to become.

In this instance the suffixes which are used by the Tamil,

‘avadu,’ &c., are neuter participial nouns used adverbially. Often-

ibou'gh

U

290

THE NUMERALS.

.

times, however, adverbial numerals are formed by the addition of nouns

{ha

il

signifying succession, &e., to the cardinal or ordinal numbers; e.g., ‘iru-

murei,” Tam. twice, literally two times.

belo

The multiplicative numbers, as has already been stated, are the

same as the numeral adjectives.

lste

It only remains to inquire what evidence respecting the affiliation

fofc

of the Drividian family of tongues is furnished by the preceding inves-

Blan

tigation of the numerals of that family.

nls

s

The evidence is not only decidedly opposed to the supposition that

the Drividian languages are derived from the Sanserit, but is equally

un

inconsistent with the supposition of the connexion of those languages

thos

with the family to which the Sanscrit belongs, either as a member of

that family, or even as a remote offshoot.

Not the smallest trace of resemblance has been discovered between

the Dravidian numerals and those of any Indo-European language, with

the exception of the resemblance of the Telugu oka,’ one, to the Sans-

crit ‘éka,’ as well as to the Ugrian ‘og, ‘ak,’ and ‘okur; and in

that instance I have no doubt that the Sanserit itself has inherited a

Scythian numeral, the numeral for one of the Greek, Gothic, Celtic,

&c., being derived from a different base.

All the other numerals of the Indo-European languages spring

from one and the same root, and are virtually identical ; with the soli-

tary exception of the Gaelic word for jfive ; and hence, when we find

in the Dravidian numerals no resemblance to those of the Indo-Euro-

pean tongues, with the exception of the abnormal Sanscrit ¢ éka, we

are compelled to conclude that the Dravidian languages belong to a

different stock from the Indo-European.

On the other hand, a comparison of the Drividian numerals with

those of the Scythian tongues appears to establish the fact of the exis-

tence of Scythian, and especially of Ugrian, or Finnish, analogies in

the Dravidian family. The resemblance between the Dravidian one

and four, and the corresponding numerals in the Ugrian languages is

so complete, that we may justly regard, and cannot but regard, those

numerals as identical.

The same statement applies to the word for one, which is found in

the Scythian version of Darius’'s Cuneiform inscriptions at Behistun.

The numeral four, and the other numerals above one, are not contained

in that unique relic of the ancient Scythian speech of Central Asia ;

and in this case the negative argument concludes nothing.

It may perhaps be thought that the resemblance of only two nume-

rals (one and four) out of ten, cannot be considered to prove much ;

but it is to be borne in mind that this resemblance is all, or nearly all,

s

AFFILIATION.

291

IIO.KIHS

that is observed in the Scythian languages themselves between the

i

numerals of one language of a family and those of other languages

belonging to the same family.

re the

Thus, it cannot be doubted that the Magyar and the Finnish are

sister tongues, essentially and very closely allied ; and yet with respect

iation

to four numerals, seven, eight, nine, and ten, no distinet trace of resem-

1nyes-

blance between them survives ; and it is only in the case of the nume-

rals one, two, and four, that it can be said, without hesitation, that the

n that

same root appears to be used in both languages.

The Dravidian

qually

numerals are therefore almost as closely allied to the Finnish as are

;uages

those of the Magyar itself.

ber of

tween

3 with

Sans-

nd 1o

ited 2

eltic,

spring

6 SOH-

¢ find

Juro-

;3; W

gtoii

g Wlth

e ity

gies n

i one

ﬂges iS

" those

[Iﬂd n

jstun.

fained

Agia)

pué

mﬂfh )

r[y {Lll s

v 2

Inth

‘D,

quial

)

appes

singu

these

SECTION V.

its In

done

this

poud

of th

THE PRONOUN.

leads

In

MucH light is thrown by the pronouns on the relationship of languages

and families of languages ; for the personal pronouns, and especially

extan

those of the first and second person singalar, evince more of the

and ¢

of the

quality of permanence than any other parts of speech, and are gene-

the in

rally found to change but little in the lapse of ages.

They are more

in the

permanent even than the numerals, the signs of case, and the verbal

inflexions : and though, like every thing else, they are liable to change,

Sppo

High

yet their connexions and ramifications may be traced amongst nearly

all the languages of mankind, how widely soever sundered by time or

of th

hiau

place.

iming

In some instances the personal pronouns constitute the only appre-

{

ciable point of contact or feature of relationship between languages

nad

of m

which belonged originally to one and the same family, but which, in

the lapse of time, and through the progress of corruption, have become

word

natur:

generically different.

This remark especially applies to the pronoun of the first person,

Clmst

which of all parts of speech is the most persistent.

Verte(

Ch&ng(

I.—Personal Pronouns.

i deg

1. ProNoUN oF THE FIrsT PERSON SINGULAR.

the l

chang'

Comparison of dialects.—Our first inquiry must be ‘What was the

primitive form of this pronoun in the Dravidian languages?’

|

In Tamil the form which is used in the colloquial dialect is ‘nan,’

ﬂexi(m

Dy

the inflexion of which is not ‘nan,” as might have been expected, but

g j

‘en ; and this inflexion ‘en’ indicates the original existence of a

Casey

9

Caseg

nominative in ‘én.

Though “én’ is no longer found in a separate

0

shape, it survives in the inflexions of verbs; in which the sign of the

7

Oﬂg

first person singular is ‘én,

sometimes poetically shortened into ‘en.’

Ity

dis(‘w

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

293

In the higher dialect of the Tamil ‘y4n’ is more commonly used than

‘nan,” the inflexion of which is not ‘yan,” but ‘en,’ as in the collo-

quial dialect.*

From the examples which have been adduced above, it would

appear that there are three forms of the pronoun of the first person

singular recognized in Tamil, viz., ‘nan,” ¢ yan,” and “én.’

The first of

these forms, though the most common, was probably the primitive one:

its initial ‘n’ was first, I think, softened into ¢y, and finally aban-

doned.

It is not so easy to determine whether the included vowel of

this pronoun was originally ‘4’ or ‘é

A comparison of the corres-

ponding plurals ‘ném,” ¢ ydm,” and ‘em’ (the inflexion of ‘ém’), and

of the plural terminations of the verb, ¢ 6m,

25 6GA

anm

‘am’ and “em,

leads to the conclusion that ‘4’ was most probably the original vowel.

In the singular, ‘en’ is the only inflexion of this pronoun which is

uages

extant in Tamil; but in the plural we find not only ¢ em,” but also ‘nam’

ecially

9

and ¢ yam.

Though ‘nam’ is most frequently used as the inflected form

of the

of the isolated pronoun (e.g., ‘namar,” they who are ours, ‘nostrates’),

6 goIe

the initial ‘n’ has altogether disappeared from the corresponding form

) 0016

in the pronominal terminations of the verb. At first sight we might

verbal

suppose ‘nam’ and ‘nem’ to be the pronominal terminations of the

h‘(ﬂlge,'

High Tamil ‘nadandanam,” or ‘nadandanem, we walked ; but the ‘n’

peatly

of these terminations is merely euphonic, and is used to prevent

{img 0f

hiatus.

When it is omitted, the vowels which it had kept separate

immediately coalesce; e.g., ‘nadanda-am’ becomes ‘nadandam’ and

ap

‘ nadanda-em’ becomes ‘nadandém ; a more common form than either

uages

The final ‘6m’ of this

of which, but not so correct, is ¢ nadandém.’

ﬂiCha iﬂ

word could not well have been corrupted from ¢ém,” but would spring

hecome

b

naturally enough from ¢&m ;

and of this we have a proof in the cir-

cumstance that ‘4m’ (from ¢Agum,” 4t s, yes) is also sometimes con-

_gersonr

verted into ¢om.’

Moreover, whilst there are many instances of the

change of ‘a’ into ‘e’ or ‘ei,” there is not any of the converse.

It

is deserving of notice also, that in this change from the heavier ‘a’ to

the lighter ‘e, the Dravidian dialects exhibit the counterpart of the

change of the corresponding Sanscrit pronominal root ‘ma’ into ‘éué,’

748 the

* In explanation of the abbreviated form of the pronoun called ‘the in-

flexion,” which has been referred to above, it may here be repeated that in the

; {Il‘:m)’

personal and reflexive pronouns of the Tamil, Canarese, Malayilam, and Tulu,

and in the reflexive pronoun of the Telugu, the ¢inflexion,” or basis of the oblique

ol Dt

cases (which by itself denotes the genitive, and to which the signs of all other

30“

cases are suffixed), is formed by simply shortening the long included vowel of the

nominative.

The included vowel of each of the personal pronouns is naturally

epgf& f

long ; and if in any instance the nominative has disappeared whilst the inflexion

f 8

remains, we have only to lengthen the short vowel of the ‘inflexion,” in order to

o)

discover the nominative from which it was derived.

294

THE PRONOUN.

In

me, &c., in other dialects of the same family.

A

I conclude, therefore,

that ¢

a

> was originally the included vowel of the Tamil pronoun of

‘o) W

In

the first person, and that ¢nén,” the ordinary colloquial form of the

higher

pronoun, is the most faithful representative of the primitive Tamil 7.

nomin

As we proceed in our comparison of the various dialects, it will be

(anare

found that the evidence is cumulativeand gathers strength as we proceed.

in the

It might appear, indeed, at first sight that ¢ yin’ was an older form

‘06’ 1

than ‘nan ; but before our investigation is concluded, we shall be con-

vinced, I think, that the ‘n’ is radical.

‘n

’

is known to change into

and 1

alone,

“y; but ‘y’ evinces no tendency to be changed into ‘n.’

Th

In Malayilam, the nominative is ‘fijan’ (‘ny,” ‘jii, or ‘iij, the

nasal of the palatal ¢varga,’ is to be pronounced as one letter, like the

the no

'’ (

‘ni’ of onion); but the oblique form, or inflexion, is ‘en,’ as in Tamil,

import

except in the dative ‘inikka,’ in which ‘en’ is altered to ‘in.” The

and th

ordinary Malayala verb is destitute of personal endings: but in the

ab mog

poetry an inflected form of the verb is occasionally used, in which the

pronominal termination of the first person singular is ‘én,” precisely as

‘né

shows

in Tamil.

as well

The compound sound of ‘iij’ or ‘ny,” in the Malayala ‘fijan’ or

‘nyan, is a middle point between the ‘n’ of ‘nin,’ and the ‘y’ of

accusy

(comps

‘yan,

It is a softened and nasalized form of ‘n, from which the

change to ‘y’ is easily made.

In like manner, ‘nin,’ the original

eviden

Th

form of the pronoun of the second person singular in all the Drévidian

dialects, has become in Tamil, first ‘niy,” then ‘ni; and in the verbal

Ancie

terminations ‘aiy,’ ‘i, and ‘ei.’

ol

din

T

In Canarese, the nominative of this pronoun which is used in the

colloquial dialect is ‘nén-u,” as in Tamil, the inflexion of which (as

tense,

seen in ‘mnanna,’ my) is ‘nan.

The ancient dialect uses ‘4n,’ the

In

inflexion of whieh is ¢ en’—identical with that of the Tamil.

‘4n’ is

Teluo‘u

evidently softened from the Tamil ¢ yén,’ as ¢yin’ from ‘nyin,’ or

Torg |

‘fijan,’ and that from ¢pan’; and the same softening is apparent in the

Proper

Canarese plural ‘4m’ (instead of ‘yam’ or ‘nam’), we.

The crude

In

form of this pronoun (‘na’) is sometimes used in Canarese as a

Brahy;

nominative, instead of ‘nanu; e.g., ‘na bandenu,’ 7 came; and in the

kane

same manner in Tamil, ‘ni,’” the crude form of ‘nin,’ thow, has altogether

Mtaﬂy

superseded ‘nin.’

The pronominal terminations of the first person

areq

singular of the Canarese verb are ‘en’ in the ancient dialect, and ‘éne,

(1\11,‘

¢énu, and ‘enu’ in the modern.

I}t

The Tulu nominative is ¢ yan,’” the inflexion ¢yén,’ the pronominal

fﬂ\mm

ending of the verb ‘e,” which is probably softened from ‘en.’

EXf)

The Tuda nominative is ‘6n’ (plural ‘6m’), of which ‘en’ is the

ang ¢

inflexion ; the singular terminations of the verb are ‘ én’ and ini.’

—— -

.y

S B,

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

295

In the dialect of the Kotas the nominative is ‘4ne,’ the inflexion

efore,

un of

‘en,’ and the pronominal ending of the verb ¢e,’ as in Tulu.

of the

In Telugu the nominative of this pronoun is ‘nén-u;’ in the

higher dialect ‘én-u’ (answering to ‘én,” the Tamil-Canarese pro-

mil /,

il be

nominal ending of the verb, and ¢en, the Tamil and Ancient

oceed,

Canarese inflexion); and this preference of ‘&€’ to ‘4’ appears also

in the plural, which is ‘mém-u,’ and in the higher dialect ‘ém-u.’

1 form

)6 C0l-

¢ né’ may be used at pleasure instead of ‘nén-u; like ‘n4’ in Canarese;

ge info

and in the higher dialect ‘én-u’ is sometimes represented by ‘é

alone.

The verbal inflexions of the Telugu, use only the final syllable of

j, the

ke the

the nominative of each of the pronouns, viz., ‘nu’ (from ‘nénu,’ 7),

‘yu’ (from ‘nivu, thow), and ‘du’ (from ¢véadu,’ he). The most

Tomil,

important and essential part of each pronoun has thus been omitted ;

" The

1 the

and the fragments which have been retained are merely formatives, or

ich the

at most signs of gender and number.

‘nénu,’ 7, takes ‘na’ for its inflexion or oblique form; and this

sely a9

C A2

e was

shows that ¢4’ not

originally the included vowel in Telugu,

as well as in Tamil and Canarese.

This view is corroborated by the

i’ or

accusative of this pronoun in Telugu, which is ‘nanu’ or ‘nannu,’ me,

‘y’of

(compare the Canarese accusative ‘nanna’ or ¢ nannu’), and which has

ich he

evidently been derived from a nominative, ¢ nan’ or ‘na.

)riginal

The Ku nominative is ¢ An-u, which is identical with that of the

yidian

Ancient Canarese.

In the inflexion, which is ‘na’ as in Telugu, the

verbal

g

old initial ‘n’ retains its place.

The verbal terminations of the Ku are “in”’ or ¢ in, in the present

in the

tense, and ‘ e’ in the past; e.g., ‘méin,’ I am, ‘ masse,” I was.

ich (58

In Gond the nominative is ‘and,” and the inflexion is ‘nd,’ as in

n,’ the

Telugu and Ku.

In the verbal inflexions ¢&n’ is commonly found,

‘{m’is

more rarely ‘na.’

The Seoni Génd nominative is ‘nék,” which is

ﬁn; or

properly a dative.

1n the

In the Rajmahali the nominative is

‘en; in Uréon ‘enan.” The

) c]fllde

Brahui nominative is ¢ i; but in the oblique cases (e.g., ‘ kand,” of me;

g

“kane, me, to me), the personal base is ‘ka’ or ¢ kan,” a root which is

in the

totally unconnected with the Dravidian ‘na, and which is to be com-

)gethef

pared rather with the Cuneiform, Scythian, Babylonian, and Gujarathi

pel‘SOﬂ

S Chn,’ &c.

‘éney

From this comparison the weight of evidence appears to be in

favour of our regarding ‘nin, the Tamil nominative, as the best

oitd

existing representative of the old Dravidian nominative of this pronoun,

and ‘na,” the crude form of the Canarese, as the primitive, unmodified

is the

ol

D ——

—

o

296

THE PRONOUN.

merel

L

root. This conclusion will be found to gain strength from the inves-

tigation of the pronoun of the second person, the root of which will

gxtrac

1

A

nitia

appear to be not ¢

or ‘ yi,” but ‘ni

Each consonant of nén’ evinces a tendency to be softened away.

gethe

The initial ‘n,” though the more essential of the two, has been

the fi

g

softened first into ¢dfij’ or ‘ny, then into ‘y,’ and finally has disap-

peared ; and in none of the dialects has it, or any relic of it, been

prono

utter

retained in the personal terminations of the verb.

The final “n,” though not a part of the root, has shown itself more

refer

persistent, especially in the verbal terminations; but in the Telugu

othe

g ¢

and Ku inflexion ‘na,” in the Canarese crude nominative ‘n,” and in

the corresponding Telugu ‘né,’ it has disappeared altogether.

full £

The origin of the final ‘n’ of ‘nan’ is doubtful; but whatever

term

were its origin, it does not appear to belong to the root.

In the

Inent

plural, it is uniformly rejected, and “ m,” the sign of plurality which is

stil

used in connexion with the personal pronouns, is not added to it, but

Telu

substituted for it. In Tamil the singular is ‘ nd-n,” the plural ‘na-m ;’

Is

>

2

and a similar change from ‘n

in the singular to ‘m

in the plural,

addi

takes place in the other dialects also.

This appears to prove that ‘na’

pea

alone forms the pronominal base of both numbers of the pronoun of

term

the first person; that it denotes either 7 ‘or we according to the

h&\

{

singularity or plurality of the suffixed particle (‘na-n,’ 7 alone, ‘na-m,’

that

Is); and that the final ‘n” of ‘nan,’ no less than the final ‘m’ of ‘nm,’

e

1s a sign, not of personality, but merely of number.

i

Is the final ‘n’ of ‘nén’ a sign of gender as well as of number 7—

Is it a sign of the masculine singular, and connected with “an’ or ‘n,’

of ¢

the ordinary masculine singular suffix of the Tamil?

The pronouns of

of ¢

;

the first and second personsare naturally epicene; but it is not unusual

for

to find them assuming the grammatical forms of the masculine.

Thus,

the

in Sanscrit, the terminations of the oblique cases of the pronouns of

tha

i

the first and second persons are those which are characteristic of the

sing

masculine gender. The analogy of the Scythian pronouns, however,

the

inclines me to the supposition that the final ‘n’ of the Dravidian

ar

‘nén’ was not in its origin a sign of gender or a means of grammatical

hay

expression, but was merely euphonic, like the final nasal of the Tartar

Pl

‘man,’ /. Whatever were its origin, it must have had a place in the

personal and reflexive pronouns from a very early period, for we

an

find it in the Brahui ‘ten,’ seff (Compare Tam. ‘tin’), and in the

ng

Ostiak ‘nyn,’ ¢hou (Compare Old Dravidian ‘nin).’

for

If, as we have seen, ‘na’ is to be regarded as the primitive form

10

of the Dravidian pronoun of the first person, and the final ‘n’ as

In¢

th

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

297

) nves-

merely a sign of number, or as an euphonic formative, it might appear

ich will

extraordinary, that in the pronominal terminations of the verb, the

initial ‘n,” the primitive sign of personality, has invariably and alto-

| anay.

gether disappeared ; whilst the first person singular is represented by

15 been

the final ‘n’ alone.

We might almost be led to suppose the initial

s disap-

‘n’ to be a formative prefix, and the succeeding vowel to be the real

f, been

pronominal base.

Formative and definitive pre-fixes, however, are

utterly unknown to the Dravidian languages; and the anomaly

If more

referred to accords with similar anomalies which are discovered in

Telogu

other languages.

In Hebrew, ¢ anachnu,” we, from ¢ anach’ (in actual

and in

use ‘andki’), 7, with the addition of ‘nu,” a sign of plurality, is the

full form of the plural of the first personal pronoun; yet in the verbal

atever

terminations, ‘anachnu’ is represented solely by ‘nu,’ the final frag-

In the

ment, which originally was only a suffix of number.

Another and

hich is

still more reliable illustration of this anomaly is furnished by the

it, but

Telugu itself.

The pronoun of the second person singular in Telugu

3-m ;)

is ‘nivu,” thou, from ‘ni,’ the radical base, and ‘vu’ an euphonic

:

lural,

addition.

This ‘vu’ is of so little importance that it totally disap-

‘i’

pears in all the oblique cases.

Nevertheless, it forms the regular

yun of

termination of the second person singular of the Telugu verb; and it

o the

has acquired this use simply through the accident of position, seeing

n4-m,

that it is not even a sign of number, much less of personality, but is

pam,

merely an euphonisation.

op {—

Eaxtra-Dravidian relationship.—W e now enter upon a comparison

of ‘na,’ the Dravidian pronoun of the first person, with the pronouns

r'n,

ns of

of the same person which are contained in other families of tongues,

pstal

for the purpose of ascertaining its relationship. As ‘na’ constitutes

the personal element in ¢ nm,” we, as well as in ¢ nan,’ 7, it is evident

[hus,

s of

that our comparison should not be exclusively restricted to the

singular, but that we are at liberty to includ¢ in the comparison,

[ the

the plurals of this pronoun in the various languages which are com-

ovel,

dian

pared; for it is not improbable & priori that some analogies may

have disappeared from the singular, which have been retained in the

tical

riar

plural.

All pronouns of the first person singular that have been used at

the

we

any time in Asia, Europe, or Northern Africa, whether it be in con-

the

nexion with the Indo-European, the Semitic, or the Scythian family of

tongues, are traceable, I believe, to two roots only. Kach of those

il

roots has been preserved in the Sanscrit, and in the more primitive

members of the Indo-Kuropean family—one (‘ah’) in the nominative,

5“

the other and by far the more widely prevalent one (‘ma’) in the

298

THE PRONOUN.

O 1l

oblique cases.

In order, therefore, to investigate thoroughly the

affiliation of the Drividian promoun of the first person, it will be

Finnis

necessary to extend our inquiries over a wider area than usual.

[ and

If

(1.) Semitic analogies. — The Semitic pronoun presents some

be un

remarkable analogies to the Dravidian.

This will appear on com-

(c

paring the Dravidian ‘ni’ (Gond. ‘and,’) with the corresponding

a 801

Hebrew ¢ani;’ with the prefix ‘an’ of the Hebrew ¢&ndki,’ of the

‘am,

Egyptian ‘anuk,

and of the Babylonian ‘anaku,’ ¢anaka,’ or

‘y-a

‘anku;’ and especially with the Jewish-Syriac ‘ané,’ the Christian-

he s

Syriac ‘eno,” and the Althiopic and Arabic ‘ani

The plural of the

and s

Aramaic ‘and’ is formed by suffixing ‘n’ (the final consonant of

nasal

‘in’ or ‘4n’): we may therefore compare the Tamil °nam,” we,

prefer

with the Aramaic plural ‘anin,” and also with the Egyptian plural

termt

‘anen.’

nstes

Notwithstanding this remarkable resemblance between the Semitic

perso

pronoun and the Drividian, it is doubtful whether the resemblance is

espec

not merely accidental.

The Semitic initial syllable ‘an,” in which

of the

the resemblance resides, is not confined to the pronouns of the first

T

person. We find it not only in ‘ana’ (from ‘anah,’ and that again

Tegan

from ‘anah,’) 7; but also in the Arabic and Old Hebrew ‘anta’ and

allied

the Aramaic ‘ant,” thou, (Egyptian ‘en-tek, ‘en-ta’). The prefix

petso

being precisely the same in both cases, the pronoun of the second

ke

person seems to have as good a claim to it as that of the first.

It does

We

not seem, moreover, to be an essential part of either pronoun; for we

ultiy

find a similar prefix in the third person in some of the Semitic dialects,

deng

e.g., in the Egyptian ‘entuf,’ ke, ‘entus,” she, and the Chald. and

Vowe

Heb. suffix ‘enhu,’ Ze. Moreover, the alliance of the Semitic pronouns

Secon

of the first and second persons with the Indo-European comes out

When the

the ]

into more distinct reliefl when this prefix is laid aside.

been

initial ¢an’ is removed from the pronoun of the first person, we cannot

Dety

doubt the connexion of the remaining syllable (‘oki,’ ¢ah, ‘ah,’ ‘uk,’

the |

‘aku,” or ‘ak,”) with the Sanscrit ‘ah,’ the Gothic ‘ik,’ and the

Of P(

Greek-Latin ‘eg:’ and itis equally evident that when ‘an’ or ‘en’ is

betw‘

rejected from the pronouns of the second person (‘antd,” ¢anti, ‘ant,’

eIy

<entek,” ‘ enta,’) the ‘ta, ‘ti,” ‘te, or ‘t,” which remains is allied

to the Sanscrit ‘tva’ and the Latin ‘tu.

|

It has sometimes been supposed that this Semitic prefix ‘an’ is

that

simply euphonic—a sort of initial numnation like that which is

the

admitted to exist in the Talmudie ¢inhu,’ Ae, when compared with

0ng

the ordinary and undoubtedly more ancient Hebrew ¢hi.’ On this

supposition, it is allied, in nature and origin, to the euphonic suflixes

lang

Pron

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

299

ly the

or nunnations which may be observed in the Greek ¢éyw-vy,’ in the

vill be

Finnish ‘mi-na, 7, and in the final nasal of the North—Indian ‘main,’

1, and ‘tain’ or ‘tun, thou.

§0me

If this be the origin of the Semitic prefix ‘an,’ it must certainly

be unconnected with the Dravidian ‘ni’ or ‘ani.

I Com-

Colonel Rawlinson supposes ‘an’ to be a particle of specifieation,

onding

a sort of definite article; and he also considers it 1o be identical with

of the

‘am, the termination of the Sanscrit personal pronouns ‘ah-am,” 7

(g, OF

‘tv-am, thou, ‘ va-y-am, we, ‘yu-y-am, you.

The only difference,

ristian-

he says, is that the particle is prefixed in the one family of languages,

| of the

b4

and suffixed in the other, with a change of ‘m

into its equivalent

ant of

nasal ‘n.

I am unable, however, to adopt this supposition, and

A

prefer to regard the Sanscrit termination ‘am’ as the ordinary

plural

termination of the nominative of the neuter singular, and as used

instead of the masculine and feminine, simply because of the intense

Somitie

personality which is inherent in the first and second personal pronouns,

ance 18

especially in their nominatives, and which renders the terminations

which

of those genders unnecessary.

o first

The only remaining argument which ean be adduced in favour of

again

regarding the Dravidian ‘n&’ and the Semitic ‘an’ as ultimately

' and

allied, is the following.

In the Semitic lunguages the first and second

preﬁx

personal pronouns have one element in common, the prefix ‘an.’

In

seoond

like manner, when we compare the Dravidian ¢ nd,’ 7, and ‘ni,” thou,

t does

we find that they also have one element in common, the initial and

2

for we

ultimate base ‘n

If it can be supposed that this initial consonant

alects,

denotes personality in general, and that it is the office of the succeeding

, and

vowel to inform us whether the person referred to is the first or the

nounS

second, then an ultimate connexion may be conceived to exist between

5 00t

the Drévidian ‘n’ and the Semitic ‘an:’ for whatever may have

1l the

been the origin of the latter particle, it appears to be wsed like the

qnnob

Dravidian ‘n,” as a sign of personality in general, and to constitute

1k,

the basis to which ‘ah,” the sign of person No. 1, and ta,” the sign

] the

of person No. 2, are suffixed. Probably, however, the resemblance

en’ 8

between the Semitic and the Dravidian languages in this point, though

anty

remarkable, is altogether accidental.

llied

(2.) Indo-European analogies.—It has already been remarked

n’iS

that there are but two pronouns of the first person singular known to

the Indo-European family of tongues, as to the Semitic and Scythian,

h s

yith

one of which appears in the nominative of the older Indo-European

languages, the other in the oblique cases.

The nominative of this

ths

s

pronoun is ‘ah-am’ in Sanscrit, ‘ad-am’ in Old Persian, ‘az-em’ in

300

THE PRONOUN.

Zend, ‘eg-o’ in Latin and Greek, ‘ik’ in Gothic, ‘ih’ in the Old

and ‘b

German, ‘az’ in the Old Sclavonie, ‘asz’ in Lithuanian, and ¢ g’

(erma

in Bohemian.

On

We find substantially the same root in the Semitic

€ah, ‘ah, ‘uk, ‘aku,’ ¢ 06ki’ &ec., and in several languages of the

cited,

Malayo-Polynesian group; e.g., Malay °4&kd,” Tagala ¢aco, Tahitian

?

favour

4

au

It is evident that there is not the smallest resemblance between

yiation

any of these and the Dravidian ‘na.’

But though the Indo-European

lertve:

nominative has no connexion with the Dravidian pronoun, we shall

langu:

probably be able to establish the existence of some connexion between

vowel

)

the Dravidian pronoun and the base of the obligue cases in the Indo-

site pr

European languages.

change

The oblique cases of this pronoun in the Indo-European family are

4 Fin

formed from a totally different base from that of the nominative; and

forms,

of this oblique base the best representative is the Sanserit ‘ma.” ‘m>

L s

forms the most prominent and essential portion of ‘ma;’ and this

Wi

“m

is followed either by ‘a’ or by some vowel which appears to

the D)

have been derived from it.

In the oblique cases of the Sanscrit, this

I:

pronoun has the form of ‘ma,” whenever the nature of the succeeding

7

18 der

syllable allows ‘a

to remain unchanged; eg., ‘ma-yi, n me,

nasal

¢ ma-ma,’ of me. In the secondary forms of the dative and the genitive

Eump

it becomes ‘ma.’

In Zend and Old Persian, ‘ma’ preponderates;

Ance

whilst compounded and abbreviated vowels appear in the Zend dative-

dialeg

{

)

genitives ‘meé,” ‘moéi;’ and a pronominal base in ‘ama’ is found in

< i)

I\

some of the Old Persian prepositional compounds.

In the Greek

ME

natio

“éué, poty ¢ mod, &ec., the vowel which is employed librates between

t9.

‘e’ and ‘o, each of which is naturally derived from ‘a;’ whilst the

13y

Indo

initial ‘e’ of ¢

€ue

is in accordance with the tendency of the Greek to

’I)Zg/’ f]

prefix a vowel to certain words beginning with a consonant, e.g.,

been

‘ovopa’ for ¢ vwpa’

The Latin has ‘me,” except in the dative, which

(

is ‘mihi.’

The Gothic has ‘mi’ and ‘meil.’

The Lithuanian uses

my’

of h

‘man’ as the basis of its oblique cases; though possibly the final ‘n’

and

of this form belongs properly to the sign of the genitive.

Tafed

In the pronominal terminations of the verb in the Indo-European

aq |

languages, the first person singular almost invariably makes use of

“ada¢

this oblique pronominal base, in preference to the base of the nomina-

()

tive, with such modifications as euphony may require.

The termina-

by

Ry

tion of the first person singular is ‘mi’ or ‘m

in Sanscrit and Zend,

Gy

in all primary and secondary verbs.

We have the same ending in

B,

Greek verbs in ‘u’ and in the ‘uac’ of the middle voice; in the

|

k]

‘m’ of the Latin ‘sum’ and ‘inquam;

9

in the Lithuanian ‘mi;’ in

lay

the Polish ‘am;’ in the Armenian ‘em;

in the New Persian ‘am.’

|

IHd(

It becomes ‘m’ in the Old High German ‘gim,” 7 go; ‘tuom,” Zdo;

(

m J

ST —————

-

?

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

301

o 0ld

and ‘bim’ or ‘pim’ (Sansc. ‘bhavami’), I am; converted in Modern

d

AN

ga

German to ‘bin.

Nemitic

On comparing the pronominal terminations which have now been

of the

cited, it is evident that the preponderance of use and authority is in

ahitian

favour of ‘mi;’ and that ‘m’ has been derived from ‘mi’ by abbre-

otween

viation.

It is equally clear, however, that ‘mi’ itself has been

ropean

derived from ‘ma, the normal base of the oblique cases; for in all

e shall

languages ‘a’ evinces a tendency to be converted into some weaker

tween

vowel, ‘i, ‘e, or ‘o;’ whereas no instance is adducible of the oppo-

Indo-

site process.

Perhaps the best illustration of the regularity of this

change from ‘ma’ to ‘mi’ is that which is furnished by the Esthonian,

ly are

a Finnish dialect, in which each of the personal pronouns has two

; and

forms, the one primitive, the other euphonised ; e.g., ‘ma’ or ‘minna,’

{m)

I; ‘sa’ or ‘sinna, thou.

d ﬂlla

We have now to inquire whether anyanalogyis discoverable between

ars 10

the Dravidian ‘na’ and the ultimate Indo-European base ‘ma.’

, this

I am inclined to believe that these forms are allied, and that ‘na’

oding

is derived from ‘ma.- A change of ‘m’ into ‘n’—of the stronger

L ey

nasal into the weaker—is in accordance both with Dravidian and Indo-

nitive

Thus ‘am, the accusative case-sign of the

European precedents.

1ates;

Ancient Canarese is weakened into ‘an’ (‘annu’), in the modern

ative-

dialect ; um, the conjunctive or copulative particle of the Tamil, is

nd

‘nu’ in Telugu; and even in Tamil itself, ‘am,” the formative termi-

(el

ey

nation of a large class of nouns, is optionally converted into ‘an ;

In the

teen

e.g., ‘uran, strength, is used by the poets:instead of ‘uram.’

it the

Indo-European family, in like manner, the change of ¢ mama,” Sans.,

ok 10

my, into ‘mana’ in Zend, and ‘mene’ in Old Slavonian, has already

been noticed ; but proofs exist also of the special change of the ‘m’ of

] f,g )

ihich

‘ma’ itself—the most radical part of ‘ma’—into ‘n.

The final ‘m’

11865.

of the first person of Sanscrit and Latin verbs (the abbreviation

| ‘n

and representative of ‘mi’ or ‘ma’) has in some instances degene-

rated into ‘n

t

in Greek ; e.g., compare the Sanscrit asam,” I was,

and the corresponding Latin ‘eram,” with the Greek ‘’jv; and

)peaﬂ

o of

¢ adada-m’ with €éél-w-v.

We see a similar change of ‘m’ into

ina

‘n,’ on comparing the Irish ¢chanaim, 7 sing, with the Breton

1nd-

‘kanann; the modern German ‘bin,” 7 am, with the Old High

k)

Zend,

German ‘bimM’ or ‘pim ;

and the Persian ‘hastam,’ 7 am, with the

Beluchi ¢hastjan.’

Compare also the Laghmani ¢ pakan,’ 7 go.

g in

the

The ‘n’ which alternates with ¢v,” as the initial and radical conso-

nant of the plural of the pronoun of the first person in many of the

1

Indo-European languages, has been derived, I conceive, from the same

all

B Rl O R B

“m’

(]

It was shown in the section on ¢Sounds,’” that the Dravidian

S

o

302

THE PRONOUN.

{hink

‘m’ is sometimes euphonically degraded either into ‘n’ or into ‘v

and that whenever ‘n’ and ‘v’ are found to alternate, we have

‘i’ 2

former

reason to consider both to be derived from an older ‘m.

In like

manner the ‘va’ of the Sanserit ‘va-(y)-am,” we, and the ‘na’ of

‘nas,’ the secondary, oblique form of the same pronoun, appear to be

(3

of the

mutually connected ; and both have probably been derived from ‘ma.’

The oldest form of the plural of this pronoun is that which is employed

above

in the verbal inflexions, and which in Sanserit is ‘mas,” in Latin ¢ mus,’

pende

in Greek ¢ uev’ (for the more ancient and more correct Aolic ¢ pes’):

broug

1

the most natural explanation of which pronominal ending is to consider

(2965

it as derived from ‘ma,’ the old first person singular, by the addition of

‘s, the sign of plurality. The ‘m’ of this primeval ‘mas’ some-

the ¢

10min

times becomes ‘v,” eg. in the Sanscrit ‘vayam, the Zend °vaém,

and the Gothic ¢ veis ;’ and sometimes also it becomes ‘n,’ e.g. in the

stanti

in al

Latin ‘nos,” the Welsh ni,’ the Greek ‘vac; and also in the Sans-

crit secondary forms, ‘nas’ and nau,” the Zend ‘né,’ and the Old

oven |

Slavonic ‘nas’ This ‘n’ is evidently a weakening of ‘m,” and repre-

into t

sents the personality of the prononn of the first person, irrespective of

the N

the idea of number ; which is expressed by the subsequent portion of

in ex

the word. This being the case, we seem to be warranted in consider-

opera

ing it as identical in origin with the ‘n’ of the Dravidian ¢na’ (as ap-

Turki

parent in the singular ‘né-n,’ and the plural ‘ni-m’).

by

It has been suggested by Col. Rawlinson that the Sanscrit ¢nas,’

868

the Latin ‘ nos,’ and the Greek ‘v&.” (like the ‘nu’ of the Hebrew

has

‘anachnu’), were originally signs of plurality, which have made

gran

themselves independent of the bases to which they were attached.

I

and

am unable, however, to adopt this view : for the ‘n’ of these forms

their

naturally interchanges with ‘m,” and evidently conveys the idea of

hand

’

personality; and the ‘s

of the Latin ‘nos’ (as of the correspond-

tong

ing ‘vos’) is more likely to be a sign of plurality than an abbrevia-

b’

tion (as Bopp conjectures it to be) of the syllable ¢sma.’

Suffiy

It may here be mentioned, as some confirmation of the supposition

1

that the Drévidian ‘ na’ is derived from an older ‘ma,’ that in Telugu

Pron

‘m’ is used as the equivalent of ‘n,” and as the representative of the

fom

personality of the pronoun of the first person in the plural ‘mém-u,’

Quenf

we.

|

The second ‘m’ of this word is undoubtedly a sign of plurality ;

c\xan;

and though the first ‘m’ may possibly be derived from ‘n,’ through

1

the attraction of ‘m,” the sign of the plural, yet this change would

byt

more naturally take place, if an initial ‘m’ had originally been used.

San

On this supposition ‘mém-u’ corresponds to the Sanserit ¢ mas ; and

Ill&)

has been weakened into ‘ném-u’ or ‘nim,” in the same manner as

thig

‘mas’ has been weakened into ¢nas.

On the whole, therefore, I

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

303

It ‘y 2

think we are warranted in coming to the conclusion that the Dravidian

76 have

‘na’ and the old Indo-European ‘ma’ are allied, and, if so, that the

Tnlike

former has been derived from the latter.

‘i’ of

ar to be

(8.) Scythian analogies.—When we examine the personal pronouns

mm,

of the Scythian group of tongues, the views which have been expressed

above are found to be corroborated : in addition to which, some inde-

mployed

‘mng,

pendent and very interesting analogies to the Dravidian pronoun are

brought to light.

J yfs"’):

consider

The pronominal root which constitutes the basis of the oblique

lition of

cases in the Indo-European languages is adopted in the languages of

' some-

the Scythian family, not only in the oblique cases, but also in the

nominative itself.

‘vatm,

Whilst in both families the oblique cases are sub-

, inthe

stantially the same, the Indo-European uses as its nominative the base

e Sans-

in ‘ah ; the Scythian, the base in ‘ma.’

There are a few langnages

even in the Indo-European family in which ‘ma’ has found its way

the Old

[ repre-

into the nominative ; e.g., the Celtic has ‘mi,” the New Persian ‘man,’

the North-Indian vernaculars ¢ main.’

It is observeable, however, that

tive of

tion of

in each of these exceptional cases Scythian influences have been in

The New Persian has been influenced by the Oriental and

msider-

operation.

Turkish, the Celtic by the Finnish, and the idioms of Northern-India

(s ap

In some

by the Secythian vernacular which preceded the Sanserit.

cases also, especially in the later dialects of this family, the accusative

‘nas,

Jebrew

has come to be used instead of the nominative, in violation of existing

grammatical rules.

Thus, the Singhalese ‘mama,” the Kawi ‘mami,’

) made

ed,

and the later Cuneiform Persian ‘mém,” are probably accusatives in

their origin, like the Italian ‘mi’ and the French ‘moi.

On the other

, forms

hand, we are met by one, and only one, exceptional case in the Scythian

idea of

tongues.

The Scythian of the Behistun Inscriptions makes use of

lspond-

‘hu’ as its nominative ; but in ‘mi,’ the corresponding possessive

hrevia:

suffix, the ordinary Scythian base re-appears.

The nominative (as well as the oblique cases) of the first personal

osition

pronoun in all existing languages of the Scythian group, is derived

Telugu

from a base in ‘ma ; and it will be shown that this ‘ma’ not unfre-

of the

quently comes into perfect accordance with the Dravidian pronoun, by

ém-ﬂ,’

changing into ‘na

ality )

In those languages ‘ma’ is very generally euphonised or nasalised

;rough

by the addition of a final ‘n,” or of an obscure nasal resembling the

ould

Sanserit ; ‘anusvira :* in consequence of which, not ‘ma,” but ‘man,

used.

may be stated to be the normal form of the Scythian pronoun, and

) aﬂd

this bears a closer resemblance than ‘ma’ to the Drividian ‘néan.

er 8

The addition of this euphonic nasal is not unknown even to the

o,

304

THE PRONOUN.

Indo-European languages.

It may be seen in the Persian ‘man,’ the

O

to th

Sindhian méAn,” and the Bellich? ¢ menik; and a similar inorganic addi-

i

and ¢

tion is apparent in the Old Greek

€

yov’ and ¢ éydvy,’ as also in

aly,

“rovy’ and ‘7Tovv.

The first nasal is much more common, however,

On examining the

‘m' |

and more characteristic in the Scythian tongues.

ji

inflex

Turkish family of tongues, we find ‘men’ in Oriental Turkish ; ‘mAn’

Sessly

in Turkoman ; ‘m&m’ in Khivan; ‘ben’ (‘m’ degraded to ‘b’) in

defini

Ottoman Turkish. Tn the Finnish family, the Finnish proper has

o).

‘miné ; the Lappish ‘mon ; the Esthonian ‘ma’ or ‘minna; the

the |

Mordwin and Votiak ‘mon; the Ostiak ‘ma’ (dual ‘min, plural

the f

“men’).

The Samoiede dialects have ¢man,

‘mani.’

In both

from

Mongolian and Manchu the nominative of this pronoun is ‘bi; but

It

this is evidently corrupted from ‘mi’ (like the Ottoman ‘ben’ from

prong

the Uigur ‘men ’) ; and it is “mi,” with a final nasal, which forms the

3 Sl

basis of the oblique cases.

[n both languages the genitive is ° mini :’

and the dative is ‘men-dou’ in Mongolian, ‘min-de’ in Manchu.

The

guage

distin

Tibetan pronoun is ‘gnya, ‘gna,’ or ‘nga’ (identical doubtless with

In

‘ma’) ; the Chinese ‘ngo; the sub-Himalayan °gna; the Avan

‘nga ; the Mikir ‘ne; the Corean ‘nai.

“Ining

sente

It is evident from the above comparison (1), that the true and

from

essential representative of the personal of this pronoun in the Scythian

T

tongues is ‘ma ; and (2) that as ‘ma’ has been euphonised in the

from

Western families of that group into ‘man,’” so it also evinces a tendency

in the eastern stems to change into ‘nga’ or ‘mna.’

In many of those

euphy

have

idioms ‘ma’ still retains its place unchanged, or may optionally be

the

there

used

instead of the later ‘man.

The Mingrelian has ‘ma

The Finnish has

first i

Suanian ‘mi,’ the Lasian ‘ma,” the Georgian ‘me.

]

both ‘me’ or ‘ma’ and ‘mina,” and also ‘mia: the Ostiak both

I

I

‘min’ and ‘ma.’

Dl‘i‘l\'i(

‘n, {

It is found also in those langnages in which ‘man’ constitutes the

i gl]

isolated pronoun, that ‘m’ is used as its equivalent in the personal ter-

nomyy

minations of the verbs, and generally in all inflexional compounds. We

see this usage illustrated in the colloquial languages of Northern India

but a

for

and in the Persian.

For example, whilst ‘man’ is the nominative of

Biny

the Persian pronoun, the basis of the oblique cases is not ‘man’ but

Ratiy

‘ma’ (e.g., ‘ma-14,” me, of me); and the pronominal ending of the

verb in the first person singular is ‘m

In a similar manner, in the

the 1

Turkish family of languages, ‘m’ is used in composition as the equi-

|

disti;

valent of ‘man’ or ‘men.’

Thus, in Oriental Turkish, whilst ‘men’

1

is retained in the present tense ; e.g., ¢ bold-men,” 7 am ; the preterite

is contented with ‘m’ alone ; e.g., ‘boldi-m,” 7 was.

and ¢

The same suffix is used to denote the first person singular in the

01)“(11

o

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

)

05

1, the

possessive compounds of the Turkish, a class of words which is peculiar

caddi-

to the Scythian family ; e.g., ¢ baba-m,” my fuather, from ‘baba,’ father,

also

and ‘m,” the representative of the first person singular. In the Magyar

wever,

also, though the isolated pronoun of the first person singularis ‘én,’ yet

‘m’ is used instead of ‘n’ in the possessive compounds and determinate

g the

iy

inflexional terminations : e.g., from ‘atya,” father, is formed the pos-

sessive compound ‘atya-m, my father; and the first person singular of

b)in

et has

definite or determinate verbs ends in ‘mjy e.g., ‘szeretem, I love (some

one).

It is also to be noticed, that whilst the Magyar has ‘én’ as the

1 the

the singular of the isolated pronoun, its plural is ‘mi’ or ‘mink ;

pIural

the former of which is evidently pluralised from ‘ma’ or ¢ me,’ the latter

1 both

from ¢min.

;i ;’ bﬂt

)

It was shown that the initial and radical ‘m’ of the Indo-European

'’ from

K

pronoun was occasionally converted in ‘n

we have now to show that

s the

9

it

a similar change from ‘m’ to ‘n’ is apparent in the Scythian lan-

. The

guages also, and that in some of those languages ‘n’ has become as

s with

distinctive of the first person as in the Dravidian family itself.

- Avan

In Finnish, though the isolated form of this pronoun is ‘ma’ or

‘mina,” yet in all inflexional additions and compounds ‘m’ is repre-

<3

1

sented by ‘n; e.g., from

s8, father, is formed ‘isd-ni, my father, and

e and

from “0l, to be, is formed ‘0l-en,” 1 am.

eythian

This final ‘n’ is not derived from the euphonie ‘n’ of ¢mina ;’ but

in the

from a direct conversion of ‘m’ into ‘n ;’ for though we see the same

ndency

euphonic addition of ‘n’ in “sind’ (from ‘se’ or ‘sia’), thou, yet we

Qf those

have ‘t’ alone (the equivalent of ‘s’) in ¢dl-et,’ thou ast.

‘i has,

lly be

therefore, become in Finnish, as in Dravidian, the ordinary sign of the

n, the

first person singular of the verb, by conversion from an older ‘m.’

ish has

The Magyar “én,’ [, appears to be still more nearly allied to the

lk both

¢

Dravidian pronoun ; and in this case

n

is certainly derived from

)

‘m,” for whilst ‘n

is found in the nominative, ‘m

is used instead

utes the

in all possessive compounds and verbal inflexions.

With the Magyar

b

nal e

nominative ¢én,’ compare not only the Tamil-Canarese ‘én’ or ‘en

J

Is. We

but also ‘an’ or ‘awn,” 7, in the Lar, a Sindhian dialect.

A similar

1 Tndia

form of this pronoun is found in the Mordwin, another idiom of the

at

¥innish or Ugrian family, in which, whilst ‘mon’ is the isolated nomi-

a1 b

b

native, ‘an’ is used instead in verbal inflexions ;’ e.g.,

" paz-an,’ I (am)

r Of the

the Lord.

In the Olet or Calmuck dialect of the Mongolian tengue, there are

11 the

distinct traces of the same change of ‘ma’ into ‘na.’

men

The nominative of this pronoun in Calmuck is “bi’ (from ‘mi’),

t {

?reterite

and the same base appears in the genitive ‘mini :” but the rest of the

oblique cases are formed not from ‘bi’ or ‘mi,’ but from ‘na ; eg.,

X

r D the

e——

——

.

306

THE

PRONOUN.

‘na-da,’ to me, ‘ na-da-edze,’ from me, and also ‘na-mai,” me.

We here

1688

of the

discover the existence of a pronominal base in ‘na’ (probably derived

In

from ‘ma’), which is in perfect agreement with the Dravidian.

used

In a few of the Scythian languages the isolated pronoun, including

its nominative, seems to be absolutely identical with that of the Dra-

woule

vidian family ; e.g., ‘na’ in the Quasi Qumuk, a Caucasian dialect,

singul

b

and ‘ne

in Motor, a dialect of the Samoiede.

Compare also the

Tamil

East-Asian forms ; e.g., Avan, ‘na’ or ‘nga; Tetenge, an Assam

agree

dialect, ‘ne ;

Corean,

¢

nal ;

I

whick

Tibetan, ‘nga;

Chinese, ‘ngo.’

doubt not that the ‘nga,’ 7, and ‘nge,” we, of the Tibetan, are identical

siona

with the ‘ma’ and ‘ me’ of the other languages of High Asia ; and

to

as ‘nga’ is plainly identical with ¢ pa,” as well as with ‘ma,’ the sup-

‘n'o

position that the Dravidian ‘na’ is derived from the Indo-European

ably

is confirmed.

begon

and Scythian ‘ma

We may here also compare

the Australian pronouns of the first person, viz., ‘nga,” ‘nganya,’ /

P4

.

entire

its dnal ‘ngalee,” we two; and the plurals ‘ngadlu’ and °nadju,

initil

we.

nitial

On the whole we appear to have reason to conclude that the

howey

various forms of the pronoun of the first person singular which have

the in

now been compared, ‘ma,” ‘nga,” and ‘na,’” are identical ; and that this

it is I

word was the common property of mankind prior to the separation of

of the

the Indo-European tribes from the rest of the Japhetic family.

this I

each ¢

2. PRONOUN OF THE StECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

peare

Comparison of dialects. — In Canarese the nominative of this

firs

pronoun is ‘nin’ or ‘nin-u; and in the oblique cases the included

danei‘

vowel of ‘nin’ is shortened by rule; e.g., ‘ninna,’ ¢tAy. The plural

Yeuq

differs from the singular only in the use of ‘m’ as a final, instead of

‘uir

‘n: it may therefore be concluded that those finals are marks or for-

Separy

matives of number, not of personality ; a conclusion which is converted

the g

into a certainty by the circumstance which has already been pointed

Pogtic

out that in the pronoun of the first person also the final ‘n

of the

Coales

singular is converted in the plural into ‘m

which

In Canarese not only are ‘nad’ and ‘ni

regarded as the crude

It

bases of the pronouns of the first and second persons, but they are

Persoy

occasionally used also as nominatives of verbs instead of ‘nan’ and

SV

‘nin.’

the i}

In the personal terminations of the verb, this pronoun is much

iy

changed in all the Dravidian dialects.

It not only loses its initial ‘n,’

del‘iv

like the pronoun of the first person; but its final ‘n’ also disappears.

(asey

Generally nothing remains in the verbal inflexions but the included

ordiy

vowel, and that also is more or less modified by use.

In the Cana-

often

SECOND PERSON SiN(} ULAR.

307

lierg

rese verb it appears as ‘i

SIS AN

1

and ‘e: in the ancient dialect

iye

rived

of the Canarese it is ‘4¥,” as in Tamil.

In Tamil “ni,” which is properly the crude base, is invariably

uding

used as the isolated nominative, instead of ‘nin’—the form which

Dig-

would correspond by rule to ‘nan,’ the nominative of the first person

alect,

singular.

That ‘nin’ originally constituted the nominative even in

o the

Tamil, appears from this that the oblique cases in the higher dialect

\ssam

agree in using ‘nin’ (shertened by rule from ‘unin’) as the base to

o i

which the case-suffixes are attached.

Another form which is occa-

ntical

sionally used by the poets is ¢nij,” in which the final ‘n’ is softened

)

and

to ‘y’—in the same manner as the initial ‘n

of ‘nan.

The final

S0P

‘n’ of this pronoun, though totally lost in the nominative, is invari-

opeal

ably retained in the oblique cases; in which it is the initial ‘n’ that

mpare

becomes liable to alteration. In the colloquial obliques the initial ‘n’

), [ ,‘

entirely disappears, and does not leave even a ‘y’ behind it, as the

initial ‘n

)

When the

adjn,

of the first personal pronoun generally does.

4

bd

K

initial is discarded, the included vowel changes from

1

to ‘u

¢ u”

t the

however, constitutes the included vowel of this pronoun, not only when

have

the initial ‘n’ is lost, but sometimes, in the higher dialect, even when

it 1s retained.

b this

‘nin, nun,” and ‘un’ are severally used as the basis

jon of

of the oblique cases.

In the persoual terminations of the Tamil verb,

this pronoun is represented by the suffixes ‘4y, ‘ei,” or ‘i:’ from

each of which suffixes the final ‘n,” as well as the initial, has disap-

peared.

In the poetical dialect of the language the initial ‘n’ at

this

tirst sight appears to have retained its place in such forms as ‘nadan-

Juded

danei,’ thow didst walk, and in the corresponding plural, ‘nadandanir,’

ye walked :> but the ‘n’ of these pronominal terminations (‘nei’ and

p]ural

ad of

‘nir’) is merely euphonic, and is inserted for the purpose of keeping

p for-

separate the contiguous vowels of ¢ nadanda-ei’ and ¢nadanda-ir.

In

erted

the same manner, in the first person, ‘nadandanen, I walked, is used

|iﬂted

poetically for ‘nadanda-en;’ and when its vowels are allowed to

coalesce, instead of being kept separate, they become ‘nadandén,’

f the

which is the more ordinary form.

crude

The root of the verb is regularly used in Tamil as the second

person singular of the imperative, without any pronominal suffix, and

y a1re

-l

even without any euphonic addition: but the second person plural of

the imperative in the colloquial dialect is formed by the addition of

‘um’ (the ordinary plural base of the oblique cases); which ‘um’ is

ch

1

derived from a singular form in ‘un,” one of the bases of the oblique

,ea!‘S.

cases already referred to. In the higher dialect ‘4j’ and ¢ir, the

,uded

ordinary representatives of these pronouns in the verbal inflexions, are

often added to the root to form the singular and plural imperative ;

and

%

X2

;i

308

THE

PRONOUN.

B e T e

e.g., ‘kelay,’ hear thou, ‘ kélir, hear ye.

[These forms are apparently

identical with ‘kéldy, thou hearest mot, and ¢ kélir) ye hear not: but

abli

they are not really identical, as Beschi supposed, for it will be shown

in the Section on the ‘Negative Verb’ that ‘a,’ a relic of ‘al’ no,

N TR

addi

is'an element in all negative forms; though in these and in some other

in f

instances it has been absorbed in the succeeding long vowel.]

the s

With respect to the consonantal elements of the pronoun of the

Tejec

second person, there is little room to doubt that they consisted in an

base

initial and final “p, the foriner essential, the latter formative : but there

€xar

seems to be some doubt with respect to the included vowel. Authority

ﬁppc

2

2

preponderates in favour of ¢i;’ ‘u

ranks next, and ‘4

next to

and

that; but ‘ei’ and ‘e’ are also found.

Sometimes in Tamil, ‘1’ is

diale

tical

converted in pronunciation into a sound resembling ¢f;’ whilst the

converse never takes place.

It may therefore perhaps be concluded

that ‘i’ constituted the included vowel of the original base of this

‘mi

and

pronoun.

Beschi, in his grammar of the High Tamil, represents ‘di’ as being

form

used occasionally by the Tamil poets as a suffix of the second person

relat

singular of the imperative; and if this representation were correct, it

of tf

would be necessary to regard ‘di

as a pronoun, or as the fragment

cham

of a pronoun, of the second person singular.

It is founded, however,

the |

on a mistake: for the word which Beschi cites in proof (¢adi, become

thou, from ‘Agu,’ abbreviated into ‘4, to become’) is not really an

por

imperative, but is the second person singular of the preterite; and “di’

tion‘

is compounded of ¢d, the sign of the preterite tense, and ‘i, the

usual fragment of ‘ni,” ‘thow.

¢ Adi’ means properly thow hast become,

Case:

and it is used as an imperative by the poets alone to convey an

emphatic prediction of a result which is regarded as already certain.

iS 9

We find the same suffix in such poetical preterites as ¢ varu-di’ (for

‘yandiy ’) thow camest, and ‘kedu-di’ (for kettdy’) thou art ruined.

S ———————

In Malayilam the nominative of this pronounis ‘ni;” but ‘nin’

laugl

is used, as in classical Tamil, in the oblique cases.

The dative has

Use(

‘nan,” instead of nin; e.g., ‘nanikka,’ to thee —as if from a nomi-

native in ‘nan,” with ‘a’ as the included vowel.

This use of ‘a’

is in accordance with the colloquial Tamil personal termination of

("on@J

13

the verb, which is ‘4y, instead of ‘iy.

&WQ

In Tulu the nominative is ‘1;” but the oblique cases are formed

lang

In the personal terminations of the

upon the base of ‘ni’ or ¢ nin.

Ine

verb the second person singular is represented by ‘a.’

The Tulu

A

€y

nominative ¢

1

illustrates the fact already stated that each of the

for

nasals of ‘nin’ (both the radical initial and the formative final) has

sometimes been worn off,

of

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

3(

;

1€

g

ently

The Tuda has ‘ni’ as its nominative, ‘nin’ as the base of its

but

?

oblique cases, and ‘i

as the personal termination of the verb.

hown

The Telugu nominative is ‘nivu,’ expanded from ‘ni’ by the

" fiot,

addition of the euphonic particle ‘vu:’ ‘nivu,’ Tel , thou, is identical

ofher

in form, though not in meaning, with the modern Canarese plural of

the same pronoun, viz., ‘niva,” you.

In the oblique cases the Telugu

f the

rejects the euphonic addition of ‘vu,” and uses ‘pi’ as its inflexional

I an

base, and also as its possessive.

The objective alone follows the

there

example of the other dialects in abbreviating the included vowel, and

hority

appending a final nasal.

That case is ‘ni-nu,” ‘nin-u,” or ‘nin-nu,’

xt 10

and is evidently formed from a nominative ¢nin-u.’

In the higher

)

18

dialect of the Telugu, ‘ivu, from an old nominative

I,

which is iden-

st the

tical with the Tulu, is occasionally used instead of ‘nivu.

Juded

The Telugu plural of this pronoun has ‘miru’ as the nominative,

f this

Both ‘miru’

‘mi’ as the inflexion, and ‘mimu’ as the accusative.

and ‘mimu’ indicate a base in ‘mi’ from which they have been

being

formed by the addition of signs of plurality ; and ‘mi’ bears the same

peIson

relation to the ‘ni’ of the other dialects that ‘m4,” the Telugu plural

Sct, it

of the first person, does to the ordinary Dravidian ¢na.

How this

change from ‘n’ to ‘m’ has taken place will be inquired into under

gmem

ever,

the head of ¢ The Plurals.’

hecome

In the personal terminations of the verb, the Telugu rejects every

H) an

portion of the pronominal root, and employs only the euphonic ad

’

5

tion ‘vu

or-Sivi.’

‘.

d ’,di

i the

In Gond the nominative is ‘ima;’ but ‘ni’ is used in the obliqube

K

00y

cases, ‘n

or ‘i’ in the personal terminations of the verbs.

Tts nominative

The Ku corresponds on the whole to the Telugu.

'ey an

'

ertalll

is ‘inu;’ its inflexion ‘ni;’ the personal termination of its verb ‘i.

The Rajmahal nominative is ‘nin;’ the Urdon, ‘nien.’

(for

[4

The Brahui nominative is

11

)

as

in most of the Dravidian

e,

languages; and its nominative plural is ‘num’—a form which is much

i

used in the higher dialect of the Tamil.

Ve hﬂS

pomi-

On a comparison of the various Dravidian dialects we arrive at the

of 8

conclusion that the primitive form of this pronoun was ‘ni’ ‘nd, or

oo of

‘na ;'—niost probably the first. The only essential part of the pronoun

appears to be the initial consonant ‘n;’ just as in the Indo-European

languages ‘t’ is the only essential part of the corresponding pronoun.

ormed

In each family the vowel by the help of which the initial consonant is

f the

enunciated varies considerably, but evinces, on the whole, a preference

Tulu

)

for ¢i’ in the Dravidian languages, for ‘u

in the Indo-European.

of the

Supposing “ni’ to be the primitive form of the Dravidian pronoun

l) has

of the second person, and comparing it with ¢na,” which we have seen

j

Jl

310

THE PRONOUN.

cat

to be the primitive form of the Dravidian pronoun of the first person,

of

it is deserving of notice that the only difference between the two is the

difference between the two included vowels, ‘a’ and “i.

The conso-

fin

nant ‘n’ seems to be the common property and the common sign of

both pronouns, and the means by which their personality is expressed;

10(

whilst the annexed ‘a’ restricts the signification to the first person,

or that of the speaker; i,” to the second person, or that of the person

de

;r

addressed. The only resemblance to this arrangement with which I

ou

am acquainted is that which is found in the personal pronouns of the

Hebrew, in which 7 is ¢an-6ki; thou, ‘an-td’ (corrupted into ‘at-ta’)

%

1

fl

The method adopted by the Dravidian languages of expressing the

difference between the first person and the second by means of the

W

E

vowels ‘a’ and ‘i, used as auxiliaries, does not appear to be the

th

result of accident.

It is probably founded on some ultimate principle;

though it may be difficult or impossible now to discover what that

1€

‘1

principle is.

If “a’ and ‘1’ be considered as identical with the demonstratives,

0

an idea which would suit the signification, and which is corroborated by

the circumstance that ‘u’ is also a demonstrative, we are met by the

apparently insurmountable difficulty that in all the Dravidian tongues,

f‘i

and (as far as the use of these demonstrative vowels extends) in all

the tongues of the Indo-European family, ‘a’ is not the proximate,

but the remote, demonstrative; and ‘i’ is not the remote, but the

proximate ; whilst ‘u’ is used in Tamil as an intermediate between

those two.

bd

Is any weight to be attributed to the circumstance that ‘a

has naturally the first place in all lists of vowels, and ‘i’ the

second ?

Extra-Dravidian relationship.—1t has been shown that the Dravi-

dian pronoun of the first person has affinities with each of the great

Japhetic groups, with some special Scythian affinities.

It will be

found that the relationship of the pronoun of the second person is less

extensive, but more distinetive: it is specifically Scythian.

Throughout the Scythian as well as the Indo-European group, the

most prevalent form of the pronoun of the second person singular is that

which is formed from the consonant “t’ (e.g., ‘tu’), or its euphonised

equivalent ‘s’ (e.g., ‘ov’); and the only other form which is found to

be used in any family of either of those groups is that which is formed

from the consonant ¢n,” and of which the Cuneiform-Scythian and the

bl

Dravidian ¢ ni

is the best representative.

Thege roots appear to have been always perfectly independent.

I

—

—

P

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

311

1So1,

cannot discover any reliable trace of a connexion between them, or

1 the

of a gradual change in any instance of the one form into the other.

Conso-

In order to place this point in a clear light, it is desirable, in the

ign of

first place, to trace out the connexions and alliances of the pronominal

root ‘tu.’

essed;

eTson,

It has been conjectured that this pronoun had its origin in the

DEIson

demonstrative base ¢t;’ but the investigation of this point is beyond

hich [

our purpose, which is merely that of tracing its relationship.

f the

In Sanscrit the pronoun of the second person singular is ‘tva-m;’

)

in Zend ¢tl-m, and also ‘thw’’ as included in the accusative ¢thwa,’

thee.

g the

Connected with the Sanserit ¢ tva,” there is a simpler form, ‘ ta,

f the

which is appareut in ‘tava,” thy,; and we have analogies to this in

The

e the

the Kawi ‘ta’ and the Semitic ta’ (included in ‘anta,” thow’).

ciple;

Semitic ‘tA’ is changed in the inflexions to ‘k&,” a change which

that

resembles that of the Kawi, which has ‘ta’ as its nominative and

‘ko’ as its possessive.

Bopp supposes that ‘yu,” the base of the most

commion form of the plural of this pronoun, is derived from ¢tu,” and

fives,

that ¢va,’ the base of the Sanscrit secondary plural ¢ vas’ and of the

d by

/ the

Latin ¢ vos,” is derived from ¢ tva.’

‘v, however, is more frequently

derived from

£mi

than from any other letter.

‘tva-m’ becomes

oues,

nall

‘tuva-m’ in the Old Persian; and from ‘tu’ (itself derived from

nate,

‘tv ’) proceeds the Sanscrit dative ¢ tu-bhayam:’ the base of which is

allied to, or identical with, the Latin, Armenian, and Pehlvi ¢tu;’ the

- the

yeen

Holic and Doric ‘7?;’ the Persian, Afghan, and Singhalese ‘to;’ and

the Gothic ¢thu.’

The ‘th’ of the Gothic and Zend points out the

path by which the Old Greek ‘¢’ was converted into ¢ 2.’

43)’

In the personal terminations of the verbs, in Sanscrit and most

the

other languages of the same family, the earlier ‘t’ of this pronoun

has very generally been weakened into ‘s’ in the singular, whilst in

most of the plural terminations, ‘t,” with some trivial modifications,

avl

reat

and with a sign of plarality annexed, has succeeded in retaining its

place.

In our investigation of the pronoun of the first person it was

be

found that ‘ma’ was converted in the personal terminations of the

Jess

verb into ‘mi, and ‘mi’ still further weakened into ‘m:’ so also

‘su’ (for ‘tu’) generally becomes °si

in the verbal terminations ;

the

and °¢si

in like manner afterwards becomes ‘s

hat

sed

In the Scythian group of tongues, the pronoun of the second person

which is in general use is substantially the same as in the Indo-

kil

European—another evidence of the primeval identity of both groups:

ed

the

but in the Scythian tongues the weaker ‘s’ has obtained wider preva-

lence than the older ‘t; and the vowel by which ‘s’ is enunciated is

more frequently i’ or ‘e,” than ‘u’ or ‘a.’

=

;

312

THE PRONOUN.

The Magyar has ‘te’ in the singular, ‘ti’ or ‘tik’ in the plural,

with which we may compare the Armenian ‘tu,” thou, and ¢ tuk, you.

The Mongolian ¢ tchi’ or “dzi,’ thou, exhibits the progress of “ti’

2

towards softening into ¢si

In Finnish proper, the isolated pronoun

K

of the second person singular, is ¢se

or ‘sina; but ‘t’ retains its

place in the plural; and the personal termination of the verb even in

the singular is ¢ t.

The chief peculiarity apparent in the Scythian form of this pro-

noun is, that it has generally been euphonised by the addition of a

final nasal—the consonant ‘n,’ precisely in the same manner as the

pronoun of the first person singular.

(:()

In the older Greek ¢ 7wy’ and ¢7odw,” correspond to ¢ éyivy’ and

‘éywr;’ and in like manner, in the languages which belong to the

Scythian family, or which have been subject to Scythian influences,

R T

where the pronoun of the first person is found to be nasalised, the

pronoun of the second person generally exhibits the same feature.

a

In the vernaculars of Northern India, we see this euphonic addition

to the pronoun of the second person in the Hindi, Panjabi, and Sindhi,

‘tun,’ and in the Marathi and Gujarathi ¢ttm.

In some of those

§

idioms, especially in the Gujarathi and Panjabi, the euphonic nasal

appears in the oblique cases as well as in the nominative, but more

commonly it is found in the nominative alone.

|

In the Turkish family of tongues, ‘sin’ or ‘sen’ is the usual form

of the pronoun of the second person singular.

The ¢n’ retains its

place in the oblique cases, but is lost in “siz’ the plural. Compare

also the Georgian ‘shen; the Samoiede tan, ‘tani; the Lappish

§

“don;’ the Votiak and Mordwin ‘ton’ (plural ‘tin '}; and the Finnish

1

‘sind,” which alternates with se,” ¢sia,” and sie.’

The euphonie origin of this ‘n” is most evident in the Esthonian

dialect of the Finnish, which uses indifferently ‘sa’ or ¢sinna’ for the

second person, and ‘ma’ or ‘ minna’ for the first.

]

In the Mongolian and Manchu, ‘n’ appears in the oblique cases

1

only. In Mongol the nominative is ¢tchi,’ in Manchu ‘si; but the

genitive in the former is ‘tchini, in the latter ‘sini,” and the corres-

ponding datives are techim-dou’ and ¢sin-de.’

In Calmuck the nominative is ¢dzi’ or ‘dzima,’ genitive ¢dzint,’

ctj

dative ‘dzimadou,” accusative ¢dzimai.’

In the pronouns of this

language we may observe several instances of ‘m’ being used as an

euphonie, instead of ‘n.’

It is evident that there is no resemblance whatever between any of

the pronouns compared above and the Dravidian ¢nj

The final ‘na’

of the Finnish sina,” and its equivalent, the final vy’ of the Greek

SECOND PERSON

SINGULAR.

313

|

“1dwy,’ are separable, euphonic, inorganic additions, and can have no

real connexion with ‘ni,” which is an ultimate root.

We have seen that the Indo-European and Scythian ¢m’—the

initial of the pronoun of the first person—was probably the origin of

the ‘n’ of the Dravidian ‘na.

Is it possible that the radical ¢t’ of

the pronoun of the second person in both those families of tongues was

changed in like manner into ‘n,’—so as that ‘tu’ or ‘ti” was the origin

of the Dravidian ‘ni?

I think not.

This is supposed, indeed, by

Castrén, a very high authority, to be the history of the ‘n’ by which

1

the second person singular is often represented in the perscnal affixes of

the Finnish and Turkish families.

It may also be mentioned here, that a

change of ‘t’ into ‘n’ is not quite unknown even in the Indo-European

e

languages.

It is somewhat frequently found to take place in Pali; e.g.,

‘té

they, masculine, becomes optionally ‘né; ¢t4’ t¢hey, feminine

In Sanserit

becomes ‘n&; and ‘tani,” they, neuter, becomes ‘nani.’

also ¢étam,” hum, is sometimes changed into ¢énam.

There is no

evidence, however, that the ‘n’ now under consideration—the initial

L

of the Dréividian ‘ni’—arose from any such process of change; the

supposition would be wholly a gratuitous one; and the discovery of

‘ni” in languages of such high antiquity as the Cuneiform-Scythian of

the Behistun Inscriptions and the Chinese, shows that ‘ni’ claims to

be regarded as independent of ‘tva,” or ‘tu, and as an ultimate pro-

nominal root.

It thus appears that there are probably two Japhetic

bases of the second personal pronoun, as well as two of the first.

There are traces, more or less distinet, in various languages of the

h

Scythian group, of the existence of a pronoun of the second person

identical with, or evidently allied to, the Dravidian ¢ni.’

I begin with the most remarkable and decisive analogy, because

the most ancient which is capable of direct proof, viz., the second per-

sonal pronoun in the Scythian tablets at Behistun.

T His S e

2

precisely as in the Dravidian idioms; and the possessive which is used

in compounds is ‘ni,’ which is identical with the similarly abbreviated

basis of the Dravidian oblique cases of this pronoun.

The plural of

this pronoun 1is, unfortunately, unknown.

The personal termination

of the verb is not “ni,” but ‘nti; which I suspect to be a compound of

‘ni’ and ‘ti,” like the ‘anta,” ‘anti,’ of the Semitic languages.

The antiquity and distinctively Seythian character of the DirAvidian

pronoun of the second person is thus clearly proved; and this proof of

its antiquity entitles us to regard as allied to the Dravidian ‘ni’ certain

resemblances to it which otherwise might be thought to be accidental.

In the Ostiak, the most Dravidian of the Finnish dialects, in that

compound of nouns with possessive suffixes which is so characteristic

314

THE

PRONOUN.

of the Scythian group, the first personal pronoun is represented by

‘m; the second, as in the Dravidian languages, by ‘n; e.g., ‘ime-m,” my

wife, ‘ime-n, thy wife.

In the Syrianian, another Finnish idiom, the

11

second person of the verb, both singular and plural, is formed by annex-

ing a pronoun of which ‘n’ is the initial and radical; e.g., ‘kery-n,” thou

f

hast done (from ¢ kery,” ¢o do), ‘kery(ninyd,’” you have done. In ‘nyd,

you, we see indication of a singular ‘ny,” thow, which has been plu-

fl

ralised, as is usual in these languages, by suffixing to it ¢d’ or “t.’

1

In addition to the allied forms discoverable in these compounds, we

find in the Ugrian tongues several instances in which the isolated

pronoun of the second person which is used as a nominative is plainly

0

allied to the Dravidian.

In the Ugro-Ostiak, or that dialect of the

Ostiak which is treated of in Castrén’s grammar, thow is ‘nen; youw

fi

Here ‘ne’ or ¢ni

con-

two, ‘nin; you (indefinitely plural) ‘nen.

P

stitutes the pronominal base; and the final ‘n’ of the singular ¢ nen,’

(U]

is a formative or euphonic addition like that which has converted the

o

Dravidian

‘ni

A3

into ‘nin.’

The strong pronunciation of this Ostiak

fl

In other Ostiak

final ‘n’ reappears, as we shall see, in the Turkish.

of

dialects we find ‘num’ and ‘ma,” and also (which is more deserving of

1

notice) ‘nyn,’” with a plural ‘nynt.’

In the Vogoul we find analogies

fi

which are no less remarkable than the above; e.g., ‘nei, ‘ny,’ ‘nan,

by

‘nyngi,” and ‘nank.

Compare also the Vogoul plurals ‘nen’ and

€0

‘non.’

J\

In the Finnish proper, the only trace of this pronoun which we

1§

observe is one which, but for the existence of such express analogies in

1§

other members of the family, we should probably have overlooked.

In the plural of the second person of the Finnish verb (e.g., ‘olette,” ye

§

are, pluralised from ‘olet,” thou art), the suffixed pronoun corresponds

§

to that of which “t’ or ‘s’ is the initial; but in the possessive com-

‘i

pounds, in which we should expect to find precisely the same form, we

find instead of it a plural possessive of which the initial and radical is

a

9

Je

‘n

Thus, the expression thy hand, being ‘kates,” we should expect to

‘k

find your hand, ‘katesse,’ or, more primitively, ‘Lkatette,” like the

or

corresponding Magyar ¢ kezetek,” (from ‘tek,” yow, another form of

‘te’); whereas the form actually used in Finnish is ¢kéatenne.

It

L

U

thus appears that two pronouns of the second person retain their place

1d

in the Finnish; one, the singular of which is ‘si,” or more properly ‘ti,’

th

the plural ‘te; and another, hidden in the ancient compounds, the

tl

plural of which is ‘ne,” and of which, by dialectic rules, the singular

must have been ¢ni.’

1n

Even in the Turkish, we shall find traces of the existence of a

fal

similar pronoun.

In the possessive compounds, the second person

I

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

315

by

singular is not represented, as we should have expected it to be, by

lﬂy

‘sen,” as the first person singular is by ‘m; but ‘n’ or ‘ng’ is used

he

instead (a nasal which corresponds to that of the Ostiak ‘nen’);

X

e.g., ‘baba-n, thy father,; and as the final ‘m’ of ‘baba-m’ is derived

0l

from ‘mi’ or ‘me, 7, we seem to be obliged to deduce also the final

’d,

‘n’ of baba-n,” from an obsolete ‘ni’ or ‘me,” thou, which is allied to

lu

the corresponding forms that have been pointed out in other Scythian

tongues.

We find this possessive ‘»’ or ‘ng’ not only in the Osmanli

We

Turkish, but even in the Yakute, the Turkish of Siberia.

ol

The same ‘n

I’

makes its appearance in the personal terminations

ly

of the Turkish verb.

‘sen’ is more commonly used than ‘% ;" but

the

‘n’ is found as the representative of the second person in those verbal

o

forms which must be considered as of greatest antiquity ; e.g., in the

o

preterite of the auxiliary substantive verbs, ‘idum,” 7 was, ‘idun,’ thow

)l\

wast, ‘1di,” he was.

In the Oriental Turkish the forms corresponding

the

to these are ¢béldim,” ‘béldizn,” ‘boldi; and the same termination of

ak

the second person singular—the nasal ‘»’—appears in all the preterites

jak

of that language.

We may compare also the plural forms of this pro-

of

nominal suffix.

The Turkish pronouns are pluralised by changing the

65

final formative ‘n

2

into ¢z,

K

or rather by adding ¢z’ to the crude

AL

base.

Thus, we is ‘biz’ (for ‘miz’), and you is ‘siz

In possessive

2

dld

compounds ‘i

changes into ‘u; and hence owr father is ¢ baba-muz.’

In the same manner, your father is ‘baba-nuz, indicating a suppositious,

e

isolated pronoun, ¢niz,’ you, corresponding to ‘miz,’ we.

Whilst ¢ u’

510

is used instead of ‘i’ in Osmanli Turkish, the older and more regular

ed

‘1’ retains its place in the Oriental Turkish ; e.g., ¢ uzt-ziz,’ you your-

e

selves ; in which you is ‘niz’ or ‘ngiz,’ and from which, when ¢z, the

i

sign of plurality, is rejected, we deduce the singular ¢zi’ or ‘ngi’

Il

The same mode of forming the plural termination of the second person

We

appears in all regular Turkish verbs ; e.g., compare ‘kérkdu-nuz,’ ye

11

Jeared, with ‘korkdu-n, thou fearedst. We see it also in the imperative

{10

¢korku-nuz,” fear ye. In all these instances, I consider the Turkish ¢z’

the

or ‘ng’ to be dialectically equivalent to the Finnish ‘n; and the

10f

pronominal root which is thus found to underlie so many Turkish and

It

Ugrian compounds of the second person may, I think, be regarded as

Jace

identical with the Dravidian and Behistun-Seythian pronoun.

Even

tly

the libration between ‘i’ and ‘u,’ which we noticed in considering

the

the Dréavidian forms of this pronoun, meets us again in the Turkish.

ilar

In the Himalayan dialects, though Tibetan or Indo- Chinese

influences generally seem to preponderate over Drividian, we cannot

fail to see Dravidian analogies in the Dhimal ‘n4, in the Miri ‘no,

f 4

S0

in the Garo ‘nd4 ; and in the ‘n’ which forms the first and most

316

THE PRONOUN,.

essential radical of the pronoun of the second person in all the rest of

[

the Lohitic dialects.

Still more remarkable is the Chinese ‘ni,” which is absolutely

identical both with the DrAvidian and with the Behistun-Scythian

pronoun :

so also is the

‘ni

of the Horpa, a dialect of Tibetan

{

nomades.

Compare also the pronouns of the second person in various

Australian dialects: e.g., ‘ninna, ‘nginnee,’ ‘nginte; the duals

§

‘niwa, ‘nura ; and the plural ¢ nimedoo.

al

On a comparison of the various forms of this pronoun which have

gW

been adduced above, it must be evident that the affinities of the Dravi-

81

dian ‘ni’ are wholly Scythian ; and this important circumstance,

taken in conjunction with the predominance of Scythian influences over

i

Indo-European in the formation of the first personal pronoun, con-

il

tributes largely to the establishment of the Scythian relationship of

the Dravidian family.

il

3. Tre RerrLeExive ProNouUN ‘SELF.

al

The Dravidian pronouns of the third person are, properly speaking,

demonstratives, not personal pronouns; and they will, therefore, be

I

investigated under a subsequent and separate head.

The pronoun,

th

which is now under consideration is entitled to a place amongst per-

a9

sonal pronouns, because it possesses all their characteristics, and is

€l

declined precisely in the same manner.

It corresponds in meaning to

I

the Sanscrit ‘svayam,’ and to the defective Greek ¢’ and the Latin

I

¢ sul

‘sibi,” “se; with a range of application which is more extensive

{(I

than theirs.

In Tamil the nominative singular of this pronoun is ‘tén; the

d

plural of which (by the usual pronominal change of ‘n’ into ‘m’) is

“tam 2’ and the inflexion, or basis of the oblique cases (which, taken by

itself, has the force of a possessive), is formed, as in the case of the

LI

other personal pronouns, by simply shortening the included vowel ;

sl

eg., ‘tin, of self, ‘swr, or (adjectivally) °suws,’ sua,” ‘suum.

In_

qQu

all its cases and connexions ‘tan’ is found to be more regular and

q U

persistent than any other pronoun.

)‘19

The Canarese nominative is ‘tan’ in the ancient, ‘tan-u’ in the

modern dialect : the inflexion is formed, as usual, by the shortening of

the included vowel ; and the crude root ‘ta’ (without the formative

an

‘n’) is sometimes used instead of ‘tAn-u,” just as ‘na,’ of the first

ph

person, and ‘ni’ of the second, are occasionally used instead of

sh

‘pan-u’ and ¢nin-u.

Po

In Telugu the reflexive pronoun is more regularly declined, and is

(‘n

more in accordance with the Tamil-Canarese, than any other pronoun

i

THE REFLEXIVE fRONOUN.

317

0

of the personal class.

The nominative is ¢tin-u; the inflexion and

possessive ¢ tin-a ;’ the plural nominative ‘tim-u’ or ‘tar-u :’ ¢ t2’ may

ely

be used at pleasure, as in Canarese, for ¢tin-u.’

lan

A similar regularity of formation and of declension is apparent in all

w

1l

the Dravidian dialects, so that further comparison of the forms of this

OUS

pronoun seems to be unnecessary.

The root or base is evidently “ta,’

als

seff. The final ‘n’ of the singular, though probably only a formative

addition (like the final ‘n

of ‘né-n, 7, and ‘ni-n, thow), is one of

Ave

great antiquity, for we find it even in the Brahui: e g., the nominative

V1=

singular is tenat’ (compare with this the inorganie ¢t,” which is suf-

e,

fixed to the personal pronouns in Gond) ; gen, ‘tena; dat. ‘tene.’

Ver

‘tan,’ self (like ‘nén,” 7, and ‘nin,’ thow), is of no gender, and is

on-

used in connexion with each personal gender indiscriminately; so that

of

this final ‘n’ has evidently a different origin from the ‘n’ or ‘am,

which constitutes the sign of the masculine of rationals.

Bhie cnveof

the singular of the personal pronouns has nothing to do with gender,

and is a sign of the singnlar number alone.

ing,

The wuse of this pronoun agrees with the use of the corresponding

he

Indo-European reflexive. It always agrees with the principal nomina-

Ui,

tive of the sentence, and with the governing verb, or that which is in

agreement with the principal uominative.

It i1s also used as an

pEI

11

g

emphatic addition to each of the personal and demonstrative pronouns,

o t0

like the Latin ‘ipse,” or like the English self, in the compounds myself,

afil

yourself, &e.: e.g., we say in Tamil ¢ ndn-tan,” 7 myself ; ‘ ni-thn,’ thou

51v6

thyself ; ‘avan-tan,) he humself; ‘aval-tin, she herself; ¢adu-tan,’

atself or that itself : and ‘tam,” the plural of ‘tan’ (or, in the colloquial

dialect, its double plural ‘tdng-gal’), is in like manner appended to the

the

plurals of each of those pronouns and demonstratives.

)la

‘tan’ acquires also an adverbial signification by the addition of the

] by

usual adverbial formatives; eg., ¢ tandy’ (for tan-agi’), Tam., of my-

the

self, of yourself, or spontancously : and when appended to nouns of

el §

quality or relation its use corresponds to that of our adverbs really,

In

quite, &c.; e.g., ‘mey tan,” Tam., <t 4s really true, ‘$ari tan,” quite

ﬁﬂd

right.

the

One use to which the reflexive is put is peculiar to these languages,

[ of

—vViz., as an honorific substitute for the pronoun of the second person;

Hve

and in this connexion either the singular, the plural, or the double

first

plural may be used, according to the amount of respect intended to be

| of

shown. When used in this manner, it is not annexed to, or com-

pounded with, the pronoun of the second person, but is used alone :

and though, when it stands alone, it generally and naturally denotes

d 18

the third person, yet when thus used honorifically for the second person,

11()\111

318

THE

PRONOUN.

the verb with which it is connected receives the pronominal termina-

‘fa

tions not of the third person but of the second. This use of ‘tan,’ as

ot

an honorific pronoun of the second person, illustrates the possibility, if

not the probability, of the origin of the Indo-European pronoun ¢ tu,’

Wit

thou, from a demonstrative base.

tho

e

A very interesting class of Tamil words, the nature of which has

generally been overlooked, has originated from the honorific use of the

fror

reflexive pronoun. Its inflexion, or possessive, has been prefixed hono-

the

of ¢

rifically to most of the pure Dravidian words which denote parentsand

other near relations, in a manner which somewhat resembles our modern

of {

periphrasis Her Majesty, your worship, &e.

In general the plural

stra

‘tam’ has been used in this connexion instead of the singular ¢tan,’

that

as a prefix of greater honour, but in some instances these compound

The

words have become so corrupted that their constituent elements can

fron

scarcely be recognized.

The Tamil ‘tagappan,’ fatker, is formed from

0l

d

¢ tam-appan,’ therr (honorifically Ais) father, meaning, as it were, Ais

i

paternity.

‘tammei,” mother, is from ‘tam-Ayi,’ her maternity ; and

find

“tAy,” mother, the more common word, is in like manner from °ta-ayi,’

the

in which wegfind the crude ‘ta’ for ¢tam.’

¢ tamayan,’ elder brother

from

(Tel., ‘tammudu’), is from ‘tam’ and ‘ayan’ or ‘eiyan,’ an n-

den

structor, meaning kis tutorship.

‘ tang-gei, younger sister, is from

suff;

‘tam, and ‘kei, a handmaid (literally a hand), meaning her hand-

and

mardenship.™

‘tambi’ (Tel., ‘tammu’), younger brother, and ‘tandei’

Tefle

(‘Tel., ‘tandri’), father, evidently include the same honorific prefix

Seco

‘tam’ or ‘tan; but the nouns which form the basis of these words

WOP(

are so changed that they cannot now be recognized.

‘tambirén,” a

W

title of God, which is commonly applied to a particular class of

ety

Hindu abbots is formed from the same ‘tam’ and ‘pirdn’ (pro-

or ¢

bably from ¢pra,” Sans., before, first), Lord or God, meaning Ais lord-

1

ship,literally his godship : and this is perhaps the only word of this

the

class the derivation of which has commonly been admitted by lexico-

tongl

graphers.

dem

Another remarkable use of the reflexive pronoun is the adoption of

]le, ¢

its possessive, or inflexional base, ‘tan,’ of self or self’s, as the base of

“toy

the abstract noun ‘tan-mei’ or ‘tanam, quality or nature, literally

1

selfness ; ‘mei’ is the regular formative of Tamil abstracts, like our

and

This word is identical in meaning

English ness, or the Latin ‘tas.’

Dr.

with the Sanserit tatvam, nature, property, which is derived from

1_“6&[

i

* Compare with this meaning of ‘a younger rister,” the name of ‘spinster’

‘tuny

which is applied by ourselves to unmarried females; and also the derivation

which is attributed to ‘dubtri’ (‘duhitar’), Sans., daughter, viz., a mitk-maid

Origi

(or as Bopp regards it, a suckling), from duh,’ to malk.

T

S—

N —

—

P —— —

THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN.

319

12

‘tad’ or état,’ that, and is possibly allied to it (though indirectly) in

a8

origin.

A

‘ta,’ the base of the Dravidian reflexive pronoun, has no connexion

i,

with, or resemblance to, any other pronoun of this family of languages;

though it is unquestionably a pure Dravidian root.

If we look at its

has

meaning and range of application it must, I think, have originated

the

from some emphatic demonstrative base; and it will be found that

10

there is no lack either in the Indo-European or in the Seythian family

nd

of demonstratives closely resembling ‘ta’ or ‘t4-n.’ We see examples

eIn

of this resemblance in the Sanserit ¢ta-d,” that (from ta, the demon-

ol

strative, and ‘d,’” the sign of the neuter singular) ; in ‘tada,” then, at

A,

that time ; and also (with the ‘t’ weakened into “97)-in aaly Be

ind

The reflexive pronouns of this family, ¢ sva,” &ec., are probably derived

cail

from the same base, though considerably altered. Compare also the

0l

Old Greek article, which is properly a demonstrative pronoun, ¢rds,’

H

s

‘7')7,’ S

and the corresponding German ¢ der,” ¢ die, ‘das.’

We

and

find the same or a similar demonstrative (with an annexed nasal, as in

iy

the Dravidian tan’) in the Doric, ¢ 7fjv-os,” ke, that, which is the form

her

from which the Aolian ¢ «fjv-os,” and the later Greek ¢ é-xev-os, was

m

derived (by a change similar to that by which the Hebrew pronominal

o1

suffix ‘k&’ was derived from €ti’).

The resemblance between ¢ v’

nd

and ‘tan’ is certainly remarkable : and may not this Drividian

;dei’

reflexive pronoun, which is used honorifically as a pronoun of the

ofix

second person, throw some light on that curious, indeclinable Greek

onds

word which is sometimes used as a form of polite address, viz., ‘rav’ or

), &

“@ zav, Sir, My good friend, &c., and which has been derived by some

sOf

etymologists from ‘fjv-os,” by others from an obsolete vocative of ‘¢’

O if 7151/77 ¥

pIO

il

The same demonstrative, with a similar final ¢n,’ appears also in

this

the Old Prussian ‘tan’s’ (for ‘tana-s’), he; and in the Scythian

160~

tongues, we find it, either nasalised or pure, in the Finnish remote

demonstrative ¢tuo,” and the proximate ‘tama ; in the Lappish ‘tat’

ke, ‘tan,” of him (root ‘ta’); and in the Ostiak remote demonstrative

I Uf

‘ toma,” and proximate ‘tema.

o of

The reflexive pronoun is used by the Seoni Géond both as a reflexive

ally

our

and as a demonstrative.

Thus, in the Song of Sandswmjee, in

ning

Dr. Manger’s paper (‘Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society’), ¢ten,’

7ol

means kim (not ¢se, but “illum’); ‘tunna,’ his; and ¢ tane, her and

2t

The reflexive signification also appears in the same song in

‘tunwa’ (Tam. ‘tan’), ¢ suus-a-um.” This seems to prove that ‘ta’ was

el

aciqﬂ

originally a demonstrative.

v

The strongest argument, perhaps, for considering the Dravidian ¢t4’

2

THE

FPRONOUN.

d

0

or “tan,” self, to be allied to the Scytho-Sanserit demonstrative ta’ is

al

the circumstance that ‘tan,’ the inflexional base of ‘tan,’ is used in

1§ ]

i

the formation of the word ‘tanmei’ or ‘tanam, quality, selfness, in

precisely the same manner as the Sanscrit ‘tad,’ that; which forms

of

the basis of the corresponding Sanserit word ‘tatvam, gquality, that-

0

ness. The Dravidian word may have been, and probably was, framed

in imitation of the Sanscrit (for so abstracta term is necessarily of late

$01

origin), but it cannot have been directly derived from the Sanscrit

SIN;

word. It seems very probable that both bases are remotely allied, and

nc

if they are so allied, th&r alliance carries us back to a very remote

of

period: for whilst the Dravidian reflexive pronoun retains the original

tla

demonstrative t,’ the corresponding reflexive in every one of the Indo-

$ec

European tongues ‘sva, ‘se,; &c.) had already allowed ‘t” to be

ref

weakened into ‘s, before those tongues separated from the parent

stem.

e

4. PLURALS oF THE PERSONAL AND RerLEXIVE PRONOUNS.

s

I class the plurals of these pronouns together because they are

the

nal

formed from the same pronominal bases as their singulars (which have

already been investigated), and because they are all formed on one and

of

the same plan, viz., either by the addition of a pluralising particle

it

wh

(generally ‘m’) to the pronominal base, or by the substitution of that

particle for the singular formative. Exceptions exist, but they are few

Tl

and trivial.

It

of

Comparison of dialects—In the classical dialect of the Tamil, the

Ty

plurals of the personal and reflexive pronouns (‘néan,’ 7, ‘ni,’ thou, ‘tn,’

ob

self) are ‘ndm’ or ‘yam,’ we; ‘nir

‘niyir, or ‘nivir’ (instead of

the more regular ‘nim’), you ; and °tam, selves.

In the colloquial

IEp

€1l

dialect a double plural has got into extensive use, which is formed by

the addition to the classical plurals of ‘gal,’ the sign of plurality

ial

which especially belongs to the class of wrationals.

In consequence of

P

Uiy

the existence of these two sets of plurals, a difference in their use and

application has gradually established itself.

il

we

The classical or pure and simple plurals are now used in the collo-

int

quial dialect as honorific singulars ; whilst the double plurals—¢nang-

gal’ (‘ndm-gal’), we; ‘ninggal’ (‘nim-gal’), you,; and ‘tanggal’ (tam-

of {

or |

gal’), selves—are used as the ordinary plurals.

A double plural has

Ta

crept into the Telugu also; eg., ‘mirulu’ (for ‘miru’), yow, and

¢yarulu’ (for ‘varu’), they. Another point of difference between ‘nam’

als

and ‘nanggal,” the two Tamil plurals of the first personal pronoun,

will be inquired into under a subsequent head. The formation of these

10y

secondary, double plurals of the Tamil and Telugu is in harmony with

g

the

oo

PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

321

18

a usage which is observed in the Turkish.

In that language ‘ben,” 7,

n

is regularly pluralised into ¢biz, we; and ‘sen,’ thow, into ‘siz,’ you

1

bat those plurals are sometimes pluralised over again by the addition

1§

of ¢ler, the ordinary suffix of plurality ; e.g., ¢ biz-ler, we, ¢siz-ler,’

(-

you

led

In the verbal inflexions of the Tamil, the initial or radical con-

afe

sonant of each of the pronominal plurals (as of the corresponding

OL1G

singulars) disappears; and the pronoun is represented solely by the

nd

ineluded vowel and the sign of plurality. The personal termination

ote

of the first person plural in the colloquial dialect is ‘6m; in the

nal

classical dialect ‘4m, ‘am

The termination of the

‘ém, ‘em.

do

second person plural is ‘ir’ or ir,” the representative of ‘nir.

The

he

reflexive pronoun ¢ tdm,” selves, has no place in the verbal inflexions.

ent

Of the three High Tamil or classical plurals which have been

mentioned—¢ ndm, ‘nir, and ¢tdm’—two form their plurals by sub-

stituting ‘m’ for the final ‘n’ of the singular, or by adding ‘m’ to

are

the crude root.

This I consider to be the regular method of plu-

Ave

ralizing the personal pronouns; and the use of ‘mnir,) you, instead

nd

of ‘nim, is an abnormal exception.

This appears on comparing it

icle

with ‘ning-gal,’ the corresponding plural in the colloquial dialect,

which is formed from ¢nim ’— the plural that is required by

hat

o

rule, and which is found in the ancient dialect of the Canarese.

9

It also appears from the circumstance that ‘nir

is not the base

of the oblique cases of the plural of this pronoun in any dialect of the

the

Tamil.

‘m’ constitutes the sign of plurality instead of ‘r

?

in the

all

oblique cases of nir,” precisely as in those of ‘ném,” we.

‘nim’ is

of

represented in the oblique cases in the classical dialect by ‘nam’ and

il

<em; and by ‘nam’ and ‘enggal’ (‘em-gal’) in the colloquial

by

dialect.

In like manner, the oblique cases of the plural of the second

ity

personal pronoun are ‘um’ and ‘num’ in the higher dialect; and

oof

¢unggal’ (‘um-gal’) in the colloquial.

‘nin,’ the abbreviation of

ud

¢nin, being used in the classics as the inflexion of the old singular,

we should have expected to find the corresponding ‘nim’ (from ‘nim’)

lo

in the plural: but both in the oblique cases and in the termination

1g

of the plural of the imperative, ‘i’ has given plaee to ‘u,” and ‘ num’

i

or ‘um’ has supplanted ¢nim.

‘num,’” the plural inflexion of the

has

Tamil, is identical with the nominative plural of the Brahui, which is

and

also ‘num.’

all

In Telugu the second personal pronoun is pluralised in the

Ut

nominative by ‘r’ instead of ‘m,’ e.g., mir-u,” you,; and in Telugu, as

66

in all the other Dravidian dialects, ‘r’ invariably forms the plural of

fﬂh

the persona,l terminations of the indicative mood of the verb. It will

Y

322

THE PRONOUN.

be seen, however, in the sequel that there are indications in Telugu

that this use of ‘r’ is abnormal.

i

In Canarese the plurals of all the personal pronouns are formed

{

in the ancient dialect with perfect and beautiful regularity ; e.g., ¢ an,

In the

I, ‘am, we; ‘nin, thou, ‘nim,” you,; °tan, self, ‘tam, selves.

0

oblique cases the included vowel is shortened as usual; and the only

other change which takes place is in the weakening (as in Tamil) of the

i

radical ‘a’ of the nominative of the first person into ‘e, e.g., ‘ emma,’

our.

al

In this particular, ‘ namma,” the form which has survived in the

The

colloquial dialect is more regular, and evidently more ancient.

al

modern dialect substantially agrees with the ancient, the chief dif-

ference consisting in the softening, in the nominatives alone, of the

final ‘m’ into ‘vu; e.g., ‘nivu, ‘nive,’ and ‘tavu,’ instead of ‘nam,’

11

‘nim,” and ¢ tAm.’

8

In the personal terminations of the verb, the modern dialect uses

fi

‘éve, ‘evu, and ¢évu,’ as representatives of ‘nivu,” we; the ‘e’ of

6§

which forms corresponds to ¢én,’ the termination of the Tamil sin-

th

gular.

This final ‘vu’ of the modern Canarese is not euphonie, like

an

the ‘vu’ of the Telugu singular, ‘ni-vu,” thou; but is softened from,

th

2

is the true

and is the representative of, an older ¢m.

Though ‘m

of

sign of the plural of the second person, as of the other personal pro-

nouns, ‘r’ is used instead in all the Canarese verbal terminations, as

in those of all the other dialects.

The ancient Canarese uses ‘ir,’ the

ta

modern ‘iri’ and ¢iri.’

of

Y

In Telugu the ‘m

which constitutes the pronominal sign of plu-

of

K

rality is not softened into ¢ vu

in the termination of the first person

Ie

plural of the verb, as in Canarese.

That termination is ¢ amu,” ¢ 4&mu,’

“emu, ‘ému; and in the preterite it takes the shape of ¢imi,’ through

i

the influence of €ti, the preterite formative.

The plural of the

dia

AR

1

second person is represented by ‘aru,

ri, ‘eru

¢éru, ‘uru, and

|

farn

of which ‘r, the pluralising suffix of ‘miru,’ you, is the only

essential element.

e.\p

€

The Telugu differs from the Tamil-Canarese in occasionally using

80f

‘ tar-u’ instead of tam-u,’ as the nominative plural of the reflexive

aly

PI‘OHOUH.

This irregularity, however, like that of the pluralisation

0rg

of the second personal pronoun by means of ‘r’ instead of ‘m,’ dis-

it

appears in the oblique cases; the plural inflexion or possessive of this

pronoun being ‘ tam-a,” in Telugu, as in the other dialects.

‘tamar-u,

Pl

sometimes used instead of tdm-u,’ is properly a possessive noun.

an

The Telugu plurals ¢ mém-u,” we, and ‘mir-u’ (or ¢ miru-lu’), yow,

13

present some peculiarities which require to be separately inquired

S

a

into.

of |

3

PLURALISATION OF

PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

i

In common with their singulars, the inflexions of these pronouns

reject altogether the final consonant—the sign of number —and

e

retain the long included vowel of the nominative unaltered. Thus,

1,

the inflexion or possessive of ‘mému’ is ‘mA,’ and that of ‘miran’

he

‘mi’—corresponding to the singular inflexions ‘nd’ and ‘ni.’

The

ly

objective case, however, follows the rule of the Tamil and Canarese ;

the

It may,

e.g., ‘mamu’ or ‘mammu, us, ‘mimu’ or ‘mimmu, You.

1,

therefore, be concluded that the mode in which the inflexions ‘mi’

the

and ‘mé’ are formed is irregular and of late origin; and that in

he

Telugu, as in the other dialeets, ‘m’ is to be regarded as the received

lif

and regular sign of the plural of the personal pronouns.

the

The chief peculiarity of these pronouns (‘mém-u’ and ‘mir-u’)

H

n,

in Telugu, is the change of the initial ‘n

into ‘m

It has been

seen that ‘na’ is the root of the primitive Drividian pronoun of the

1568

first person singular, and ‘ni’ that of the second; that the most

of

essential portion of those pronouns is the initial consonant ‘n; and

SI

that the normal method of forming plurals from those singulars is by

ke

annexing to them a final ‘m.’

How then is it to be accounted for

)i

that the Telugu plurals have ‘m’ as their initial and radical, instead

106

of ‘n P—mém-u’ and ‘mir-u,” instead of ‘ném-u’ and ‘nim-u’ or

10

“nir-u?’

,(

a5

I believe that this ‘m’ is not to be considered as the represen-

the

tative of an older pronominal root; but that it is merely the result

of the euphonic attraction of the final ‘m,” which constitutes the sign

of plurality.

I have been led to this conclusion by the following

l

500

reasons :—

10,

(i.) In the higher and more ancient dialect of the Telugn,

oh

‘memu,’ we, is replaced by ‘ému; precisely as ‘énu’ is used in that

dialect instead of ‘ nénu,” /. These older forms, ¢ én-u’ and ‘ém-u,’ are

the

in perfect accordance with the Ancient Canarese ‘4n’ and ‘Am,” and

;md

especially with the personal terminations of the Tamil verb, ¢én’ and

nly

< em.”

It 1s demonstrable that the Canarese ‘4n’ and ‘am’ have been

sing

softened from ¢ yan’ and ‘yam, of which another form is the Malay-

ala ‘njan’ and ‘fijAm; and I believe that these are derived by the

176

{100

ordinary change of ‘n’ into ‘fij’ and ¢y, from the Tamil ‘nin’ and

d

15

‘nam.’

ff

118

We thus arrive at the conclusion that the ‘m’ of the Telugu

plural is abnormal, and that ‘mém-u’ must have been formed from

J-lly

an older ‘ném-u; and if, as I have supposed, the normal Dravidian

gl

‘na’ itself is allied to, and weakened from, a still older Scytho-

p

4

Sanscrit ‘ma,” the remembrance of this, or the surviving influence

>

of the fact, would tend to facilitate a return of ‘n

to ‘m

1m

Y 2

324

THE PRONOUN.

Telugu; though T doubt not that the euphonic attraction of the *m’

which is used as a sign of plurality, is to be regarded as the immediate

the

cause of that return.

Sel

(ii.) If the plural of the Telugu first person alone had ‘m’ for

tw

its basis, we might possibly suppose that ‘m’ to be radical and pri-

€01

mitive, on account of ‘m’ being the basis of the corresponding Scytho-

“al

Sanscrit pronoun; but we find the same initial ‘m” in the plural

of the Telugu second person also.

Now, as it cannot be doubted that

ter

‘ni,’ the singular of that pronoun—agreeing as it does with the

thi

Behistun-Scythian and the Chinese, as well as with many of the

Th

Finnish forms——faithfully represents the primitive Dravidian pronoun

of the second person, it seems certain that ¢ mim * (the supposititious

ten

nominative from which the objective ‘mim-mu’ has been derived)

the

must have been altered from ¢nim.’

We may, therefore, conclude that

Vel

the same process took place in the pronoun of the first person also.

(iii.) The Telugu is more addicted to harmonic changes than any

i

other Dravidian dialect.

It alters both vowels and consonants for

Th

harmonic reasons so frequently, that the change from ném-u’ to

‘mém-u,’ and from ‘nim-u’ to ‘mim-u,’ would be thought by Telugu

plu

per

people a very natural and trivial one.

Possibly this change throws light on a termination of the impera-

Pro

tive in Tamil which has not been accounted for.

the

The ordinary representative of the plural of the pronoun of the

Wit

second person in Tamil imperatives is ‘um, a weakened form of

Wi

‘num; but in the poets we find also ‘min,’ e.g., ‘kén-min’ (theme

‘kel, to hear,) hear ye, instead of the colloquial ¢kél-um.’

Possibly

n

this ‘min’ is an euphouic displacement of ¢ nim,” that very abbrevia-

nf}

tion of ‘nim’ which we should expect to find used (instead of ‘um’)

in the older dialect.

pexs

1y

The Ku agrees with the Telugu, in the main, as to the mode in

Dr

which it pluralizes the personal pronouns. Its nominatives are ¢am-u,

we, and ‘ir-u,” you ; but the inflexions of the same are ‘mi’ and

‘mi.

fon

In the personal terminations of the verb the plural of the first

person annexes ‘Amu’; that of the second ‘éru’ or ¢éaru.’

tiop

tha

The Malayéala plurals are nearly identical with those of the Tamil.

Wit

The only difference deserving of notice is that the included vowel

ver

is abbreviated in the nominative plural, as well as in the oblique cases;

fOlu

e.g., ‘fjingal,’ we, instead of ‘ninggal, and ‘ningal,’ you, instead of

‘ninggal ;’ and that in the oblique cases the initial ‘n’ is not lost, and

EXe

2

2

that

“a’ changed to ‘i

in the first person and ‘1’ to ‘u

in the second,

any,

as in Tamil, but the nominatives themselves are used unchanged as

the bases of the oblique cases.

the

diun

PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

3

-

9

5

i

In Tulu the plural of the first person is ‘namma,’ instead of ‘nim,’

late

the inflexion of which is ‘nama,’ as in High Tamil. The only repre-

sentative of this plural in the verbal terminations is ¢va.’

There are

for

v

two forms of the plural of the second person, as in Tamil; viz., ¢ir

b

I

tho

corresponding to the Tamil ‘nir,” and the double plural ‘ninggal’

“ar’ represents this plural in the personal terminations of the verb,

ural

tha

The Tuda plural of the first person is ¢6m, as in the personal

termination of the verb in colloquial Tamil.

The representative of

the

the

this plural in the verbal inflexions is ¢imi,” as in the Telugu preterite.

The plural of the second person is ‘nima.’

011

The Kota plural of the first person is ‘nme,” which in the personal

1008

terminations of the verb becomes ¢ emme.’

The nominative plural of

ved)

the second person is ‘niye,” of which the inflexion is ¢ nima,” and the

that

verbal ending ¢ irri.’

In Gond the plural of the first person is ‘amat,” of the second

any

‘imat;’ the final t’ of which forms is inorganic and abnormal.

for

fo

The inflexion, like that of the Telugu, is ‘mA’ for the first person

plural, and ‘mi’ for the second. The personal termination of the first

ugu

person plAuraJl of the verb is ‘4m’ or ‘6m ; of the second, ‘rit’ or ¢it.’

eLd-

The Uron and Ré4jmahal dialects form the plurals of their personal

pronouns regularly by changing the final ‘n’ into ‘m.’ Compare

the Urdon ‘em,” we, with enan,’ 7: the Réjmahal ‘nam, ¢om, we

the

with “en,’” 7, and ‘nim,’ the base of the possessive “nim-ki,” your,

| Of

with the singular nominative ¢nin,’ #how.

eme

In Brahui the plural of the first person is ‘nan;’ that of the second

ibly

‘num,” which is identical with one of the Tamil plurals. In the verbal

VI

inflexions the final ‘n’ of ‘nan,” we, represents the plural of the first

n’)

person;’ e.g., ‘aren,’ we are: in the second person the final ‘m’ of

‘num’ disappears, and ‘ri’ is used instead, precisely as in the true

o 10

Dravidian dialects; e.g., areri, you are.

-l

The result of the foregoing comparison is, that the first person

and

forms its plaral in all the Drividian idioms (with the solitary excep-

first

tion of the Brahui) by changing the final formative ‘n’ into ‘m:’

that the second person originally formed its plural in the same manner

il

without exception, viz., by substituting ‘m’ for ‘mn,” though the

owel

verbal endings and the nominative of the isolated pronoun are now

1968)

found to prefer ‘r;’ and that there is but one solitary and trivial

l of

exception (viz., that of an optional Telugu nominative) to the rule

and

that the reflexive pronoun also forms its plural by discarding ‘n’ and

tOIld;

annexing ‘m

Consequently we are now entitled to regard ‘m’ as

d 88

the regular and ancient sign of plurality which is used by the Dravi-

dian personal pronouns.

326

THE PRONOUN.

¢

)

¢ ar,

1T

or ‘r,’ is the plural of all ‘rationals’ in the Dravidian

languages, with the exception of the three personal pronouns; and the

existence of this exception constitutes ‘r’ a sign of the plural of the

1

third person.

How then has a termination which is peculiar to the

third person found its way into the second ?

In this manner, I appre-

hend:—¢nir,” or more fully ¢ niyir’ (ni-(y)-ir,) means literally thow+

[

they; and this compound would necessarily bring out the signification

d

you.

The Sanscrit ¢ yushmé’ (¢ yu+smé’), you, is supposed to have a

I

similar ori gin.

Bxtra-Dravidian relationship.—W e now proceed to inquire whether

]

final ‘m,” the distinctive Dravidian plural of the personal pronouns,

forms the plural of this elass of words in any other family of langunages.

al

Ul

‘m’ having a tendency to be weakened into ‘n’ (of which there

are many examples in the terminations of Tamil nouns), and ‘m’ and

fl

‘n’ being generally equivalent nasals, the use of a final ‘n’ as a sign

P

of the plural of pronouns, may possibly be equivalent to that of ‘m.”

If so, we may adduce as examples of plurals allied to the Dravidian

€0

the Brahui ‘nan, the Chaldee ¢anfn,” and the Ostiak ‘men,” we;

as also the Persian ¢tan,” yow.’

A slight trace of the use of ‘m’ as

a sign of the plural may be noticed in the Beluchi ‘ mimiken,” we,

(2

th

when compared with ‘menik,” 7. In the Ostiak,a Finnish dialeet, the

first person plural of the verb terminates in ‘m, whilst the plaral of

9

§

the corresponding pronoun terminates in ‘n

On comparing the

Finnish proper olen,” I am, with ‘olemme,” we are, we are struck

with their resemblance to the Dravidian rule.

The resemblance, how-

i

Cl

ever, is illusory; for the ‘m’ of the Finnish ‘me” is a sign of per-

?

sonality, not of plurality.

‘me,

we, is the plural of ‘ma,” the old

Finnish 7; of which ‘na’ (from which the ‘n’ of ‘olen’ arises) is,

a8

as I have shown, an euphonic modification.

We can scarcely indeed

be

expect to find in the pronouns of the Scythian languages any sign of

81

n

plurality perfectly corresponding to that of the Drividian ‘m;’ for

in those languages the personal pronouns are generally pluralized by

P

a change of the final vowel, not by any change or addition of conso-

W,

nants: e.g., Manchu “bi,’ 7, ‘be, we; Magyar ‘te, thou, ‘ti, you;

)

Ostiak and Finnish ‘ma,” 7, ‘me’ (or ‘men’), we.

I have reserved till now the consideration of a series of close and

remarkable analogies which run through the whole of the Indo-Euro-

J

pean family of languages, and which are found also in the North-

4

Indian vernaculars.

In those languages we find very frequent use of

H

“m’ in the plurals of the personal promouns, in which it either con-

]

stitutes the final consonant, or occupies a place of evident importance ;

ol

T —————

—

——

"

PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

327

9

dian

and this ‘m’ in some instances appears to replace a final ‘n’ or ‘n

| the

which is used by the corresponding singulars.

the

In the vernaculars of Northern India we find the following

)

) the

instances of the use of ‘n’ or ‘n

in the singular and ‘m’ in the

plural.

Hindi ‘main, 7, ‘ham,” we; ‘td, ¢tin,” or ‘tain,’ thou,

pe-

0+

‘tum,” yow: Gujarathi ‘hun, 7, ‘hame,’ we; ‘tin, thou, ‘tame,’

tion

youw: Marathi tun, thow, ¢tumhi,’ you.

In Bengali and Uriya ‘n’

V6 &

disappears from the terminations of the singulars, but in the plural ‘m

retains its place as in the other dialects: e.g., Bengali ‘toma’ or

“tumi,’ the inflexional base of the plural of the second person; and

other

¢ Uriya ‘tumbha,’” the base of ¢ tumbhaméani.’

The same distinctive

¢

m

ous,

appears in the Pali-Prakrit ¢ tumhe, you, ‘amhe,” we.

Compare

also the New Persian ‘shumd,’ you, and the final ‘m’ of ‘hastém,’

ages

there

we are.

" and

Similar and very striking analogies meet us in Greek. Compare

the singulars ¢éywv

and ¢ 7odv, ‘éywrvy,’ and ¢7ovwy’ with the

g

it

plurals ¢ 7},uefs- > and ¢ opels)’

This resemblance too is strengthened

dian

when the vowels of the Greek plurals are compared with some of the

corresponding Drévidian ones: e.g., compare ‘yu-ets’ with the Telugu

e

a8

‘ém-u,” we;’ and ¢ vu-cts’ with ‘um,” which is the base of the oblique

" 10ty

cases of the Tamil plural of the second person, and is used to represent

that pronoun in the plural of the imperative.

, the

al of

It also deserves to be noticed, that in the Greek, Persian, Gaurian,

&e:, ‘m

9

is not used indiscriminately by all nouns, or even by all

the

pronouns, as a sign of plurality in general, but is invariably restricted

Eruck

how

to the pronouns of the first and second person—a usage which pre-

cisely accords with that of the Dravidian languages.

per

A strong case for regarding the ‘m’ of the Indo-European idioms

e old

as allied to the plural ‘m’ of the Dravidian family has doubtless now

) 5

been established ; and yet this resemblance, though so exact and con-

deed

sistent, will be found on investigation to be entirely illusory!

On a

;ﬂ Of

' for

more extended comparison it diminishes, and at last it disappears.

Perhaps, indeed, no better illustration can be found than that which

’dby

will now be adduced, of the danger of confiding in apparent resem-

10"

blances, and of the value of comparison in philology.

)

g/()lé g

The resemblance of the final ‘n

of the North-Indian and of some

Greek singulars to the final ‘n’ of the singulars of the Dravidian

and

pronouns, though probably accidental, is to be classed in a rather

ur0-

different category from that of the plural ¢m.

The final ‘%’ of the

ortl-

Hindi ‘main,” “tun,’ &c, is an euphonic and purely inorganic nasal,

156 o

which adds nothing to the grammatical expression: this is also the

(on

chéracter of the ‘v’ of the Greek ‘éywr’ and ¢7odv;’ and the origin

168 §

328

THE PRONOUN

il

of these nasals is to be attributed to the euphonic influences from

which the final ‘n’ of the Tartar

men’ and

sen’ proceeded ; not

tum

I think, to the neuter termination of the Sanscrit pronouns ‘ah-am

I

and ¢tva-m

On the other hand, the final ‘mn

of the Dravidian

comp

promouns is not a mere inorganic or euphonic addition, but is used

bu

ence

distinctively as a sign of the singular, and in most of the dialects

evinces greater persistency than the initial and radical ‘n’ itself.

This

Though, however, in actual use ‘n

is a sign of the singular, it

B

may possibly have proceeded originally from an euphonic origin ; and

expl

this view is confirmed by the circumstance that in Canarese it is

(for

regarded as a formative, and accordingly is optionally dispensed with

|

and the crude, unformed roet, without this addition, is occasionally

foune

This ¢

used as the nominative singular.

n may, therefore, after all,

Prar

have some ulterior connexion with the final ‘n’ of the Grazco- Gaurlan

_((

as well as the Seythian singulars.

Bop

This disturbing element being eliminated, we come now to the re-

01121}

semblance which is found to subsist between the Graaco-Gaurian plural

10 i

m’ and the final ‘m’ of the Dravidian plurals

On extending our

thirg

comparison a few stages, so as to include those dialects which exhibit

Singy

he original character of the Indo-European pronouns, no trace of a

i

an

)

VR

connexion between the ome ‘m’ and the other, will be found to

Semi

survive

and

evide

7//146(,8'

vpers’ are not the oldest forms of the Greek plurals

flan

—

For ¢yueis, the Doric and ARolic dialects have

apes

tL,LL/LLC“

and

L3

(Llulll,LG

for ¢vueis’ they hav

v,uex

UpLES, and ‘u/u./ue

of which

forms, the oldest and most reliable appear to be ¢duues,’ or its

he o

uninflected type ¢ dupe, and ‘ bupes’ or ‘ upe

When “duue,” we, is

Zag

now compared with the corresponding Prakrit

amh

with the

hey

Gujarathi ‘hame,” with the Zend (supposititious) ‘ahme,” from which

ot

proceeds the possessive

ahmékem’ (corresponding to the Prakrit

have

‘amhakam’), our ; and finally with the Vedie-Sanscrit ¢asmeé,” we, it

On

is evident that the last-mentioned form, ¢asm

is the normal type

13-

from which all the rest are derived.

The progression is very clear—

he<

¢ asme

ahmé

amhé

u/LL/.LE

Y B g )

aulue-eg

s

—

7/ILLCLS’

‘hame

‘ham

¢

he

In like manner on comparing

'U/,l,LLES‘

or

Yppe, you, with the

New Persian ¢shum

€Va

with the Zend ¢ylishem’ (in the oblique cases

aly

yusma’), and with the Vedic-Sanscrit ¢ yushmé’ (for yusme ), it is

Ve

equally obvious that ¢yusmé’ is the root of the whole.

¢ yusmé,’

you,

add1

the plural of tu,’ tkou, has probably been softened from ‘ tusme,’

that

= ‘tu-smé’ (as ‘asmé’ from ‘masmé = ‘ma-smé’): and this suppo-

bYG

sititious ‘ tusmé’ (weakened into ¢ tuhmé,” like ‘asmé’ into ¢ahmé’)

by

becomes a reality, when we turn to the Prakrit ¢ tumheé,” you,—from

4 g

PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

329

s from

which comes directly the Gaurian ¢ tumhi,” ¢ tumbha,’ ¢ tame,’

d; nat,

‘tum, &e.

ab-am’

5 )

It has now been ascertained that the Dravidian final ‘m

is to be

avidian

compared, not with the apparently equivalent ‘m’ of ¢ ham’ and ‘tum,’

is used

but with the Vedic particle ‘sme ;" and the improbability of the exist-

dialects

ence of any connexion between these two is evidently very great.

olf,

This improbability increases when the origin of ¢sme’ is investigated.

ular, it

Bopp believes ‘sma’ to be a pronoun of the third person, and

n; and

explains ‘a-smé’ (for ‘ma-smé’), we, to signify 7+ they, and ‘yu-smé’

% 1t B

(for ¢ tu-smé’), you, to signify thou+ they.

A

bl

d with,

Moreover, though the ‘m’ which is derived from this ¢sm

(&

1S

tonally

found only in the plural in Sanscrit and Greek, yet in Zend, Pali, and

fror all

Pracrit it is found also in the singular ; e.g., Pracrit ¢ mamammi

i,

= (‘mama-sm’-i’), m me, ‘tumammi’ (= ‘tuma-sm’-i’), in thee.

Bopp supposes this use of ‘sm’’ in singular pronouns to be of late

the re-

origin, and to have arisen from imitation of the plurals: but there is

1 plural

no proof whatever either that ‘sm’’ was originally a pronoun of the

g our

third person, or that the plural has a better right to it than the

xhibit

singular. Possibly it may have been a particle of specification, like the

g of &

‘an’ prefixed to the pronouns of the first and second persons in the

Semitic languages.

But whatever may have been its origin, it is now

evident that it is entirely unconnected with the ‘m’ that forms the

plurals.

sign of plurality which is used by the Dravidian personal pronouns,

}

and

which

Origin of this sign of plurality.—We have now to inquire whether

o 1t

the origin of this plural ‘m’ can be discovered in the Drividian lan-

10ty 18

guages themselves, seeing that no trace of it is discoverable in any

b the

other family.

It appears to me to have been derived from ‘um, the

which

conjunctive or copulative particle of the Tamil, and which appears to

have been the primitive form of this particle in the other dialects also.

pakrit

ulg} ]t

On this supposition ‘ nam,” we, and “nim,” you, resolve themselves into

] type

‘na-um,’ ‘egoque, and ‘ni-um,’ ‘fuque.”’ This view is corroborated by

the extensive use which is avowedly made of this very' “um' >y

Jpar—

am.

the formation of Tamil distributive and universal pronouns.

Thus,

h the

‘evanum,’ every ome, ‘engum,’ every where, ‘ ubique,” and ¢ epporudum,’

always, every time, are unquestionably and avowedly derived from

) 3568

“evan, who? ‘engu, where? and ‘epporudu, what time? with the

| it18

addition in each instance of the conjunctive particle ‘um, and ; so

) you,

that the compound pronoun every one is regularly expressed in Tamil

usﬂlé;’

}uppO,

by who ? and— ; every where, like ‘ubique,” by where ? and — ;

always, by what time? and—.

In the same manner ‘um’ is annexed

mt)

from

as an auxiliary to some affirmative universals for the purpose of

330

THE PRONOUN.

widening their application ; e.g., ¢ ellA-(v)-um, Malayalam, all, literally

h Qcy

all and——, from “ella, all, and ‘um, and. This form is abbreviated

Sanserl

1t 18 fon

in Tamil into ¢ ellam ;’ which is regarded and treated by grammarians

as a plural ; and if the addition of ‘um, abbreviated to ‘m,” un-

spoken

doubtedly constitutes pronominal distributives and universals, may not

we—0f

the sign of plurality which is employed by the personal promouns be

lian ha

an abbreviation of the same ‘um ?

A parallel case appears in Ostiak,

guages,

in which the sign of the dual number (‘ ga, ‘ka, ¢gai, ‘gan,’ &e.) is

Austra

derived by Castrén from ‘ka’ or ‘ki, also.

Al

1ouns

Twofold plural of the Dravidian pronoun of the first person.—The

which

ordinary plural of the Dravidian first personal pronoun is constantly

‘nam, 1

used, not only as a plural, but also as an honorific singular, precisely

prope]

as the Royal and Editorial we is used in English ; and the plural of

‘ningg

every other Drividian pronoun may optionally be used as an honorific

‘engng

singular in the same manner.

It is not, however, this twofold signifi-

Th

cation or use of the same pronoun to which I now refer ; but the exist-

the Ta

ence of two pronouns of the first person plural, which differ from one

this 1

another in signification almost as much as the plural and the dual of

restrict

other languages.

from 1]

In all the Dravidian dialects, with the exception of the Canarese

its hon

and the higher dialect of the Tamil, there are two plurals of the pro-

a8 an

noun of the first person, of which one denotes, not only the party of

than

the speaker, but also the party addressed, and may be called the plural

for

enclusive ; the other excludes the party addressed, and denotes only the

for |

party of the speaker, and may be called the plural exclusive.

Thus, if

addres

a person said we are mortal, he would naturally use the we which in-

himge]

cludes those who are spoken to, as well as the speaker and his party,

Th

or the plural vnclusive: whilst he would use the plural exclusive, or that

Origin

which excludes the party addressed, if he wanted to say, ‘we’ are

which

Hindus ; ‘you’ are Europeans.

()Miqu

There is a similar distinction between the two plurals of the first

person which are used in the MarAthi and the Gujarathi: e.g., hame’

Lespor

“man;

in Gujarithi, means we—the party speaking ; whilst ¢ 4pane’ means we

Proby

—the party speaking, and yow also who are addressed. There is no con-

Cupho

nexion between the particular pronominal themes which are used for this

purpose in Northern India and in the languages of the South; but the

existence of so remarkable an idiom in the North-Indian family, as

well as in the Southern, demonstrates the existence in the Northern

family of an ancient under-current of Dravidian, or at least of Scythian

Ungg;

influences. The idiom in question is a distinctively Scythian one, and

of

is one of those points which seem to connect the Dravidian family with

tkm‘, '

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS.

331

, literall y

the Scythian group. There is no trace of this twofold plural in the

breviated

Sanscrit, or in any of the languages of the Indo-European family, but

mmarans

it is found everywhere in Central Asia, in the languages which are

‘m’ u-

spoken by the primitive, nomadic tribes.

Thus the Manchu has ‘mi,’

, Inay not

we—of the one party, and ¢be,” we—the whole company. The Mongo-

nouns be

lian has a similar idiom ; and it is found also in the Polynesian lan-

n Ostiak,

guages, in many of the languages of America, and also in those of the

) de) is

Australian tribes.

All the Dravidian languages do not use precisely the same plural pro-

nouns as nclusive and exclusive plurals.

The colloquial Tamil (with

m,~1he

which the Malayilam and Tulu agree) forms the plural exelusive from

nstantly

‘nAm,” the ordinary and regular plural, by the addition of ‘gal,’ which is

precisely

properly a neuter sign of plurality ; by which addition ‘nim’ becomes

plural of

‘nAnggal’ in Tamil; ‘djangal’ or ‘fijangngal’ in Malayélam ; and

honenfie

‘engngal’ in Tulu.

d siguifi-

The Telugu, on the other hand, uses ‘mém-u’ (answering not to

he exist-

the Tamil ‘ninggal,” but to ‘ném’) as its plural exclusive; and as

Tom 0ne

this is the simplest form of the pronoun, it seems better suited to fthis

dual of

restricted use than the reduplicated form. The Telugu, though differing

from the Tamil in this point agrees with the Tamil in using ‘ mému’ as

lanarese

its honorific singular ; and this use of the plural exclusive in Telugu

as an honorific is more in accordance with philosophical propriety

he pro-

patty of

than the Tamilian use of the plural inclusive for this purpose :

g plural

for when a superior addresses inferiors, it is evidently more natural

for him to make use of a plural which excludes those whom he

oulythe

Thus, if

addresses, than one in which they would be included together with

himself.

fich in-

The Ku agrees with the Telugu, and uses ‘4m-u’ (identical in

s partfs

orthat

origin with the Tamil ‘nim’) to express the restricted signification

we' oIt

which the Tamil gives to ‘nénggal’

Its plural inclusive is “&ju,’ the

oblique form of which is ‘amma; and the Telugu plural which cor-

responds to ‘4ju’ (but which in meaning corresponds to ‘nam’) is

the first

hame’

¢manam-u,’ the base and inflexion of which is ‘mana.’

‘manam-u’ is

eans 1

probably derived from ‘mé4,’ the inflexional base of ‘mému ; with an

euphonic addition, or possibly with a weakened reduplication.

110 €01

forthis

hut the

IT.—Demonstrative Pronouns.

lﬁ}U a8

[)rt]lel'ﬂ

The Dravidian languages, like most, if not all, other primifive,

uncompounded tongues, are destitute of pronouns (properly so called)

cythiml

e, 4

of the third person, and use instead demonstratives signifying this or

that, with the addition of suffixes of gender and number.

In these

it

332

THE PRONOUN.

stiafive

languages ‘he,’ means literally that man ; “she,’ that woman ; and

“ they,” those persons or things.

suffix 0

the mas

The words which signify man and woman have gradually lost the

‘4, wi

definiteness of their original signification, and shrunk into the position

neuter

of masculine and feminine terminations,

They are no longer substan-

in Telu

tives, but mere suffixes or signs of gender ; and are so closely incorpo-

rated with the demonstrative bases that it requires some knowledge of

s

{d’

the principles of the language to enable us to separate them. In

lar whi

comparison, therefore, with the Turkish and Ugrian languages, in which

there is but one pronoun of the third person, the Dravidian languages,

hiatus

euphon

which possess three, appear to considerable advantage. Nevertheless,

the speech of the Dravidians was originally no richer than the other

singula

bases,

Scythian idioms ; and it has at length surpassed them only by the

uses ¢

Aryanistic device of fusing that-man, that-woman, that-thing, into

single, euphonious words.

ANDEXY

The signification of man and woman still shines through in the

narily

masculine and feminine terminations; but no trace remains of the

‘aR-am

words by which a thing and things were originally expressed, and

it was

and fe

which are now represented only by *d,’ the sign of the neuter sin-

gular, and ‘a,’ that of the neuter plural.

the fin

Four demonstrative bases are recognised by one or another of the

ialeet

Dravidian dialects, each of which is a pure vowel sl Pttt

person

remote, ‘1’ the proximate, and ¢u,’ the medial demonstrative ;

e‘g'a ;

together with

¢ A2

S

which is the suffix of emphasis in most of the

“ejg

dialects, but is a demonstrative in Ku.

The first two, viz., ‘a,” the

T

remote, and ‘i, the proximate demonstrative, are the most widely and

‘I, fo

frequently used.

and ¢

The medial ‘u’ is occasionally used by the Tamil poets, in Ancient

suffixe

Canarese, and in Tulu, to denote a person or object which is inter-

for the

mediate between the remote and the proximate ; and it will be found

isthe

that it has ulterior affinities of its own.

¢, the ordinary Dravidian

follow

suffix of emphasis, is used as a demonstrative in Ku alone,—in addition

‘avan

however to ‘a’ and ‘i eg., ‘évaru, they.

It appears also in the

‘i\’ar,

that.

Uraon “edah,’ this, the correlative of ¢hiidah,’

The use of <&’

Tamy]

being chiefly emphatic, I refer the reader, for an account of it, to a

gende

subsequent head.

b 1

The ordinary remote and proximate demonstratives of the Dravi-

gende

dian dialects are the simple, short vowels ‘a’ and “i; and it will be

The,

found that every other form which they assume is derived from this by

only

some euphonic process.

T

ﬂle e

L. Demonstrative pronouns.—The original character of the demon-

(ﬂlphc

Spar;

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS.

333

o, and

strative bases is best exhibited by the neuter singular ; the formative

suffix of which does not commence with a vowel, like ‘an’ and ‘al;

ot the

the masculine and feminine suffixes, but consists in a single consonant

position

¢d, with an euphonic vowel following it.

The remote and proximate

substan-

neuter singulars are in Tawmil ‘adu,” that (¢thing), ‘idu, this (thing) 5

in Telugu ‘adi,” ‘idi; in Canarese ‘adu,’ ‘idu; in Malayélam ¢ ata,

incorpo-

ledge of

‘ita ; in Gond and Tuda ‘ad, ¢id.

em, In

‘d’ having already been shown to be the sign of the neuter singu-

in which

lar which is used by pronominals and appellatives, and there being no

IguAges,

hiatus between ‘a’ or ‘i’ and ‘d,’ and therefore no necessity for

rtheless,

euphonic insertions, it is evident that the ‘a’ and ¢i’ of the neuter

singulars cited above constitute the purest form of the demonstrative

he other

bases.

In addition to ‘adu’ and ‘idu,’ the High Tamil sometimes

by the

uses ‘adan’ and ¢idan.’

1, 1ufo

These forms are probably derived from the

annexation to ‘ad’ and ‘id’ of ‘am,” which is dialectically and ordi-

v

h in the

narily convertible into ‘an

(E£.g., ‘ar-an,” wvirtue, is identical with

of the

‘ar-am.’)

‘am’ is a formative of neuter nouns ; and I conceive that

it was not added to ‘ad-u’ and ¢id-u,’ till it had ceased to be known

od, and

and felt that ‘d’ was itself a sign of the neuter singular.

‘dan,’

for §ill-

the final portion of ‘adan’ and ‘idan’ is sometimes used in the high

of the

dialect, instead of ¢du,” as the pronominal termination of the third

person neuter singular of the participial noun, especially in the dative;

N the

e.g., ‘Seygiradan-ku’ (euphonically ¢g$eygiradar-ku’), instead of

rative ;

‘$eygiradu-kku,’ for or to the doing.

of the

The suffixes which are annexed to the demonstrative bases ¢a’ and

%’the

¢i, for the purpose of forming the masculine and feminine singulars

Iy and

Those

and the epicene and neuter plurals, commence with a vowel.

suffixes are in Tamil ‘an,” for the masculine ; ‘al,’ for the feminine ; ‘ar,’

pclent

for the epicene plural; and ‘ei’ or “a,’ for the neuter plural ; and ‘v’

Inter-

The

fonnd

is the consonant which is most commonly used to prevent hiatus.

following, therefore, are the demonstrative pronouns of the Tamil, viz.,

:vidiaﬂ

‘avan,’ ‘ille;’ ‘ivan, ‘hic;’ ‘aval’ ‘illa;’ ‘ival) ¢ heec;’ ‘avar, ‘dlli;’

dition

‘ivar,

9

P < avel Sillay Cived) fihee)

I quote examples from the

n the

Tamil alone, because, though different formatives of number and

of ‘6

gender are sometimes anuexed in the other dialects, those differences

, t0d

do not affect the demonstrative bases.

All the above suffixes of

gender have already been investigated in the section on ‘The Noun.’

rivi-

The mode in which they are annexed to the demonstrative bases is the

ill be

only point which requires to be examined here.

is by

The demonstrative bases being vocalic, and all the suffixes, with

the exception of the neuter singular, commencing with a vowel, the

euphonic consonant ‘v’ had to be used, to keep the concurrent vowels

o

separate and pure.

334

THE PRONOUN.

)

‘v, though most frequently used to prevent ¢hiatus,’ is not the

only consonant that is employed for this purpose.

The Ku being but

and ¢

a@tion

little attentive to euphony, it sometimes dispenses altogether with the

they

euphonic ‘v, and leaves the contiguous vowels uncombined ; e.g.,

A

-}

¢ A

a

afiju,’ ke, ¢ aalu, she.

In Tulu ‘y

is sometimes substituted for

either

‘v, eg., ‘4ye, he: and even this ¢y’ disappears in the corresponding

tfy

18 ot

feminine, ‘al’ (for ‘aval’), ske; in which the two contiguous vowels

are combined. Even the Tamil sometimes combines those vowels

invar

instead of euphonically separating them : e.g., ¢ yavar, who ? is com-

Malay

monly abbreviated into ¢ yar ; and this is still further softened to ‘ar,’

TOwe

dialec

in the colloquial dialect.

nitial

In the higher dialect of the Tamil, ‘n’ is often used euphonically

instead of ‘v, especially in the personal terminations of the verbs.

it bec

T

Thus, instead of ‘irundan’ (for ‘irundavan’), ke was, the poets some-

times say irundanan; and for ‘irundava, they (neuter) were, the

whick

form which we should expect to find used, ¢irundana’ is universally

emph

used instead.

demoy

This euphonic ‘v’ has in some instances come to be regarded as

Tacter

an integral part of the demonstrative itself.

In the nominative plural

energ

of the Gond neuter demonstrative, the final and characteristic vowel ‘a>

folloy

has disappeared altogether, without leaving any representative ; e.g.,

Secon

‘av, those (things), iv, these (things).

In the oblique cases ‘a

18

In

represented by ‘e.’

In Telugu, though the nominatives of the neuter

wouds

Tam

plural demonstratives, ¢ avi’ and ©ivi,” use ‘v’ merely as an euphonie,

yet in the oblique cases, the bases of which are ‘va’ and ¢vi,” the de-

least

monstrative vowels have got displaced ; and ¢ v’ stands at the beginning

o

of the word, as if it were a demonstrative, and had a right per se to be

T

represented.

In the masculine singulars ‘vadu,’ ‘ille, ‘vidu, ‘hic,’

used

and in the epicene plurals ¢ varu,” ¢4, ¢ viru,” ‘A, ‘v’ euphonic has

(With«

advanced a step further, and assumed the position of a demonstrative

meth

in the nominative, as well as in the inflexion.

That this ‘v,” how-

in

ever, is not a demonstrative, and that the use to which it is put in

donh)

Telugu is abnormal, is shown by the fact that in ‘d4’ and °di, the

ane |,

inflexions of ‘adi’ and “idi, ¢¢llud’ and ‘’%oc, the neuter singular

S0nay

demonstratives of the Telugu, d,’ though certainly not a demon-

arg g

strative, nor even euphonic, but simply a sign or suffix of neuter

di‘alee

singularity, has been advanced to as prominent a position (by a similar

haye

euphonic displacement) as if it belonged to the root.

Pr eﬁx

In Tulu “avu,” which is properly the plural neuter, is used for the

iﬂugt

singular ; whilst ‘atu,” (corresponding to ‘adu’), is used to signify

fur

yes. A similar use of a plural form for the singular appears in the Old

el

Persian ‘ava,” ¢, which appears to be derived from ¢ava, those.

\WE

DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS.

33

5

of the

2. Demonstrative adjectives.—When the demonstrative bases ‘a

10 hut

and ‘i’ are simply prefixed to substantives, they convey the signifi-

h the

cation of the demonstrative adjectives that and this.

When prefixed,

)

they are indeclinable ; but on thus prefixing them to substantives,

£ 101

either the initial consonant of the substantive is eaphonically doubled,

nding

e.g., ‘anndl’ (‘a-(n)nal’), Tam., that day ; or if this euphonic doubling

YOWe

is not resorted to, the demonstrative vowels are lengthened. The Tamil

VOWels

|

invariably adopts the former plan: the latter is more common in the

§ COM

Malayalam and Canarese.

Where the substantive commences with a

0 “al,

vowel, and ‘v’ is inserted as usual to prevent hiatus, the Tamil, by a

dialectic rule of sound, doubles this ‘v,” as if it were regarded as an

nically

initial consonant : e.g., when “Gr,” Tam., ¢ willage, receives this prefix,

verbs,

it becomes not ‘avir’ (‘a~(v)-tr’), but ‘avvir.

S0me-

The origin of this doubling of the initial consonant of the word to

which the demonstrative vowel is prefixed, is to be ascribed to the

v, the

ersally

emphasis which is necessarily included in the signification of the

demonstrative.

Through this emphasis ‘a’ and ‘i’ assume the cha-

Jed a8

racter, not of ordinary formatives, but of qualifying words; and the

plural

energy which they acquire influences the initial consonant of the

following substantive, which is no longer an isolated word, but the

el ‘ot

,€y,

second member of a compound.

In the same manner and from a similar cause, when Sanscrit

‘3’is

neuter

words which commence with ‘a’ privative are borrowed by the

_)honic,

Tamil, the consonant to which ‘a’ is prefixed is often doubled, at

least in the colloquial dialect; e.g., ‘affijinam’ (‘a-(fij)-fijAnam,’

g de-

nping

tgnorance.

The occasional lengthening of the demonstrative vowels, when

;1o be

e

used adjectivally, in Malayalam, Canarese, and the other dialects

ic has

(without the doubling of the succeeding consonant), is merely another

method of effecting the same result.

The emphasis which is imparted

rafive

how

in this manner to the demonstrative, is equivalent to that which the

doubled consonant gives; and hence when the demonstrative vowels

put in

'

are lengthened, from

a

and ‘1’ to ‘4’ and ‘i, the succeeding con-

i the

The fact that the demonstrative vowels

sonant always remains single.

nglﬂ{ll‘

are short in the pronouns of the third person in each of the Dravidian

ool

dialects without exception, shows that those vowels could not originally

ﬂelltel

have been long, and that the use of long ‘4’ and ‘i’ as adjectival

milat

prefixes, instead of ‘a’ and ‘i’ is owing to emphasis.

Some curious

o i

16

illustrations of the lengthening of a vowel through emphasis alone, are

furnished by the common speech of the Tamil people; e.g., ‘adigam,’

0]

Iy

Il

much, large—a word which is borrowed by the Tamil from the Sanscrit

eV

—when it is intended to signify very much, is colloquially pronounced

ne—

336

THE PRONOUN.

den

¢ adigam.’

Similar instances might be adduced from each of the

‘an

colloquial dialects.

In addition to the use of the simple vowels ‘a’ and i, and their

Tel

(A2

Can

equivalents

a

and ‘1, as demonstrative prefixes, the Tamil makes

Al

much use also of a pair of derived demonstrative adjectives, viz.,

‘anda,’ that, and ‘inda,’ this; e.g., ‘anda maram,’ that tree, ‘inda nilam,’

“ind

adye

this piece of land. These demonstrative adjectives are unknown to the

Sam

other dialects of the family; and in the higher dialect of the Tamil

itself they are unused. Their bases ‘and’) €ind’) are evidently iden-

the

anot

tical with those of the Telugu adverbial nouns ‘and-u,” ¢ind-u,” that or

I have

n 0

this (place or thing) ; e.g., ‘indu-16,” in this, ‘andu-ku,’ to that.

no doubt that these Telugu words, ‘andu’ and ‘indu,’ are either

form

I

derived by euphonization from the Tamil demonstrative pronouns

¢adu’ and ¢idu,” or, which is more probable, from the addition to the

whic

demonstrative bases of the formative ‘du,” nasalized to ‘ndu; in the

form:

the g

same manner as in Tamil ‘gu’ and ¢du,” nasalized to ‘ngu’ and ‘ndu,’

will be found to have been annexed to the same demonstrative bases,

g

for the purpose of forming similar adverbial nouns. If to these

lere,

that

adverbial nouns, ‘and-u,” ‘ind-u,” we now add ‘a,’ the formative of the

>

relative participle, by annexing which so many adjectives are formed,

W

£

we arrive at ‘anda’ and ‘inda,’ the Tamil demonstrative adjectives.

tigitkg

1)

3. Demonstrative nouns: their use as adwerbs. — The Dravidian

ing §

Giong

languages form nouns of place, time, and relation into demonstrative

bage

adverbs (which are adverbs in use only, but nouns in form) by pre-

fixing to them the demonstrative bases.

Vidiay

with

The most frequently used words of this class are those which

D Ky}

signify then and now; and they are formed by simply prefixing the

demonstrative vowels-—‘a’ (remote) and ‘i’ (proximate)—to any noun

Stratiy

With

which signifies #ime: e.g., from ¢porudu,’ ¢ime, the Tamil forms

¢apporudu’ (‘a-(p)porudu’), then, that time, and ¢ ipporudu,’ now, this

Tt

time ; from the corresponding noun ‘pudu,’ the Telugu forms ‘appudu,’

e\'iden

has 1

and ‘ippudu; and from ‘pol’ the Malayalam forms €appol’ and

“ippol.’

Each of these adverbs has the signification of a noun in the

Stangj

locative case; so that the expressions, that time, this time, signify, in

Canill’\

Tt

that time, in this time, &c; but the case-signification, though understood,

is not expressed.

In the Dravidian languages indeed, not nouns of

and ¢

time and place only, but all nouns may be used as adverbs, with or

Otlipg

withovt the addition of the suffixes of cases; and all adverbs are

0n R,

either nouns or verbs.

{d’ 0)

A class of words which more nearly resemble our ‘adverbs’ than

{]lm’ i

fOl'm;u

the compounds referred to above, are formed by annexing to the

4

DEMONSTRATIVES.

33

(

f the

demonstrative bases certain formative suffixes: e.g., compare the Tamil

“angu,’ there, ‘ingu,’ here; ‘andru,’ that day, ¢indru,’ to-day,’ the

their

Telugu ‘andu,” in that place, there; ‘indu,” in this place, here; the

makes

Canarese ‘andu,’ that day, ‘indu,’ to day; ‘alli,) in that place, there,

A

‘illi,y) @n this place, here; also the High Tamil ¢

an

du, there, then;

Vi,

ilam,

‘indu,’ here, now; and the Tulu ‘anchi, there, ¢inehi,” here.

Similar

to the

adverbs are formed from the interrogative vowel ‘e’ by annexing the

Tamil

same formative terminations.

In one of the examples given above,

riden-

the ideas of place and time are evidently regarded as identical ; and

fhat ot

another, ‘andu,’ is an adverb of place in Telugu, and an adverb of time

[ have

in Canarese.

The Tamil ¢ andru,’ that day, is evidently an euphonised

ither

form of the same word.

pnouns

In the Tamil adverbs ‘angu,’ there, ‘inga,” kere, the formative

fo the

which we find to be employed is ¢ gu’—one which is much used in the

in the

formation of ordinary nouns, and which in those nouns as well as in

the adverbs before us, is often euphonized into ‘ngu.’

The primitive,

| ‘1}('1”1,

unnasalised formative is seen in the corresponding Génd adverbs ‘iga,

Dases,

here, ‘haga,’ or ‘aga, there; whilst in the Gond ‘inga,” now, we see

) these

that in that dialect also ‘g’ has occasionally been nasalised into ‘ng.’

of the

We may compare also the Goénd adverbs ¢hike, Zither, ¢ hoke,

ormed,

thither.

1S,

The resemblance between the Gond ‘iga,” Zere, and the correspond-

ing Sanscrit ‘iha’ is remarkable; yet it cannot be supposed that the

Avidian

Gond word has been borrowed from the Sanserit.

The demonstrative

strafive

base ‘i’ is the common property of the Indo-European and the Dra-

by pre-

vidian families; but, though ‘iga’ seems to be as closely connected

with ¢iha,’ as the Latin ‘ego’ is with the Sanscrit ‘ah-am, yet the

ylich

Dravidian formative ‘gu,” ‘ ngu,” ‘ku’ (by suffixing which the demon-

slﬂg the

strative vowel becomes an adverbial noun) has no connection whatever

with the merely euphonic ‘h’ of ¢ iha.’

| forms

The Canarese adverbs of place ‘alli,) #here, and “illi, kere, are

A s

evidently derived from the High Tamil “il,) a house, a place, which

apP“‘.iu;

has been converted, by euphonic displacement, into 1i.

Notwith-

o Al

v

standing this, ‘il,’ @ house, is not contained in an isolated shape in

Canarese.

i in

The formative ¢ du,’ euphonised to ‘ndu, which is found in ‘andu,’

&erstoody

and ‘indu,” is one which is occasionally used in the formation of

ouns of

ordinary nouns, though not so frequently as ‘gu.

(See the section

gith O

on ‘ Roots.”) It may have an apparent resemblance to the formative

erhg are

‘d’ or “th’ of several Sanscrit adverbs, e.g., ‘athd,’ so, thus; ‘tada,’

then, at that time; but the connections and relationship of the Sanserit

ps' 02

formative are widely different from those of the Dravidian one.

Z

)

338

THE PRONOTUN.

el

In the High Tamil adverbs, ‘4

ndu’ and ‘indu’ (‘47 and ‘1, for ‘a

and ‘i’), the cerebral ‘d’ is sufﬁxed as a formative instead of the

i

has

dental ; and it is nasalised accordingly by ¢mn,” instead of ‘n; but I

have no doubt that this ¢ du

is from the same source, and is used for

precisely the same purpose, as the dental suffix. In Telugu in a similar

lan

attu

fha

manner,

that, an adjective and adverb, which is properly a

demonstrative noun, exhibits the cerebral ¢t

instead of the more

“h

usual dental d’ or nd.

D

andu,’ in Tamil, means not only thern and there, but also a year

This word has some apparent resemblance to words which signify a

sty

year in various other languages; e.g., Ossete € ans

Latin ¢an-nus

Tur

but the resemblance

blar

Mongol ‘on,” Manchu ¢ ania,” Tungusian ‘anyan

disappears on investigation, for the Tamil <andu’ (Tel

éndu’) is a

modern corruption from ©yAndu,” the word which is used for year in

app

The

the poetry and in all ancient inseriptions; and €yandu’ is derived

from the interrocative base ya’ and the formative ¢du,” nasalised to

thor

‘ndu’ (like ‘iradu,” fwo, nasalised to

irandu’), and means properly

dise

when, secondarily o time, and lastly « year

vidi

3!

Afiliation of the demonstrative bases

xtra-Dravidian affinities.—

of ff

There is only a partial and indistinet resemblance between the remote

¢

>

>

a, proximate ‘I,

and medial €u,

which constitute the bases of the

gene

Drividian demonstratives, and the demonstratives which are used by

alve

the languages of Northern India

S0ng

8

A

In Bengali and Singhalese,

is used as a demonstrative; in

me

Marathi € ha,” ¢ hi

‘hen

in the Hindustani we find ¢ vuh,” that

yih,’

0

this; but in the oblique cases the resemblance increases; e.g.,

s-k

Mang

to ths.

‘1

is used as the proximate demonstra,tlve in the North-

Indian langua es more systematically than “a’ or any corresponding

Tiveg

vowel is used as the remote; eg., Marathi

“ikade,” here;

Hindi

fion,

idhar

hather

Mar

itake,” so much

1ITepy

A general resemblance to the Dravidian demonstrative bases is

Inaf

apparent in several of the Hlma]ayan languages; e.g., Bodo ‘imbe,’

this, < hobe,

that ;

Dhimal ¢

(u,

Uraon

édah,’

“hiidah.’

The

h

and

1

Dot

Rajmahal

are porfectly identical with the DraAvidian

demonstratives, and form another evidence of the Dravidian character

tself

The\(

of a portion of that idiom

of my

The connexion which appears to subsist between the Dravidian

A

medial demonstrative ‘u’ and the ¢

u’ of the Uraon cmd Dhimal is

Pl

Tbe |

deselvmg of notice.

Perhaps the Drividian medial ‘u’ (Dhimal ‘&,

Whig

Urdon ¢hidah ’) may be compared with the Old Hebrew masculine-

feminine pronoun of the third person, ¢hti;’ and thus with the Old

dy

Pare

DEMONSTRATIVES.

339

)

Persian remote demonstrative ‘hauva,” of which the first portion

he

appears to be ‘hu,” and the second ‘ava,—which ‘ava’ forms the

Al

base of the oblique cases.

It may also be compared with the ‘u’ or

for

‘0’ which forms the remote demonstrative in some of the Scythian

lar

languages: e.g., Finnish ¢tuo,’ tha?, ‘tama,’ this; Ostiak ¢toma,’

that, ‘tema, this.

Compare also the Hind. ‘vuh,” #hat; Bodo

018

‘ hobe.’

The Magyar demonstratives are mere in accordance with the

(i

Dravidian

‘o

and £is eun, % thaw, ez

b

thas.

The demon-

ny

stratives of the other languages of the Scythian family (e.g., the

U,

Tuarkish ‘bou,” that, ol, this’) are altogether destitute of resem-

nee

blance.

When we turn to the languages of the Indo-European family, they

pu

is'a,

appear in this particular to be closely allied to the Dravidian.

ved

Throughout that family both ‘a’ and ¢i’ are used as demonstratives ;

fo

though not to so large an extent, nor with so perfect and constant a

1ly

discrimination between the remote and the proximate, as in the Dra-

vidian family.

In Sanserit ‘a’ is used iunstead of the more regular

H

£y

in most of the oblique cases of ¢idam, this; and the correlative

)

[4

of this word, ‘adas,’ means not only tkat, but also this.

9

Nevertheless,

ot

a

is more generally a remote than a proximate, and ‘i’ more

the

generally a proximate than a remote demonstrative.

In derived

\ by

adverbial words ‘i’ has always a proximate force; but ¢ta,” the con-

sonantal demonstrative, is more generally used than “a.” The follow-

n

ing are examples of each vowel:—¢i-ha,” %ere; ¢i-dinim,” now;

”h)’

¢ ta-danim,’ then: also ‘i-ti,” so, this much, ‘a-tha,” so, thus, in that

manner.

,k('),'

ith

We may also compare the Old Persian ‘avada,’ thither, in that

ling

direction ; and the corresponding proximate ¢i-da, hither, in this direc-

ndi

fion.

The resemblance between these forms, notwithstanding the

irregularity of their application, and the Dravidian remote and prox-

sis

imate demonstrative bases, amounts to identity.

All irregularity disappears in the New Persian, which in this

lbe;

The

point accords as perfectly with the Dravidian languages as if it were

itself a Dravidian idiom.

fian

Its demonstratives are ‘4n,’ that, in, this.

These demonstratives are adjectival prefixes, and naturally destitute

oter

of number; but when plural terminations are suffixed, they acquire a

[ian

plural signification ; e.g., © &nan,’” those (persons), “inan,’” these (persons).

The same demonstratives are largely used in the modern Turkish, by

ll 18

( ﬁ”

which they have been borrowed from the Persian.

‘an’ and ‘in’ are

106

undoubtedly Aryan demonstratives. This is apparent when we com-

pare ‘an’ with the Zend ‘aém, that; and that again with the

old

7D

340

THE PRONOUN.

Sanscrit ‘ayam; but ‘in’ is still more clearly identical with the

Zend ¢1im, this.

The same ‘im’ constitutes the accusative in Vedic

|

Sanscrit (and is also identical with ‘iyam,’ the masculine-feminine

singular of the Old Persian, and the feminine of the Sanscrit); but in

Zend <im’ is the nominative, not the accusative, and it is to this

form that the New Persian is most closely allied.

The demonstrative base ‘i’ (without being restricted, however, to

a proximate signification) appears in the Latin “is’ and ‘id, and in

the Gothic ©is;

and the Dravidian and New Persian distinction

between the signification of “a’ and that of ¢1i,” has been re-developed

in our English that and this.

Whilst the New Persian ‘4n’ and ‘in’ are closely connected with

Sanscrit and Zend demonstratives, it does not follow that they are

directly derived from either the one tongue or the other.

On the

contrary, the exactness with which the Persian discriminates between

i

the remote and the proximate, leads me to conclude that it has retained

more faithfully than either of those languages the primitive charac-

teristics of the Pre-Sanscritic speech.

If so, instead of supposing the

Dravidian dialects to have borrowed their demonstratives, which are

%

still purer than the Persian, from the Sanscrit (which are irregular

and greatly corrupted), it is more reasonable to suppose that the

Dravidian demonstrative vowels retain and exhibit the primeval bases

from which the primary demonstratives of the Sanscrit and of all other

Indo-European tongues have been derived.

Emphatic ‘6’—1t has been seen that in Ku ‘¢’ is used as a demon-

strative ; e.g., < évaru’ (‘é-(v)-ar’), they,; and this may be compared

with the demonstrative €&’ of the Sanscrit ¢état, this (neuter), and

the corresponding Zend ¢aétat.’

In the other Drividian dialeets,

however, &’ is not used as a demonstrative, but is post-fixed to words

for the purpose of rendering them emphatic.

The manner in which

‘&’ is annexed, and the different shades of emphasis which it commu-

nicates, are precisely the same in the various dialects, and will be

sufficiently illustrated by the following examples from Tamil.

When

‘e

is post-fixed to the subject of a proposition, it sets it forth as

the sole depositary of the quality predicated; e.g., ‘kalvi-(y)-& &elvam,’

learning (alone s) wealth; when post-fixed to the predicate, it

intensifies its signification; e.g., ‘kalvi Selvam-&, learning is wealth

(indeed): when post-fixed to a verb or verbal, it is equivalent to the

addition of the adverb truly, certainly; eg., ‘alla-(v)-&’ (certainly)

not

In the colloquial dialect, it has often been annexed to the

case-terminations of nouns without necessity, so that it has sometimes

DEMONSTRATIVES.

341

he

become in that connexion, a mere expletive; in consequence of

dic

Ine

which, in such instances, when emphasis is really required by a sign

of case, the &’ has to be doubled; e.g., ¢ ennéléyé’ (‘ennil-é-(y)-¢’),

Juis

through me (alone).

s

The same sign of emphasis forms the most common vocative case-

sign in the various Dravidian dialects, the vocative being nothing

{0

more than an emphatic enunciation of the nominative.

Compare with

n

this the use of the nominative with the addition of the definite article

100

as the vocative in Hebrew and in Attic Greek. The Persian ¢é of

ped

supplication " may also be compared with it.

Some resemblance to the use of ‘&’ as a particle of emphasis may

yith

be discovered in the Hebrew ¢/%e paragogic ’ (pronounced ‘eh’ or “ah,’

are

the

according to the connexion), which is supposed to intensify the signi-

fication of the words to which it is annexed. The ¢he directive’ of

een

the same language is also, and not without reason, supposed to be a

ned

mark of emphasis; and its origin is possibly connected with that of

18

the definite article.

A still closer resemblance to the emphatic ‘€’ of

the

the Dravidian languages is apparent in Chaldee, in which ¢4’ suffixed

are

to nouns constitutes their ‘emphatic state, and is equivalent to the

llar

<A

definite article of many other languages.

The Persian

€

of particu-

the

larity,” the & of ascription of greatness,” &e., in addition to the ¢& of

2568

supplication,” which has already been referred to, probably spring from

ther

a Chaldaic and Cuthite origin; though each of them bears a remark-

able resemblance to the Dravidian emphatic <&.’

non

Honorific demonstrative pronouns.—1 have deferred till now the

qred

consideration of a peculiar class of honorific demonstratives, which are

and

flound only in Telugu and Canarese, and in which, I think, direct

oS,

Aryan influences may be detected.

onds

(1.) In all the Dravidian dialects, the plural is used as an honorific

hich

singular when the highest degree of respect is meant to be expressed ;

mi-

but when a somewhat inferior degree of respect is intended, the pro-

| be

nouns which are used by the Telugu are ‘ayana,” ke, €ulle, and ¢ dme,

Then

she, “illa,;” with their corresponding proximates ‘iyana,’” ‘%ic,’ and

h a8

¢tme,” ¢ hec.

These pronouns are destitute of plurals.

a1,

It can scarcely be doubted that an Aryan origin is to be attributed

b

to these words; and this supposition would account for the circum-

ylth

stance that they are found in the Telugu only, and not in any other

) the

dialect of the family (except the Tulu ‘&ye,” ke, is to be regarded

ully)

as a connected form): it would also harmonise with their use as

the

honorifies.

nies

Compare ‘ayana’ with the Sanserit masculine ‘ayam, ‘ulle,” and

342

THE PRONOUN.

“iyana’ with the Sanserit feminine, and the Old Persian masculine-

feminine ‘iyam,” ‘hic, ¢ heac.

§f

B

¢ame,” “illa,” and ‘Ime,’ ‘hee,’ the corresponding feminine pronouns

of the Telugu, may be compared not only with the plurals of the Sanserit

Jil

I

pronoun of the third person (‘ime,” mas., ‘imé&h,’ fem., ¢ imani,” neut.),

A

but also with ‘amum’ and ‘imam,’ hum, which are accusative singulars,

and from which it is evident that the ‘m’ of the plural forms is not a

:

sign of plurality, but is either a part of the pronominal base, or an

euphonic addition.

Bopp considers it to be the former, but Dravidian

fo

0

analogies incline me to adopt the latter view; for it can scarcely be

doubted that ‘Ame’ and ‘ime’ are identical with ‘Ave’ and ‘ive,

((

another pair of Telugu pronouns (used when a little less respect is

T

intended); and the ‘v’ of these forms seems to be the ordinary

euphonic ‘v’ of the Dravidian languages (which sometimes alternates

to

with ‘m’), and not part of the base.

i

(2.) When a little less respect is meant to be shown than is

fo

implied in the use of ‘4yana’ and ‘iyana,” and of ‘ame’ and ‘ime,’ the

Telugu makes use of ¢ atadu,” “elle,” © ave,” ‘¢lla,” with their corresponding

9

proximates ‘itadu’ and ¢ ive

Here the Canarese substantially agrees

with the Telugu; e.g., ¢ atanu,’” “elle, ‘itanu,” ¢Aic’(Ancient Can. ‘atam,’

‘itam ).

The final ‘nu’ of the Canarese is the formative of the

a8

masculine singular, corresponding to the Telugu ‘du;’ and the demon-

]

th

stratives ‘a’ and ‘i’ are often lengthened (as has already been shown)

in Canarese.

The Canarese feminines ¢ dke,” ‘illa,” ‘ike, ‘hec,’ do not

¢ A

1

appear so perfectly to accord with the Telugu ‘ave,

ve; the only

D

real difference, however, is that the Telugu ‘v

is purely euphonic,

st

whilst the Canarese ‘k’ is a formative, the use of which constitutes

¢ake’ and ¢ ike’ abstract pronominal nouns.

‘ti\'

n

Both the above sets of Telugu pronouns are destitute of plurals,

[4)

but both are pluralised in Canarese; e.g., ¢ tagalu,” ¢itagalu,’ those and

these (men); ¢ akeyar, ikeyar,’ those and these (women).

I do not think that the Tuda ‘adam,” ke, ske, i, is allied to any

of the pronouns now referred to.

I consider it to be a neuter singular

r

which is synonymous with ‘adu,’ the neuter singular of the Tamil-

Canarese, and which is used corruptly for the masculine and feminine,

Wl

as well as for the neuter.

The use of ‘adam’ as a neuter singular,

an

instead of ‘adu,’ exactly corresponds to the"use of ‘adan’ instead of

il

¢adu’ in High Tamil.

When the Telugu masculine of respect ‘ata-du,’” ‘ita-du,” and the

corresponding Canarese honorifics ¢ Ata-nu,” “ita-nu,’ are scrutinised, it

4p

he

is evident that in addition to the vocalic demonstrative bases, ‘a’ and

fht

‘i)’ which are found in Dravidian demonstratives of every kind, the ‘ta’

the

INTERROGATIVES.

343

which is subjoined to ‘a’ and ‘i’ possesses also somewhat of a demon-

strative or pronominal signification.

It cannot be regarded like ‘v’

1§

as merely euphonic; and its restriction to masculines shows that it is

it

not merely an abstract formative, like the ¢k’ of the feminine ¢ ake.

)

It can scarcely be doubted, I think, that the origin of this ‘ta’ is

Aryan; for we find in all the Aryan languages much use made of a

similar ‘ta,’ both as an independent demonstrative, and as an auxiliary

il

to the vocalic demonstrative.

‘ta-d,” Sans. that, is an instance of the

Al

former; whilst the secondary or auxiliary place which ‘ta’ or ‘da’

be

occupies in the Sanscrit ¢ étad’ (‘ é-ta-d’), this, and ‘adam, ‘adas,’

6,

(‘a-da-m,” ‘a-da-s’), this, or that, is in perfect agreement with the

18

Telugu and Canarese © 4-ta-nu,” ¢ a-ta-du.’

TS

The final ‘e’ of “éave,

262

ive,

ame,

‘ime,” ‘ake,’ ‘ike, is equivalent

"y

£8

to the Tamil ¢ el

‘e’ or ‘ei’ is an ordinary termination of abstracts

in these languages, and a suitable one, according to Dravidian notions,

1§

for feminine honorific pronouns.

he

ne

ITI.—Interrogatives.

03

N

There are two classes of interrogatives in the Dravidian languages,

he

as in all others, viz., interrogative pronouns or adjectives such as,

i

who? which? what? and syntactic interrogatives, such as, is @¢? s

there?

m)

106

Interrogative pronmouns and adjectives resolve themselves in the

ly

Dravidian tongues into interrogative prefixes, resembling the demon-

strative prefixes already considered, by suffixing to which the forma-

6,

The

tes

tives of number and gender we form interrogative pronouns.

interrogative particle itself, when simply prefixed to a substantive,

constitutes the interrogative adjective what ?

Js,

nd

‘e

,(1.) The first and simplest interrogative prefix is the vowel

; In all the DrAvidian dialects this prefix is used in the formation of

oy

Jar

pronominals, in precisely the same manner as the demonstrative bases

59

¢a’ and ‘i It forms one of a set of three vocalic prefixes (‘a,” ¢

1

(e’)’

ik

which occupy one and the same position, obey one and the same law,

Ny

ay

and differ only in the particular signification which is expressed by

each.

| of

The unity of principle pervading these prefixes will be clearly

apparent from the subjoined comparative view.

The forms which are

the

here exhibited are those of the Tamil alone; but in this particular all

B

d

the dialects agree so perfectly with the Tamil, and with one another,

that it is unnecessary to multiply examples.

1}

344

THE PRONOUN.

for

PROXIMATE

REemorE

ha

DEMONSTRATIVE

DEMONSTRATIVE

INTERROGATIVE ¢ .

‘1

’

“n

b

Pr

1ts

Masculine sing

avan, ille

evan, quis ?

10

ivan, hg‘c

st

Feminine do

ival, hec

aval, illa

eval, que?

of

Neuter

do

idu, hoc

adu, lud

edu, quid ?

Epicene plural

ivar, hi, hee

10

avar, i, ille

evar, qui? que?

t0

Néuter

do.

ivei, hec

avei, #lla

evei, que ?

i

1¢

The interrogative vowel ‘e’ forms the basis also of various inter-

tqz

rogative adverbs or adverbial nouns, in the same manner as the cor-

m

responding demonstrative adverbs or adverbial mouns are formed

to

from ‘a’ and ‘i7" eg., compare ‘engu,” where? with ‘angu, theres

1

and ‘ingu,’ here; ‘endru, which day? with “andru,” that day, and

th

‘indra,” to-day.

A few adverbs of this kind are peculiar to the

T

Canarese ; e.g., ‘entha,” of which kind? ‘ettaln,” on which side ? elli,

T

wn which place? where? The Tamil has also a regularly deeclined

1

interrogative noun ‘ennam,” what ? which is derived from ‘en’ (com-

(0

monly lengthened to “én’), why ?

1l

‘e’ is also prefixed adjectivally to substantives, in the same man-

P

ner as ‘a’ and ‘i; and (as was observed in the case of those pre-

fixes) it doubles the initial consonant of the substantive to which it is

prefixed : c.g., compare ‘evvari’ (from ‘vari,” way), which way ?

)

with €avvari, that way, and ‘ivvari, this way. In addition to this

adjectival prefix, a regular interrogative adjective (‘enda,” what ?

or whick ?) is formed by the Tamil, to correspond with the demon-

;:

strative adjectives, ‘anda,” that, ‘inda,’ this, which are peculiar to

that dialect. It is chiefly, however, in the colloquial dialect that

|

these forms are used. The higher and more ancient dialect prefers

€

the simple vowels ‘a,’” ¢

e

I,

e, to express ¢that, this, and which ?

I need not call attention to the beautiful and philosophical

regularity of this triple set of remote and proximate demonstratives

¢

and interrogatives. In no other language or family of languages in

the world shall we find its equal or even its second.

In addition to

which, the eircumstance that the demonstrative vowels are not only

used in these languages with an invariable and exact discrimination

of meaning which is not found in the Indo—European tongues (with

the solitary exception of the New Persian), but are also associated

1

with a corresponding interrogative vowel of which the Indo-European

INTERROGATIVES.

345

tongues are totally ignorant, tends to confirm the supposition which I

have already expressed, that the Dravidian family has retained some

Pre-Sanscrit elements of immense antiquity; and, in particular, that

its demonstratives, instead of being borrowed from the Sanscrit,

represent those old Japhetic bases from which the primary demon-

stratives of the Sanscrit itself, as well as of various other members

of the Indo-European family were derived.

The only peculiarity which requires notice in the use of this inter-

rogative prefix, is the circumstance that it is occasionally lengthened

¢ A

)

to ‘&, precisely as ‘a’ and ‘i’ are lengthened to

a

and ““1

In

Tamil this euphonic lengthening is very rare.

It is found only in the

neuter-singular interrogative pronoun ‘edu,” what or which (thing)?

te:

‘quid 2 which sometimes, especially in composition, becomes ‘édu ;’ and

COr

in the interrogative adverb ¢en,” why ? which is ordinarily lengthened

ned

In Telugu this increase of quantity is more common.

It

to ¢én.’

o1y

appears not only in ‘émi’ and éla,” why ? but is ordinarily used as

and

the interrogative prefix, where the Tamil invariably has short ‘e.’

the

Thus, whilst the Tamil has ¢evvidam, whkat manner? how? the

Il

Telugu says ‘évidham’ instead.

So also, whilst the Tamil occa-

ned

sionally only uses ‘édu,” ‘quid 2’ instead of the more classical ‘edu,’ the

corresponding interrogative of the Telugu is invariably ¢édi,” and its

Ol

7]

plural ¢évi

On the other hand, the Telugu masculine interrogative

Il

pronoun ‘evvadu,’ ‘quis?’ preserves the same quantity as the Tamil

‘evan; and even when the prefix is used adjectivally, it is sometimes

{7

t1s

‘e’ (not &’) as in Tamil, e.g., “eppudu’ (not ¢épudu’), what time ?

when ?

!

We have already scen that the base vowels of the Telugu demon-

this

G A

gf?

strative pronouns ‘vadu,” ‘ille,

Vi

du,” ke, have shifted their position,

it

the forms required by rule instead of ‘vadu’ and ‘vidu’ being

‘avadu’ and ‘ivadu:’ but as the interrogative pronoun is less used

to

hat

than the demonstrative, and therefore less liable to corruption, it has

618

escaped this euphonic displacement of the base vowel; and in con-

sequence we have not ‘védu,’” ‘quis?’ in accordance with ‘vidu’ and

‘vidu,” as we might have expected, but ‘evvadu’ (for ‘evadu’), in

al

close accordance with the Tamil ¢evan.’

yes

9

In each of the Dravidian languages, ‘e

is commonly pronounced

1

[4

as ‘ye, and ‘€’ as ‘yé’ and in Telugu this

X

is often written as

t0

well as heard; but as this is a characteristic of all words in each

ply

of the dialects which begin with this vowel, and not of the inter-

100

rogatives alone, it is evident that it is merely a peculiarity of pro-

ith

fol

nunciation, and that the ¢y’ in question is no part of the interrogative

base

il

346

THE PRONOUN.

thi

Compare with this Dravidian interrogative the interrogative ‘é’

of the Hebrew; e.g., ‘épd, where? (compounded of ‘&’ and ‘po,

il

“u

here) ; and also ‘éka,’” where ? or how ?

Under the head of the Syntactic interrogative

[

a,

a resemblance

bas

(30

‘ki

which subsists between this interrogative ‘e’ or ‘&’ and the

e

of

emphasis will be inquired into: and in that particular also it will be

found that the Hebrew usage agrees with the Dravidian.

a8 ¢

San

(2.) The other interrogative of this class is ‘ya.’

‘yA’ is not used at all in Telugu; but it is largely used in

]

Sar

Canarese and somewhat more rarely in Tamil.

In High Tamil ‘ya’

Fin

is not only prefixed adjectivally to substantives (like ‘a,’ ‘e, and

‘e’), e.g., ‘ya-(k)kalam, what time; but it is even used by itself as a

¥

pronoun; e.g., < ya-(8)Seyday, what hast thou done? It forms the basis

of only one adverbial noun, viz., ‘yandu,’ Tam., when ? a year, a

Tels

correlative of ‘andu,’ then, and ‘indu,’ now.

The only use to which

the

‘ya’ is put in the colloquial dialect of the Tamil, is that of forming

all

the basis of interrogative pronouns; a complete set of which, in

Je

wh

Tamil as well as in Canarese, are formed from ‘ya; eg., ‘yavan,

‘quis 2 ‘yaval, ‘que? ‘yadu, ‘quid ? ‘yavar, ‘qui? ‘quee ? ¢ yavei,

(0

‘quee ?’

The Canarese interrogative pronouns accord with these, with

Tels

a single unimportant exception.

The neuters, singular and plural,

10

of the Canarese are formed from ¢yéva, instead of ‘ya; eg.,

but

al

¢ yavadu,’ ‘quid 2’ (for yadu’), and ‘yavavu,” ‘que ?’ (for ‘yava’).

This additional

‘va

is evidently *derived by imitation from the

euphonic ‘v’ of ‘yavanu, /e, and its related forms; but it is ount

of place in connexion with the neuter, and is to be regarded as a

corruption.

fly

In Tamil a peculiar usage with respect to the application of the

the

epicene plural ¢ yavar, ‘qui?’ ‘que ?” has obtained ground.

It 1s

a0

largely used in the colloquial dialect with the signification of the

the

singular, as well as that of the plural, though itself a plural only and

bl

without distinction of gender; and when thus used, ¢ yavar’ is abbre-

the

viated into ‘yar; eg., ‘avan yar, who is he? (literally ke who ?);

10g

<aval y?ir,’ who is she? “yar’ has also been still further corrupted

Wi

into ar,” especially in compounds.

thy

The Gond interrogatives ‘ba’ and ‘bo

appear to have been

K/

hardened from ‘ya.

tay

C0)

Extra- Dravidian relationship. — There is no analogy between

la

either ‘e’ or ‘y&’ and any of the interrogative bases of the Indo-

01

European family. Both in that fa-mily and in the Scythian group the

U}

ordinary base of the interrogative is the guttural ‘k; e.g., Sanserit,

INTERROGATIVES.

347

“kim,” what ?

The same base appears in the Sanscrit interrogative

POy

initial syllables ¢ka-) ‘ki-’,’ ‘ku-,” which correspond to the Latin

‘qu-,’ the Gothic ‘hva-,” and the English ¢ wh-.

We find the same

1ce

base again in the Turkish ‘kim ’ or ¢ kim,” who ? what? in the Magyar

of

‘ki, who ? plural ‘kik; and in the Finnish ‘kuka’ (root ‘ku’).

e

In the absence of a real relative pronoun, the interrogative is used

The base of the

as a relative in many of the Scythian languages.

Sanserit relative pronoun ‘ya’ (‘yas,’ ‘ya

‘yat’), bears a close

n

apparent resemblance to the Dravidian interrogative ¢ya.

The

A

ya

Sanscrit ‘ya,” however, like the derived North-Indian ¢j6, and the

;nd

Finnish ¢yo’ is exclusively used as a relative, whereas the Dravidian

S 4

‘ya’ is exclusively and distinctively an interrogative.

IS

It has been conjectured that the Sanscrit ¢ya,” thongh now a

&

relative, was a demonstrative originally; and if (as we shall see that

I

there is some reason for supposing) the Dravidian interrogatives ‘e’

and ‘a’ were originally demonstratives, it may be supposed that

il?g

‘ya’ was also a demonstrative, though of this no direct evidence

1n

i,

whatever now remains.

If ‘ya’ were originally a demonstrative, the

o,

connexion which would then appear to exist between it and the Sansecrit

relative would require to be removed a step further back; for it is

ith

not in Sanscrit that the relative ¢ ya’ has the force of a demonstrative,

1,

s

but in other and more distant tongues, viz., in the Lithuanian ¢ yis,” %e;

and in the Slavonian ¢ yam, and the Zend ¢yim," Aim.

)

he

it

9

Syntactic tnterrogatives, ‘4’ and ¢6.’—The interrogative prefixes

‘e

and ‘ya, are equivalent to the interrogative pronouns and adjec-

5 &

tives, who ? which ? what ? &e.

Another interrogative is required for

he

the purpose of putting such inquiries as are expressed in English by

a change of construction ; e.g., us there ? is it ¢ by transposition from

1§

he

there s, it 1s.

This species of interrogation is effected in all the Dra-

N

a

to

nd

vidian languages in one and the same manner, viz., by suffixing

the noun, verb, or sentence which forms the principal subject of inter-

(%

rogation ; and in these languages it is by the suffix of ‘4’ alone,

?)’

ol

without any syntactic change, or change in the collocation of words,

that an interrogative verb or sentence differs from an affirmative one ;

e.g., compare the affirmative ‘avan tandan,” Tam., Ze gave, with ‘avan

ol

tandan-a ¥° did he give ? and ‘avan-atandan ¥’ was it ke that gave ?

compare also adu Gr,” that is ¢ village, with ¢ adu Ur-a ¥ s that a vil-

lage ?

This interrogative is never prefixed to nouns or pronominals,

e

or used adjectivally ; but is invariably post-fixed, ]ikg an enunciated

or audible note of interrogation.

o

€6’ is not unfrequently used like ‘a’ as a simple interrogative ;

”)

348

THE PRONOUN.

but its special and distinctive use is as a particle expressiv.e of doubt.

Thus, whilst “ avan-A’ means 4s it he ? ‘avan-6’ means can i be he? or

poi

CA?

ton

1 am doubtful whether it is he or not.

(0]

is post-fixed to words in pre-

I

cisely the same manner as ‘4, and is probably only a weakened form

(1“

of it, in which, by usage, the interrogation has become merged in the

00!

expression of doubt.

It has acquired, however, as a suffix of doubt a

the

position and force of its own, quite independent of ‘4; in consequence

the

of which it is often annexed even to interrogative pronouns; e.g.,

‘evan-6,” Tam., I wonder who he can be ; ¢ ennam-6,” what it may be I

L

know not—compound forms which are not double interrogatives, but

which consist of a question evan,” who 2 or ‘ennam, what ? and an

answer ‘0, I am doubtful.—I know not.—There is room for further

pr

thy

mquiry.

of

‘ko,” which seems to correspond in meaning to <6, is used as a prefix

for

of uncertainty by some Telugu pronominals: e.g., compare ¢anta,’

fro

thus much, ¢ inta,’ this much, ¢enta,’ how much ? with ¢ konta,” some, or,

il

as if one should say, 7 know not how much.

thy

This prefix is rare in Telugu, unknown in Tamil, and is possibly

derived from the Sanscrit interrogative.

als

to

The use of 4’ as an interrogative suffix has not been derived from

il

any language either of the Scythian or of the Indo-European family.

(4

It is altogether unknown to the Sanscrit; and the Cashmirian is the

only Non-Drividian tongue in which it is found.

9

he

I am inclined to consider ‘4,

the Dravidian interrogative, as

derived from, orat least as allied to, ‘a’ or ‘4,” the remote demonstrative

(¢

of the same family. The quantity of that demonstrative ‘a’ is long

86

or short as euphonic considerations may determine; and though the

ALY

a

il

interrogative

is always long, yet in consequence of its being used

6X

as a post-fix, it is pronounced long by necessity of position, whatever

it may have been originally. Hence the question of quantity may, in

this inquiry, be left altogether out of account. The only real difference

between them is the difference in location; ¢a’ demonstrative being

invariably placed at the beginning of a word, a’ interrogative at the

end of it.

If the interrogative < a’ were really connected with ‘a,” the

demonstrative, we should expect to find a similar connection subsisting

between ‘e’ or ‘&’ the adjectival interrogative, and some demonstra-

tive particle, with a similar interchange of places; accordingly this is

found to be the case, for ‘&’ is not only the ordinary sign of emphasis

in all the Dravidian tongues, but it is used in Ku as an adjectival

demonstrative ; and it is curious that in this instance also, there is a

change of location, ¢ &’ emphatic being placed at the end of a word, ‘e’

interrogative at the beginning.

DISTRIBUTES.

349

oubt,

A similar change in the position of particles, to denote or corres-

el or

pond with some change in signification, is not unknown in other

Thus in Danish, the article en’ has a definite sense in one

pre

tongues.

position and an indefinite in another; e.g., ‘en konge,’ a king,

form

| the

‘kongen,’ the king. But it is still more remarkable, and more corro-

bt &

porative of the supposition now advanced, that in Hebrew, one and

1ence

the same particle, ‘he’ (for it is one and the same, and any difference

that exists is merely euphonic), imparts emphasis to a word when

-y

post-fixed to it, and constitutes an interrogative when prefixed.

el

, but

Distributive pronouns.—In all the Drévidiban tongues distributive

d an

pronouns are formed by simply annexing the conjunctive particle to

e

the interrogative pronoun.

Thus, from ‘evan,’ who ? by the addition

refix

of ‘um, and, the conjunctive or copulative particle of the Tamil is

formed, viz., ‘evanum,’ everyone, whosoever (literally who ?-and),; and

it

from ‘epporudu,” when ? is formed in the same manner ‘epporudum,’

¢, O,

always, literally when ? and-.

In Canarese similar forms are found,

though not so largely used as in Tamil ; e.g., ‘yavagall’ (‘ya-agal-ii’),

sibly

always ; and in Telugu ‘nu’ (the copulative particle which answers

to the Tamil ‘um’ and the Canarese ‘i’) is used in the same manner

from

in the formation of distributives; e.g., ‘evvadunu’ (‘evvadu-nu’),

uily.

everyone, ¢ eppudunnu’ (‘ eppudu-(n)-nu’), always.

s the

The Dréavidian languages have no pronouns properly so called

besides those which have now been examined.

as

)

Instead of relative promouns, they use verbal forms which are

ative

called by English grammarians relative participles; which see in the

Jong

section on ¢ The Verb.’

All other words which correspond either in

) the

meaning or in use to the pronouuns of other languages will be found on

psed

examination to be nouns, regularly formed and declined.

Eev'er

v, 11

.:'ence

eing

: the

’ the

ting

st

18 18

9818

vl

158

[ i

i

10

Tl

il

frs

all

SECTION VL

qu

i

S

he

THE VERB.

of

18

Toe object in view in this section is to investigate the nature,

affections, and relations of the DrAvidian verb.

I commence with

D

of

some general preliminary remarks upon its structure.

(1.) A large proportion of Dravidian roots are used indis-

C0

an

criminately, either as verbs or as nouns.

Jef

When case-signs are attached to a root, or when, without the

addition of case-signs, it is used as the nominative of a verb, it is

8l

an

regarded as a noun: the same root becomes a verb without any

internal change or formative addition, when the signs of tense (or

th

0

time) and the pronouns or their terminal fragments are suffixed to

1t

of

Though, abstractedly speaking, every Dravidian root is capable

of this two-fold use, it depends upon circumstances whether any

particular root is actually thus used; and it often happens, as in

VI

other languages, that of three given roots one shall be used solely or

So

generally as a verbal theme, another solely or generally as the theme

ol

of a noun, and the third alone shall be nsed indiscriminately either

on

as a noun or as a verb.

l

Herein also the usus loquend: of the various dialeéts is found to

th

differ ; and not unfrequently a root which is used solely as a verbal

i)

theme in one dialect, is used solely as a noun in another.

(o

(2.) The inflexional theme of a Drividian verb or noun is not

1

always identical with the crude root or ultimate base.

In many

instances formative or euphonic particles (such as ‘vu,” ‘ku,” ‘gu’ or

th

‘ngu, ‘du’ or ‘ndu,” ‘bu’ or ‘mbu’) are annexed to the root,—not

al

added on like isolated post-positions, but so annexed as to be incor-

L

porated with it.

(See the section on ‘Roots.’) But the addition of

€3

one of those formative suffixes does not necessarily constitute the

ty

root to which it is suffixed a verb: it is still capable of being used

Pa

as a noun, though it may be admitted that roots to which those

of

—

|

STRUCTURE.

351

suffixes have been annexed are more frequently used as verbs than as

nouns.

(8.) The structure of the Dravidian verb is strictly agglutinative.

The particles which express the ideas of mood and tense, transition,

intransition, causation, and negation, together with the pronominal

fragments by which person, number, and gender are denoted, are

annexed or agglutinated to the root in so regular a series aund by so

quiet a process, that generally no change whatever, or at most only a

slight euphonic change, is effected either in the root or in any of the

suffixed particles. [See this illustrated in the section on ¢Roots.’]

(4.) The second person singular of the imperative may perhaps

be considered as an exception to the foregoing rule. The crude theme

of the verb, or the shortest form which the root assumes, and which

is capable of being used also as the theme of a noun, is used in the

e,

yith

Drévidian languages, as in most others, as the second person singular

of the imperative ; and the ideas of number and person and of the

s

conveyance of a command, which are included in that part of speech,

are not expressed by the addition of any particles, but are generally

left to be inferred from the context alone.

Thus, in the Tamil,

the

{18

sentences ‘adi virundadu,’ the stroke fell; ‘ennei adi-ttan,’ ke struck me;

any

and ‘idei adi, strike thow this; the theme, ‘adi,” strike, or a stroke, is

the same in each instance, and in the third illustration it is used with-

(or

] to

out any addition, and in its crude state, as the second person singular

of the imperative.

able

Aty

(5.) As the Drividian noun has but one declension, so the Dra-

§ 10

vidian verb has only one conjugation and but very few irregular forms.

Some European grammarians have arranged the Dravidian verbs in

yOl

eme

classes, and have styled those classes conjugations; but the differences

on which this classification is founded, are generally of a trivial and

ther

superficial character.

The structure of the verb, its signs of tense, and

| to

the mode in which the pronouns are suffixed, remain invariably the

thal

same, with such changes only as euphony appears to have dictated.

Consequently, though class-differences exist, they are not of sufficient

importance to constitute different conjugations.

nof

any

Such is the simplicity of the structure of the Dravidian verb, that

’Or

the only moods it has are the indicative, the infinitive, the imperative,

not

and the negative, and that it has only three tenses, the past, the

present, and the aorist or indefinite future.

The ideas which are

0T

expressed in other families of languages by the subjunctive and opta-

nOf

the

tive moods, are expressed in the Dravidian family by means of suffixed

particles; and the imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, future-perfect, and

uced

other compound tenses, are expressed by means of auxiliary verbs.

h0se

3

9

~

2

THE

VERB.

In these respects the Drividian verb imitates, though it does not

f

The modern

PR

equal, the simplicity of the ancient Seythian verb.

pl

Turkish has, it is true, an extraordinary number of moods—con-

ditionals, potentials, reciprocals, inceptives, negatives, impossibles, &e.,

¢

together with their passive, and also a large array of compound tenses;

but this complexity of structure appears to be a refinement of a com-

b

paratively modern age, and is not in accordance with the genius of the

e s SN T

0)

Oriental Turkish, or Tartar properly so called.

Remusat conjectures

il

that intercourse with nations of the Indo-European race, some time

8]

after the Christian era, was the occasion of introducing into the Turkish

language the use of auxiliary verbs and of compound tenses.

‘From

CL

the extremity of Asia, he says, ‘the art of conjugating verbs is un-

known.’

The Oriental Turks first offer some traces of this; but the

very sparing use which they make of it seems to attest the pre-

[

existence of a more simple method.’

I

All the Dravidian idioms conjugate their verbs, with the partial

I

exception of the modern Malayilam, which has retained the use of the

1

signs of tense, but has rejected the pronominal terminations.

Never-

(

theless, the system of conjugation on which the Dravidian idioms

proceed, is one of primitive and remarkable simplicity. The Gond is

the only Dravidian dialect which has adopted a complicated system ;

and it has probably done so through the influence of its Kole or

Himalayan neighbours.

(6.) The Dravidian verb is more rarely compounded than the

Indo-European one; and the compound of a verb with a preposition is

especially rare.

An inexhaustible variety of shades of meaning is

§

secured in Sanscrit and Greek by the facility with which, in those

¢

languages, verbs are compounded with prepositions; and the beauty of

many of those compounds is as remarkable as the facility with which

a

they are made.

In the Scythian tongues, properly so called, there is

no trace of compounds of this kind; and though they are not unknown

1l

in the Dravidian family, yet their use is not in harmony with the

purer idiom; and when the component elements of such compounds

are carefully scrutinised, it is found that the principle on which they

{

are compounded differs widely from that of Indo-Eurcpean compounds.

4

The Dravidian prepositions which are most frequently compounded

with verbs are those which signify over and under, the use of which is

3]

{

illustrated by the common Tamil verbs ‘mér-kol,” to overcome, and

kir-(p)padi, to obey. Drividian prepositions, however (or rather, post-

bl

positions), are properly nouns; e.g., ‘mél,” over, literally means over-ness,

superiority; and ‘mél-kol’ (euphonically ‘mér-kol’), to overcome,

literally signifies to take the superiority. These and similar verbal

TRANSITIVES

AND INTRANSITIVES.

i;5t

)

108

themes, therefore, though compounds, are not compounds of a pre-

lem

position and a verb, but compounds of a noun and a verb; and the

CON:

Greek verbs with which they are to be compared, are not those which

ke,

commence with mepl, warda, ¢dvd, &ec., but such compounds as

ses;

[4

“ moh\wpréw,” to besiege a city, literally to city-besiege ;

vavmwéw,’ to

01l

In such cases, whether in Greek

build a ship, literally to ship-build.

the

or in Tamil, the first member of the compound (that is, the noun) does

ures

not modify the signification of the second (that is, the verb), but

ime

simply denotes the object to which the action of the verb applies. It

kish

is merely a crude noun, which is used objectively without any signs of

rom

case, and is intimately combined with a governing verb.

un

Dravidian verbs acquire new shades of meaning, and an increase or

the

diminution in the intensity of their signification, not by prefixing or

ple

combining prepositions, but by means of auxiliary gerunds, or verbal

participles, and infinitives—parts of speech which in this family of

rtial

languages have an adverbial force; e.g., ‘mundi (p)ponan,” Tam., ke

the

went before, literally having-got-before he went ; ¢SurRi’ (¢ Suttri)

Vel

(p)poméan,” he went round, literally rounding he went; ‘tara (k)kudit-

Oms

tan,’ ke leaped down, literally so-as-to-get-down he leaped.

o

Classification of Dravidian Verbs.

) O

I. TRANSITIVES AND INTRANSITIVES.

the

Dréavidian grammarians divide all verbs into two classes which are

118

called in Tamil pira vinei’ and ‘tan vinei, ¢ramsitives and intran-

These

o 18

sitives, literally outward action-words and self action-words.

105

classes correspond rather to the ¢ parasmai-padam’ and ¢atmane-

yot

padam,’ or transitive and reflective voices, of the Sanscrit, than to the

hich

active and passive voices of the other Indo-European languages.

g 18

The Dravidian ¢pira vinei’ and ‘tan vinei, or transitive and

Wil

intransitive verbs, differ from the ¢parasmai-padam’ and atmané-

the

padam ’ of the Sanscrit in this, that instead of each being conjugated

nds

differently, they are both conjugated in precisely the same mode.

hey

They differ, not in their mode of conjugation, but in the formative

nds

additions made to their themes.

Moreover, all ¢ pira vinei,” or tran-

1d€d

sitive verbs, are really, as well as formally, transitives, inasmuch as

I

) 15

they necessarily govern the accusative, through the transition of their

aﬂd

action to some object; whilst the ¢ tan vinei,” or intransitive verbs, are

0st

all necessarily, as well as formally, intransitives.

The Dravidian

1685

transitives and intransitives exactly resemble in force and use the

)il

)iy

determinate and indeterminate verbs of the Hungarian. The Hungarian

lbll

determinate verbs, like the Dravidian transitives, imply an object—an

P4

o)

A

—

354

THE VERB.

accusative expressed or implied, e.g., ‘szeretem,” I love (some person

or thing); whilst the Hungarian indeterminate verbs, like the Dra-

vidian intransitives, neither express nor imply an object, e.g., ‘szeretek,’

1 love, t.e., T am in love.

8

al

In a large number of instances in each of the Dravidian dialects,

including entire classes of verbs, there is no difference between tran-

b

sitives and intransitives, either in formative additions to the theme, or

fo

i

in any structural peculiarity, the only difference is that which consists

in the signification.

Thus in Tamil, all verbs of the class which take

‘1’ or ‘in’ as the sign of the past participle are conjugated alike,

fi

whether they are transitives or intransitives; e.g., from ¢ pann-u,

trans., fo make, are formed the three tenses (first person singular)

({0

¢ pannu-gir-éu,” I make, ¢pann-i-(n)-én,” I made, and ‘pannu-v-en,’

I will make: and in like manner from ¢ pés-u,’ intrans., to talk, are

t

formed, precisely in the same manner, the corresponding tenses

¢ pésu-gir-én,” I talk, pés-i-(n)-én,’ / talked, and ¢ pésu-v-én, I will

1

talk.

th

In a still larger number of cases, however, transitive verbs differ

‘t

from intransitives, not only in signification and force, but also in

grammatical form, notwithstanding that they are conjugated alike.

ml

The nature of the difference that exists and its rationale, are more

clearly apparent in Tamil than in any other Dravidian dialect; my

i

illustrations will, therefore, chiefly be drawn from the Tamil.

There are three modes in which intransitive Tamil verbs are con-

verted into transitives.

el

(1.) Intransitive themes become transitive, by the hardening and

doubling of the consonant of the appended formative; e.g., ¢ peru-gu,

g

to abound, by this process becomes ¢ peru-kku,’ #o increase (actively), to

cause to abound. Transitives of this kind, which are formed from

1y

intransitives in actual use, are often called causals, and they are as

U

well entitled to be called by that name as many causal verbs in the

hay

Indo-European tongues; but as there is a class of Dravidian verbs

lay

which are distinetively causal (and which are formed by the annexing

Ty

to the transitive theme of ‘vi, a causal particle; e.g., ¢ pannu-vi,’

!

to cause to make, from ¢ pannu,’ to make), it will contribute to perspi-

of

cuity to regard the whole of the verbs of which we are now treating,

nf

simply as transitives, and to reserve the name of causal verbs for the

or

double transitives in ¢ vi.’

1y

When transitives are formed from intransitives by doubling the

consonant of the formative, it is in the theme or inflexional base itself

t0j

that the change takes place: there is no change in any of the signs of

tense, or in the mode in which those signs are added; and the

%13.1‘1

1ty

TRANSITIVES AND INTRANSITIVES.

355

n

hardened formative appears in the imperative, as well as in the other

parts of the verb.

i

The nature of these formatives has already been investigated in the

section on ‘Roots; and it has been shown that they are euphonic

s,

aceretions, which, though permanently annexed to the base, are not to

I

be confounded with it.

I subjoin a few illustrations of this mode of

or

forming transitives by the doubling and hardening of the consonant of

st

the formative.

\Le

(i.) ‘gu,’ or its nasalised equivalent, ‘ngu, becomes ‘kkuj; e.g.,

ke,

from ¢ po-gu,” to go (in the imperative softened into pd’), comes

)

‘po-kku,’ to drive away; from ‘ni-ngu,’ to quit, comes ‘ni-kku,” fo put

a1)

away.

)n’

(ii.) “Su’ becomes ‘&éu’ (pronounced ‘chu’); e.g., from ‘adei-su,’

e

to take refuge, comes °adei-chu,” to wnclose.

€5

(iii.) ‘du,” euphonised into ‘ndu,” becomes ‘ttu; e.g., from °tiru-

jill

ndu,” fo become correct, comes tiru-ttu,” fo correct: in like manner

the cerebral ‘ ndu’ becomes ‘ttu;’ e.g., from ‘ti-ndu,’ to fouch, comes

for

“ti-ttu,” to whet.

1

(iv.) “bu, euphonised into ‘mbu,” becomes ¢ ppu;’ e.g., from ¢ nira-

{8

mbu,’ o be full, comes ‘nira-ppu,’ to fill.

016

When intransitives are converted into transitives in this manner

ny

in Telugu, ‘gu’ or ‘ngu’ becomes, not ‘kku’as in Tamil, but ¢ chu,’

—a difference which is in accordance with dialectic rules of sound.

)}

Thus from ¢ ti-gu,’ or ‘tl-ngu,” fo kang, to sleep, comes ‘ti-chu, or

euphonically ti-nchu,” to weigh, to cause to hang.

and

The Telugu also occasionally changes the intransitive formative

o

ol

‘gu,” not into ¢ chu,” the equivalent of ‘kku,’” but into ‘pu;’ e.g., from

o

‘méy, to graze, comes ‘mé-pu,’ fo feed: and as ‘ppu’ in Tamil is

0m

invariably hardened from ‘bu’ or ‘mbu,’ the corresponding Telugu

) 85

‘pu’ indicates that ‘bu’ originally alternated with ¢gu; for the

the

hardening of €gu’ into ‘pu’ is not in accordance with Drividian

orbs

laws of sound. This view is confirmed by the circumstances that in

g

Telugu the use of ‘pu’ instead of ‘chu’ (and of ‘mpu’ instead of

vl

‘nchu’) is in most instances optional, and that in the higher dialect

of the Tamil the formative ‘pp’ sometimes supersedes ‘kk; e.g., the

"\Pl

fiﬂgy

infinitive of the verb fo walk, may in that dialect be either ‘nada-kka’

the

or ‘nada-ppa.’

It is obvious, therefore, that all these formative ter-

minations are mutual equivalents.

the

If the transitive or causal ‘p’ of such verbs as ‘nira-ppu, Tam.,

t ¢l

to fill, < mé-pu,’ Tel., to feed, were not known to be derived from the

hardening of an intransitive formative, we might be inclined to affiliate

50f

the

it with the ‘p,” which is characteristic of a certain class of causal verbs

9 A2

356

THE

VERB.

in Sanserit ; e.g., ¢jivh-p-ayami, I cause to live, ¢ jié-p-ayami, [ make

al

to know.

Tt is evident, however, that the resemblance is merely acci-

th

dental, for etymologically there is nothing of a causal nature in the

Dravidian formatives; it is not the formative itself, but the hardening

tlli

of the formative which conveys the force of tramsition; and on the

]ec

other hand, the real sign of the causal in Sanscrit is ‘aya, and the

“p’ which precedes it is considered to be only an euphonic fulerum.

1]

It has already been shown (in the section on ‘ Roots’) that the

th

various verbal formatives now referred to are used also as formatives

sh

of nouns, and that when such nouns are used adjectivally the consonant

Iy

of the formative is doubled and hardened precisely as in the transitives

€0

of verbs ; e.g., ©marattu,’ medicinal, from ¢marundu,’ medicine :

Iy

‘ pAppu,’ serpentine, from ¢ pambu,’ a snake.

When nouns are used to

bes

qualify other sounds, as well as in the use of transitive verbs, there

[0l

is a transition in the meaning of the theme to some other object ; and

iy

the idea of transition is expressed by the doubling and hardening of

Th

the consonant of the formative, or rather by the forcible and emphatie

10

enunciation of the verb which that hardening of the formative neces-

sitates.

§

?

(2.) The second class of intransitive verbs become transitives by

doubling and hardening the initial consonant of the signs of tense.

ad

Verbs of this class are generally destitute of formatives, properly so

‘i

called ; or, if they have any, they are such as are incapable of change.

an

The sign of the present tense is in Tamil ¢gir’ ;’ that of the preterite

2

W

oricav

“d,” ordinarily euphonised into ‘nd ;" and that of the future ‘b

ZOZ&

These are the signs of tense which are used by intransitive verbs of

low

this class ; and it will be shown hereafter that they are the normal

fbel

tense-signs of the Dravidian verb. When verbs of this class become

1t]

transitives, gir’’ is changed into ‘kkir; ¢d’ or ‘nd’ into ‘¢t

2R

Pa

and ‘b’ or ‘v’ into ‘pp.’

Thus, the root

¢ ser,

to join, is capable

i

both of an intransitive sense, e.g., o join (@ society), and of a transitive

wh

sense, e g., to join (things that were separate). The tense-signs of the

the

intransitive remain in their natural condition; e.g., ‘sér-gir’-en, 7

aly

Jjoin, ¢ §ér-nd-én,’ I joined, ‘&ér-v-én,” I will join: but when the signifi-

0y

-eation is active or transitive, e.g., to join (planks), the corresponding

Nm

parts of the verb are ‘&ér-kkir-én,” I join, ¢Sér-tt-én,” 7 joined, ©&er-

1§ .

pp-én, 1 wnll join.

ace

The rationale of this doubling of the case-sign is evident. It is an

beg

emphasized, hardened enunciation of the intransitive or natural form

why

of the verb ; and the forcible enunciation thus produced is symbolical

begg

of the force of transition by which the meaning of the transitive theme

ety

overflows and passes on to the object indicated by the accusative.

1§ §

TRANSITIVES AND INTRANSITIVES.

3567

e

In verbs of this class the imperative remains always unchanged ;

Yol

and it is the connexion alone that determines it to a transitive rather

the

than an intransitive signification.

ing

It should here be mentioned that a few intransitive verbs double

the

the initial consonant of the tense-sign, and that a few transitive verbs

the

leave the tense-sign in its original, unemphasized condition.

Thus,

“iru,’ fo sit, to be, is necessarily an intransitive verb ; nevertheless, in

the

the present tense ¢iru-kkir-én,” / am, and in the future ‘iru-pp-én,’ 1

[ves

shall be, it has made use of the ordinary characteristics of the transi-

Jang

tive : so also ¢padu,’ to lie, though an intransitive, doubles the initial

1Ve8

consonant of all the tenses ; e.g., ¢ padu-kkir-én,’ 7 lie, ‘padu-tt-én,’ 7

ne:

lay, ‘padu-pp-én, I shall lie.

On the other hand, ‘i) fo give, to

d to

bestow, though necessarily transitive, uses the simple, unhardened, un-

here

emphatic case-signs which are ordinarily characteristic of the intransi-

and

tive ; e.g., ‘i-gir-én, I give, ‘i-nd-én,’ I gave, ‘i-v-én, I will gve.

g of

These instances are the result of dialectic rules of sound, and they are

hatie

not in reality exceptions to the method described above of distinguish-

oS-

ing transitive and intransitive verbs by means of the hardening or

softening of the initial consonant of the case-signs,

s by

(3.) A third mode of converting intransitives into transitives is by

This particle is

adding a particle of transition to the theme or root.

¢du’ in Canarese, and ‘ttu’ (in composition ‘tu’ or ¢du’) in Tamil;

lyso

ange

and may be regarded as a real transitive suffix, or sign of activity.

terl

te

We have an instance of the use of this particle in the Can, ‘tal-du,’ o

Py

lower, from thl-u,’ to be low, and the corresponding Tam. ‘tar-ttu,” to

lower, from ¢ tar’ or ‘tar-u,’ to be low.

When the intransitive Tamil

!

of

theme ends in a vowel which is radical and cannot be elided, the tran-

ormal

:c()me

sitive particle is invariably ‘ttu,’ e.g., ¢ padu-ttu,’ to lay down, from

“tty

¢ padu,” o le.

It might, therefore, be supposed that ¢ttu’ is the pri-

pa.ble

mitive shape of this particle ; but on examining those instances in

which it is compounded with the final consonant of the intransitive

sitve

theme it appears to resolve itself, as in Canarese, into ‘du.” It is

(,f the

always thus compounded when the final cousonant of the theme is %

o1l [

]f’ﬂm

or €17 ¢d’’ or ‘®’; and in such cases the ‘d’ of ‘du’ is not merely

placed in juxta-position with the consonant to which it is attached, but

udin

is assimilated to it, or both consonants are euphonically changed,

gel

Thusély andi“dn’

according to the phonetic rules of the language.

I\ ﬂ;n

become ‘Rr-u’ (pronounced ‘ttr-u’), e.g., from ¢sural,’ intrans., fo be

whirled, comes ¢ surarr-u’ (‘surattr-u’), trans., to whirl.

‘]’ and ‘du’

orm

become ‘ttu,” e.g., from ‘mil’ ¢o return, comes ‘mitt-u,’ to cause to

)0

Jical

return, to redeem.

From these instances it is clear that ‘du,” not ¢ ttu,’

i

heme

is to be regarded as the primitive form of this transitive suffix.

358

THE VERB.

dist

What is the origin of this transitive particle, or sign of activity

“ttu’ or ‘du?

I believe it to be identical with the inflexion, or ad-

by

na

jectival formative, ‘attu’ or ‘ttu,” which was fully investigated in the

ity

section on ‘The Noun,” and of which the Canarese form is ‘ad’,’ the

ek ¢ 1 ot 541

There is a transition of meaning when a noun is

dong

used adjectivally (7.e., to qualify another noun), as well as when a

from

verb is used transitively (7.e., to govern an object expressed by some

noun in the accusative) ; and in both cases the Dravidian languages use

(with respect to this class of verbs) one and the same means of expressing

thin

0nw

transition, viz., a particle which was originally a neuter demonstrative.

Nor is this the only case in whicll the Tamil transitive verb

tion

L

exhibits the characteristics of the noun used adjectivally, for it was

nath

shown also that the doubling and hardening of the consonant of the

formative of the first class of transitive verbs is in exact accordance

RIIUI

this

with the manner in which nouns terminating in those formatives

double and harden the initial consonant when they are used to qualify

app

other nouns.

Another illustration of this principle follows.

lang‘

(4.) The fourth (a distinctively Tamil) mode of converting intran-

they

sitive verbs into transitives consists in doubling and hardening the final

16ce

b

consonant, if ‘d’ or ‘wr

This rule applies generally, though not

oy

invariably, to verbs which terminate in those consonants; and it

{Hly

applies to a final ‘nd-u’ (euphonised from ¢d-u’), as well as to ‘d-u’

1))

itself. The operation of this rule will appear on comparing ¢ vad-u, to

aph

wither, with ¢ vatt-u,’ to cause to wither ; ¢ 6d-u,’ to run, with ¢6tt-u,’ ¢o

s

drive ; ‘tind-u, to touch, with ‘titt-u, fo whet ; ‘mar-u,’ to become

afy

changed, with ¢ marRr-u’ (pronounced ‘ mattr-u’), to change.

The cor-

tg,

responding transitives in Telugu are formed in the more usual way by

s¢id,

adding ‘chu’ to the intransitive theme, e.g., ‘miru-chu,’ to cause to

1

change, ¢ vidu-chu,’ to cause to wither.

Cangg

Tamil nouns which end in ‘d-u,” ‘nd-u,” or “r-u,” double and harden

Iy

the final consonant when they are used adjectivally, or placed in an

atcl

adjectival relation to a succeeding noun ; e.g., compare ‘kid-u,’ a

Jungle, with “ katt-u vari, a jungle-path ; ‘irand-u,’ two, with ‘iratt-u

casy

nil, double thread ; ‘aRr-u, @ river, with ‘arru’ (pronounced ‘attru’)

gove

manal, 7tver sand. Thus we are furnished by words of this class with

Lay

another and remarkable illustration of the analogy which subsists in

gove

the Dravidian languages between transitive verbs and nouns used

(eg

adjectivally.

e g

1I. CAausAL VERBS.

Persg

There is a class of verbs in the Dravidian languages which, though

f avay

l“;l(

generally included under the head of #ramsitives, claim to be regarded

CAUSALS.

359

ity

distinctively as causals.

They have been classed with transitives both

rad-

Beschi alone places them

by native grammarians and by Europeans.

1 the

in a class by themselves, and calls them ¢éval vinei,’ verbs of command,

! the

t.¢., verbs which imply that a thing is commanded by one person to be

un 15

done by another.

160 &

Causals differ from transitives of the ordinary character, as well as

Some

from intransitives, both in signification and in form.

RN

The signification of intransitive verbs is confined to the person or

5500

thing which constitutes the nominative, and does not pass outward or

The significa-

itive,

onward to any extrinsic object ; e.g., ¢ po-gir-én,” I go.

veth

tion of tramsitive or active verbs, or, as they are called in Tamil, out-

t was

ward action-words, passes outwards to some object exterior to the nomi-

f the

native, and which is generally put in the accusative ; e.g., ‘ unnei

dance

anuppu-gir-én,” I send thee : and as to send is to cause to go, verbs of

atives

this class, when formed from intransitives, are in some languages,

appropriately enough, termed causals.

Hitherto the Indo-European

nalify

languages proceed ¢ pari passu’ with the Dravidian ; but at this point

1tran-

they fail and fall behind : for if we take a verb which is transitive of

necessity, like this one, to send, and endeavour to express the idea of

final

| nob

causing to send, t.e., causing one person to send another, we cannot by

nd 1t

any modification of structure get any single Indo-European verb to

express the full force of this idea : we must be content to make use of

id_u"

a phrase instead of a single verb ; whereas in the Dravidian languages,

L, 10

as in the Turkish and other languages of the Scythian stock, there is

1, 1

a form of the verb which will express the entire idea, viz., the causal :

pcoine

6 (oI~

e.g., < anuppu-vi,’ to cause to send, which is formed from €anuppu,’ fo

send, by the addition of the particle ‘vi’ to the theme.

Ay by

Transitives are in a similar manner converted in Turkish into

st 10

causals by sutfixing a particle to the theme ; e.g., ‘sev-dur,’ to cause

to love, from ¢sev, to love; and € étch-our, o causz to work, from

qrden

“atch,’ to work.

1 an

-y, 0

There is a peculiarity in the signification and use of Dravidian

causal verbs which should here be noticed.

Indo-European causals

raftl

govern two accusatives, that of the person and that of the object ; e.g,

i)

I caused him (ace.) to build the house (acc.): whereas Dravidian causals

g Wlth

govern the object alone, and either leave the person to be understood

s 0

(e.g., ‘ vittei (k)kattuvittén,” Tam., 7 caused to build the house, or as

,' USCd

we should prefer to say, I caused the house to be built) ; or else the

person is put in the instrumental; e.g., 1 caused to build the house

“avanalé’ or ‘avanei (k)kondu,” through him, or employing him; that

is, I caused the house to be built by him.

hough

Though the Dravidian languages are in possession of a true causal

mf([@d

-

360

THE VERB.

the

—formed by the addition of a causal particle,—yet they sometimes

Ta1e8

resort to the less convenient Indo-Eurcpean method of annexing an

auxiliary verb which signifies 0 make or t0 do, such as ‘sey’ and

heen

‘pann-u’ in Tamil, ‘mad-u,” in Can., and ‘chéy-u,” in Tel.

These

-

auxiliaries, however, are chiefly used in connexion with Sans. deriva-

vl

tives, it being contrary to the Dravidian idiom to combine indigenous

natu

particles with foreign themes.

The auxiliary is annexed to the in-

Teval

I

finitive of the principal verb.

el

Tamil idiom and the analogy of the other dialects require that

causzls should be formed, not from neuter or intransitive verbs, but

shut

)

be th

from transitives alone; but sometimes this rule isfound to be neglected.

Even in Tamil, ¢ vi,’ the sign of the causal, is in some instances found

In 16

to be annexed to intransitive verbs. Thisusage is not only at variance

Telu

with theory, but it is unclassical and unidiomatical.

In each of those

ordin

cases a true transitive, derived from the intransitive in the ordinary

Telu

manner, is in existence, and ought to be used instead.

Thus, ¢varu-

origi

vi,” Tam., to cause to come, is less proper, as well as less elegant, than

anne

¢ varu-ttu;’ and ‘nada-ppi,” to cause to walk, to guide, than nada-ttu.’

the 1

The use of the causal, instead of the active, where both forms

and {

exist, is not so much opposed to the idiom of the other dialects, as to

a8 801

that of the Tamil.

The use of one form rather than another is

Ly

optional in Telugu and Canarese ; and in some instances the active

inchy

bas disappeared, and the causal alone is used.

Thus ‘rappinchu,’ or

pincl

‘ravinchu,’ fo cause to come, the equivalent of the Tamil ¢varu-vi,

pin

is preferred by the Telugu to a form which would correspond to

mug

“varu-ttu: and instead of ‘akk-u,” Tam., to cause to become, to make,

in {]

which is the active of ‘4g-u’ and is formed by the process of

bUCOF

doubling and hardening which has already been described, the Telugu

“may

uses the causal ‘ka-vinchu,” and the Canarese the corresponding

diffey

causal ¢ag-isu.’

of th

The causal particle which is most commonly used in Tamil is ¢vi;

verh

e.g., ¢ pannu-vi,’ to causc to make, from ¢pannu,’ to make; and ‘kattu-

01

)

vi, to cause to build, from ‘kattu,” to build.

Instead of ‘vi’ we

thep

sometimes find ¢bi’ or ‘ppi,” according to the euphonic requirements

])y il

of the preceding syllable.

When the theme ends in a nasal, which it

I

does but rarely, ‘bi’ is added to form the causal; e.g., ‘kin-bi,’ #o

13gy)

cause to see, to show.

[A more idiomatic word, however, is the proper

{l

10 |

transitive of ‘kéan,” see; viz., ‘katt-u, i.e., ‘kén-ttu, fo show.] When

the theme ends in a vowel which is of such a character that if a

eVﬂj

i be

sonant follows it it will necessarily be hardened and doubled, ¢ vi’ or

deryy

}i

‘bi’ changes dialectically into ‘ppi; e.g., from ‘edu,’ to take up, is

i

L

formed the causal ¢ edu-ppl,’ to cause to take up.

is undoubtedly

18 th

i

;i

_—

CAUSALS.

361

fimes

the ‘most common form of this particle in Tamil, and ¢bi’ is the

1g an

]

rarest; yet ‘bi’ seems to be the original from which the others have

ana

been derived : for ‘ppi’ caunot have been derived from ¢vi,’ whereas

Thiese

¢bi,” after certain vowels, dialectically and necessarily becomes ¢ppi ;’

eriva-

‘vi’ also will not harden into ¢bi, whereas ‘bi’ will readily and

enols

naturally soften into ¢vi.’

I conclude, therefore, that ‘bi’ may be

he in-

regarded as the normal form of the causal particle.

In Telugu, causal verbs ordinarily end in ‘inchu; eg., ¢chéy-

e that

inchu,’” to cause to do, from °chéy-u,’ ¢o do; <miy-inchu,” fo cause to

b, but

shut, from ¢miy-u,” to shut, and this ‘inchu’ might be supposed to

Jected:

be the Telugu shape of the causal particle: but it will be seen that

found

in reality ¢i’ alone is to be regarded as the causal particle of the

)

the

rance

Telugu ; and that ‘i

is a softened, degraded form of ¢vi,

those

The final

‘nchu’

of the

ordinary causal particle of the Tamil.

Telugu causal is merely a nasalised formative, and is identical in

linary

“yari-

origin with the Tamil formative fklku.?

This formative ‘kku’ is

, than

annexed to ‘vi' in certain parts of the Tamil causal verb, viz., in

bt

the infinitive, and in the third person neuter of the aorist or future;

forms

and the identity of the Tam. ‘kku’ with the Tel. ‘nechu’ is apparent

asto

as soon as the Tamil infinitive is compared with that of the Telugu.

E.g., compare ¢§ey-vikka,” Tam., to cause to do, with the Tel. ¢chéy-

het 18

active

incha,” and ‘ tira-ppikka,’ Tam., to cause to open, with the Tel. ¢ tera-

n, of

pincha.’

Here ‘vikka’ and ‘ppikka’ alternate with ¢incha’ and

-V,

‘pincha; and hence it appears that the ‘nch’ of the one dialect

must as certainly be a formative as the ‘kk’ of the other is.

Even

nd to

ke

in the Tamil of the southern Pandiya country, ‘kk’ systematically

Tl

3

becomes

‘ch

Thus the correct Tamil ‘mara-kka,” Zo forget, is

088 of

‘ mara-cha’ in the southern patois, precisely as in Telugu.

The chief

[elugu

nding

difference between the Tamil and the Telugu, with respect to the use

of this formative ‘kk,’ is that it is used by two parts of the Tamil

verb alone, viz.,, the infinitive and the indefinite neuter, future, or

115

aorist ; whereas in Telugu it is added to, and compounded with, the

katto-

theme itself, and is used accordingly by every part of the verb, even

1 we

by the imperative. Ordinarily this formative ‘chu’ is used unchanged

ments

in Telugu; but when it follows i, it is invariably euphonised or

hich

nasalised into ‘nchu: hence the caunsal verb of the Telugu terminates

bi,'

not in ¢i-chu, but in ‘i-nuchu,” proncunced ‘intsu.’

In like manner

proper

every verb the base of which ends in ‘i, terminates in ‘inchu,” though

TVhen

it be not a causal; e.g., ¢ jayi-nchu, to conquer, from ‘jayi,’ a Sans.

i1 if

derivative.

g’ or

We thus come back to the conclusion that ¢i,” softened from vi,

Ilp; iS

is the regular causal particle of the Telugu.

In a few instances the

ptedly

362

THE VERB.

softening process by which ‘vi’ was changed into ‘i

has

been

dialects

resisted ; and in those instances ‘vi’ is the sign of the casual in

Telugn,

Telugu, as in Tamil; eg., compare ¢vida-vi-nchu’ or ¢vidi-vi-nchu,’

{JayiI

to rescue, to cause to leave, with the Tamil ¢vidu-vi.

The Tel. < ké-vi-

(anares

nchu,” fo cause to become, has retained this particle; whilst it has been

the Tel

lost by the corresponding Can. ‘Ag-i-su” We occasionally find the

which 1

causal formed by ‘pi,” and even ‘ppi’ in Telugu as in Tamil; and

The

formati

though the use of these hardened forms is rare, yet their existence in

Telugu serves still further to identify ¢i’ with the Tamil ¢vi,” ¢bi,’

identiq

and ‘ppi’

‘ tera-pi-nchu,’ Tel., o cause to open, is an example of the

and of

use of ‘pi; and ‘teppinchu’ (‘ te-ppi-nchu’), o cause to bring, from

verbs e

“te-chu,’ to bring, illustrates the use of ‘ppi.’

The Telugu verbs

i, b

in ‘chu,’ ‘nchu,’ “pu, ‘mpu, &ec., which are destitute of this causal

them in

particle under any form (e.g., vidu-chu’ and ¢ vidu-pu,’ ¢o cause to

foundin

quit, to rescue; ‘vanchu,’ to bend; ©lépu,’ to raise) are to be regarded

older

as transitives, not as causals.

Tami

They are formed, not by annexing ¢ vi’

/:

or ‘i) but by the doubling and hardening of the final consonant

by the

of the formative (e.g., compare ‘1épu,’ to raise, with the corresponding

particle

Tamil ‘eruppu,’ the transitive of ¢erumbu’); and the verbs from

‘Vi’ha

which they are so formed are not actives, but neuters. Instead, there-

Kk’ i

fore, of saying that ¢ tir-u,’ to end, forms its causal either in ¢ tir-chu’

The

or ¢ tir-pinchu,’ it would be more accurate and more in accordance

betweer

with Tamil analogies, to represent ©tir-u’ as the neuter, ¢tir-chu’ as

The try

the transitive, and ¢ tir-pi-nchu’ as the causal.

It 1s of the essence

the (y

of the true causal that its theme is a transitive verb; e.g., ¢ katt-inchu,’

like t

to cause to build, from ‘katt-u,” to build.

be ful)

In Canarese, causal verbs are formed by suffixing ¢is-u,’ or rather

itlf),

‘i-su,’ to the tramsitive theme; e.g., from ‘mad-u,” to do, is formed

€. ‘i

¢ mad-i-su,’ to cause to do.

This causal particle ¢i-su’ (in the ancient

Ellid ‘n{;

dialect “i-chn ’) is annexed to the theme itself before the addition

valk,

of the signs of tense, so that it is found in every part of the causal

The

verb, like the corresponding Telugu particle ¢i-nchu,’” with which it

Particle

is evidently identical.

It has been shown that the Telugu ¢i-nchu’

& Tqf

must have been nasalised from ‘i-chu’ (the phonetic equivalent of

Ulang |

the Tamil ¢i-kku,” for < vi-kku’); and now we find this very ‘i-chu’

the dey

in Canarese.

The change in modern Canarese from ‘i-chu’ to ¢i-fu’

( a‘ya?? I

is easy and natural, ‘§’ being phonetically equivalent to ¢ch,” and

The

‘chu’ being pronounced like ‘tsu’ in Telugu.

Othey D

Au additional proof, if proof were wanting, of the identity

a ghe

of the Can. ‘i-su’ with the Tel. ‘i-nchu,” is furnished by the

fomg

class of derivative verbs, or verbs borrowed from the Sansecrit.

indyg

Sans. derivative verbs are made to end in ‘i’ in the Dravidian

)

.’/0,‘ an(

CAUSALS.

363

' been

dialects (e.g., ¢ jay-i, comquer); and those verbs invariably take in

sual in

Telugu, as has been said, the formative termination ‘nchu,’ eg.,

nchu,

¢ jayi-nchu.’

The same verbs invariably take ‘i-su, or ‘y-isu,’ in

kd-vi-

Canarese.

Thus from the Sans. derivative theme, ¢ dhari,’ to assume,

s been

the Telugu forms the verb ¢dhari-nchu,’ the Canarese equivalent of

nd the

which 18 ¢ dbhari-§u.’

1; and

These verbs are not causals; bnt the use which they make of the

ence In

formative ¢ nchu’ or ‘su, preceded by i, illustrates the original

4

identity of the Canarese causal particle ‘i-su’ with the Tel. ¢ i-nchu,’

> of the

and of both with the Tamil ¢vikku.’

In Tamil, Sans. derivative

g, from

verbs end in ‘1

as in Canarese and Telugu, but the causal particle

| verbs

‘vi, ‘bi, or ‘ppi, is never added, except it is desired to convert

them into causals.

causal

Hence in Tamil no one is in any danger of con-

e {0

founding the true causal with the Sans. derivative.

Generally the

3garded

older and harsher sounds of the Canarese have been softened by the

(2]

g 1

Tamil ; and in particular, the Canarese k’ has often been softened

sonant

by the Tamil into

¢z

S

or ‘ch: but in the instance of the causative

onding

particle, exactly the reverse of this has happened; the Tamil ¢bi’ or

g from

‘vi’ having been softened by the Canarese into ¢1,” and the formative

¢kk'iinto ‘&’

there-

r-chn’

The Canarese, like the Telugu, does not so carefully discriminate

between transitive and causal verbs as the Tamil has been found to do.

rdance

The true causal of the Tamil is restricted to transitive themes; but

ho' a8

pssence

the Canarese, notwithstanding its possession of transitive particles,

incha,

like those of the Tamil (e.g., compare *nera-hu,’ to fill with ‘neri,’ fo

be full, and ¢ tiru-pu,’ fo turn (actively), with ‘tiru-gu,’ to turn (of

wself), yet it often annexes the causal particle to intransitive themes;

¢ ather

formed

e.g., ‘0d-i-su,’ to cause to run (Tam. ‘ott-u’), from ‘6d-u,’ to run;

jicient

and ‘nad-i-su,” fo cause to walk (Tam. ‘nada-ttu’), from ‘nadi,’ ¢o

walk.

Jdition

ca,uSal

The oldest and purest form of the Indo-European causative

i 1t

particle is supposed to be the Sanserit ‘aya,” with ‘p’ prefixed after

A

a root In

‘a

.,

‘aya’ becomes ‘i’ in Old Slavonic; and the resem-

acht’

2>

blance between this and the Telugu €1

is very close ; nevertheless,

pJent of

the derivation of the latter from

<

w1

or ‘bi’ and of the former from

Gl

‘aya,” proves that the resemblance is purely accidental.

L

The Tulu forms its causal verbs in a different manner from the

by and

Py

to the verbal theme,

other Dravidian dialects, viz., by suffixing a

and then adding the signs of tense: e.g., from ‘marp-u,” fo make, is

Jentity

formed ¢ marp-d-vu, to cause to make.

This greatly resembles the

hy the

Hindustani causals; e.g., ‘chal-wa-na, fo cause to go, from ¢ chal-na,” to

et

go; and as the Hind. causative particle ‘wa’ has probably been

ﬁvidiaﬂ

364

THE VERB.

a

A D

derived from the Sanscrit ‘aya’ or ¢p-aya,” the Tulu ¢

may be

agent, ¢

supposed to proceed from the same or a similar source.

ool

In Gond “ha’ or ‘h’ is the causal particle, and is added to the

(2)

present participle of transitive verbs, not to the theme.

the pre

by the

III. Tue Passive Voick.

t b,

Each of the primitive Indo-European languages has a regular

‘mugin

passive voice, regularly conjugated. The Sanscrit passive is formed

finished

by annexing the particle ‘ya’ (derived from ¢y4,’ to go), to the verbal

of pass

theme, and adding the personal terminations peculiar to the middle

comple

volce.

Tra

Most of the languages of the Scythian family also form their

forms,

passives by means of annexed particles.

To the verbal theme

Thy

the Turkish suffixes in order to form the passive, *il

ot il

and is

the Finnish ‘et ;

the Hungarian ¢at

‘et, ‘tet; and to these

atfi 4

particles the pronominal terminations are appended in the usual

become,

manner.

the agg

The Dravidian verb is entirely destitute of a passive voice, pro-

may g

perly so called, nor is there any reason to suppose that it ever had a

become,

passive. None of the Dravidian dialects possesses any passive particle

Vo

or suffix, or any means of expressing passivity by direct inflexional

used in

changes: the signification of the passive voice is, nevertheless, capable

tion of

of being expressed in a variety of ways.

We have now to inquire

done, }

into the means which are adopted by the Drividian languages for

which

conveying a passive signification; and it will be found that they cor-

the ([01'

respond in a considerable degree to the means used for this purpose

Iy

by the vernaculars of Northern India—which also are destitute of a

Substy

regular passive voice.

Same fg

In the particulars that follow all the Dravidian dialects agree:

2 pay

what is said of one holds true of all.

The

(1.) The place of a passive voice is to a large extent supplied by

the use of the neuter or intransitive form of the verb. This is in

third p

\‘Oice W

every dialect of the family the most idiomatic and characteristic mode

or by ﬂ

of expressing the passive; and wherever it can be used, it is always

the gt

preferred by classical writers.

Thus, it was broken, is ordinarily

Sitate 9

expressed in Tamil by ¢udeindadu,” the preterite (third person sin-

toa ty

gular neuter) of ‘udei,” intransitive, ¢o break or become broken; and

mplie;

though this is a neuter, rather than a passive properly so called, and

of the,

might literally be rendered ¢ has come into a broken condition, yet it

for ¢,

is evident that for all practical purposes nothing more than this is

As

required to express the force of the passive.

The passivity of the

00t iy

expression may be increased by prefixing the instrumental case of the

lery

:

THE

PASSIVE

VOICE.

365

13y be

agent, e.g., “ ennal udeindadu,’ ¢ was broken by me, ov literally ¢ came

wnto @ broken condition through me.

| to the

(2.) A very common mode of forming the passive is by means of

the preterite verbal participle of any neuter or active verb, followed

by the preterite (third person singular neuter) of the verbs o become,

to be, to go, or (occasionally) to end.

Thus, we may say either

regular

‘mugindadu,’ i is finished, or ¢mugind’ Ayittru, literally Aawving

formed

Jinashed it s become.

This form adds the idea of completion to that

verhal

of passivity: not only is the thing done, but the doing of it is

middle

completed.

Transitive or active verbs which are destitute of intransitive

1 their

forms, may in this manner acquire a passive signification.

theme

Thus ‘katt-u,’ to bind or build, is necessarily a transitive verb,

‘Al

and is without a corresponding intransitive ; but in the phrase ‘kévil

) these

katti ayittru,’ the temple is built, literally the temple having built has

y ustal

become, a passive signification is acquired by the active voice, without

the assistance of any passive-forming particle.

¢ poyittru, it has gone,

8, -

may generally be used in such phrases instead of ‘ayittru, 4t s

had a

become.

article

Verbal nouns, especially the verbal in “dal’ or ¢al’ are often

exional

used in Tamil instead of the preterite verbal participle, in the forma-

mpab]@'

tion of this constructive passive; e.g., instead of ‘Seyd’ Ayittru,’ 4 4s

inquire

done, literally having done it has become, we may say ‘Sejdal Ayittrn,’

g8 for

which though it is used to express the same meaning, literally signifies

1ey coI-

the doing has become, i.c., it has become a fact, the doing of it is completed.

In these instances the use of the active as a passive (with the

purpose

i ofa

substantive verb) corresponds to the New Persian rule of using the

same form of the verb as an active when it stands unsupported, and

3 gree .

as a passive when followed by the substantive verb.

The Dravidian constructive passives now referred to require the

ied by

third person mneuter of the auxiliary verb. The force of the passive

s is 10

voice will not be brought out by the use of the masculine or feminine,

or by the epicene plural. If those persons of the verb were employed,

¢ mode

always

the activity which is inherent in the idea of personality would neces-

sitate an active signification ; it would tie down the transitive theme

narly

to a transitive meaning ; whereas the intransitive relation is naturally

o Sl

i, 4l

implied in the use of the neuter gender, and therefore the expression

of the signification of the passive (viz, by the intransitive officiating

3d7 aﬂd

for the passive) is facilitated by the use of the third person neuter.

this

A somewhat similar mode of forming the passive has been pointed

out in the Hindustani and Bengali; e.g., < jana yay,” Beng., it is known,

Of thf,'

literally it goes to be known.

of the

‘jana’ is represented by some to be a

366

THE VERB

verbal noun, by others to be a passive participle

but, whatever it be,

able ]

found

there is some difference between this idiom and the Dravidian one;

beaten

for in the corresponding Tamil phrase °terind’ Ayittru,” o s known,

2

¢ terind-

is unquestionably the preterite verbal participle of an

(4

n eac!

intransitive verb, and the phrase literally means having known it is

become

literally Aaving known it is gone, con-

1means

¢ terindu poyittru

veys the same signification

It is remarkable that a verb signifying

ANnex

to go should be used in the Drividian languages as a passive-making

4, )

auxiliary, as well as in the languages of Northern India

or ¢ B

Occasionally Dravidian active or transitive verbs themselves are

by

Tience

used with a passive signification, without the addition of any intran-

sitive auxiliary whatever

Relative participles and relative participial

of the

nouns are the parts of the verb which are most frequently used in this

which

manner; e.g.,

erudina suvadi unduj ach’ aditta pustagam véndum

(p)pad

Tam., 7 have got a written book ; 1 want a printed one

In this phrase

Siifere

both

erudina

written, and ‘ach’-aditta,” printed, are the preterite

nore

It

relative participles of ¢ranmsitive themes

The former means literally

that wrote; yet it is used passively to 51gn1fy written, and the latter

finit

means literally that printed or struck off, but is used passively as equl—

It

valent to that is printed.

her

The relative participial noun, especially the preterite neuter, is

to act

oftentimes used in the same manner

e.g., in ‘Sonnadu pédum, Tam.,

tive ¢

what was said 1s suficient, < Sonnadu,’ literally means that which said

Necess

but the connexion and the usage of the language determine it to

Slomiff

signify passively that which was said; and so distinetively in this case

Sibivg

is the passive sense expressed by the connexion alone, that the use of

m T¢

the more formal modern passive

$olla-(p)pattadu,

would sound

formg

Tam., ¢anéde,

Tel

that s called

awkward and foreign

endra,

action

literally that spoke, is another very common instance of the same rule

Tany

‘Iyésu enbavar,” Tam., signifies literally, Jesus—he who speaks; but

Tamj]

usage determines it to mean ke who s called Jesus

thergh

(3.) The verb ‘umn,” ¢o eat, is occagionally used in the Dravidian

wel]

It is inva-

languages as an auxiliary in the formation of passives

Tl

ably appended to nouns {substantives or verbal nouns), and is never

80 ¢a]

compounded with any part of the verb; e.g., ‘adi undan,’ ke was beaten,

Seneys

or got a beating, literally he ate a beating,

padeipp’ undén,” I was

created, literally 7 ate a creating

h ey 0

The same singular idiom prevails also in the North-Indian ver-

0 the

naculars

The particular verb signifying fo eat which is used in those

auxljy

languages diflers, indeed, from the Dravidian u

but the idiom is

thOrou

identical, and the existence of so singular an idiom in both the

In

It is remark-

northern and the southern family is deserving of notice

%0 gq)

—

THE

PASSIVE

VOICE.

367

It be,

able that the same peculiar contrivance for expressing the passive is

i 00e

found in the Chinese, in which also 0 eat a beating, means to be

kngun,

beaten.

of an

(4.) The mode of forming the passive which is most largely used

m ot s

in each of the modern colloguial dialects of the Dravidian family, is by

6, CON-

means of the auxiliary verb ‘pad-u,” to suffer, to experience, which is

nifying

annexed to the infinitive of the verb signifying the action suffered;

making

e.q., ‘kolla~(p)pattan,” Tam., ke was killed, literally, he suffered a killing

or @ to kill. It is also annexed to nouns denoting quality or condition;

jes are

e.g., ‘vetka-(p)pattin,’ he was ashamed, literally he suffered or expe-

mntran-

rienced shame.

The ultimate base of a verb is sometimes used instead

tiipial

of the infinitive or verbal noun in construction with this auxiliary, in

in this

which case the base is regarded as a noun; e.g., instead of ‘adikka-

ndum,

(p)pattan,” we may say ‘adi pattin,’ ke was beaten, or literally Ze

phrase

suffered a beating; and where this form can be used, it is considered

reterite

more idiomatic than the use of the infinitive.

terally

It is evident that this compound of ‘pad-u,” fo suffer, with an

infinitive or noun of quality, is rather a phrase than a passive voice.

) Jafter

5 equ-

It is rarely found in the classics; and idiomatic speakers prefer the

other modes of forming the passive.

‘pad-u’ is often added, not ounly

iter, 18

to active, but also to neuter or intransitive verbs; but as the intransi-

' Tam,

tive expresses by itself as much of a passive signification as is ordinarily

necessary, the addition of the passive auxiliary does not alter the

h suid;

e lt tO

signification ; e.g., there is no difference in Tamil between the intran-

1is ¢ase

sitive ‘ teriyum,’ it appears, or will appear, and teriya (p)padum; or

in Telugu between ‘ teliyunu” and ¢ teliya badunu,” the corresponding

y 156 Of

sound

forms. In ordinary use ‘pad-u’ conveys the meaning of continuous

action or being, rather than that of passivity; e.g., ‘irukka-(p)patta,

il

e rule.

Tam., is vulgarly used for ‘irukkira, thatis; and I have heard a

S5 hut

Tamilian say, ‘nin nandrij $ppida-(p)pattavan, Tam., meaning

thereby, not J have been well eaten, but I have been accustomed to eat

well.

svidian

The Dravidian languages, indeed, are destitute of passives properly

s 10va:

§ pever

so called ; and, therefore, they resist every effort to bring ¢pad-u’ into

Dty

general use. Such efforts are constantly being made by foreigners,

who are accustomed to passives in their own tongues, and fancy that

r [ s

they cannot get on without them; but nothing sounds more barbarous

to the Dravidian ear than the unnecessary use of ‘padu’ as a passive

ﬂ ver-

) those

auxiliary.

It is only when combined with nouns that its use is

thoroughly allowable.

jom i

In none of the Dravidian dialects is there a middle voice, properly

h the

so called.

The force of the middle or reflective voice is expressed

368

THE

VERB.

then

constructively by the use of an auxiliary verb, viz, by ‘kol,” Tam., to

natic

take (Tel. ‘kon-u’); eg., “panni-(k)kondén,’ I made it jfor myself,

116Ce!

literally, I made and took it.

This auxiliary sometimes conveys a

18 60

reciprocal force rather than that of the middle voice; eg, pési-(k)

kondargal, Tam., they talked together; ¢adittu-(k)kondargal,” they beat

118

one another.

The same usage appears in the other dialects also.

hut ¢

pIon

IV. Tue NEGATIVE VOICE.

whi

Properly speaking, the Dravidian negative is rather a mood or

affin

voice than a conjugation.

All verbal themes are naturally affirmative,

ar

and the negative signification is expressed by means of inflexional

Lo

additions or changes.

Nevertheless, it will conduce to perspicuity to

of ar

inquire now into the negative mood or voice, before entering upon the

consideration of the pronominal terminations and tenses.

Tl

The regular combination of a negative with a verbal theme is a

8100

peculiarity of the Scythian family of tongues.

Negation ig generally

the s

expressed in the Indo-European family by means of a separate particle

tens

(IR

used adverbially; and instances of combination like the Sanserit ‘nasti,’

Teali

it is mot, the negative of ¢ asti,” ¢t is, are very rare, and are found only

of g

in connexion with substantive or auxiliary verbs: whereas, in the

ab\

st

Scythian languages, every verb has a negative voice or mood as well

as an affirmative. The Scythian negative voice is generally formed

100

of of

by the insertion of a particle of negation between the theme and the

aece

pronominal suffixes; and this is as distinctive of the Dravidian as of

the Turkish and Finnish languages.

Different particles are, it is true,

Satls

used in the different languages to express vegation; but the mode in

Vallg

which such particles are used is substantially the same in all.

In general, the Dravidian negative verb has but one tense, which

trace

(o)

is an aorist, or is indeterminate in point of time ; e.g., pogén,” Tam.

hs

re]an

(‘ povanu, Tel., ¢ pogenu,’ Can.), 7 go not, means either 7 did not, I do

deriy

not, or I will not go.

The time is generally determined by the con-

text.

tnide

The only exception is in the Ku, in which there is a negative

In most of the dialects there 1s

preterite, as well as a negative aorist.

only one mood of the negative in ordinary use, viz., the indicative.

If

15 thy

an infinitive and imperative exist, it is only in classical compositions

13t1o

that they appear; and they are ordinarily formed by the help of the

hemg

adu :

infinitive and imperative of the substantive verb, which are suffixed as

Mo

auxiliaries to the negative verbal participle; e.g., ¢ éeyyé‘d’—iru,’ Tam.,

do not thou, literally be thow doing not.

In the Telugu alone, a negative infinitive, and a prohibitive or

The

negative imperative, are in ordinary use even in the colloquial dialect.

0cea;

In the Dravidian negative voice, as in the affirmative, the verbal

(Ingt,

THE

NEGATIVE VOICE.

369

Tam,, to

theme remains unchanged; and in both voices the pronominal termi-

P myself,

nations are precisely the same.

The only point, therefore, which it is

necessary to investigate here is the means whereby the idea of negation

ODVEYS &

is expressed.

“pisi ()

they bent

The Dravidian negative is altogether destitute of signs of tense :

it is destitute, not only of the signs of present, past, and future time,

U

but even of the sign of the aorist; and in Tamil and Canarese the

Thus,

pronominal suffixes are annexed directly to the verbal theme.

mood o

whilst the present, past, and future tenses (first person singular) of the

irmative,

affirmative voice of the Tamil verb ¢ var, to flourish, are ‘var-gir-én,’

¢ var-nd-én,” ¢ var-v-én ; the corresponding negative is simply ¢var-én,’

flexional

I flourish not—Tliterally, as appears, flourish-1,—without the insertion

icuity 10

upon the

of any sign of time between the theme and the pronoun.

What is the rationale of the Dravidian negative ?

The absence of signs of tense evidently contributes to the expres-

eme 1§ &

sion of the idea of negation : it may at least be said that it precludes

generally

the signification of the aflirmative.

In consequence of the absence of

3 p:u‘ticle

tense-signs the idea expressed by the verb is abstracted from the

it ‘ﬂéSti:T

ind only

realities of the past, the present, and the future: it leaves the region

of actual events, and passes into that of abstractions.

Hence, this

) n the

abstract form of the verb may be supposed to have become a negative

mood, not by a positive, but by a negative process,—by the absence

y formed

of affirmation, not by the aid of a negative particle.

Is this to be

accepted as the rationale ?

dian 88 of

If we examined only the Tamil and the Canarese, we might be

it 19 true,

satisfied with this explanation of the origin of the negative ; for in the

o mode in

various persons of the negative voice in both languages there is no

trace of the insertion of any negative particle; and though the vowel

6, which

‘a’ has acquired a predominant and permanent place in the verbal and

) Tan.

relative participles, we should not feel ourselves warranted in consi-

not, I[do

dering that vowel as a particle of negation, without distinet, reliable

- the cob-

evidence from some other source.

) negﬂ,ﬁ\'e

The only peculiarity in the personal forms of the Tamil negative

i there 3

is the invariable length of the initial vowel of the pronominal termi-

'f[tive' H

nations.

Thus, the initial ‘a’ of the neuter singular demonstrative

111})05iti

ons

being short, we should expect the Tamil of & Aourishes not to be ‘var-

EIP []f the

adu ; whereas it is ‘vaAr-Adu’ or ¢ vAr-4’

This increase of quantity

Sm‘ﬁxed o

might arise from the incorporation and assimilation of some inserted

m: Tﬂl‘n'7

vowel ; but we might also naturally suppose it to be merely euphonic.

The corresponding vowel is short in Telugu ; but even in Telugu it is

pive

occasionally lengthened for the sake of emphasis ; e.g., ¢ palukdka’

g} dilth

(instead of ¢ palukaka’), without speaking.

In the Canarese negative

2B

t

—

370

THE

VERB.

we miss even this lengthening of the initial vowel of the pronominal

The T

terminations ; e.g., we find invariably ¢bal-adu,’ instead of the Tamil

any trace

¢ var-ddu.’ In the verbal and relative participles in both languages the

thow goes

vowel ‘a’ is inserted between the theme and the formative, and this

is cerfain

¢

a

9

is invariably short in Canarese and long in Tamil ; e.g., ‘bal-a-de,’

The le

Can., not having lived, or without living ; Tam., ¢var-ddu’ or °var-

acoordane

The verbal noun in Tamil is ¢ var-a--mei, the

instead of

a-mal,” without lwing.

not lLiving. The relative participle that lLived or lives not, is in Can.,

We

‘bal-a-da,” in Tam., ¢ var-4-da.’” In these instances, if euphony alone

negation

had been considered, ‘u,’ the ordinary enunciative vowel, would have

the forma

appeared where we find “a: it may, therefore, be concluded that ‘a’

appeared

(euphonically ¢4’ in Tamil) has intentionally been inserted, and that

the analo

it contributes in some manner to grammatical expression.

Tamil an

It will be found that much light is thrown upon this subject by the

een the

Telugu. The pronominal terminations of the negative voice of the

suceeeded

Telugu are identical with those of the present tense of the affirmative.

sultx, apy

In Tamil and Canarese the pronominal terminations of the verb com-

dence of

mence with a vowel; but in Telugu verbs the pronoun is represented

Pronomin;

by the final syllable alone, and that syllable invariably commences

Itis

with a consonant.

Hence, if no particle of negation were used in the

formatiye

conjugation of the Telugu negative voice, the pronominal suffix would

The il

be appended directly to the verbal theme, and as every Telugu theme

‘W’ o

terminates in the enunciative ‘u,’ that ‘u

would not be elided, but

Without g

would invariably remain.

‘What then is the faet ?

formatiy

On examining the Telugu negative, it is found that the vowel ‘a’

0 slipp

invariably intervenes between the theme and the pronominal suffix ;

and as the final enunciative u’ of the theme has been elided to make

DOUHS, al

of verbs

way for this “a,’ it is evident that ‘a’ is mot an euphonic insertion,

o the by

but is a particle of negation.

Compare ¢chéy-a-nu,” Tel., 1 do not,

ideutical '

with Tam., ‘ey(y)-én; ¢chéy-a-vu, thou dost not, with Tam.,

ﬁ\'e, iS Y

“Sey(y)-ay ;. ¢ chéy-a-mu, we do mot, with Tam., sey(y)-om ;" ¢ chéy-

From this comparison it

it iS More

a-ru, you do mot, with Tam., ‘sey(y)-ir.

cannot be doubted that ‘a’ is regularly used in Telugu as a particle

added by

(mia’ Wwhi

of negation.

We find the same ‘a’ used in Telugu, as in Canarese

and Tamil, in the negative verbal participle; e.g, chéy-a-ka,” without

Natioy of

nellter 10

dotng ; in the relative participle, e.g., ¢ chéy-a-ni,’ that does not ; and in

In each of these par-

ey gy

the verbal noun, e.g., ‘ chéy-a-mi,’ the not doing.

ticipials ‘a’ is used in the same manner by the Canarese, and ‘4’

o f}wu).

by the Tamil: and that those vowels are not euphonics or conjunctives,

i Plopey

but signs of negation, even in Tamil-Canarese, is now clearly proved

Veth iy

by the evidence of the Telugu, in which a similar ¢ a’ is used, not only

4 a}) ﬂle Si

by the participles, but by all the personal forms of the verb.

8 ugyy)

Q;

b=

{

1

THE NEGATIVE

VOICE.

ninal

amil

The Tel. verb to go, forms its ordinary negative, it is true, without

9

any trace of this vowel of negation : eg., “pénu,” I go not, ‘podvu,

sthe

thow goest not.

This, however, is only an apparent irregularity, for it

this

is certain that the correct forms are ‘pév-a-nu’ and °pov-a-vu.’

e,

The lengthening of the included a’ of ‘kéanu,’ 7 become not, is in

yar-

accordance with the Telugu law of displacement, ¢kanu

bl

being

N i

instead of ‘ak-a-nu’ or ‘ag-a-nu,’ the equivalent of the Tamil ‘agén.’

Can,,

We have thus arrived at the conclusion that ‘a

2

is the sign of

alone

negation which is systematically used by the Dravidian language in

have

the formation of the negative voice of the verb.

It has, it is true, dis-

b

appeared from the conjugated forms of the Tamil and Canarese; but

{hat

the analogy not only of the Telugu personal forms, but also of the

Tamil and Canarese participles, proves that it must originally have

ythe

been the common property of all the dialects.

The negative ‘a,” being

f the

succeeded in Tamil and Canarese by the initial vowel of the pronominal

ative,

suffix, appears gradually to have got incorporated with it: and an evi-

com

dence of this incorporation survives in the euphonic lengthening of the

ented

pronominal vowel in Tamil and Tulu.

60068

It is desirable now to inquire into the participial and imperative

n the

formatives of the negative verb.

yould

The negative verbal participle of the Tamil is formed by suffixing

heme

¢4-du’ or ‘a-mal ; e.g., < fey(y)-a-du’ or ‘Sey(y)-a-mal,’ not doing, or

, but

without doing.

In the highest and lowest Tamil “mei’ i1s used as the

formative of this participle instead of mal,’ e.g., ¢ varuv-a-mei,” with-

b

‘e’

out slipping.

‘me1

constitutes the ordinary termination of abstract

offs 5

nouns, and is added both to crude roots and to the relative participles

make

of verbs ; e.g., ¢ tAr-mei,’ lowness, humility ; ¢ iru-kkindr-a-mei,” a being

}I‘tiOn)

'|

or the being. The formative termination of negative verbal nouns is

) 0l

identical with this abstract ¢mei ;’ and ‘mal,’ the participial forma-

I‘fbm')

tive, is evidently equivalent to it, and probably the original form: for

chey-

it is more likely that a final ‘1’ should have been softened away than

qon it

added by use.

The verbal noun of the Telugu negative verb ends in

The other Tamil termi-

uticle

“mi,” which is virtually the same as * mel.’

1686

nation of negative verbal participles, ‘du,’ is an ordinary formative of

rlﬁo

thout

neuter nouns of quality. The corresponding Canarese termination is

Gn 2

¢de ;” and in Tamil ¢ du,” with a subsequent emphatic

=

is commonly

¢ pM

used as a negative imperative or prohibitive ; e.g., Sey(y)-4-d-&,” do

%

not thou,—a proof that the negative verbal participle in ‘du’ or ¢de’

d‘a

1175

is properly a verbal noun.

The relative participle of the negative

)ro\’ed

verb in each of the dialects, except the Telugu, is formed by suffixing

“a, the sign of the relative, to the verbal participle in ¢d-u,” eliding

{ onlf

as usual the enunciative ‘u; eg., ‘fey(y)-4-da, Tam., ‘géy-a-da,’

282

372

THE VERB.

Can., that does or did not.

Many additional forms are constructed by

(ol

the addition of the various tenses and participles of the substantive

bl

verb, and it is by the help of that verb that the negative imperative

¢ipl

and negative infinitive in both Canarese and Tamil are ordinarily

‘tel

formed. The negative relative participle of the Telugu is formed by

adding ¢ni,” instead of the usual relative ‘a,’ to the negative particle;

by

whi

e.g., ‘chéy-a-ni,’ that does or did not.

This ¢ni1

is one of the Telugu

inflexional increments, and is also used as a particle of conjunction, as

Case

abs

will be seen under the head of the relative participles.

bee

The negative verbal participle and negative imperative of the

Telugu require to be separately investigated.

caus

with

Mr. A. D. Campbell, in his Telugu Grammar, states that the nega-

tive verbal particle is formed by suffixing ‘ka’ to the infinitive of the

affirmative voice ; and that the prohibitive is formed in like manner

the

Tely

by suffixing ‘ku’ or ‘ka’ to the infinitive, with the ordinary addition

of ‘mu’ or ‘mo.’

o

i

In consequence of this representation, Dr. Stevenson

has been led to consider ‘kun’ as a Telugu sign of negation, and to

belie

search for allied or equivalent particles in other Indian languages.

the

The comparison of the negative verbs in the various Dravidian dialects

which has just been made, proves that this representation is inaccurate,

of ¢

and that the ‘a’ to which the ‘ka’ and ‘ku’ aforesaid are suffixed

is not the ‘a’ which forms the sign of the infinitive, but the negative

prou

particle ‘a

The suffixes of the forms in question, therefore, are not

tho,

‘ku’ or ‘ka, but ‘a-kun’ and ‘a-ka,” or ‘4-ka; and thus ‘chéy-a-

Phat

ka,” without doing, or not having done, and ‘chéy-a-ku’ or ‘chéy-a-ka,’

181

do not, come into harmony with the other Telugu forms, viz., ‘chéy-a-

a"l\‘a'/

|

ni, that does not, ‘chéy-a-mi,” the not doing ; and also with the negative

participles and verbals of the other dialects.

Pond;

The “a’ of the Telugu imperative and negative verbal participle

o,

being undoubtedly the sign of negation, it only remains to inquire into

and g

the origin of the ‘ka’ or ‘ku’ which is suffixed to it.

Teso

The participial suffix ‘ka’ is evidently used in Telugu for the

for

same purposes as the Tamil suffixes ‘du,” ‘mal, and ‘mei,’ and the

akg.

)

Can., ‘de’

Those suffixes, though used by verbal participles, are un-

of th;

I consider

doubtedly to be regarded as formatives of verbal nouns.

110un@

‘ka’ also as proceeding from a similar origin ; for in Telugu many

I8 1de

verbal nouns are formed in this very manner by adding ‘ka’ to the

tiVe, (

root: e.g., ‘nammi-ka,’ confidence, from ‘ nammu,’ o confide ; and ‘kori-

thoy,

ka, hope, from ‘koru,’ to hope.

This ‘ka’ is ‘kkei,” in Tamil (eg.,

(l\a,

‘nambi-kkei, confidence), and ‘ge’ or ‘ke, in Canarese : it is a very

im pe].2

common formative of verbal nouns, and is equivalent in use to the for-

they, (

matives of which d’ or ¢t ‘b’ or ¢p, is the initial. When we

tiﬂpm

f[)l'mat

THE NEGATIVE

VOICE.

373

ed by

tive

compare Telugu derivative nouns ending in ‘ka’ (eg., ‘teliyi-ka,’

ative

semblance, from °teliyu,’ o appear) with the negative verbal parti-

uarily

ciples of the same language, which invariably end in ‘ka’ (eg.,

el by

‘ teliy-a-ka,” not seeming), it is evident that the particle ‘ka’ is not that

The vowel ‘a’

ticle;

by which the difference in meaning is expressed.

which precedes ‘ka’ is evidently the seat of the difference.

In those

dlugu

on, 8

cases in which the derivative noun and the negative participle are

absolutely identical in sound and appearance, the negative ‘a’ has

f the

been absorbed by the preceding long ¢4’ of the root.

This is the

cause of the similarity between rika,” a coming, and ‘raka, not or

without coming, the latter of which is for ‘ra-a-ka.’

nege

of the

In the dialect of the Kotas of the Nilgherry hills, ¢ p

is usea as

janner

the formative suffix of the negative verbal participle instead of the

dition

Telugu ‘k’ and the Tamil-Canarese ‘d; e.g., ‘hogi-pe,” without

enson

going, corresponding to the Can. ‘hdgade, and the Tel. ¢ povaka.’

The Telugu prohibitive suffix ‘ku,” or more commonly ‘ka,” is, I

nd to

believe, identical with ‘ka,” the suffix of the verbal participle, just as

1ages,

ialects

the ¢d’ of “dé,’ the vulgar Tamil prohibitive, is identical with the ¢ d’

of “du,’ the negative verbal participle in the same dialect.

urate,

fixed

Dravidian imperatives are in general nothing but verbal nouns

pronounced emphatically. Hence, the Tamil ¢&ey(y)-a-dé, do not

5g&ti\'e

16 106

thou, is simply ¢sey(y)-A-du, doing not, with the addition of the em-

phatic

CA

(&)

:héy_a.

and the Telugu ¢ chéy-a-ku,” or ‘chéy-a-ka,” do not thow,

is in like manner, I conceive, identical with the verbal participle ‘chéy-

’-ﬂ'ka;’

hey-4-

a-ka,” doing not, or without doing, with an emphasis understood.

There is in classical Tamil a prokibitive particle which corres-

ggative

ponds to this Telugu prohibitive, viz., ‘arka; e.g., ‘Sey(y)-arka,” do

not

The Tamil prohibitive is used in connexion with both numbers

ticiple

and every gender; and I believe that it is by usage only that the cor-

¢ 10t0

responding Telugu form is restricted to the second person singular ;

for when we compare the Tam. ‘Sey(y)-arka’ and the Tel. ¢chéy-

for the

aka,” we cannot doubt that they are identical.

What is the origin

nd the

e 1l

of this Tamil prohibitive suffix ‘arka? it is derived from “al’ (pro-

nounced ‘ar’ before ‘k’), the particle of negation, and <ka, which

Onsidef

1 maky

is identical with ‘ka’ or ‘ga,’ a sign of the Tamil infinitive, opta-

tive, or polite imperative, apparent in such words as ‘var-ga,” may (ke,

t0 the

thou, you, they, &c.) flourish. ~All verbal nouns in Malayalam end in

kit

| (€.g~9

‘ka’ or ‘ga,” and each of those verbals is used also as a polite

imperative ; e.g., ‘ wari-ka’ or ¢ wari-ga,’ is either a coming or mayest

3 very

thou come, according to the context: so that the infinitival, par-

he for

ticipial, or imperative formative appears to have been originally the

en e

formative of a verbal noun.

374

THE VERB.

We should here notice the prohibitive particle of the Gond, viz.,

of th

gl

‘mani’ or ‘minni,’

This is not suffixed to the verb, but prefixed,

like the Latin ‘noli.’

used

‘minni’ closely resembles the Tamil suffix

‘min,’ in such words as ‘fey(y)an-min,” do not ye: but the resem-

Tami

blance is purely accidental ; for the prohibitive particle of ‘Sey(y)-

ol

an-min’ is ‘an’ (euphonised from ¢al’), and ‘min’ is not, as

often

Beschi supposes, a prohibitive particle, but is a sign of the second

and

Tam

person plural of the imperative, and as such is systematically used in

the higher dialect by the imperative of the affirmative voice, as well

the 4

as by the prohibitive; e.g., ‘poru-min,’ bear ye.

Possibly the Gond

(L

prohibitive, ¢ mani,” is connected rather with the Hindustani ¢ mat’ and

very

the Sanscrit < ma,” and remotely with the Turkish particle of negation,

comp

“me’ or ‘ma; which is used like the Dravidian ‘a’ in the formation

elem

of the negative voice of the verb.

‘minni’ also closely resembles

“inni,’ the probibitive particle of the Scythian tablets of Behistun.

Tam

congl

Orwgin of ‘a’ the Dravidian megative particle.— We bave seen

from

that ‘a’ is the Dravidian sign of negation, and that it is inserted

final

between the theme and the signs of personality and other suffixes to

Tami

form the negative voice of the verb.

Tam

Is this ‘a’ connected with the ¢alpha privative’ of the Indo-

Inur

European tongues ? I think not, though this would be a more natural

of 4}

use of the ‘alpha privative’ than that of forming the temporal

alreg

augment in Sanscrit and Greek, according to Bopp’s theory. There

appe

is no trace of ‘alpha privative’ or any equivalent privative prefix in

verh

the Dravidian languages ; and its place is supplied by some post-fixed

|

relative participle or verbal noun formed from ¢il’ or ‘al; e.g., from

from

‘nér, Tam., straight or straighiness, is formed ‘nér-inmei’ (“il-mei’

Prohi

euphonised), crookedness, want of straightness.

The

The negative ‘a’ of the Dravidian negative verb is, I have no

Fiup;

doubt, softened from ‘al’ or ‘il the ordinary isolated particle of

Simi

negation.

This very sign of negation is sometimes used by the Tamil

classics instead of ‘a’ in“verbal combinations; e.g., ‘arig-il-ir, yow

know not, takes the place of the more common ¢ari-(y)-ir:’ compare

i

also ¢ ninei-(y)-ala,” not considering ; Seyg-al-adar,” they wio will not

thoge

do or they will not do.

In all these examples the ‘al’ is, I conceive,

dil‘ec

the negative particle ‘al,” not the ‘al’ of the verbal noun.

There

or a]

cannot be any doubt whatever of the negative force of < al’ in the nega-~

lup|

tive appellatives, which are formed from ‘al-an’ or ¢il-an,” %e is not,

fory

combined with verbal roots; c.g., ¢ pés-al-ém, we speak not, ‘und-il-ei,’

lord’

thow eatest not or hast not eaten.

The Gond regularly forms its nega-

Teyg)

tive voice by suffixing ‘halle’ or <hille,” a barbarous euphonisation

ppli

—

APPELLATIVES.

375

ind, viz,

of the more correct ‘al’ or ¢il; and the dialect of the Kétas makes

prefixed,

a similar use of the particle <illa,’

This particle is also systematically

nl suffix

used in forming the prohibitive, or negative imperative, of the High

16 16500~

Tamil, in which connexion ‘al’ is ordinarily lengthened to ‘4l’ or

eyl

“ely eg., ‘Sel-€l,) go mot, < muni-(y)-€l,’ be not angry.

But it is also

1ot as

often retained unchanged ; e.g., “ sey(y)-ar-ka’ (‘ar’ for ‘al’), do not,

o second

and ‘sey(y)-an-min’ (‘an’ for ‘al’), do mot ye.

In modern vulgar

y used in

Tamil ‘illei” (for “illa ’) is commonly sabjoined to the infinitive of

o, a8 vell

the affirmative verb to form an aoristic negative; e.g., ¢ vara~(v)-illei,’

he Gind

(4, thou, ke, &ec.) did not, do not, or will not come.

This form, though

mat’ and

very common, is not classical, and has arisen from the tendency which

negation,

compounds evince to break up in process of time into their component

ormation

elements.

esembles

“al’ or “il’ being the isolated particle of negation in the oldest

lstun,

Tamil dialect, and being still used in various verbal combinations, I

conclude that ‘a’ the verbal sign of the negative, has been softened

ave Seen

from ¢al.’

Several parallel examples of the softening away of a

inserted

final ‘1’ can be adduced. ¢dal,’ the formative of many verbal nouns in

iffixes t0

Tamil, has become ¢ ta’ in Canarese and Telugu ; e.g., “§ey-dal,” doing,

Tam., is in Tel. ¢ché-ta; ¢muri-dal, Tam., breaking, is in Canarese

e Tndo-

‘muri-ta.’

It will also be shown to be probable that ¢a,” the suffix

o patural

of the infinitive, has been weakened from another “al; and we have

temporal

already seen that ¢ mei,’ the Tamil suffix of the negative verbal noun

- There

appears to have been softened from ¢mal,’ the suffix of the negative

preix in

verbal participle.

Whatever opinion we entertain respecting the derivation of ¢a’

st Axed

28 from

from ‘al’ the widely extended affinities of €al’ <&l or €&l the

[ il-mei’

prohibitive or negative imperative particle, are deserving of notice.

The prohibitive particle of the Séantal, a Kol dialect, is €4l4; the

have 10

Finnish prohibitive also is “4l4; the Ostiak ‘ila; and we find a

similar prohibitive particle even in the Hebrew, viz., <al;’ Chaldee ¢14a.’

lrticle of

o Tamil

V. ArPPELLATIVE VERBS.

b g

In some languages of the Scythian group, verbal terminations, or

: wlﬂ ot

those pronominal fragments in which verbs terminate, are suffixed

directly to nouns; which nouns become by that addition denominative

concei"e}

or appellative verbs, and are regularly conjugated through every

| There

number and person ; e.g., from the noun ¢ paz,’ the Lord, the Mordwin

Jip neg”

forms ‘paz-an,” I am the Lord; and from the possessive ¢ paz-an,’

o i3 10

Lord’s, it forms ‘paz-an-an,” I am the Lord’s.

Adjectives being

H']d.,‘i l'eif,

merely nouns of quality in the Scythian languages, every rule which

its 0§

g

applies to nouns applies to adjectives also.

In the New Persian,

ml]’.?ﬂ

— ——

i

376

THE VERB.

probably through the influence of the conterminous Scythian lan-

fion w

(not ¢

gnages, there is a similar compound of a noun or an adjective, with

the verbal terminations; e.g., ‘merd-em, /-am a man, from ¢ merd,” @

(y)-4n,

v

man, and ‘em, the contracted form of the substantive verb / am.

appeat

The agreement between the Dravidian languages and those of the

the

Scythian family with respect to the formation of appellative verbs

ance w

of this character is complete.

Any Dravidian noun and any adjective

Th

may be converted into a verb in the more ancient dialects of each

oblige

of the Dravidian languages, and in some connexions even in the

persor

colloquial dialects, by simply suffixing to it the usual promominal

unders

fragments: and not only may nouns in the nominative case be thus

willage

conjugated as verbs, but even the oblique case-basis, or old genitive,

its a

may in High Tamil, as in Mordwin, be adopted as a verbal theme.

gender

Tamil grammarians call these verbs ¢ vinei-(k)kurippu,” literally

e'g ) fI'

verbal signs,; and they have, not inappropriately, been styled conjugated

f nal(l)

nouns by an English writer on Tamil Grammar: but I think the best

good;

name is that which was given them by Beschi, viz., ‘appellative

they (1

verbs.’

Th

Appellative verbs are conjugated through every number and

0D £xa

person, but they are restricted to the present tense ; or rather they are

the )

of no tense, for the idea of time is excluded from them.

nion

Thus, from ¢kén,” Tam., ¢ king, may be formed ¢kén-én,’ 7 am a

euphor

king; < kon-ei,) thow art a king; ‘kon-ém,” we are kings; ‘kon-ir, ye

Th

are kings.

So also we may annex to the crude base the oblique or

third ]

genitival formative ¢in, and then from the new constructive base

verh,

‘kon-in,” of the king, or the king’s, we may not only form the appel-

pial 1

lative nouns, ¢ kén-in-an,’ ke who is the king’s; © kon-in-ar,’ they who

and ifs

are the king’s (each of which may be used also as an appellative verb,

two g

when it signifies ke is the king’s, or they are the king’s); but we may

either |

also form the more distinctively verbal appellatives, ¢ kon-in-¢n,” 7

It

am the king’s, ¢ kon-in-ém,” we are the king’s, &c.

This use of the

the for

oblique or ‘inflexion’ as the basis of appellative verbs is a pecu-

Person

liarity of High Tamil; but the formation of appellative verbs from

o dif

the nominative or crude base of nouns is common to the whole Dra-

Verbg

vidian family. Thus, in Telugu (in which the vowel of the pro-

WhiCh _:

nominal termination varies by rule in accordance with the preceding

vowel), from ‘sévakudu, @ servant, or ‘kavi, a poet, we form the

Qi g

appellative verbs sévakunda-nu,’ 1 am a servant; ‘kavi-ni, [ am a

Torg §

poet : “ sévakunda-vu,’ thow art a servant; ‘kavi-vi) thow art a poet.

Uhigl,

In the plural the Telugu has allowed the base of the noun (to which

verh

the pronominal terminations are affixed) to be pluralised, apparently

It

from having forgotten that the plural sign of the pronominal termina-

Or oo

APPELLATIVES

307

) lan

tion was sufficient of itself ; e.g., it says ‘sévakula-mu,’ we are servants

with

(not ¢sevakunda-mu’) ; whereas in Tamil the difference between ‘adi-

o,

(y)-én,’ I am (your) servant, and ¢ adi-(y)-ém,” we are (your) servants,

i

appears in the pronominal terminations alone; and the plan of denoting

f the

the plural which the Tamil has adopted is evidently more in accord-

verbs

ance with the true theory of the appellative verb

Ithis

lective

The Telugu appellative verb is destitute of a third person

f each

obliged to be content with placing the isolated pronoun of the third

in the

person and the substantive noun in apposition,

ith a substantive verb

ominal

understood

vadu kavi

e.4.,

he (is) a poet

adi Gru,’ that (is) @

0 thus

village

The Tamil is in this particular more highly developed ; for

nifive,

its appellative verbs are freely conjugated in the third person in each

me.

gender and number, by suffixing the final fragment of the pronoun

terally

e.g., from ‘nal, goodness or good, is formed ¢mnal(l)-an,” ke is good

nal(l)-adu’ or

nan-dru

(for “nal-du’), it ¢s

gMd

‘nal(l)-al, ske is good

he best

good ;

nal(l)-ar, they (epicene) are good

nal(l)-ana’ or ‘mnal(l)-a,

llative

they (neut.) are good.

The neuter singular may appear to take a variety of forms ; but

r and

on examination those various forms will be found to be identical ; and

1oy 418

the apparent differences which exist are owing either to the euphonic

union of the final ‘du

with some previous consonant, or to its

] it @

euphonic reduplication

The third person neuter, singular and plural (and occasionally the

third person masculine and feminine also), of every species of Dravidian

1@w0F

verb, is often used not only as a verb, but also as a verbal or partici-

e b'l‘e

pial noun

Its primary use may have been that of a participial noun

L

but at all events the

]‘6/ (I]m

and its use as a verb may be a secondary one

two uses are found to be interchangeable ; e.g.,

irukkiradu

means

o veld

e Ay

either it is, or that which s, or the being, according to the context

It is especially with relation to appellatives that this twofold use of

16y [

f the

the forms of the third person must be borne in mind

for in the third

) pecu

person (singular and plural, masculine, feminine, and neuter) there is

no difference whatever in spelling or pronunciation between appellative

b from

o Dra

verbs and appellative noun and it is the contextalone that determines

which meaning is the correct one

Generally the appellative verb is

he pio

more commonly used in the Hich dialect, and the noun in the collo-

el

but to this there are exception

i the

quial dialect

and (e.g.) ‘nalladu

more frequently signifies in the colloquial dialect it is well than that

]ﬂmﬂ

which is good ;—that is, it is used more frequently as an appellative

poe

verb than as an appellative noun

)thh

It is certain, however, that the appellative verb, whatever person

areﬂ“y

or gender it take

is used more largely in the higher dialect of the

e1ml

378

THE VERB.

Tamil than in the lower ; and its brevity and compression render it

peculiarly adapted for metaphorical use.

dire

Adjectives are formed into appellative verbs as well as nouns: but

iy

as the Drividian adjective is merely a noun of quality used adjecti-

liter

vally, the difference is more in terms than in reality : e.g., <oli-(y)-ei,

(7

Tam., thow art bright, is literally thow art brightness ; and ¢ ini-(y)-ei,’

who

thow art sweet, is thow art sweetness.

Appellative verbs are formed

appe

from adjectives, or nouns of quality, not only in the cultivated Dravi-

the:

dian dialects, but even in the Ku, which is spoken by a barbarous

18 1

race ; e.g., ‘negg-anu,’ Ku, 7 am good, ‘negg-Amu,” we are good.

adje

When nouns of quality are used as the bases of appellative verbs

or nouns they are generally adopted in their crude shape, as in the

instances which have just been cited ; but in many cases we find the

particle ‘iya’ intervening between the crude base and the pronominal

termination or sign of gender ; e.g., ‘kod-iya-n’ (as a verb), ke ds cruel;

Drdy

(as a noun) one who is cruel, or a cruel man ; * val-iya-n,’ a strong man

form

or ke is strong, &e.

This is the same particle which we have already

fragl

seen to be used as an adjectival formative; e.g., ‘val-iya,’ strong,

A

‘ per-iya, great, ¢ sir-iya, little, &c., and I have stated that I conceive

to ve

words like these to be relative participles.

6l

1s identical with the

4

seti

i’ of the past verbal participle, which is often used in Telugu as an

of th

adjectival formative without any addition ; and the final ‘a’ is the

also

sign of the relative, which is kept separate from ‘i’ by an euphonic ¢ \

Tely

‘lya’ is therefore the formative of the relative preterite participle, and

bot}

“val-i-(y)-a,’ strong, means properly that which was strong. But though

tern

the form of the preterite tense is employed, the signification (as

add;

often happens, especially in the case of relative participles) is aoristic

1

I

|

or without reference to time.

This being the origin, as I conceive,

formg

of such forms as val-iya,” an appellative noun like ‘val-iya-n, a strong

Inent

man, 18 in reality a participial noun, signifying ke who is strong, and so

]&ngu

of the other genders; and this explanation brings such forms into per-

g

fect harmony with other parts of the Drividian conjugational system,

ing f]

for participial nouns are regularly used in these languages as verbs.

In some instances, ‘a,’ the sign of the relative participle, is dis-

tong[

latjg

pensed with, and the pronominal signs or signs of gender are elegantly

suffixed to ‘1, the sign of the verbal participle, e.g., ¢ peri-du,” Tam.,

gy

Vary

it is great, or that whick is great, instead of peri-(y)-a-du.’

antj,

On the other hand, in another class of instances, i’ disappears,

of ¢}

and ‘a’ alone remains. Words of this class, when deprived of their

1

signs of gender, are commonly called adjectives, and undoubtedly it is

as adjectives that they are used ; but looking at their construction and

bEil]g

iﬂ [O%

force I would term them relative participles of appellative verbs.

iy

PRONOMINAL SIGNS.

379

fer it

In the words referred to, ‘a,’ the sign of the relative participle is

directly annexed to crude substantive roots; e.g., ¢ udei-(y)-a, belong-

: but

ing to, more literally which is the property of.

‘malei~(y)-a, hlly,

Jecti

literally which is a Iill; “ti-y-a,” evil, literally which is evil. As ¢ udei-

:y :"ei;

(y)-an, considered as a noun, is certainly an appellative, signifying /e

y )'ei;

who owns, a proprietor, and as the same word is used poetically as an

ormed

appellative verb, when it signifies /e is the owner ; it seems evident that

Drév-

the proper light in which to regard ‘udei-(y)-a’ (and every similar word)

is to consider it as the relative participle of an appellative verb used

?&IOUS

adjectivally.

verbs

n the

Conjugational System.

d the

minal

MopE oF ANNEXING PronomiNAL Sieys.—The persons of the

Dréavidian verb, including the related ideas of gender and number, are

el

[ fman

formed by suffixing the personal or demonstrative pronouns or their

ready

fragmentary terminations, to the signs of tense.

fromfy

The change which the pronouns undergo when they are appended

celve

to verbs as signs of personality have already been exhibited in the

section on ¢ The Pronoun.” They consist chiefly in the softening away

h the

a8 an

of the initial consonant ; but in a few instances the final consonant has

is the

also been softened away, and nothing left but the included vowel. In

Telugu, ‘ni-vu, the pronoun of the second person singular, has lost

iy,

¢, and

both its radical initial and its formative final ; and in the personal

terminations of the verb it is represented only by ¢vu,” an euphonic

hough

addition.

aristic

In the Indo-European languages the personal signs of the verb are

formed by suffixing pronominal fragments to the root ; and those frag-

ceIve,

hrong

ments are disguised in a still greater degree than in the Dravidian

languages, not only by frequency of use and rapidity of enunciation,

0d 80

but also by the love of fusing words and particles together, and form-

0 PEI-

ystem:

ing them into euphonious componnds, which distinguishes that family of

tongues.

Sometimes one dialect alone furnishes the key to the expla-

b

is die-

nation of the inflexional forms which are apparent in all.

Thus, the

origin of ‘unt’ or ‘ant,” the sign of the third person plural in the

gantly

various Indo-European languages (e.g., fer-unt, ¢ep-ovr,’ ¢ bhar-

Tam,

anti, &e.) is found in the Welsh alone, in which ¢ hwynt’ is a pronoun

of the third person plural.

.peal's!

their

The various changes which the Dravidian pronouns undergo on

being used as the pronominal signs of verbs have already been stated

yit I

in order.

In Telugu, and partly also in Canarese, the pronominal ter-

I il

minations vary according to the tense ; but this arises from the opera-

380

THE VERB.

1t 18

tion of the law of harmonic sequences (see the section on ‘Sounds’),

aalle

by which a vowel is affected by a preceding vowel, and changed so as

sign

to harmonise with it.

What requires here to be investigated is simply

fime

the mode in which the pronominal signs are attached to the Dravidian

othe

verb.

retal

(1.) The pronominal signs of the Dravidian verb, like those of the

but

primitive Indo-European and Scythian languages, are suffixed, not pre-

Thu

fixed.

In the modern Indo-European vernaculars, most of the verbs

dids

have lost their old pronominal terminations, and the pronouns which

simi

ave used as nominatives to verbs are usually isolated and placed first.

beate

Thus, instead of love-Z, in accordance with the ancient ‘am-o,” we have

L beg

learnt to say 7 love,—an alteration of position which produces no

1

change in meaning.

they

In the Semitic languages a change in the position of the pronoun

barb

from the termination of the verb to its commencement produces an

important change in grammatical signification : the position of the

liar])

(

pronouns or pronominal fragments determines the tense.

When the

i w

prouominal fragments are prefixed, the tense of the verb is regarded as

0ons]

future or aoristic: it is regarded as past when they are suffixed. Pre-

fixing the pronominal fragments denotes that the action of the verb

Euro]

the r

has, as yet, only a subjective existence in the mind of the speaker or

lows

agent,— ¢.e., it is future ; suffixing them denotes that the action of the

verb has already acquired an objective existence, apart from the will

18 00

by |

or wish of the speaker or agent, .c., it is past.

100t

No peculiarity of this kind characterises the Dravidian languages:

the tenses are formed, not by means of the position of the pronouns,

and |

it 1

but by particles or signs of present, past, and future time suffixed to

the theme ; and the personal signs, as in the Turkish and Finnish

§

families, are suffixed to the signs of tense. The only exception to this

chang

Whic}

rule is that which forms the most characteristic feature of the Malay-

alam—a language which appears to have been directly derived from

inry,

with

the Tamil,—but which, in so far as its conjugational system is con-

cerned, has relapsed into a condition nearly resembling that of the

Sing

Mongolian, the Manchu, and other rude primitive tongues of High

Place

tenge

Asia. In ancient times, as may be gathered from Malayéala poetry,

and especially from inscriptions preserved by the Syrian Christiansand

Iy

ey

the Jews, the pronouns were suffixed to the Malayala verb, precisely

as they still are in Tamil.

At present, the verb is entirely divested,

bingy

at least in the colloquial dialect, of signs of personality ; and with the

the

T

pronouns, the signs of number and gender also have necessarily dis-

appeared ; so that the pronoun or nominative must in every instance

Drgy

be separately prefixed to the verb to complete the signification, and

f&mﬂ}

PRONOMINAL

SIGNS.

381

it is chiefly by means of this prefixed pronoun that a verb, properly so

s,

called, is distinguished from a verbal participle.

Though the personal

80 48

mp:

signs have been abandoned by the Malayéla verb, the signs of tense or

ly

time have been retained, and are annexed directly to the root as in the

idian

other dialects.

Even in modern English some persons of the verb

retain archaic fragments of the pronominal signs (e.g., lovest, loveth) ;

f the

but in the MalayAlam every trace of those signs has disappeared.

b pre

verbs

Thus, whilst we would say in Tamil ‘adittén,” 7 beat ; ‘adittay,” thou

didst beat; ‘adittan,” ke beat ; the Malayalam uses in these and all

which

similar cases the verbal participle ¢atichu’ (for ¢adittu’), kaving

finst

beaten, with the prefixed pronouns I, thou, ke, &c. : e.g., ‘ fjan atichu,’

have

I beat ; “ni atichu,” thou didst beat ; ‘avan atichu, ke beat.

68 10

Though the pronominal signs have been lost by the Malayéla verb,

they have been retained even by the Tuda ; and notwithstanding the

Onoun

barbarity of the Gonds and Kus, their conjugational system is pecu-

8 anl

liarly elaborate and complete.

f the

(2.) Another and distinctively Scythian peculiarity in the manner

n tne

in which the personal signs are suffixed in the Dravidian languages

ded a8

consists in their annexation, not directly to the root, as in the Indo-

Pre

The first suffix to

European family, but to the temporal participles.

verb

the root in the affirmative voice is that of the sign of tense, then fol-

er or

lows the suffix of personality. Every pure Dravidian affirmative verb

of the

is compounded of three elements, which are thus arranged and named

g will

by Tamil grammarians, viz., (i.) the ‘pagudi’ (¢ pracriti,’ Sans.) or

root ; (ii.) the ‘idei nilei, or medial particle, i.e., the sign of tense ;

1ages

and (iii.) the ‘vigudi’ (¢ vieriti, Sans.), the variation or diferentia,

HOUNSy

t.e., the pronominal termination,

\ed 10

When the signs of tense are attached to the theme, some euphonie

inpish

changes take place (not in the theme, but in the signs themselves),

0 this

which serve, as has been shown, to distinguish transitive verbs from

[al

ay

intransitives.

Other euphonic changes also take place in accordance

f

Tom

with Drividian laws of sound, which will be inquired into when those

§ C00

signs of tense are one by one examined. The changes which take

()f the

place in the pronominal signs when they are annexed to the signs of

High

tense have already been stated in the section on the ‘Pronoun.’

0ellYs

In the Indo-European languages we meet with no instance of the

ncﬂﬂd

annexation of the pronominal signs to the participles, .., to the com-

(1564

bination of the root with the signs of tense.

We have no instance of

asted

the use of any form like ¢amant-o,” instead of ‘am-o,’” to signify 7 love.

h the

This, however, is the method which is invariably employed in the

g dis

Dréavidian languages, and which constitutes an essential element in the

It is also distinetive of

tance

family likeness by which they are pervaded.

} qnll

THE

VERB.

382

the Turkish.

Thus, the Turkish ‘ollirsen,’” thou art, is formed from

sing

the

¢6llir,” being, the present participle of the verb €6l ¢o be, with the

So also the Oriental Turkish

y

addition of the pronoun ‘sen,’ thou.

‘bdlamen,” 7 am, is formed from ¢bola,” being (theme ¢bol,” to be), and

whi

T

the pronominal suffix ‘men,” 7

pret;

An important difference which is generally found to exist between

verb

the Dravidian langnages and the North Indian vernaculars should here

Heb

be stated. In the languages of Northern India the present tense of a

verb is ordinarily formed by annexing the substantive verb to its

nout

the

present participle, e.g., ‘karitechi,” Beng. (‘karite-achi’), 7 am doing,

instead of 7 do.

¢4,

In Telugu, probably through the influence of the North-Indian

subst

vernaculars, a similar usage prevails; but it is found in the present

Com

tense only, it may readily be dispensed with, and the simpler usage,

“kan

Iom

which accords with that of all the other Dravidian dialects, is un-

In Tamil and Canarese this use of the

{

{

doubtedly the more ancient.

substantive verb, as an auxiliary in the formation of the present tense,

108 ‘(

whet

is unknown : it is used as an auxiliary only in the formation of the

compound preterite and future tenses.

ing d

The Malayalam occasionally uses the substantive verb in a similar

Thus,

tions

manner to the Telugu, but with a somewhat different signification. In

Telugu ‘naduchutunnénu,’ I walk (from ‘naduchu-tu,’ walking, and

Yary

and y

‘unnénu,’ 7 am), has simply the meaning of the present tense, and is

equivalent to the simpler form ‘naduchutinu,’” answering to the Tamil

and

‘nadakkirén,” and the Canarese ‘nadeyutténe; but in Malayalam,

F

whilst ‘fijan natakkunnu,” means 7 walk, ¢fijain natakkunnunta’ has

generally a progressive sense, e.g., I am walking or continuing to walk.

fofm&

(3.) Tt is a peculiarity of the Telugu that the third person of the

tiCipk

preterite is sometimes left altogether destitute of the signs of time, person,

tenses

number, and gender; and this peculiarity applies also to the third

(calle

Thus, whilst ‘unditini, 7 was, and ¢unditivi,’

the Te

person of the aorist.

thou wast, are supplied with the usual signs of tense and person, the

this 8

third person of the same tense is simply ‘uude-nu,’ ke, she, or it was, or

and

they were, without distinction of number or gender, and without even

fengeg

the particle <ti, which constitutes the usual sign of the preterite.

Datj

The aorist third person, with a similar absence of distinction, is ‘undu-

from ¢

nu ; and in both cases the final ‘nu’ is merely a conjunctive suffix,

Myge]

like the corresponding Tamil ‘um.” Sometimes even the aorist for-

of this

mative ¢ nu’ is discarded, and the root alone is used as the third person

singular. Thus (e, she, or wt) falls or will fall, may either be ‘padu-

Ve

nu,’ or simply ‘padu.’ The usage of poetical Tamil occasionally agrees

ang in

with that of the Telugu with respect to the neuter gender, both

tense;

FORMATION

OF TENSES.

383

from

singular and plural, especially in connexion with the negative voice of

) the

the verb : e.g., Sey(y)-4," it will not do, is often used for ‘sey(y)-adu.’

rkish

A usage similar to that of the Telugu prevails in many languages

) and

which are widely different one from the other.

Thus, the New Persian uses for the third person singular of the

ween

preterite the contracted infinitive, as grammarians style it—an abstract

1 here

verbal noun, which may be regarded as the theme of the verb. The

of 9

Hebrew third person masculine of the preterite tense is also a verbal

to Ifs

noun, without pronominal addition.

We see a similar peculiarity in

Jotng,

the third person of the present tense of the verb in some languages ;

e.g., compare the three persons of the present tense of the Turkish

ndian

substantive verb, ¢o6lirum,” 7 am ; ¢oltrsen, thow art; ‘6lir,” he is.

resent

Compare also the Armorican ‘kanann,” 7 sing; ¢kanez,” thou singest ;

“kan, he sings.

Compare with these examples the Hungarian

1sage,

Iy -

‘ismerek,’ I know ; ‘ismersz, thow knowest ; and ©ismer,” he knows.

(4.) The Dréavidian verb, like that of many other languages, does

of the

fense,

not distinguish the genders of either the first person or the second,

of the

whether singular or plural ; but in the third person it marks all exist-

ing distinctions of gender with peculiar explicitness and minuteness.

milar

Thus, without the use of isolated pronouns, and employing the inflec-

tions of the verb alone, we can say in Tamil ¢ varugiran,” he comes :

D, In

‘ varugiral,’ she comes ; ‘varugiradu,’ it comes; ¢ varugirér,’ they (men

j, and

and

and women) come, or honorifically ke comes ; ¢ varugirirgal,’ they (men

Tamil

and women) come ; ¢ varugindrana,’ they (things) come.

yélam;

ForMATION OF THE TENSES.—Most of the Drividian tenses are

a’ has

) w!]lk.

formed from participial forms of the verb; an inquiry into the par-

ticiples is therefore a necessary preliminary to an inquiry into the

of the

tenses.

Dravidian verbs have two species of participles, one of which

yersoly

third

(called relative participles, because they include the signification of

the relative pronoun), will be inquired into in a subsequent part of

@iﬁvi;

this section ; the other, commonly called werbal participles or gerunds,

oD, the

and which are now to be considered, constitute the bases on which the

s, OF

tenses are formed. The forms which are assumed by the verbal

j evel

etel'lte

participles will be inquired into in connexion with the signs of tense,

from the consideration of which they cannot be severed.

I content

‘andr

myself here with some general remarks on the signification and force

‘ Sllfﬁx',

of this class of words.

g for-

pel‘SOﬂ

Verbal participles: their signification and force.—In ordinary Tamil

( pgl('ill‘

and in Malayalam, there is but one verbal participle, that of the past

3%‘1’963

tense; in all the other dialects there is a verbal participle of the

, both

<

©

384

THE VERB.

present tense as well as of the past.

In this particular, therefore, the

g

Tamil (with its daughter, the Malayalam) may be considered as the

of e

poorest of the Dravidian dialects. It partly makes compensation for

I

the deficiency by the use in the classical idiom of a verbal participle

a i

of the future, which none of its sister dialects possesses.

Even the

8 us

classical idiom, however. is destitute of a present verbal participle.

that

Properly speaking, the, words which are called wverbal participles are

prete

not participles at all, seeing that they do not participate in the nature

of ti

of adjectives, as all the Indo-Kuropean participles do.

They have

used

somewhat of the signification of gerunds, inasmuch as in addition to

main

the idea of time, they include more or less of the idea of cause.

apre

Nevertheless, as each of the Indo-European participles is commonly

tense

used also as a gerund, without losing the name of a participle, and as

every

‘the gerund in do’ (to which alone, amongst Latin gerunds, the

0

Dravidian participles have any resemblance) has a very restricted

T

application, it appears advisable after all, to style these words par-

ot ¢

ticiples instead of gerunds,—or more fully wverbal participles, to dis-

done,

tinguish them from what are called relative participles.

One ¢

The following sentences will illustrate the force of the Dravidian

that

verbal participles.

use ¢

(1.) Present verbal participle.—This verbal participle is unknown

ad p

lgyer

in Tamil and Malayalam; but is commonly used both in Canarese and

in Telugu.

I quote the illustration which follows from the Canarese.

which

and g

‘Vikramdrka, punishing the wicked and protecting the good, reigned over

the kingdom.’

Here the English words punishing and protecting, are

Whet]

<ontip

participles of the present tense, used gerundially; and the Dravidian

words which they represent, (in Canarese,

sikshisutta’ and ¢ rakshi-

leed

suttd) have precisely the same force.

In this respect only there is a

(and ;

Qecisg

difference between them, viz., that the English participles are capable

of being used also as adjectives, whereas the Dravidian words, though

Proper

tlags {

called participles, cannot be used adjectivally, or in any other way

than that here exemplified.

defet

lete

(2.) Preterite verbal participle.— Saliwahana, having killed ‘Vikra-

marka, assumed supreme power.” Though the English participle Zaving

l

killed which is here used, is a compound one (being formed from the

tense (

present participle having, and the passive participle killed), its signi-

Sign ¢

fication is that of a simple, uncompounded participle of the past tense,

& eupt

and the Dravidian word which it represents (‘ kondru,” Tam, ¢ kondu,’

The

Can.) is also a preterite active verbal participle.

In this instance,

1,

neither the English participle nor the Dravidian one is capable of

ing fhe

being used as an adjective.

In reality, they are both preterite gerunds

of the {

THE PRESENT TENSE.

385

e, the

the

or gerundials, though they retain the name of participles as a matter

of convenience.

on for

In those Drividian dialects in which there is a present, as well as

aiple

1 the

a preterite, verbal participle (as in Canarese and Telugu), the present

is used to express subordinate actions which are contemporaneous with

ciple.

that which is denoted by the principal and finite verb; whilst the

% a8

preterite expresses subordinate actions which are antecedent in point

1atire

of time to the principal action.

In Tamil, the preterite participle is

have

used to express all subordinate actions, whether simultaneous with the

ion to

main action or antecedent to it; but though that participle is always

Gause:

a preterite in form, it possesses the force of a partieiple of the present

monly

v

tense, when the connexion requires it.

In each of the dialects and in

nd a8

every connexion, the nominative of the final governing verb is the

5, the

nominative of all the subordinate verbal participles.

icted

The Dravidian verbal participles may be eompared with the Sans-

§ pat-

crit ‘indeterminate past participle’ in ‘tva; e.g., ‘krutva, hawving

o dise

done.

Like that participle they are indeclinable and indeterminate,

One of the chief peculiarities, however, of these verbal participles is,

yidiant

that they have a continuative force, dispensing altogether with the

use of eonjunctions.

In the Dravidian languages, though nouns

and pronouns are united by means of conjunctions, finite verbs are

known

never so united.

In ewery sentence there is but one finite verb,

se and

which is the last word in the sentence, and the seat of government;

1a16se.

and all the verbs which express subordinate actions or circumstanees,

o 00’

whether antecedent or comtemporaneous, assume an indeterminate,

i, are

continuative character, as verbal participles or gerundials, without the

yidian

need of eonjunctions or copulatives of any kind; so that the sense

akshi-

(and in Tamil the time also) waits in suspense for the anthoritative

e 54

decision of the final governing verb. Hence those participles might

gpable

properly be called continuative gerundials.

Tamilian grammarians

hough

class them, with infinitives and subjunctives, as ‘vinei echam,” verd-

7 Wiy

defects, or verbal complements, i.c., words which require a verb to com-

plete the sense.

Jikra

1. The present tense.—It may be stated generally that the present

hawin]

tense of the Dréavidian verb is formed by suffixing the pronominal

§ ngﬂi’

signs to the present verbal participle, with such trivial changes only

as euphony requires.

fpIEEy

The exceptions to this general rule are as follows :—

koﬂdn,’

(1.) In poetical Tamil the tenses are sometimes formed by suffix-

stances

ing the pronominal terminations to the relative participles, instead

ble of

of the gerunds or verbal participles; e.g., ‘nadanda(n)an’ (equivalent

:eruﬂds

2 ¢

BRSNS

386

THE VERB.

to the colloquial ‘nadanda(v)an’), he walked, literally a man who

walked. TIn such instances a verbal or participial noun is used with

ing

Vi

the force of a verb. This is not an uncommon usage in other lan-

guages also; and in colloquial Tamil the third person neuter of the

dia

verb, both singular and plural, is certainly a verbal noun in its origin,

for

though used with the force of a verb; eg., ¢nadandadu,’ i walked,

literally means a thing which walked ; and the plural ¢nadanda(n)a,’

i

Bl

means literally things which walked. The peculiarity of the poetical

dialect is the extension of this usage to each person of the verb; e.g.,

I8

nal

¢ nadanda(n)en,” I walked, literally I who walked; * nadanda(n)am’ or

der

‘ nadanda(n)em, we walked, literally we who walked.

This mode of forming the tenses has been developed from the

the

hay

Dravidian custom of using participial and verbal nouns as the conjuga-

tional bases of verbs, and, so far, is in accordance with the genius of

the

iz

the language; but it has a constructive, artificial look, and it is an

por

exception to the mode which prevails throughout all the other dialects

(1

of the family, whether colloquial or classical.

ad

(2.) The Tamil has, properly speaking, no present verbal par-

ticiple, but only a particle denoting present time, which is suffixed to

101

the theme of the verb, and to which the pronominal signs are then

Int

suftixed for the purpose of forming the present tense.

The combina-

isp

tion, however, of the root and the particle of present time, forms

0011

I think it may, therefore, be assumed

ch

virtually a present participle.

that the Tamil had a verbal participle of the present tense at a former

“ta

period, which bas now become obsolete, except in combination with

orj

the personal terminations, when it constitutes the present tense of the

Ingt

%

verb.

the

(3.) The sign of the present tense in the Ancient Canarese verb,

sam

is altogether unconnected with the formative of the present verbal

participle.

The present verbal participle of the ancient dialect is

of |

identical with that of the modern one, the temporal sign of which is

derg

<tta’ or ‘utta, whilst ‘dap’ or ¢p’ is the sign of the present tense

this

of the verb in the ancient dialect; e.g., ¢ baldapen’ (‘bal-dap-en ), I

To be

live.

(4.) The Telugu usage of employing the substantive verb in a

(ta,

modified form (viz., ‘unnanu,’ 7 am, ¢unnavu,’ thow art, &c.) as an

ig]

auxiliary in the formation of the present tense, can scarcely be called

Sang

an exception to the general rule specified above; for this auxiliary is

softe

annexed to the present verbal participle, which is closely allied to

diffe

that of the Canarese; and its use in this connexion is only a refine-

10t ¢

ment of the grammarians, not a necessary element in the formation

of the present tense.

0 ¢

THE PRESENT TENSE.

387

who

These real or apparent exceptions being disposed of, it remains to

with

inquire into the formation of the present verbal participles in the

lan

various dialects.

f the

ForMmATION OF THE PRESENT.— In both the ancient and the modern

rigin,

dialect of the Canarese the verbal participle of the present tense is

lked,

formed by suffixing to the verbal theme, ‘ uta,” ‘ute,” ‘utta,” ¢ utte,” or

(n)a,

“uttd; e.g., < bal-uta,’ living; 6d-ute,” reading; °ond-utta,’ joining;

atical

“ili-(y)-utte,” descending ; ¢ mad-utta,” doing. Of these particles ‘utta’

) 6y

is most commonly used. Probably this particle had but one ‘t’ origi-

' or

nally; and it seems also probable that the initial ‘u’ is euphonic, and

derived from the final euphonic ‘u

of the majority of the verbal

n the

themes. The primitive form of this particle would therefore appear to

have been “ta’ or ‘te.

1juge-

The final vowel, “a’ or ¢e,” is elided before

mius of

the initial vowel of the pronominal signs, or rather perhaps, incor-

i3 an

porated with it; e.g., ‘balutténe’ (‘bal-utt’-éne’), I live; ‘balutti’

falects

(¢ bal’-utt’-1’), trow livest.

The present verbal participle of the Telugu is ordinarily formed by

| par-

adding ‘chu’ (pronounced ‘tsu’) to the theme of the verb. Occa-

xed 10

sionally ‘ka’ is used to form the present participle instead of ¢chu.’

o then

In the colloquial dialect ‘tu’ is used instead of ¢chu; and though it

mbind-

is possible that ‘chu’ may be the original, and “tu’ (from ‘tsu’) the

foms

corruption, yet it would be more in accordance with analogy to derive

“chu’ from ‘tu; and this ‘tu’ so nearly resembles the Canarese

ssumed

former

“ta’ or ‘te, that we may safely conclude both forms to have been

originally identical.

Probably also ¢du,” the particle which in most

instances is inserted as a sign of tense between the verbal theme and

the pronominal terminations of the Telugu aorist, springs from the

same origin as ‘tu.

eV erb,

: verbal

¢chunnu’ or ‘tunnu,’ the ordinary termination of the participle

alect iS

of the present temse in grammatical Telugu, is a compound form

derived from ¢chu’ or ‘tu,’ the real and only sign of present time in

shich i8

ot fense

this language, and unnu,” a participle of the substantive verb ‘undu,’

to be, used as an auxiliary.

9-6[1 )y I

I cannot offer any opinion respecting the origin of the use of ¢tu,’

‘ta, or ‘te,” as a sign of present time in Telugu-Canarese.

We

h i 8

might propose to compare it with at’ or ‘t, the formative of the

b

)as an

‘at,” however, is

e callefi

Sanscrit present participle, e.g., jayat,’ conquering.

softened from ‘ant’ or ‘nt,’ the affinities of which lie in a widely

iliary 8

aﬂled 0

different direction ; besides which, this form is used only as a participle,

not also as a gerund.

i refine

We might also compare the Telugu-Canarese formative with “te’

eratioIl

or ¢ite, the formative of the Bengali present participle, e.g., ‘karite,’

2%c 2

THE VERB.

388

doing; but this form is identical with that of the infinitive in the

n

same language, and ‘te’ or ‘ite’ has been supposed, with reason, to

‘}

be the dative or locative of a verbal noun.

‘ka,” the secondary and

less common formative of the Telugu present, may perhaps have been

th

derived from ‘gir’ or ‘kir, the sign of the present tense in Tamil.

fix

The Tulu sign of the participle of the present tense is ¢v,” which

The

is identical with the Tamil-Canarese sign of the future or aorist.

an

present participle is formed in Ku by suffixing ‘i’ or ‘pi; and in

M

Gond by suffixing ¢i,” “si’ (properly signs of the preterite), or ‘kun,’

JilR

which is identical with the Malayéla ¢ kunnu.’

o1

The sign of present time used by the Tamil and Malayalam, differs

One

considerably from that of the Telugu-Canarese.

alay

The present tense in Tamil is formed by suffixing ¢gir-u,’

Sl

‘ gindr-u,” or ¢ anindr-u,” to the verbal theme, to one or other of which

o

¢ Anindr-u’ is a com-

particles the pronominal signs are annexed.

pound form, which is rarely used even by the poets, and is derived, 1

L

m

conceive, from ¢4, the ultimate base of ‘A-gu,” fo be or become (and

soft

which is not unfrequently used in this shape in the poets), and

Cum

‘nindr-u,’ standing, abiding.

The other particles of present time,

80 §

‘gir-u’ and °‘gindr-u,” are in common use, especially the former ;

e

e.g., ‘varu-gir-an’ or ¢varu-gindr-an,’ %e comes. The only difference

and

between them is that ¢ gindr-u’ is considered more euphonious and

elegant than ¢gir-u,” and more suitable in consequence for poetry and

GO

elevated prose. I have no doubt that they are identical in origin, and

naty

that the one is merely an euphonised form of the other.

In some

is be

connexions ‘gir-u’ and ‘gindr-u’ are changed by dialectic rules of

Sents

euphony to ‘kkir-u’ and ¢kkindr-u,” viz., when they are attached

lu31

to roots consisting of two short syllables (like ¢ padw’, to lie, ©iru,’ to

Soun(

be, ‘nada, to walk) the final vowel of which is regarded as a part

of the root, and is incapable of being elided.

It 1s a rule of the

T

of th

language that if in such cases the sonants ‘g’ ‘d,” ‘b, immediately

follow, they shall be hardened, that is, converted into the correspond-

Prong

in )

ing surds ‘k, ‘t) and ‘p; and in Tamil the only method of harden-

&g,

ing sonants is by doubling them,—for it has already been shown that

in this language the same consonant is a sonant when single and a

ﬂle (

klup,

surd when doubled. Hence we say in Tamil not ¢iru-gir-én,’ I am,

but

‘iru-kkir-én.’

A similar result follows in another and more

4

It has been shown

numerous class of instances from a different cause.

or ‘k

Plesey

in a former part of this section that transitive or active verbs are in

many instances made to differ from intransitives by the hardening

In such

or “k

and doubling of the initial consonant of the sign of tense.

cases ‘gir-u’ and ‘gindr-n’ become (not for the sake of euphony

Whigh

THE PRESENT

TENSE.

389

16

1

merely, but as a means of grammatical expression) ‘kkir-u’ and

‘kkindr-u.’

i

The Malayalam uses the same sign of tense somewhat modified :

1l

the sign of present time in Malayilam is ‘unnu’ or ‘kkunnu,’ suf-

fixed to the verbal theme.

oh

he

Where the Tamil would use ¢gindru,” the Malayalam has ¢ unnu;

and where the Tamil has ‘kkindru,’ there ¢ kkunnu’ is used by the

1

Malayalam. The Malayala particle is clearly a softened and eupho-

1,

nised form of the Tamil one.

The Tamil compound sound ° ndr’ 18

constantly converted into ‘nn’ in Malayalam ; e.g., < ondru, Tam.,

ol

one, is in Malayalam ¢onna,” and ‘m{ndru,” Tam., three, is in Malay-

alam

‘munna.’

Even in vulgar colloquial Tamil the same or a

1l

ch

similar tendency appears; ‘ondru, one, being commonly pronounced

‘onnu,” and ‘mundru,’ three, ¢ munu.’

The Tam. ‘gindru’ and

IS

‘kkindru’ would, therefore, naturally and dialectically be converted

i

in Malayalam to °ginnu’ and ‘kkinnu.’

The next point is the

nd

softening away of the ‘g’ of ¢ginnu.’

This has arisen from the cir-

id

?

cumstance that in Tamil ‘g

is pronounced in the middle of a word

ne,

so softly as to be little more than an indistinet, guttural breathing:

)1’

in consequence of which it is used to represent the ‘h’ of the Sansecrit,

Nce

and in the colloquial dialect it is often discarded altogether; e.g.,

nd

‘ pogirén,’” I go, is commonly pronounced ¢ pé-rRén; and ¢ varugiran,’ e

nd

comes, ¢ vari-ran’ or ¢ va-Ran.’

Hence ‘ ginnu’ (from ¢ gindru’) would

nd

naturally become in Malayalam ¢innu.’ The only remaining difference

me

is between the ‘i’ of ‘innu’ and the ‘u’ of ‘unnu; and this pre-

g of

sents no difficulty, for even in Tamil ¢i’ is very often pronounced as

hed

bl

‘u’ by the vulgar, and the ‘u

of the Malayala ‘unnu’ is a middle

"t

sound between €1

and ‘u.’

qart

The identity of the Malayéla sign of the present tense with that

the

of the Tamil, cannot be doubted. Sometimes in Malayéla poetry the

ely

pronominal signs are suffixed to the signs of tense, as in Tamil; and

nd:

in that connexion the identity of the signs of tense is clearly apparent ;

Jen

e.g., compare ‘adikkindran’ (‘adi-kkindr-an’), Tam., ke beats, with

that

the corresponding form in poetic Malayalam, ¢atikkunnan’ (“ati-

id 8

kkunn’-4n”).

(lilly

A priort it might have been supposed that the Malayala ¢unnu’

jore

or ‘kkunnu’ was related to ¢chunnu’ or ‘tunnu,’ the sign of the

Wi

present participle in Telugu. The resemblance, however, is altogether

eill

illusory ; for the Malayala particle is derived from the Tamil ¢ gindru’

ing

or ‘kkindru,” whilst the Telugu ¢chunnu’ is compounded of ¢chu,

uch

the real sign of present time, and ‘unnu,” a participle of ‘undu,’ Zo be;

LOH)’

which participle is in Malayalam ¢unta.’

390

THE VERB.

Rl

I have said that T believe the Tamil ¢gir-u’ and ‘gindru’ are

identical in origin, and that the one is merely an euphonised form of

the other.

I have no doubt that ¢ gindr-u’ is the secondary form, and

that it has been derived from ¢ gir-u.’

There are many instances of

words ending in ‘rRu’ converted euphonically into ¢ ndru,” of which

one will suffice as an example, viz., ‘miru,” Can., three, which has

been converted into ¢ mindru,” Tam., but per contra there is no instance

extant of ‘ndr’ being simplified into ‘r’ or ‘rR; and the fondness

for nasal sounds which is inherent in the Dravidian languages, forbids

If this

the supposition of any such change ever having taken place.

view of the case is correct, it detracts somewhat from the claim of the

Malayalam to high antiquity, for it proves that it was subsequent to

the change of ‘kkir-u’ to ¢kkindr-u,’ te., subsequent to the com-

meneement of the phonetic refinement of the Tamil language, that the

Malayalam acquired a separate existence and a distinet place of its

own amongst the Drividian dialects.

The origin and ulterior relationship of ‘gir,” as a sign of present

time, is as completely enveloped in mystery as that of the correspond-

ing Telugu-Canarese ‘chu,” ‘tu,” ‘ta,” ‘te.

I notice (but it is scarcely deserving of notice) the slight resem-

blance in sound between °gindr-u’ and ‘ant,’ ‘ent

‘and,” ‘ende,

&c., the formative of the Indo-European present participle, of which

sometimes the nasal is discarded, as in the Sanscrit ¢ jayat,” conquer-

ing, and sometimes the dental, as in the English singing and the

Seotch sengin.

No greater importance is to be attributed to the slight resemblance

of ‘gir’ to ‘our’ or ‘ur, the formative of the present participle in

Turkish ; for I have no doubt that this ‘ur’ is derived from © dur,’ est,

the impersonal substantive verb.

2. The preterite tense.—The mode in which a language forms its

preterite, constitutes one of the most distinctive features in its gram-

matical character, and one which materially contributes to the deter-

mination of the question of its relationship.

In the Semitic languages past time, or the objective reality of

past events, is denoted by placing the verbal theme first, and suffix-

ing to it the sign of the personal agent.

In the primitive Iudo-

European languages the preterite appears to have been most commonly

formed by means of the reduplication of the root or verbal theme;

but this reduplication has in many instances been so softened and

euphonised, that it has dwindled into the mere use of a different vowel

in the preterite from that which forms part of the root.

The Indo-

d

—

~

THE PRETERITE TENSE.

391

16

Europeé,n preterite was also frequently formed by means of a prefixed

of

temporal augment ; a prefix which Bopp considers to be identical with

nd

“alpha privative, but which is supposed, with greater probability, by

of

Meyer, to be identical with ‘a,’ a relic of the auxiliary verb fo have,

¢h

which is still prefixed to verbs in the Celtic languages as a temporal

12$

augment, 7.c., as a sign of past time.

106

In a large proportion of the verbs in the Germanic tongues, in the

eSS

Modern Persian, in the Turkish and Finnish families of languages,

ids

in the vernacular languages of Northern India, and, with a few excep-

his

tions, in the Drividian languages, the preterite is formed by suflixing

he

to the verbal theme a particle, gemerally a single consonant only,

which is significant of past time.

to

1

The Dravidian preterite tense is ordinarily formed, like the pre-

he

sent, by annexing the pronominal signs to the preterite verbal par-

1ts

ticiple.

It is in that participle that the idea of past time resides: by

it alone that idea is expressed: the changes that are made when the

pronominal signs are added, will be shown to be euphonic merely, not

o1

1

structural ; and in the Malayélam (in which the pronominal signs are

not annexed), that part of speech which corresponds to the Tamil

m

preterite verbal participle, expresses by itself the past tense of the

le

verb. Consequently an inquiry into the Dravidian preterite tense,

resolves itself into an inquiry into the formation of the preterite

ch

o

verbal participle.

The preterite verbal participle is used in Tamil with a wider

the

range of signification than in any other dialect, though its proper and

inherent meaning is that of the preterite alone.

The Tamil being

106

n

destitute of a present verbal participle, uses the preterite verbal

ésl,

participle instead ; in consequence of which, in a Tamil sentence, the

question of time is in abeyance till it is determined by the tense

of the final governing verb. This statement applies to the verbal

participle alone, not also to the preterite tense of the finite verb;

1t8

)i

which is restricted in Tamil to the expression of past time, precisely

as in the other dialects.

el

We have now to inquire particularly into the Dravidian methods

of

of forming the preterite.

They divide themselves into two—(i.) by

reduplication of the final consonant; and (ii.) by suffixing a sign

X

do

of past time,

nly

(1.) THE FORMATION OF THE PRETERITE BY REDUPLICATION OF

16,

e Finan CoxsoNanT.—This mode of forming the preterite is adopted

ad

by a very small number of verbs in each of the Dravidian dialects; but

el

its existence cannot be doubted, and it is a mode which is as interesting

o

as it is remarkable.

In the Indo-European languages, when the pre-

392

THE VERB.

Al

terite is formed by means of reduplication, it is the root which is

doubled, or at least the first syllable of the root; but in the Dravidian

of

The

dialects the reduplication is that of the final consonant alone

L4

verbal themes which form their preterites in this manner are those

Ta

which end in ¢d-u

g-u, or ‘Rr-u,” preceded by a single short vowel

the

e.g., in Tamil

i

pad-u,” fo suffer

pug-u,’ fo enter; and ‘per-u, fo

obtain, the preterites of which are ‘patt-én, 7 suffered; ¢pukk-én,’ 7

T

entered; and ‘ pettr-én,” 7 obtained

In each of the above examples

plo

the final consonants—‘d,” ‘g’ and ‘®r’—are doubled, and being thus

JUR

doubled, are converted by rule into the corresponding surds ‘tt, ¢ kk,’

and ‘RR’ (pronounced °ttr’)

Whilst the above and similar verbs

Vel

form their preterites in this manner in the classical dialect of the

Be

the

Tamil, in the modern colloguial dialect some of those very verbs have

adopted the more ordinary method of denoting past time by means of

‘b

Thus

a suflixed particle or consonant

pukk-én,’ 7 entered, has been

ten

superseded in the modern dialect by ¢ pugu-nd-én,” and ‘nakk-én,’ 7

U

laughed, by ‘nagei-tt-én

The Canarese forms the preterites of this

bei

class of verbs in exact agreement with the Old Tamil ; e.g., nakk-anu,

Pl

he laughed, {from

nag-u,

to laugh

and the Telugu, though less

wh

systematic in this point, exhibits the operation of the same rule,

a8 |

especially in the relative participles of the preterite

This Dravidian reduplication differs materially in form from that

e

of the Indo-European languages; but it appears to proceed from a

the

similar principle, and it constitutes, so far as it goes, an mterestmg

dia

point of resemblance between the two families.

pre

dia

(2.) THE FORMATION OF THE PRETERITE BY SUFFIXING SOME

an

PaArTICLE OR sIGN OF PAst Time.—This, with the exception of the

the

very few verbs included in the previous class, is the method of form-

clu

ing the preterite which is invariably adopted by the Dravidian

IEDI

languages, and which may be regarded as their characteristic mode.

suff

For the purpose of thoroughly investigating this important subject, it

lo

will be desirable to inquire into the practice of each dialect seriatim

of |

1

The Camarese preterite. — The most characteristic Canarese

a0

preterite is formed by annexing ‘d’ (euphonically ¢d-u’) to the

Ay

verbal theme

This addition constitutes the preterite verbal par-

Clig

ticiple; e.g.,

ili-d-u,” Zaving descended,

nudi-d-u,’ having spoken : to

lia

which the pronominal terminations are suffixed to form the preterite

di

tense; ¢g., ¢ ili-d-enu,’ 7 descended, ¢ nudi-d-

thou sarvdst

All verbal

tho

themes (both in the ancient and in the modern dialect, and whether

transitive or intransitive) which end in ‘i

or ‘e, form their pre-

Prg

da

terite

in this manner, together with many themes ending in ‘u

THE PRETERITE

393

TENSE.

18

All the apparent irregularities that exist are merely modifications

an

of the ¢d’ in question.

Thus, sometimes ‘t’ is substituted for d;’

e

e.g., ‘aritanu,’ ke knew, instead of aridanu’ (corresponding to the

08

Tamil ‘arindan’): sometimes the “d’ of the preterite combines with

el,

the final consonant of the root, and converts it into ¢dd’ or ‘ tt; e.g.,

fo

“iddanu,’ %Ze was, instead of ¢irudanu’ (Tam, ‘irundin’); ‘eddu,’

having risen, instead of ‘eludu’ (Tam. ¢erundu’); ¢uttu,’ Aaving

les

ploughed, instead of ‘uludu’ (Tam. ‘urudu’); ‘nintu, Aaving stood,

s

instead of ‘niludu’ (Tam. ‘nindru p

k,

Another Canarese preterite is formed by suffixing i’ to the erude

ths

verbal theme; e.g., ‘mad-i, Aaving done, from ‘mad-u, o do.

the

Between this ‘i’ and the pronominal terminations, ‘d’ is inserted in

1ve

the formation of the preterite tense; e.g., ‘mad-i-(d)-enu, 7 did;

yof

¢ bal-i-(d)-anu,” ke lived. This mode of forming the preterite charac-

el

terises most verbs ending in ‘u’ in the modern dialect.

The final

1

2.9

‘u’ of such verbs is merely euphonic, not radical, and is elided on ¢

his

being annexed; and the ‘d’ which is inserted between ‘i’ and the

1,

pronominal signs, though possibly identical in origin with the ¢d’

oss

which constitutes a sign of the preterite, is merely euphonic, in so far

e,

as the use to which it is now put is concerned.

In a

considerable number of instances the formation of the pre-

b

hat

terite in ¢1

appears to be a modern corruption.

Intransitive verbal

0 a

themes ending in ‘u’ form their preterite in ‘d’ in the ancient

dialect; and it is in the modern dialect alone that i’ forms their

ing

preterite: e.g., instead of ¢bal-i’ (modern), kaving lived, the ancient

dialect has ‘bal-d-u; and as the ancient dialect is undoubtedly more

authoritative than the modern, ‘d’ or ‘d-u’ may be considered as

ME

the

the legitimate form of the preterite of this class of verbs.

This con-

{il

clusion is confirmed by the analogy of the Tamil, in which the cor-

jal

responding verbal theme forms its preterite verbal participle by

e,

suffixing ‘nd’—an euphonised form of ‘d; eg., ¢ var-nd-u,” having

1t

Sowrished, which is the equivalent, not of the modern Can. ¢bAl-i,’ but

/]

of the ancient ¢bal-d-u.’

How is this diversity in the formation of the preterite to be

accounted for ?

Jan ‘1’ have been derived in any manner from ‘d 2’

1650

the

An argument in favour of this supposition may be deduced from the

Al

circumstance that the ancient ‘bal-d-en,’ 7 lived, which is in perfect

to

dialectic agreement with the Tamil ¢var-nd-én, has in the modern

1t

dialect become ¢ bal-i-d-enu.

Even in the ancient dialect itself,

though this ‘i’ is generally unknown, it makes its appearance in the

hal

el

preterite relative participle; which is ¢ bél-i-d-a,” that lived, not ¢bal-

10

d-a,” though the corresponding Tamil is ¢ vér-nd-a.

If we may

U

394

THE

VERB.

judge, therefore, from these instances, ‘i’ seems to have come into

existence as a vocalic bond of connexion between the root and the

001

sign of the preterite.

ha

In a similar manner, the future, both in Canarese and in Tamil,

often makes use of ‘u

as a bond of union between the verbal root

1

and ‘v, the sign of tense; eg., ‘bal-u-v-enu,” modern Can., aund

r

Ta

¢ var-u-v-én,” colloquial Tam., 7 skall live, instead of the ancient and

more correct ‘bal-v-en,” Can., and ¢ var-v-én,” Tam.

In this case the

oh

S

Te

is certainly euphonic; though it has not come to be used as ‘i’

has, to express grammatical relation, or in lieu of the sign of tense

its

which it is employed to euphonize.

g

If we had to account for the insertion of ¢i

%

before

(d’

n

the

such instances only as have been mentioned, we inight be content

€xl

k]

as a

ha

with the supposition of its euphonic origin ; but the use of ¢i

sign of the preterite, has a much wider range.

All transitive verbs

an

ending in ‘u,’ both in the ancient dialect of the Canarese and in the

to

fro

modern, form their preterite verbal participles by suffixing ‘i; and

there is nothing to show that those verbs ever formed their preterites

fro

in any other manner.

A very large number of verbs of this class

form their preterites in Tamil also by suffixing ¢i;’ and in Telugu the

che

preterite is formed by suffixing €i’ to the root, not of one class

0D

of verbs only, but of all, with the exception of the small class of

car

reduplicative verbs.

JU

th

This statement applies, it is true, to the preterite verbal participle

of the Telugu, not to the preterite tense of the verb, which generally

tey

suffixes or inserts, as a tense-sign, some additional consonant or par-

the

ticle: but in Malayalam the preterite verbal participle constitutes by

the

itself the preterite tense, without the addition of any pronominal

signs; and in that dialect €i’ is the only sign of past time which is

Ca

used by a large number of verbs.

Thus ¢péad-i,” which means kaving

(3!

sung, in the other dialects, signifies in Malayalam (/e, ske, or 1t) sang :

(w

¢i’ is, therefore, in that dialect a distinctive sign of the preterite in

b

the class of verbs referred to; and it is to be remembered that the

th

(]

addition of the pronominal terminations, though the means of express-

by

ing personality, effects no change in the means whereby time is

an

expressed.

k]

It

The extent and prevalence, therefore, of the use of ‘i

as a sign

of the preterite, may seem to forbid our supposing it to have been in

by

all cases derived from an euphonization of ‘d; and as ‘d,’ on the

Iey

2

other hand, cannot have been derived from ¢i,

it might appear pro-

11

bable that ‘d’ and ‘i

are distinct and independent signs of past

JUL

time.

(a

THE PRETERITE

TENSE.

395

nto

I have no doubt that of these two signs of past time ¢d’ is to be

the

considered as the older and more characteristie.

We have seen that in many instances in which the modern Canarese

il,

has ‘i, the ancient dialect and the Tamil have ¢d.

Not in those

?

oot

instances only, but universally, the Telugu uses i

as the sign of the

nd

preterite ; but the greater antiquity of the grammatical forms of the

nd

Tamil and the Old Canarese, precludes the supposition that their most

the

characteristic sign of past time has been corrupted from that of the

‘I’

Telugu.

In addition to which, it will be shown that in the Telugu

156

itself there are traces of the existence of an old sign of the preterite

agreeing with that of the Tamil and the Ancient Canarese.

It would,

11

therefore, appear that two modes of forming the preterite being in

ont

existence, an older in ‘d’ and a more recent in ‘i, the modern form

&

has in many instances, particularly in Telugu, superseded the more

in Telugu and Gond, would seem

lba

ancient: and the prevalence of ‘i

he

to prove that this form, whether an indigenous corruption or derived

nd

from foreign influences, entered the South-Indian family of languages

tes

from the Telugu quarter.

85

In the Indo-European family of languages we find similar inter-

changes amongst the signs of past time; and though in some instances

he

8§

one form or mode may have been derived from another, yet this

of

cannot have been the case uniformly; e.g., the weak Germanic con-

jugations cannot have been corrupted from the strong, or vice versd;

le

though it seems certain that the strong method of forming the pre-

terite was more ancient than the weak, and though it is also certain

ly

Al

that the former mode has in very many instances been superseded by

the latter.

by

al

It remains to inquire into the origin of the ¢d’ which is inserted in

Canarese between ‘i’ and the pronominal terminations, and also between

15

H

‘3

and the sign of the relative participle.

It appears to be used

1

(whatever be its origin) merely for the purpose of preventing /Aiatus

between concurrent vowels; e.g., ‘madi-(d)-enu,” /7 did, ‘mad-i-(d)-a,’

n

he

that did. Hiatus is generally prevented in the Dravidian languages

by the insertion of a nasal, or of one of the semi-vowels, ¢y’ and ‘v

and it seems extraordinary that ‘d’ should be used for this purpose.

18

It is true that in some of the inflexions of Canarese nouns, eg.,

‘mara-d-a,” of a free, ¢d’ might seem to be used euphonically; but it

il

has been shown in the section on ¢The Noun, that that ¢d’ is the

i1}

remnant of a neuter demonstrative, and is used as an inflexional

10

)=

increment: it is not, therefore, a precedent for the use of ‘d’ for the

prevention of Aiatus merely. Possibly the use of this d’ by the

st

Canarese verb may thus be accounted for :—a consonant for preventing

Ll

€

396

THE VERB.

f

hiatus between the sign of the preterite and the subsequent signs of

i

personality and relation being required, the Canarese preferred using

1l

for this purpose an old sign of the preterite which still survived.

h

Thus, ¢d’ was not a new invention, but an old and partially obsolete

particle used for a new purpose, and placed in a position in which it

fi

would not have appeared, but for the use to which it had already been

C

put

11

The Tamil preterite. — The preterite is ordinarily formed in

b

Tamil, as in Canarese, in two ways; viz., by suffixing either ‘d’ or

‘1’ to the verbal theme.

In the former case, ‘d’ itself is more

rarely used than some euphonization of it or related consonant ; but

1§

such secondary forms invariably resolve themselves into ¢d.

Thus,

0

when a theme with 1’ as its final letter is followed by “d’ as the sign

18

of the preterite, the compound becomes ‘ndr; e.g., the preterite

Some-

verbal participle of ¢ pol,’ like, is not ¢ pol-d-u’ but ¢ pon-dr-u.

times, however, when ‘d’ follows ‘1, the compound becomes ‘RR,

a

pronounced ¢ttr; e.g., from ‘kal,’ to learn, comes not ¢kal-d-u,’ but

11

‘karr-u’ (“kattr-u’), having learned.

‘1’ followed by “d’ be-

a

comes ‘nd; eg., from ‘mal’ to die, comes ‘méand-u,’ having died.

18

Sometimes, however, when ¢d’ follows ‘1’ the compound becomes

‘tt; eg., from ‘kél} ¢o hear, comes ‘kétt-v,) having heard.

These

)

i

and similar combinations are merely instances of euphonization, in

accordance with the fixed phonetic rules of the language; and in each

case it is in reality ‘d’ alone which constitutes the sign of past time.

1§

In some verbs the primitive ‘d’ still remains unchanged and

P

pure; e.g., ‘uru-d-u, having ploughed, from ‘uru, to plough; or

2

a

with a conversion of the dental ‘d’ into the cerebral ‘d ;

e.g., ‘kan-

il

d-u,” having seen, from ‘kén,” to see.

The euphonization of ‘d’ which occurs most frequently, and is

P

1§

most characteristic of the Tamil, is its conversion into ‘nd.

This

W

conversion takes place without phonetic necessity, and solely through

that fondness for nasalisation which is so deeply inherent in the Tamil

(L

]

and Telugu, and by means of which the formatives ‘gu,” “du,’ and

u

‘bu’ have so generally been changed to ‘ngu,” ‘ndu,” and ‘mbu.’

In the majority of cases in Tamil in which ‘d’ (preceded by a vowel

or semi vowel) once formed the sign of the preterite, it has been

nasalised into ‘nd; whilst the Canarese wherever it has preserved

th

n

the primitive ‘d,’ has preserved it unnasalised and pure.

Thus

whilst the Tamil preterite of ‘iru,’ fo be, is “iru-nd-én,” 7 was, the

corresponding Canarese is ‘iddenu’ (for ¢iru-d-enu’); and whilst the

Su

preterite of the Tamil verb ¢var,

to Afowrish, is °var-nd-an,” /fe

J L

THE

PRETERITE

TENSE.

397

Mourished, the equivalent in Ancient Canarese is ‘bal-d-am.’

The

1§ ()f

higher dialect of the Tamil retains some traces of the primitive,

sing

ved,

un-nasalised purity of this sign of the preterite; e.g., ¢viru-nd-u,’

having fallen, from ‘viru,” to fall, is occasionally written by the poets

lete

ch it

¢ vir-d-u.’

(vir’ is phonetically equivalent to ‘viru.’) It is curious

to notice the progress of nasalisation which is apparent in this verb on

been

comparing the Canarese ‘biddu’ (for ¢bil-du’), the High Tamil

¢ virdu,” the modern Tamil ¢ virundu,” and the Malayalam ¢ vinu.’

Another change which ‘d’ undergoes in Tamil consists in its

d

" o

being hardened and doubled in certain cases, so as to become ¢ tt.’

This happens to ‘nd’ as well as to ‘d, a clear proof of the

11016

hut

development of the former from the latter; and when the ¢d’ of ‘nd’

is doubled, the nasal entirely disappears.

Just as the doubled form

hus,

of ‘ng’ is ‘kk, and that of ‘mb’ ‘pp; so the doubled form of ‘nd’

sign

I

In some instances, this change is merely euphonic; e.g.,

enite

‘padu,’ to lie, an intransitive verb, takes for its preterite, not ‘padu-

ome-

d-én’ or ‘padu-nd-én,’ but ¢ padu-tt-én,” 7 lay. Such cases, however,

RR,

are rare, and in general the use of ‘tt’ as a sign of the preterite

but

instead of ‘d’ or ‘nd’ is a means of distinguishing transitives or

be

active verbs from intransitive: e.g., the “tt’ of ¢tar-tt-én,” 7 lowered,

lied.

is formed by the doubling and hardening of the ‘nd’ (the equivalent

jmes

of ‘d’) of the corresponding intransitive ¢tar-nd-én, 7 got low.

See

hese

the further explanation of this subject under the head of ¢ The Classi-

I, 1

fication of Verbs.’

ench

The second mode of forming the preterite in Tamil, as in Canarese,

e

The themes which form their

is by suflixing i’ to the verbal theme.

and

preterite in this manner are those which terminate in ‘u’ euphonie,

0r

and of which the radical portion consists either in one long syllable or

k-

in two syllables, whether short or long.

In this connexion, as in

prosody, a vowel which is long by position is equivalent to one which

Bt

is naturally long.

The following are examples of the classes of verbs

This

which take ¢i’ for their preterite:—(long syllable) ‘padu, to sing;

ngh

(long by position) ¢ pann-u,’ to make,; (two short syllables) ¢ erud-u, o

ﬂmﬂ

write; (one syllable short, and one long by position) ¢tirupp-u,’ ¢o

and

turn.

b

All verbs of which the final consonant is a liquid semi-vowel

el

¢l <L’ ‘r) ‘r’ mot ‘v’ or ‘r’), whatever number of syllables

el

they may contain, form their preterite by means of ‘d’ or some of its

yed

modifications: such verbs are therefore exceptions to the above rule.

Even in the class of Tamil verbs which take ‘i

Jii

as their preterite

the

suffix, there are traces of the prevalence of ‘d’ at a more ancient

the

period. Thus, whilst thow didst go is in the ordinary dialect ¢ p6-(n)-aj’

) ]t’

398

THE VERB.

(properly ‘pog-i-(n)-4y,” from ‘pd,” or ‘pé-gu,’ to go), in the poets

‘ po-d-i’ is sometimes used instead: so instead of ¢4-(n)-aj’ (for Ag-i-

Jli

Ji

(n)-ay,” from ¢ &-gu,’ to become), thou becamest, the poets sometimes use

‘a-d-1.” In these instances the Canarese also, even in the colloquial

pa

T

dialect, says < pédi’ and ‘adi’

Even ‘nd’ is sometimes ‘d’ only in Tamil poetry; e.g., ¢ varu-d-i,

te

thow camest, is found instead of the more modern ‘va-nd-aj’ (for

el

varu-nd-ay’) ; and it is evident that this form, ¢ varu-d-i,” exactly

(n

corresponds to the forms quoted above, ¢ pd-d-i’ and ¢4-d-i.’

m

1

Notwithstanding, therefore, the prevalence of ¢i’ as a sign of the

th

preterite in Tamil, as in Canarese (though in a less degree than in

Canarese), there seems to be some reason for regarding it as an inno-

vl

th

vation, or at least as a less ancient, less characteristic, and less widely

used sign than ¢d.

‘n

J

of

is inserted in Tamil (as ‘d’ in Canarese)

between the ‘i’ which constitutes the sign of the preterite of certain

I

of

classes of verbs and the pronominal terminations, and also between

the sign of the preterite and the sign of the relative participle; e.g.,

p

from ¢pad-i,’ having sung (the preterite verbal participle of ¢pad-u,’

v

to sing), is formed ¢pad-i-(n)-4n,’ 7 sang; ‘pad-i-(n)-ay, thow didst

Pa

sing; ¢ pad-i-(n)-an,” he sang: so also ¢pad.i-(n)-4, the relative par-

I

2

ticiple that sang. Whatever be the origin of this ‘n,

it cannot be

(¢

doubted that its use in Tamil is at present wholly euphonic; and this

a8

statement applies also to the use of the same ‘n’ in the preterite

relative participle of the Telugu.

It in no respect contributes to the

expression of grammatical relation; and when used by the relative

it

participle in Tamil, it may optionally and elegantly be changed into

di

¢

of

¥y, which is one of the semi-vowels that are systematically used for

the prevention of Aiatus; e.g., instead of ‘padi(n)a, that sang, we

I

may write with perfect propriety °padi(y)a.’

We see a parallel use

st

of “‘n’ in the Turkish verb, in the frequent insertion of an euphonic

Ir

‘n’ between the theme and the infinitival particle, and also between

U

the theme and the sign of the passive.

The most weighty argument

g

in confirmation of the euphonic origin of the Tamilian ‘n’ in question,

is derived from the use of ‘n’ as an euphonic fulerum, or means of

fo

preventing Aiatus in the Drividian languages generally, and even in

an

connexion with another part of the Tamil verb. Thus,in the classical

lat

plural neuter of the present tense, ¢ varugindrana’ (‘ varu-gindr-ana’),

il

they (things) come, the ‘n’ of the pronominal termination ¢ana’ is

he

undoubtedly equivalent to the ‘v’ of the isolated plural neuter ¢avei’

fo

(for ‘ava’); and is used merely for the euphonic prevention of Aiatus

g

between the first ‘a,” or the demonstrative vowel, and the final ‘a,’ or

the sign of the neuter plural. (‘a(n)a’or ‘a(v)a’ isequivalent to ¢ a-a.’)

—

THE PRETERITE TENSE.

399

poets

It the Tamil and the Telugu alone were concerned, we should

agi-

perhaps be justified in considering the purely euphonic origin of the

8 Use

‘n’ in question to be a settled point; but a difficulty arises on com-

quial

paring those languages with the Canarese.

Wherever the Tamil and

2

Telugu use ‘n

in the formation of the preterite tense and the pre-

-,

terite relative participle, there the Cunarese uses ‘d: e.g., ‘ madi-(d)-

(for

enu, / did, not ‘méadi-(n)-enu; and ‘madi-(d)-a,” that did, not ‘ madi-

:actly

(n)-a.’

Now, though this ¢d’ of the Canarese is certainly euphonic

in its present use, it has been shown that there is reason for suspect-

f t]le

ing it to be derived from ‘d,” the old sign of the preterite; and if

an I

this supposition be correct, it would follow that the Tamilian ‘n,

nno-

which corresponds so perfectly to the Canarese ‘d,” is derived from

idely

the same source as ‘d,” and euphonically altered from it.

The ‘n’

of the Tamil preterite, therefore, as well as the ‘d’ of the Canarese,

1ese)

rtain

may testify to the primitive universality of the use of ‘d’ as a sign

Weel

of past time.

Whether ¢d’ (= ‘n’) was originally a sign of the

preterite or not, the conversion of ¢d’ into ‘n’ in this connexion,

by

éd'u;’

viz., in the preterite tense, and especially in the preterite relative

participle, is analogous to the change of “ta’ or ‘da’ to ‘na’ in the

st

past participle of the Indo-European tongues; especially in the

p‘dl‘

of be

German, from which the final ‘n’ of cur own past participles (such

as ‘fallen’) has been derived.

] this

terite

iii. The Malaydla preterite.—The Malayala preterite is substan-

o the

tially the same as the Tamil: the only real difference consists in the

ative

| mto

disuse in Malayalam of the pronominal terminations.

The sign

of past time is invariably the same in each language; with only such

q for

modifications of sound as are dialectic and regular.

That which con-

l we

| use

stitutes the preterite verbal participle in Tamil, is in Malayalam the

preterite tense of the verb; e.g., ‘nadandu,” in Tamil signifies having

honie

walked ; the corresponding Malayala word ‘natannu,” means (ke, ske,

ween

ment

it or they) walked.

The only thing which it is necessary to notice here, is the dif-

sSﬁOﬂ;‘

ference which exists in Malayalam between the past tense of the verb

10s Of

and the past verbal participle or gerund, and the agreement of the

el ill

latter in appearance with the past relative participle.

By analogy

sical

A8

‘natanna, having walked, which is the past participle, should have

it ’>’

been used as the past tense of the verb, whereas ‘natannu’ is the

]a,ﬂ iS

3

form used instead: ‘natanna’ is also the relative participle that

avel’

wa‘lked.

s

How are we to account for these things?

a Uf

I conceive that ¢ natannu,’ the finite verb, is an abnormal form: it

iy

?

—

400

THE VERB.

should have been ‘natanna,” and thus identical with the past verbal

P

Rl R

participle.

But after the pronominal terminations were laid aside, it

th

appears to have been felt that something was necessary to distinguish

PL

the past participle, which is a continuative, from the past tense of the

i

verb, which is a final; and from this feeling the merely enunciative

half sound of the ‘a’ of ‘natanna’ was emphasized, and thus gra-

18

dually transformed into ¢u,” which, though merely an enunciative in

he

‘9

Tamil, has a more distinctive position in Malayalam. Whilst this

9

change was going on, the enunciative ‘a

of the past participle

18

remained unchanged, inasmuch as it was a continuative word, and not

Pa

a seat of emphasis.

e

The explanation of the resemblance between ‘natanna, hawving

th

walked, the past verbal participle in Malayalam and ‘natanna,’ that

s

walked, the past relative participle, is very easy. A reference to the

th:

Tamil shows that the resemblance is only apparent.

‘natanna,’” the

th

past verbal participle, corresponds to the Tamil ¢nadand-u,” the final

U

‘u’ of which is merely enuanciative and euphonie, and is invariably

of

elided when followed by another vowel ; and in like manner the final

1D

‘a’ of the Malayala past participle is merely enunciative.

It is that

1ne

euphonic, constantly elided ‘a’ which dialectically answers to the

the

Tamil ‘u.’

(e.g., compare ‘ad-u,” Tam., i, with the Malayéla at-a ;

GUI

‘ar-u, Tam., @ rwer, with ‘4r-a,” Mala.; ‘ondr-u, Tam., one, with

e

‘ onn-a,

Mala.)

Hence arises the rule that this final ¢a

1s not

(!

to be dwelt upon in pronunciation, but enunciated with rapidity.

all

Whereas the final ‘a’ of ‘natanna,’ that walked, is identical with ¢ a,’

fes

the sign of the relative participle in all the Dravidian languages, and

Wa

This

which was in its origin, as I conceive, a sign of the genitive.

dia

latter ‘a’ contributes largely to grammatical expression, and cannot

Wit

be elided without destroying the sense, whilst the former ‘a’ is

ide

inorganic and merely euphonie.

I

(&

1V.

The Telugu preterite. —In Telugu all preterite verbal par-

(1\0

ticinles, without exception, are formed by adding ‘i’ to the theme,

ng

Even those verbs which form their preterites by suffixing ‘d’ or

the

some modification of it in Tamil, Canarese, and Malayalam, form

eVl

their preterites in Telugu by suflixing ‘i; e.g., ‘kon-du, Tam. and

hee

Can., having bought, is in Telugu ‘kon-i’ and ‘kan-du, Tam. and

thoy

Can., having seen, is ‘kan-i.’

g

Notwithstanding the universality of this rule, there are traces

even in Telugu of the use of a particle corresponding to the ‘d’ of

Ver

the other dialects as a sign of past time.

Though the preterite verbal

i]]y

participle never takes any suffix but that of ‘i, some parts of the

di&]i

THE PRETERITE TENSE.

401

thal

preterite teinse of the verb in the higher idiom of the langunage, viz.,

o, it

the first and second persons both singular and plural, insert the

2

ish

particle ‘ti’ between the ‘i

of the verbal participle and the pro-

" the

nominal terminations.

It cannot be doubted, I think, that this ‘ti,’

tive

which is found nowhere but in the preterite, is allied to the ‘d’ which

gra-

is inserted in the same place in the Canarese preterite.

Thus, whilst

el

both in Canarese and in Telugu the preterite verbal participle of

this

‘ad-u,” to play, is ‘4d-i, having played; in both dialects “ti” or ¢d’

ciple

is suffixed to ‘i’ before adding the personal terminations; e.g., com-

not

pare Can. ‘ad-i-d-enu,” 7 played, Tel. ¢&ad-i-ti-ni.

It has already

been shown to be probable that the ¢d’ thus inserted by the Canarese,

ping

though now used to so large an extent euphonically, was originally a

that

sign of the preterite, identical with the ‘d’ which is still used [for

This view derives confirmation from

o the

that purpose by many verbs.

' the

the Telugu, in which the corresponding ¢ti’ does not appear to be

final

used euphonically at all, and certainly is not used for the prevention

iably

of hiatus; for there is no Aiatus and no necessity for an euphonic

final

insertion between the aforesaid ¢4di’ and ‘ni,’ the pronominal frag-

that

ment, or in the second person between ‘Adi’ and ‘vi.’

Moreover,

) the

there is no instance of such a particle as ‘ti’ being used merely for

=i

euphony in any of the Drividian dialects.

It therefore follows that

with

we must regard ‘ti’ as a sign of past time—subordinate indeed to

g 106

‘1, and unused in the third person of the preterite, but immediately

ity

allied to ¢d,” the past tense-sign of the Tamil and Canarese, and

testifying to the existence of a time when ¢d,” or its equivalent ¢ ti,’

h ¢ 3;

was the ordinary sign of the preterite in Telugu, as in the other

, and

dialects.

This

In some Telugu verbs, “ti’ is combined in such a manner

with the final consonant of the theme, as to prove beyond doubt its

annot

2| I8

identity in origin and force with the Tamil ‘d:" e.g., € chés-ti-ni,” Tel.,

I did (for °chési-ti-ni’), is evidently equivalent to the Tam. &ey-

d-én; and ‘kon-ti-ni, 7 bought (for <koni-ti-ni’), is equivalent to

| pat

‘kon-d-én.” So also when ¢ &) the Telugu conditional particle, answer-

ing to the Tamil ‘&l is suffixed to the preterite tense of a verb for

eme,

4’ or

the purpose of giving to it the meaning of the subjunctive, it appears

form

evident that the ancient sign of the preterite of the Telugu must have

been, not i, but “ti’ or ‘it; eg., compare the Telugu ¢ chést-&,” +f (7,

., alld

v a,n(]

thou, he, &c.) did or do (abbreviated from ‘chés-it-&’), with the Tamil

‘Seyd-al’

We have seen that the Tamil inserts <n’ between the preterite

traces

i of

verbal participle and the pronominal terminations in many instances

in which ‘d’ is used for this purpose in Canarese.

The colloquial

,'erbfll

dialect of the Telugu makes much use of ‘n4’ or ‘na’ in the same

f the

2'n

402

THE VERB.

connexion ; e.g., ‘4d-i-(nd)-nu,” 7 played, (answering to the Tamil

in

¢ 4d-i-(n)-én "), instead of the more ancient and elegant ¢&d-i-ti-ni.’

P

ilh

The Tamil ‘n’ used in this connexion separates two vowels, and

might therefore be considered as purely euphonic; but the Telugu

ch

‘na’ or ‘na

comes between a vowel and a consonant, and must,

“H

therefore, have a more important use than that of preventing hiatus.

‘ti’ and ‘na’ alternate in the formation of the Telugu preterite

T

tense, ‘ti’ being preferred in the more classical dialect, ‘na’ in the

more vulgar: and this seems to confirm the supposition that the ‘n’

of

We

of ‘na,’ like the Tamil ‘n,’ is derived from the old preterite ¢d.’

can hardly fail to regard these particles as identical, when we examine

Vel

an instance in which they are used as equivalents in all three dialects;

suf

In

e.g., compare ‘ay-i-(n&)-nu,’ Tel., 7 became ; < 4-(n)-én,” Tam. for (‘ag-

¢ A

°

i-(n)-én’); and ¢4-(d)-enu,” Can. (for

ag—l

-(d)-enu’).

tg

On the whole, therefore, it may be concluded that the Telugu

suf

agrees with the other dialects in exhibiting distinct and deep-seated

suf

traces of the ancient use of d’ or ‘t’ as a sign of the preterite, not-

An

withstanding the universal prevalence in Telugu at present of the use

10§

of ‘i as the sign of the preterite verbal participle.

the

T may here take occasion to guard against an illusory resemblance

to which my attention was once called, viz., the resemblance which

1m0

subsists between the Telugu preterite verbal participle ¢veichi,” having

D

placed, and the corresponding Tamil participle ¢veittu,” which is

vulgarly pronounced °veichi.’

The ‘tt’ of the Tamil ¢vei-tt-u,’

being simply the hardened and doubled form of ¢d.’ is the ordinary

sign of the preterite; and if there were any real alliance between

0]

“tt-u,” through its provineial pronunciation, and the Telugu ‘ch-i,” we

tha

should undoubtedly have here an instance of the use of ‘tt,” i.e,

tior

of ¢d,” in modern Telugu as well as in Tamil, as a sign of the pre-

the

terite verbal participle, and consequently of past time.

The resem-

blance, however, is altogether illusory.

The “ch’ of the Telugu

I eql

“veichi’ corresponds, not to the ‘tt’ of the Tamil ¢veittu,” but to

‘b

the ¢kk’ which constitutes the formative of so many verbs and nouns

in Tamil.

atty

‘kk’ makes its appearance in the infinitive of this very

soft

verb, viz., ‘vei-kk-a,” to place, the Telugn of which is ¢ vei-ch-a.’

See

¢kk’ is vulgarly pronounced ‘ch’ in the southern part of the Tamil

tug

country; and the same pronunciation universally obtains in Telugu.

Stea

The imperative or theme of this verb in Telugu is not ‘vei,’ as in

2

of the formative

Prgf

Tamil, but ¢veich-u’ (with the addition to ¢ vel

beiy

‘ch-u,” which is equivalent to the Tamil ‘kk-u’); and from this

te)

¢ veich-u,’ the preterite verbal participle veich-i, is regularly formed,

9

tion;

in thig, as in all other cases, by the addition of ‘i

If the correspond-

Wep

THE

PRETERITE

TENSE.

403

mil

ing Tamil verb formed its preterite in the same manner, its verbal

11

participle would be ¢vei-kk-i, not ¢vei-tt-u.’

A case in point in

and

Hlustration of this, is the Tam. ‘ti-kk-u,’ to lift, to weigh (Tel. ¢ ti-

ugu

ch-u’), the preterite verbal participle of which is ¢ti-kk-i’ (Tel.

10,

‘ tit-ch-i’).

s,

erife

v. Preterites of minor dialects.—In Tulu, ‘t’ constitutes the cha-

the

racteristic mark of the preterite tense, and “ti,” the preterite insertion

of the Telugu verb is the sign of the Tulu preterite verbal participle.

We

In Gond ‘si’ or ji,) apparently softened from “ti, forms the

nine

verbal participle of the preterite; but the perfect tense is formed by

oS

suffixing “tt, e.g., ‘kei-tt-an,” 7 have called; °kei-si,) having called.

(%

In Seoni Gond also the preterite or conjunctive participle suffixes si;

eg., ‘ wunk-si, having spoken: but the past participle is formed by

lugn

suffixing ‘tlr; e.g., ¢ wank-tir,” spoken; and the past tense simply

ated

suffixes ‘t; eg., ‘wunk-t-an,” / spoke, ‘wunk-t-i, thow didst speak.

not

An imperfect or progressive tense is formed in both those dialects by

RILH

inserting ‘und’ or ‘nd,” the substantive verb, between the root and

the pronominal terminations.

a1ce

These instances tend to eonfirm the supposition that ¢ d, or some

rhich

modification of it, is the oldest and most characteristic sign of the

2

iy

Dravidian preterite, and that the use of ‘i

is of secondary origin.

h i

‘tt'u;’

Origin of the Dravidian signs of past time.

ety

(1.) The most probable conjecture that I can offer respecting the

weel

origin of ‘i, is one which confirms the supposition of its secondary

character.

, Ve

I coneeive it to have been originally a vowel of conjunc-

|

"

tion, employed for the purpose of euphonically connecting the verbal

PIE

theme, and the true sign of past time, ‘d’ or ‘d-u’

ssenl-

Where the theme terminated in a hard consonant, euphony would

elugt

require some such vocalic bond of connexion ; e.g., the Old Canarese,

¢ béal-d-en, [ lived, is undoubtedly somewhat harsh to an ear that is

b fo

n0uDs

attuned to Dravidian phonetics; and it was natural that it should be

We

yery

softened, as it has been in modern Canarese, into ‘bAal i-d-enu.

‘ch-&ul

see a precisely similar euphonic insertion of ‘i’ in the Latin ¢ dom-i-

Tamil

tus’ (instead of ‘dom-tus’), famed, and the Sanscrit ¢ pid-i-tah’ (in-

stead of ‘pid-tah’), pressed. Subsequently we may suppose the true

elugll.

2 in

preterite ‘d” to have gradually dropped off; whilst ‘i’ remained, as

ative

being the easier sound, with the adwventitious signification of the pre-

- fhis

terite.

There are many instances in all languages of euphonic addi-

;meth

tions coming to be used instead of the parts of speech to which they

were attached ; e.g., in the Telugu verb ¢ vu’ is used to represent the

pond‘

2D 2

404

THE VERB.

second person singular of the pronoun instead of ‘bm,’ thou, though

‘vu’ was originally only an euphonic addition to ‘ni,’ by which it

b

was converted into ¢ nivu.’

It deserves motice that wherever ‘i’ is used in Canarese or in

b

Tamil, instead of ‘d,” as a sign of the preterite, the use of ‘d’ would

t

in that instance be harsh and uncouth; and that on comparing the

.

d

> with those that suffix

i

Tamil verbs which form their preterite in ‘1

“d, no reason but euphony can be alleged why the one suffix should

0o

be employed rather than the other: conmsequently euphonic causes

I

must have contributed to the development of ‘i.’

11

This supposition of the origin of ¢i’ from the vocalic conjunction

of ¢4’ with the verbal theme, would also account for the circumstance

fr

that wherever ‘i’ is followed by a vowel (whether the initial vowel

of the pronominal terminations, or the ‘a’ which constitutes the sign

€

of the relative participle), it picks up again the ‘d’ which it had

th

9

gradually lost, and uses it as an euphonic bond of conjunction, either

in its original shape of ¢d,’ as in Canarese, or in its nasalised shape

di

of “n, as in Tamil and Telugu.

The manner in which ‘ti’ is sepa-

rated from the theme in some Telugu preterites, e.g., ‘kon-i-ti-ni’

di

(‘kon-ti-ni’), I bought, confirms this supposition of the euphonic

de

origin of ¢i.’

10

(2.) ¢d, the older and more characteristic sign of the Dravidian

¢

preterite, has many interesting affinities with corresponding signs

fa

of past time in various Indo-European and Scythian languages.

th

I have no doubt that it has an ulterior, though remote, connexion

fr

with “t> or ‘ta’ (alternating with ‘na’), the ordinary suffix of the

te

Indo-European passive particle; eg., ¢jiid-ta-h,” Sans., known ; Greek

ng

¢ yvw-7o-s; Latin “(g)nd-tu-s;” ¢ bhug-na-s,” Sans., bent; Gothic bug-

a-n(a)-s.’

In Gothic this suffix is “d’ or ‘t; in New Persian inva-

=

&

riably ¢d.

§

il

In Sanscrit the participle which is formed from ta’ is in general

1§

distinctively passive ; but a few traces exist of a preterite signification,

81

only however in connexion with neuter verbs; e.g., ‘ga-ta-s,’ one who

al

went ; ¢ bhil-ta-s,” one who has been.

A preterite signification pre-

3

dominates also in the active participles formed by suffixing ¢tavat’

pe

(derived from the passive ‘ta’); e.g., ‘kra-tavat,” was making; and

Per

in the indeterminate past participle, or gerund, which is formed by

suffixing ‘tva; eg., ‘kru-tvd,” having made or through making.

pa

Though there is probably an ultimate connexion between the

for

preterite ‘d’ of the Dravidian languages and the passive (and

for

secondary preterite) ‘t’ of the Sanscrit, the use of this suffix is too

8y

essential a characteristic of the Dravidian languages, and too rare and

aly

THE

PRETERITE

TENSE.

405

igh

exceptional in Sanscrit, to admit of the supposition that the former

B

borrowed it from the latter.

The <1’ which constitutes the sign of the preterite in Bengali, has

n

been supposed by Professors Max Miiller and Bopp to be derived from

uld

the past participial ‘t’ of the Sanscrit; e.g., ‘karilam,’ 7 did, is

the

derived by them from *karita,” Sans., done, followed by the personal

liibs

termination ¢4m

This supposition is confirmed by the conformity

yuld

of ‘karilam’ to the New Persian ¢kardem,” 7 did, and by the use in

uses

Marathi of a similar preterite in ‘1, which is supposed to be derived

in like manner from the Sans. passive participial ‘t; e.g., mi kelo-m,’

tion

I did, ‘min gélo-n, I went.

The interchance of ¢d” and ‘1’ is of

ance

frequent occurrence ; and possibly the Sanscrit ‘t’ may have become

owvel

“d’ before it was corrupted into ‘1.

There is no proof of this, how-

sign

ever, and the ‘1’ which is used as the equivalent of “t’ or ‘d’ in

had

the formation of the Slavonian preterite, ‘byl’ (Pers. ¢btd,” Sans.

ther

¢ bhiita-s’), ke was, shows that ‘t’ may have passed into ‘1’ imme-

hape

diately, without the middle point of the cerebral ¢d.

QPLL

Whether the preterite 1’ of the Bengali and Marathi is derived

-0’

directly from the Sanscrit passive participial ¢t,” or whether it has

oni6

descended from the Old Scythian vernacular of Northern India, it is

interesting to notice the fact of the conformity in this important par-

dian

ticular, between the Dravidian languages and those of the Gauda

family. We should notice, however, this important difference between

gns

the two, that whilst the Gauda preterite ‘1 in so far as it is derived

}Xiull

from the Sanscrit, appears to be only a secondary constructive pre-

f the

terite, the Dravidian ¢d’ exhibits no trace whatever, either of con-

reek

nexion with any passive participle or of a constructive origin.

bug-

In the New Persian, ‘d’ invariably forms the sign of the preterite;

nva-

e.g., ‘bl-d-em,” I was,; ‘bur-d-em,” I bore.

The participle which con-

stitutes the verbal theme in Persian, and which has a formative that

peral

is passive in Sanscrit, has an active as well as a passive-preterite

signification; e.g., ‘burdeb, means either borne or having borne,

JﬁOYb

o

according to the context.

The preterite tense has in Persian been

I)I'e'

developed out of a passive participle; and this appears to have hap-

pened through the influence of the past time which is inherent in the

a'\"at !

and

perfect passive.

In the Germanic tongues, ‘t’ or ‘d’ not only forms the perfect

iy

passive participle, as in Sanscrit, Latin, and Zend ; but is used also to

] the

form a regular preterite tense.

The Sanscrit ‘t’ of ¢ gata-s,” who went,

forms the preterite of neuters only; but the Gothic ‘t’ appears

(31](1

systematically in the preterites of a numerous class of active verbs;

ig too

6 {lﬂd

and is found not only in the participle, but in the regular preterite

406

THE VERB

Vi

tense; e.g., ¢ bauh-ta,” 7 bought; ¢ thah-ta, 7 thought; and ‘¢ vaurh-ta,

I made.

St

It is not my object to endeavour to trace the origin of the suffix in

JLi

question.

Whether the ‘t’ of the passive participle is identical, as I

conceive, with that of the indicative preterite, or whether it springs

fu

from a different origin,—whether ‘t’ or ¢d,” the sign of the preterite,

by

is derived from ¢ dha, ¢o set, to make, from °thun,’ to do, or from the

th

demonstrative ¢ ta,—I am not about to inquire. My belief is, that the

real origin of this suffix cannot now be ascertained; it has simply been

my object to point out in various languages of the Indo-European

(

family, and in the western branches more than in the Sanscrit, the

di

existence of a mode of forming the preterite (viz., by suffixing ‘d’ or

a0

“t’ to the root) which closely resembles that which forms a charac-

teristic of the Dravidian languages.

fu

The formation of the preterite by suffixing ‘d,’ is not confined to

the Indo-European family, but prevails also in the Turkish and Ugrian

st

tongues.

U8

“d’ is the sign of past time which is used by the Turkish; e.g.,

be

compare ‘sewer-im,’ I love, with ¢ sewer-d-im,” 7 loved ; and this ‘d’ is

A

inserted, as in Tamil and Canarese, between the root and the pro-

Y0

nominal signs.

Compare the present ‘im,” 7 am, with the preterite

0

“i-d-um,” £ was.

Notice also ¢6l-d-um,” 7 was, and the equivalent

form in Oriental Turkish, ¢bol-d-im.’

In Finnish, the preterite is regularly formed by suffixing ¢t.”

The

Ul)

al

preterite participle from which the perfect tense is formed terminates

al

in ‘ut, ‘yt, ‘et &e.; eg., ‘oll-ut, having been, from the theme ‘ol,’

to be.

The Hungarian forms its preterite in a similar manner; e.g., the

¢

18

preterite participle of ‘le-uni,” to become, is le-tt, having become; and

EXi

from this is regularly formed the perfect ‘ le-tt-em,’ 7 have become.

n

It especially deserves notice, that these Turkish, Finnish, and

i

Hungarian signs of the preterite are totally unconnected with the

passive participle. They are distinetive signs of past time, and of that

alone ; and as such they are suffixed to all indicatives, whether active

©)

or neuter, and are appended, in addition to the sign of passivity, to

passive forms, only when those passives are also preterites. In this

Wl

particular, therefore, the analogy between the Dravidian preterite and

sig

the Turko-Ugrian is closer and more distinctive than the Indo-

I

European analogies which have been pointed out: it may be said

0n

indeed to amount to identity.

the

3. The future tense.—The present and preterite tenses of the Dra-

g

B —

——

Re—

e

e —

THE FUTURE TENSE.

407

&

vidian verb are formed from present and preterite participles, by

suffixing the pronominal terminations.

The future is without a verbal

n

participle or gerund, except in High Tamil, in which there is a rarely

s

used verbal participle of the future, ending in ¢véin; nevertheless, the

125

future tense is formed virtually in the same manner as the other tenses,

te,

by suffixing a sign of future time to the verbal theme, and adding to

the

that sign the pronominal terminations.

the

In the Dravidian languages there are two future formations.

gell

One, which is more distinctly a future than the other, is found in

can

Canarese and Telugu alone; the other, which is contained in all the

the

dialects, inclusive of the Canarese and Telugu, is an indeterminate,

0r

aoristic future, and is called by Telugu grammarians the aorist.’

[0

It should here be observed also, that the use of the present for the

future is exceedingly common in all the Dravidian dialeets.

| to

il

(1.) The more distinctive future—In modern Canarese this con-

stitutes the second form of the future, in consequence of being less

used than the other.

It is formed by inserting ¢iy, or ‘i’ or ‘d;

(il

between the theme and the pronominal signs, and lengthening the

15

vowel which immediately follows this future particle, viz., the initial

L0

vowel of the pronoun; e.g., ‘méd-iy-énu,’ 7 will do, or, ‘nudi-d-énu,’ 7

11t

will say.

Jenb

In Telugu also, this future assumes a two-fold form, from the

€L

Iy

The

optional use of two inserted particles, corresponding to the ‘iy,” or

and ‘d’ of the Canarese.

One form inserts ‘¢’ between the theme

ates

and the pronominal terminations; e.g., ‘chés-é-nu,” 7 will do,; which

(5335

ol

¢’ is optionally changed to

1

in the third person neuter plural; e.g.,

¢ chés-i-ni,” they (neut.) will do.

The other form of the future, which

the

is still more rarely used, inserts ‘eda; e.g., ¢chés-eda-nu,’ 7 will do;

and

except in the third person singular, and the third person neuter plural,

in which ‘edi’ is used instead of ‘eda; e.g., ‘chés-edi-ni,’ they (neut.)

and

will do.

the

that

(2.) The aoristic future, or aorist.—Of this future also there are

several forms.

(Hive

1\

In Tamil, the most commonly used form of the future is that

Jy to

fhis

which inserts ‘v, ¢b,” or ¢pp, between the theme and the pronominal

signs; e.g., ‘ fey-v-én, I will do; ‘kan-b-én,” I will see; ‘nada-pp-én,’

x ﬂﬂd

1 will walk.

‘b’ appears to be the original form of this particle; for

ndo

on this supposition we can easily account both for ‘v’ and ¢pp.’

aid

In certain cases the initial consonant of the temporal particle, or

the particle itself, if composed of a single consonant, would require to

be doubled, e.g., after the vowels a’ and ‘i) and when the doubling

Dra

408

THE VERB.

186

of the tense sign is the method adopted for converting an intransitive

verb into a transitive.

In those cases we find ‘ pp ’ used as the sign of

the

the future instead of ‘v; e.g., ¢ valar-pp-én,” 7 will rear, is the future

the

transitive of ¢valar-v-én,” 7 will grow.

And we may hence conclude

il

that ‘b,” not ¢ v, was originally the sign of the future of the intran-

81

of

sitive, for ‘b’ when doubled becomes ‘pp’ by rule; and whilst it is

certain that ‘b’ will readily change into ‘v,” no instance of the change

fen

of ‘v’ into ‘b’ in Tamil can be adduced. Notwithstanding this, ‘b’

doe

is now used only after a final nasal; eg., tin-b-én, 7 will eat;

‘ en-b-én,” 7 will say.

thi

In consequence of ‘b’ invariably becoming ‘pp’ after the vowel

(18]

‘1 ‘pp’ is the sign of the future of all Tamil causals; e.g., ‘kattu-vi-

|

One

pp-én,’ 7 will buald.

In classical Tamil there is a future verbal participle or gerund, in

wh

‘van,” which when hardened becomes ppan; eg., ‘Sey-van,’ being

ver

about to do,; padi-ppan,’ being about to learn.

The principal element

of

In this is the future tense-sign ‘ v;’ and this participle in ¢van’ or

the

‘ppan,’ constitutes the sign of the infinitive in Malayilam; eg.,

‘iri-ppan,’ to be, ‘ urukku-van,’ ¢o dissolve.

488

The Tamil future formed from ‘v’ or ‘b, is destitute of a relative

10 §

i

participle, and uses instead the aorist future in ‘um.’

Generally also,

that aorist is used instead of the more distinctive future in the third

the

person singular neuter.

Thus, whilst e will be is ¢iru-pp-an,’ ¢ will

16

be is ordinarily ¢iru(kk)-um,” not ‘iru-pp-adu; and forms like

ass)

‘iru-pp-adu’ are in general used only as participial nouns.

In this

kS i S LR e

i

respect the Tamil is less regular than the Canarese, in which the

po

ordinary third person neuter singular of the future tense is ‘iru-v-adu.’

e,

The future is sometimes formed by the Tamil poets by adding ‘g

Iy

(or ‘kk’) to the root, instead of ‘b’ (or ‘pp’); e.g., “Seygén’ (for

the

I

‘seyvén’), L will do; ‘adeikkén’ (for ‘adeippén’), 7 will obtain.

hax

am inclined to think these forms identical in origin, for € g’ often

futy

changes into ‘v.’

Whi

Another future formation of the Tamil may be called the defective

(ch

aoristic future, inasmuch as its reference to future time is still less

the

distinct and determinate than the future in °v,” and as it is restricted

Dag

to two forms, the third person singular neuter, and the relative par-

Wit

ticiple.

This defective future is formed by suffixing ‘um

to the

)

The future in ‘um’ is not

formed theme ; ‘erud-um, @t will write.

considered by Tamil grammarians as distinct from, and independent of,

the future in ¢ v; but is strangely enough considered as a part of it.

fory

Its claim, however, to be regarded as a distinet future formation is

18y

confirmed by the Malayalam, in which it is the only future in ordinary

apl

THE FUTURE

TENSE.

409

lvé

use; e.g., ‘fijan erut-um, 7 will write, ‘ni erut-um, thow wilt write;

1of

the other form corresponding to the Tamil future in ¢ v, being used in

1re

the poetry alone.

In the Tamil of prose and conversation the future

ude

in ‘um’ is used in connexion with the neuter of the third person

an:

singular alone; but in the poetry it occasionally takes a wider range

t1s

of application, and is sometimes construed even with the masculine-

nge

feminine plural, as in Malayalam.

(b’

The future in < um, when used in Tamil as a relative participle,

fat;

does not differ from the form of the same future which is used as the

third person singular neuter.

The forms are identical ; e.g., ‘pog-um,’

)\Vt?l

it will go, € pég-um, which will go; they may therefore be regarded as

V1

one.

‘um’ is added, not to the crude root of the verb, or that form

| in

which is used as the imperative, but to the formed theme, or that

el

verbal noun which forms the basis of the infinitive, and the equivalent

nent

of which constitutes in Telugu the inflexional basis of every part of

or

the verb.

The base to which the future ‘um’ is suffixed, may safely be

e:gl’

assumed to be a verbal noun, even in Tamil, though it rarely appears

Lti\'e

in a separate shape.

also,

The following instances will show the relation subsisting between

hird

the Tamil infinitive and the aoristic, impersonal future, in virtue of

the formation of both on the basis of the formed verbal theme, or

will

like

assumed verbal noun, in question :—compare pog-a,’ fo go, ¢ pég-um,’ it

this

will go, inflexional theme ‘pé-gu:’ “pokk-a,” to cause to go, to get rid of,

¢ pokk-um,’ @t will get rid of; inflexional theme ¢ po-kku:’ irukk-a, ¢o

the

adu

be, < irukk-um,’ vt will be, inflexional theme ¢iru-kku.’

In those cases

in which intransitive verbs are converted into transitives by doubling

the initial consonant of the tense-sign (e.g., ¢ valar-gir-én, 7 grow,

(for

i

hardened into ¢ valar-kkir-én,’ 7 rear), the infinitive and the aoristic

often

future of the transitive verb are formed upon the basis of a theme

which terminates in the formative ‘kk-u’ (the equivalent of which is

“ch-u’ in Telugu), whilst the unformed theme, or ultimate root, is

epli\’e

Jess

the basis of the corresponding forms of the intransitive; e.g., com-

pare ¢ valar-a,’ to grow, ¢valar-um, ¢ will grow, theme ¢ valar,

icted

with ¢ valar-kk-a,’ ¢o rear, °valar-kk-um, < will 7rear; theme

pﬁl

) t[le

‘valar-kku.’

It is evident from a comparison of these illustrations that the above

g ]lot

¢g’ or ‘k’ is no part of the sign of future time; it belongs to the

nt of

1t

formative, not to the future ; the infinitive as well as the aoristic future

is built upon it; and the Telugu formative which corresponds to it has

on iS

a place in every part of the verb.

nay

&

#

410

TIHHE VERB.

fhat

The fature in ‘um’ is altogether impersonal, no pronominal termi-

nations are ever added to it, and in consequence it is well adapted to

(ans

be used as a relative participle, the relative participles being used alike

Q071

by all persons, numbers, and genders.

The particle ‘um’ which constitutes the sign of future time, is

with

identical in form, and is also, I believe, identical in origin and force,

gran

with “um,’ the conjunctive or copulative particle of the Tamil.

It is

a0t

also identical with ‘nu,’ the impersonal suffix of the third person

pror

singular and plural of each gender of the Telugu aorist, a tense which

sing

perfectly corresponds with the one now under consideration.

‘nu’is

3 J

i

a conjunctive particle in Telugu also; and it is probable that this

Deaon

will

particle has been chosen, both in Tamil and in Telugu, to be the

characteristic sign of the aorist, because of its suitableness to express

the

T

the idea of continuity. This tense, it is true, frequently denotes the

witl;

future; but it is much more frequently used to express continuous

.‘iﬁ

action, or what is habitually dcne.

Thus, “mad-u pul tin(n)-um,

e,

of tl

Tam., is to be translated, not the ow will eat grass, but the ox eats (i.e.

habitually eats) grass, or grass s the ox’s food.

When the relative participle of this aoristic future, coupled to a

L

noun signifying time, is followed by a finite preterite verb, the future

100§

in Tamil takes the sense of the imperfect; e.g., ‘nin var-um porudu,

Is

porei (k)kandén,” when I was coming (literally when I shall come), I saw

18 1¢

the battle.

In respect of this capacity of the aoristic future for becom:

Louy

ing a historical preterite, it resembles the future tense of the Semitic

witl

Lat

languages.

The High Tamil (and also the Telugu) often uses the formed

B R e e e

verh

theme or verbal noun referred to, without the addition of um,” as an

wid

C0ng

aorist; e.g., ¢ parapp-u,’ instead of ¢ parapp-um,’ it will spread, or which

will spread. This form is rarely used except by the poets, and is even

Som

more distinctively an aorist than the aorist future in <um.’

The

)

(‘-Iose

final “u’ does not belong to the particle ‘um, but is the ordinary

euphonic, enunciative < u,” and accordingly is often elided.

or

The Canarese, with which the Tulu agrees, forms its ordinary

aly]

future by inserting ¢ v’ between the theme and the pronominal termi-

and

nations, in accordance with the first Tamil future, viz., that in ‘v.’

be g

Like it, this Canarese future has often an indeterminate, aoristic sense;

and

but it is more regular than the Tamil, inasmuch as it never changes

Dart

N

9

into ‘b’ or ‘pp, in the modern dialect, but uses ‘v’ as the

665715

invariable sign of future time.

It is not obliged also, like the Tamil,

[

to borrow its third person singular neuter from another formation, but

tion.

forms it, like the other persons, by means of ‘v; eg., ¢irn-v-adu,

they

will be; and it has also a relative participle of its own; e.g., ‘balu-v-a,

Varg

THE FUTURE TENSE.

411

oI-

that will live; compare ‘4gipa, Ancient Canarese, that will become,

ted to

(answering to the modern ¢ Ag-iruva’).

alike

The Telugu tense which corresponds to the Tamil and Canarese

aoristic futures is still more distinctively an aorist than they, though

e, 18

with an inclination in general to the idea of futurity. By English

force,

grammarians this tense is commonly called, not ¢ the future,” but ¢the

aorist.’

It is formed by inserting ‘du’ between the theme and the

It1s

pronominal terminations; with the exception of the third person

JErS0n

which

singular and plural, in which ‘nu’ alone, the equivalent of the Tamil

o' s

‘um, is added to the theme.

Compare the Tam. ‘ag-um,” it will

b this

become, it will be, with the Telugu aorist ‘avu-nu, (e, she, it, they, &c.)

will become.

e the

Probably the Tel. aoristic formative “du’ is allied to ‘tu,’

the particle of present time.

xpress

s the

The Gond makes use of ‘ k’ as the sign of the future, in connexion

with the first and second persons of the verb; e.g., wunki-k-a,” 7 will

nuous

speak. Compare the ‘g’ or ‘kk’ which is sometimes used as the sign

J-um,

)(lt

of the future by the High Tamil.

toa

A ffinities of the sign of the future.—The most characteristic and

most extensively used sign of the future in the Dravidian tongues,

uture

is evidently the ‘v’ or ‘b’ of the Tamil, Canarese, and Tulu.

It

rudu,

¢

[ saw

is remarkable that in Bengali also, the sign of future time is

v, pro-

nounced ‘b ; and this Bengali ‘b’ has been connected by Max Miller

eeon

with the ‘b’ or ‘bo’ which forms the most characteristic sign of the

pNIIC

Latin future, and which is considered to be a relic of an old substantive

verb. The ¢d’ of the Dravidian preterite has been proved to have so

med

a8 all

wide a range of affinities both in Europe and Asia, that it cannot be

considered improbable that the Drévidian futuric ‘b’ also possesses

uv]“r]l

some ulterior Indo-Euaropean affinities.

gven

The

As in the case of the sign of the preterite, it will be found that the

closest analogies are those of the Ugrian languages.

In Finnish, ‘wa’

inary

or ‘va’ is the sign of the future participle which is used as an

auxiliary in the formation of the future tense; e.g., ‘ole-wa,” about to be:

inary

and the sign of the future infinitive is ¢ wan; e.g., ¢ ole-wan,” to be, to

prml

be about to be; with which we may compare the Tamil future gerund,

‘v

and Malayéla infinitive in ¢ van.’

In the Hungarian, the future

Genses

participle is formed by suffixing ‘v6;" e.g., ‘1é-v6’ (Finnish ¢ole-wa’),

anges

being or about to be.

g the

4. Compound tenses.—It is unnecessary to enter into an investiga-

Fﬂm]];

tion of the Dravidian compound tenses, inasmuch as in all the dialects

)y

hot

they are formed in the simplest possible manner, by suffixing the

o, 1t

various tenses of the substantive verb to the verbal participles of active

-4

412

THE VERB.

verbs.

Thus, doing I was will represent the imperfect (also doing 7

came); doing-keeping (i.c., keeping a doing) I was, a more continnative

e

it

imperfect ; having done I am, the perfect ; having done I was, the plu-

perfect; having done 1 shall be, the future perfect.

the

A vast number of auxiliary verbs are used in all the Dravidian

ced

bel«

dialects, in conjunction with infinitives and verbal participles, for the

purpose of expressing compound ideas; but as the use of those auxiliaries

bio

pertains rather to the idiom or syntax of the language than to the

the

W

grammatical structure, and is sufficiently explained in the ordinary

grammars, it would be out of place to inquire into them here.

i

&,

it |

RELATIVE PARTIOIPLES.—It is a remarkable peeuliarity of the

Dravidian languages, that they bhave no relative pronouns whatever,

ver

and that the place of the relative pronoun is supplied by a part of the

wh

Ul

verb which is called ‘the relative participle,” a participle which is

invariably followed by a noun, and preceded by the words or phrases

w

that depend upon the relative.

18

The vernaculars of Northern India have relative pronouns derived

4,

from the Sanscrit relatives ¢ yah,” ‘ya,’ ¢ yad,” who, which; but of those

plo

pronouns they make little use, probably through an under-current of

1

Dravidian, or at least of Pre-Sanscrit influences. In those languages a

sentence which contains a relative is ordinarily divided into two

0on

members; and the demonstrative pronoun which forms the nominative

fon

ticr

of the second member of the sentence, is used instead of a relative.

Thus instead of saying, the man who came yesterday has come again to-

el

day, they would prefer to say, a man came yesterday, he is come again

I

to-day.

The Dravidian languages sometimes make use of a similar

1ey

idiom, but only in the hurry of conversation. They are not obliged to

have recourse to any such arrangement, the signification of the relative,

Tar

together with that of the definite article, being contained in, and

Tely

distinctly expressed by, the relative participle of the verb.

Thus they

dy

would say in Tamil, ‘vanda-al,’ the person who came, literally the-who-

Cay

came person.

In like manner instead of ¢vanda,” the preterite, they

0f {

might use the present relative participle; e.g., ¢ varugira al,” the-who-

i

€]

is coming person, or the future ¢ varum 4al,” the-who-will-come person.

fom

The name given to the relative participle by Tamil grammarians,

F

is, {

is ‘peyr echam,” noun-defect, or noun-complement, i.e., a word which

(%7)

requires the complement of a noun to complete its signification.

This

uh

name is given to it because it participates so largely in the nature of

an adjective, that it is invariably followed by a noun, to which it

Pre

stands in the relation of a relative, and which it connects with the

e,

antecedent clauses.

in\’a

THE RELATIVE

PARTICIPLE.

413

ing |

Like other Dravidian adjectives, it undergoes no alteration on

lative

account of the number or gender of the related noun; but inasmuch as

e plu

it is a verb as well as an adjective (¢.c., a participle participating in

the nature of both parts of speech), it is capable of governing a pre-

ndian

ceding noun, equally with any other part of the verb to which it

or the

belongs; e.g., ‘nilleil erudina pulavan,” Tam., the poet who wrote the

liaries

book, literally the-who-the-book-wrote poet; ¢kéttil tirigira yauei,” Tam.,

0 the

the elephant that wanders in the jungle, literally the-ﬁz‘hat-in-tl&e-j@mgle-

wanders elephant.

linary

The relative suffix most largely used in the Dravidian languages is

“a,” which is appended to the verbal participle or gerund, to convert

of the

it into a relative participle.

Thus, in Tamil, the (assnmed) present

tever,

verbal participle of ‘uru,’ to plough, i

“uru-gir,” ploughing; from

of the

which, by suffixing ¢a,

is formed the present relative participle

ioh 18

‘urugir-a, that ploughs.

The preterite verbal participle of the

9

hrases

same verb is ‘uru-d-u,

having ploughed, (of which the final ‘u

is merely enunciative,) from which, by the addition of the same

14

erived

a,

is formed the preterite relative participle °uru-d-a,’ ¢that

‘those

ploughed.

3

When the preterite verbal participle ends, not in ¢d-u,” but in ¢ i

b

nt of

‘n’ (alternating with ‘y’), is euphonically inserted between the

1ges &

concurrent vowels ‘i’ and ‘aj eg., from ‘erud-i, having written, is

) tWo

formed ¢ erud-i-(n)-a,’ or ‘erud-i-(y)-a, that wrote.

In all these par-

native

The future

afive.

ticulars, the Malayalam perfectly agrees with the Tamil

relative participle of the Tamil is not formed from *a,” but terminates

fin fo-

in ‘um,’ being identical with the aoristic future third person singular

g

neuter.

imilar

The Canarese has in this point the advantage not only of the

ged t0

ative,

Tamil, but of all the other dialects; inasmuch as it forms its future

relative participle also by suflixing ‘a; eg., < midu-v-a,’ which will

, and

do

On the other hand, the relative participle of the present tense in

¢ they

g-il,']lf)-

Canarese is defective, being formed by means of the relative participle

of the future, used as an auxiliary: e.g., ¢ bal-utt-iruva,” which lives,

) they

literally which will be living.

The preterite relative participle is

g-w/t()‘

formed, like that of the Tamil, by suffixing ‘a;’ the only difference

Il

b

is, that between the final ‘i

of the verbal participle and the relative

rians;

Whlch

‘a, d’ is inserted euphonically instead of ‘n; eg., ‘mad-i-(d)-a,’

which did, from ‘mad-i, kaving done.

This

The Telugu agrees with the Tamil in forming its present and

e of

ioh it

preterite relative participles by suffixing ‘a,’ and in inserting ‘n’

between the 1’ in which the preterite verbal participle of that dialect

h the

invariably ends, and the relative ‘a; e.g., from ‘avu-tunnu,’ becoming,

414

THE VERB.

is formed ‘avu-tunn-a,” ¢hat becomes; and from ‘ay-i, having become,

£XI18

is formed ¢ay-i-(n)-a,” that became.

of t

and

The suffix of the relative participle of the negative voice of the

verb is ‘a’ in Tamil, Malayilam, and Canarese, in Telugu it is

lang

2

verl

£ny

Ma

It is now evident that ‘a’ may be regarded as the characteristic

relative suffix of the Drévidian languages.

The only exceptions are

“ni

S5

‘ni,’ the negative relative suffix of the Telugu; the suffix of the

aoristic future relative in several of the dialects, viz., ‘ni’ in Ku,

the

2

‘um’ in Tamil, and ‘edu, ‘edi,’ “é

or ‘éti’ in Telugu; and “ti’

prec

Wil

1 ‘

the sign of the preterite relative participle in Tulu and Ku.

Not only are the greater number of relative participles formed by

el

suffixing ¢a,’ but, as was observed in the section on ¢ The Noun,

hawi

Ultimate

most Dravidian adjectives also receive the same suffix.

nouns of quality or relation are capable of being used as adjectives,

rela

without any change or addition; e.g., ‘sir-u, small, ‘per-u, great;

appe

but more commonly these nouns are converted into quasi relative

of 1

participles, and rendered thereby more convenient for use as adjec-

]

tives; e.g., ‘sir-i-(y)-a,” small, ‘per-i-(y)-a,’” great.

The preterite

relative participles of regular verbs are also frequently used as adjec-

‘gen,h

a

tives; e.g., ‘uyvar-nd-a,” high, literally that was high ; ¢ tar-nd-a,’ low,

tic;al

Case,

literally that was low.

Tamil adjectives like per-i-(y)-a,” agree so

exactly with preterite relative participles like °pann-i-(y)-a’ (for

will

¢ pann-i-(n)-a’), which made, that they may safely be regarded as

preterite relative participles in form, though unconnected with the

whi

preterite or any other tense in signification.

teat

Another class of Tamil adjectives receive the suffix of the future

8lve

or aorist relative participle, ¢.e., ‘um,” which is suffixed like ¢i-(y)-a’

part;

to the crude noun of quality; e.g., ¢ per-um, great, ‘pas-um,” green.

of ¢

There is no difference in meaning between these two classes of adjec-

parti

tival formatives, the use of the one rather than the other being deter-

of )

mined solely by euphony or usage; but on the whole ‘um’ is con-

01}y

sidered more elegant than ‘i-(y)-a.’

Pond

langy

Origin of the relative suffixes—The Tamil aorist or future suffix

1

‘um, has already been shown to be identical with the conjunctive

ony

or copulative particle.

I regard all the other relative suffixes as

ang

originally signs of the inflexion, or possessive case signs, express-

U8g ¢

ing the signification of endowed with, possessed of, having, which has,

&e

]&ngl

gllag;

In the older Scythian languages, a relative participle is used, as in

lag }

the Dravidian languages, instead of a relative pronoun; and the

thoug

THE

RELATIVE

PARTICIPLE.

415

e,

existence of a family likeness in so remarkable a particular is a proof

of the existence of a family relationship between the Scythian group

f the

and the Dravidian.

The particle which is suffixed in the Scythian

1t 18

languages for the purpose of forming a relative participle out.of a

verbal participle, is identical with the sign of the possessive case.

In

Tistic

Manchu this particle is ‘ngge’ or ‘ninge’ (corresponding to the Turkish

1§ are

‘ning’); in Mongolian ¢ don’ or ‘ton: and the addition of this pos-

f the

sessive case-sign converts the verbal participle (i.e., the theme with

1 Ku,

the tense-sign attached) into a verbal adjective or relative participle,

| ‘i

precisely as in Tamil or Canarese.

Thus in Manchu, from ¢aracha,’

written, which is the verbal participle of ¢ara,’ to write, is formed the

d by

relative participle ‘aracha-ngge,’ whick wrote, literally the-written-

Voun,

having.

imate

The language of the Scythian tablets of Behistun has also a

tives,

relative suffix, ‘pi,” answering to the Mongolian ‘ki,’ which is

g/reat f

appended, as in the Dravidian languages, to the theme in the formation

lative

of relative participles.

Looking at the analogy of the Scythian languages, and at the

adjec-

torite

genius of the Drévidian languages themselves, I have no doubt that

9

(a7

which forms the most common Dravidian relative suffix, is iden-

adjec

tical with ‘a,” the oldest and most characteristic sign of the possessive

L; Zﬁ‘ll’v

e 80

case. The other particles also which are used as suffixes of the relative

will be found to have a similar nature.

’ (for

od 28

Though the sign of the relative participle in Ku differs from that

which prevails in the other dialects, yet ‘ni,’ the sign of the aorist

b the

relative participle, is identical with the sign of the inflexion or posses-

sive case, which is also ‘ni.’

future

‘ni,’ the sign of the negative relative

L]

participle in Telugu, appears to bear the same relation to ‘ni,’ a sign

(v}

of the Telugn inflexion.

‘ti, the sign of the preterite relative

gl'ééﬂ'.

participle, both in Tulu and in Ku, is the most commonly used sign

adjec-

of the inflexion in Telugu; and the various suffixes of the Telugu

deter-

g (00

aorist relative participle are apparently adjectival formatives, corres-

ponding in origin to ti,” the sign of the neuter inflexion in the same

language.

quffis

Though the use of a relative participle, instead of a relative pro-

noun, is characteristic of the Scythian tongues; yet both the Turkish

petive

The

and the Finnish languages possess a relative pronoun as well.

7{65 a8

use of such a pronoun is foreign to the grammatical structure of those

{pl'eSS‘

languages, and has evidently been borrowed from the usage of lan-

It is certain that the Turkish

guages of the Indo-European stock.

has been much influenced by the Persian; and the Oriental Turkish,

7&5 in

though it has borrowed from the Persian a relative pronoun, rarely

d the

416

THE VERB.

uses it, and ordinarily substitutes for it a suffixed particle of its own,

A

in a genuine Scythian manner.

of

n

Formation of Moods.

Tel

whi

The investigation of the structure of the Dravidian verb may now

Jess

be considered as completed ; for in each dialect of the family the verb

par

has, properly speaking, only oue mood, the indicative ; and the forms

i

which correspond to the conditional, the imperative, and the infinitive

forr

moods of other languages, are verbal nouns or compounds, rather than

wil

moods.

Nevertheless it is desirable, at this point, to inquire into the

alx

manner in which those moods are formed.

but

&Hy

(1.) The conditional or subjunctive.—In most of the Indo-Kuropean

i

languages, and even in the Turkish and Finnish, the subjunctive is a

Can

regularly conjugated mood, distinct from the indicative, with pro-

verl

nominal terminations of i1ts own.

In the Dravidian languages the

01T

subjunctive is formed by simply postfixing to different parts of the

and

verb, either a particle corresponding in meaning to ‘sz’ or ¢f, or the

(it

conditional forms of the substantive verb, which includes the same

tqu

particle, and which signifies if it be.

Different particles are used for

this purpose in the different dialects, and they are not in each dialect

if

|

suffixed to the same part of the verb; but the principle on which

oom

they are suffixed, and the use to which they are put, are the same in

plea

all

as !

In Canarese the conditional particle is ‘re,” which is derived pro-

bably from ¢ir-u,” the theme of the verb fo be: it is appended to the

tenit

b0

relative participle of the preterite, and that participle being inper-

sonal, the condition applies, without change of form, to all persons,

[ ey

Peth

numbers, genders, and times; e.g., ‘méadida,’ tkat did, on receiving

the

this suffix becomes ‘madida-re,” if (I, thou, he, she, they, &ec.) do, did,

or shall do.

Person, number, and gender are expressed by the pre-

8y

The use

!

fixed pronoun, and time by the subsequent finite verb.

of the relative participle—a form which always requires a noun to

dinle

ticle

complete its signification—shows that ‘re

is regarded as a noun, and

fixeg

that a closer rendering of the construction would be in the event of

(my, your, &c ) doing, more literally in the event that (I, you, &e.)

COII]F

{ ﬂyi t

have done (so and so).

The most essential and ancient form of the Telugu conditional

an g

¢

mn

tel‘it{

consists in annexing

or ‘ina’ to the ultimate conjugational

base; e.g., ¢ chlch-in,” of (I, thou, he, &c.) should see.

This “in’ is

Irope

<

evidently identical with the

mn

which is used for the same purpose

of‘a

I

=5

THE CONDITIONAL.

417

0w,

and in the same manner in Tamil; and as the Tamil ‘in’ is a sign

<

of the ablative or locative, signifying in the event, so must the Telugu

i’ or ‘ni’ be identical in origin with the ‘na’ or ‘ni’ which the

Telugu uses as a locative.

In Telugu the various conditional particles

which are in ordinary use are parts of the substantive verb, more or

now

less regular in form, each of which is used to signify if it be.

The

verh

forms

particle which is commonly used for this purpose in the higher dialeet

is ‘é-ni,” the conditional form of the verb ‘avu,’ to be or become, a

itive

form which corresponds to the High Tamil ¢Aj-in,” and means, as

than

will be seen, in being, i.e., in the event of being. This particle or

o the

auxiliary, ¢é-ni,” is appended not to the verbal or relative participle,

but to the personal terminations of the verb.

It may be appended to

any tense, as to any person; but whatever tense it is attached to, the

opean

time of that tense is rendered aoristic, and is determined, as in

eI5 4

Canarese, by the context, especially by the tense of the succeeding

L 1)1’0-

verb. The manner in which ¢éni’ is post-fixed in Telugu exactly

s the

f the

corresponds to the use that is made of ¢4gil’ or ‘4nal’ in Tamil,

and of “4yin’ in High Tamil; e.g., ¢ chésitin’-éni, o 7 did or do

1 the

(lLiterally df it be (that) I did), and ¢ chésitim’éni, f we did or do, are

same

equivalent to the Tamil ‘&ejdén-ayin,” if I did, and *§ejdom-4jin,’

od for

of we did.

alect

In the colloquial dialect of the Telugu the conditional particle

which

commonly used is simply &, which is suffixed, not to any tense at

me i

pleasure like ¢é-ni,’ but only to the preterite; and is not appended,

as ‘é-ni’ is, to the personal termination, but to the root of the pre-

| pro-

terite, or as I conceive it to be, the old preterite verbal participle;

to the

e.g., ‘chésit-&,” or rather ¢chést-&, of (7, thou, he, &c.) did or do.

impet-

I consider this ‘€’ to be either the particle of emphasis, or rather

18018,

perhaps an abbreviation of ¢ é-ni,’ the ¢

(S

A

¢ A?

* of which alone represents

oiving

the substantive verb.

e

is equivalent to “avu’ or ‘ayi,’ and ‘ni,

)y fhd,

9

as will be seen, is a locative case-sign, equivalent to the Tamil in.

[} pl‘e‘

Another mode of expressing the conditional mood in the colloquial

o USe

dialect of the Telugu agrees with the Canarese in this, that the par-

Dﬂn tO

ticles are suffixed to the relative participle.

The particles thus suf-

l, aﬂd

fixed are ‘att-ayité’ and att-Ayend; the first part of both which

at of

compounds, ‘att-u,” is a particle of relation meaning so as, as if.

! )

“ayité’ (‘ayit-’) is the orvdinary conditional of ‘avu,’ o be, being

an emphasised form of ©ayi-ti, the impersonal preterite, or old pre-

ition&l

terite verbal participle of ‘avu.’

‘ayena, is emphasised from ‘ayenu,’

fional

properly ‘ayenu,” it was, the third person of the preterite tense

in, iS

of ‘avu.

urpos?

In Tamil, the most ancient and characteristic mode of forming

2B

418

THE

VERDB

jl&sor

pa

the conditional mood “is by suffixing the locative case signs

in,” to the formed verbal theme, s.¢., that assumed verbal noun which

3l

118

forms the basis of the infinitive and the aoristic defective future

mn

Thus, from the formed theme ¢ pég-u,’ going, is formed the infinitive

pog-a,’ to go, and ‘pég-um,’ wt will go

and from the same base by

ohe

il

the addition of the locative, ¢il’ or in,” is formed the conditional

From ¢var-

coming, 18

Cor

pog-il

Pog-1m

of (I, thou, &c.) go

;%

formed

var-a, Infinitive, to come

¢ yar-um

it will come; and also

o

w

var-il’ or ¢var-in, ¢f (I, &c.) come

In like manner, from

ag-u,

ag-um,

it will

don

being, is formed the infinitive ¢ag-a,” to become or be

be,; and also ‘A4g-il,” if (£, &ec.) be

4g-in’ (the equivalent of ‘4g-il’),

1l

has been softened into ‘aj-in; and this is identical in origin and

he

SltOl

meaning with the Telugu ¢é-ni’ (‘for ‘avu-m ) referred to above,

and is subjoined to the pelson'ﬂ terminations of verbs in the same

sha

manner as

¢ e-n1

This conditional

1l on

‘In

is undoubtedly

g

identical with €il’ or ¢in,” the Tamil sign of the ablative of motion,

which is properly a sign of the locative, signifying in, at, or on; and

(A

of this ‘in,’ the Telugu equivalent, in accordance with dialectic laws

(Z

\")

mg

is “ni,” which is also occasionally used as a locativ

This being the case, the signification of ¢ag-il

or ‘ay-in,

18

pa

evidently in being, i.e., in the event oj being; and this is equivalent to

Defy

Hence ¢ 4g-il,

the phrase of ¢ be.

¢4y-in, and ‘é&-ni, are well suited

perf

to be used as conditional auxﬂlaues, and &ppended to the various

we

sl e

personal terminations of verbs.

m

The second mode of forming the conditional in Tamil, consists 1n

find

the use of the above-mentioned conditional forms of the substantiv

ang

verb, viz., ‘ag-il’ and ¢Ay-in’ (and also a commoner form

an-al’)

9.,

as auxiliaries to other verbs; and when thus used, they are post-fixed

den

[4

S

to any person of any tense: e.g.,

like the corresponding Telugu

verh,

Seydén-agil, if it be that [ did, or if I did, literally in the (event

but

of its) being (that) 1 did

Seyven-agil, of I shall do, literally in the

g

a’

(event of 1ts) being (that) I shall do

This mode of forming the Tamil conditional, though not confined

high

1t

18

to the classics, is but rarely used in the colloquial dialect

)EI‘\O

chiefly used in elegant prose compositions

Juye

A third form of expressing the sense of a conditional mood in

4 [

Tamil is by appending the particle or noun ‘kal’ to the past relative

8¢

seyda-(k)kal, if (I, &ec.) do or did

‘uvari olitta-

participle; e.g.,

the I

(k)kal, if the sea should .roar

The conditional form which is

form

most commonly used by the vulgar, is a corruption of this, viz

or even

¢eydakki; and the Ku conditional also is

seydakka,

I\al’

formed by appending ‘kka

‘kal’ being appended to a relativ

fon

i

THE CONDI TIONAL.

419

or

participle, it is evidently to be considered as a noun; and it may

hich

either be the crude Sanscrit derivative ‘kil’ (for ‘kal-am’), time,

ture

used adverbially to signify when, a use to which it is sometimes put

1tive

in Tamil; or, less probably, the pure old Dravidian word ‘kal,’ a

eby

channel, a means.

The literal meaning, therefore, of ¢&ejda-(k)kal’

1002

will be, when (I) do or did, a form which will readily take from the

Iy 1§

context a conditional force ; e.g., in the following Tamil stanza,— When

180

you have done (“seyda-(k)kal’) @ good action to any one, say not, < when

ag: 11,

will that good action be returned ?’—it is evident that when you have

tuill

W

done is equivalent to if you have done.

The signification of when is

ril'),

still more clearly brought out by the use of ‘kil’ in connexion with

and

the future relative participle; e.g., ‘Sej(y)ung-kal, if (ke, they, &c.)

hove

should do, literally when (they) shall do, or in the time when (they)

same

shall do.

This mode of expressing the conditional mood is exceed-

tedly

ingly common in the Tamil poets.

tion,

The fourth Tamil mode of forming the conditional is by suffixing

and

“al’ to the abbreviated preterite relative participle, e.g., ‘§eyd-al) f

[aw

)

(Z, &ec.) do.

If we looked only at examples like ¢g&eyd-al, we

might naturally suppose ¢4l” to be suffixed to the preterite werbal

2

n, 1

participle (¢ &eyd-u’), the final ‘u

of which is regularly elided

before a vowel ; and this form of the conditional would then

nb 10

qited

perfectly agree with the second Telugu mode, e.g., ¢chést-é

If

arions

we look, however, at the class of verbs which form their preterite

in “i,” and their preterite relative participle in ‘n-a,’ we shall

sfs 1

find that ¢Al” is added to the relative, not to the verbal participle,

and that the two vowels (‘a

and 4’) are incorporated into one;

antive

)

e.g., the conditional of ¢4g-u,” to be, is not ‘Aag-i-al,” but ‘4an-al, evi-

Besides, the

‘/.ﬁXed)

dently from ¢&n-a’ (‘4g-i-(n)-a’), that was, and €al’

verbal participle must be followed by a verb or some verbal form ;

A

(eveni

but ‘41’ is a noun, and therefore the participle to which it is suffixed

must be a relative participle, not a verbal one.

In colloquial Tamil,

in e

“al’ is suffixed to impersonal forms of the verb alone; but in the

higher dialect €&l or its equivalent ‘é&l,” may be suffixed to any

)Ilﬁﬂed

person of any tense; e.g., ¢ Seydanei-(y)-el, if thow hast done; °Sey-

it 8

guvén-él,’ if I shall do.

It is also suffixed to the relative participle,

as I conceive ‘4l’ is in the ordinary dialect; e.g., ¢$eygindra-(v)-al,

100d iﬂ

¢Seyda-(v)-al, of (I, thou, &ec.) should do.

This ‘&eyda-(v)-al’ of

the High Tamil illustrates the origin of the more common colloquial

olifta-

form ¢g&eyd-al.

ich i8

This conditional particle ‘4l’ has been corrupted, I conceive, from

(Y

)

¢kal’ the particle already mentioned, and is not, I think, to be con-

350 8

cal’ is

founded with €al, the sign of the instrumental case in Tamil.

gltif?

2.0 .2

420

THE VERDB.

rarely used as a sign of the conditional in the higher dialect, in which

I

‘kal’ is generally preferred.

fl

to

One form of the conditional mood is expressed by if (e.g., if I do);

another is expressed by though, or although (e.g., though I do, or

th

though I have done).

This second form of the conditional is generally

g

expressed in the Dravidian languages by suffixing the conjunctive

al

particle to one of the conditional particles already referred to.

Thus,

40

in Tamil, ‘éeyd-al’ signifies ¢f (I, &ec.) do; whilst ‘Sejd-al-um’

il

signifies though (I, &e.) do.

‘um,” the conjunctive or copulative

particle, having the sense of even, as well as that of and, the literal

ul

meaning of this phrase is even ¢of (1) do.

The same particle ‘um’ is

II

suffixed to the preterite verbal participle to bring out a preterite

for

signification ; e.g., ‘Seyd’-um,’ though (I, &ec.) did, literally even having

tly

done.

Ta

In the superior dialect of the Telugu the conjunctive particle ¢ yu’

of

(answering to the Tamil ‘um’) is appended to the conditional par-

the

ticle, when the reference is to the present time, and to the preterite

(L(

relative participle (in that case ‘nu’ is substituted for ¢ yu’) when

the

past time is referred to.

(Ul

The Canarese adds ‘ri’ and ‘Agyu’ to the relative participle,

Pt

when the conditional sense is that of although.

‘ri’ 18 ‘re, with

the copulative ‘1’ annexed; and ‘Agyu’ is ‘Agi, having been, with

and

the addition of the same ‘1,’ like the Tam. ¢ AnAl-um.’

Con

tak

2. The imperative.—In the Dravidian languages the second person

imp

singular of the imperative is generally identical with the root or

theme of the verb.

verl

This is so frequently the case, that it may be

pers

regarded as a characteristic rule of the language.

Dort

In a few instances in Tamil there is a slight difference between

but

the imperative and the verbal theme; but those instances scarcely

I8

constitute even an apparent exception to the general rule, for the

difference is caused not by the addition of any particle to the root, for

$poi]

un

3

the purpose of forming the imperative, but merely by the softening

away of the formative suffix or the final consonant of the theme, for

Sign)

of i

the sake of euphony; e.g., ‘var-u,” to come, takes for its imperative

']

¢va,” Tel,, ‘ra; the plural (or honorific singular) of which is in High

the \

Tamil ¢ vammin,” in Telugu ‘rammu.’

It has been seen that there is a class of Tamil verbs which form

Samg

their transitives by doubling the initial consonant of the sign of tense.

time;

~0]

Such verbs also, however, use the simple unformed theme as their

imperative, and, in so far as that mood is concerned, make no distine-

81y

Wi[h(

tion, except in their connexion and force, between transitives and

Iy

THE IMPERATIVE.

421

ch

intransitives.

Thus, ‘ked-u,” is either spoil or be spoiled, according to

the connexion, whilst every other part of the verb takes a form suited

0);

to its signification; e.g., the infinitive of the intransitive is ‘ked-a,’

or

that of the transitive ‘kedukk-a.” The Telugu, on the other hand,

lly

generally makes a distinction between the imperative of the transitive

Ve

and that of the intransitive; e.g., whilst the intransitive be spoiled, is

115,

¢ chedu,’ the transitive is not also ¢ chedu,” but ‘cheruchu’ (for ¢che-

Ji}

duchu ’), a form which would be ‘kedukku’ in Tamil.

1ve

A large number of Telugu verbs use as their verbal theme, not the

il

ultimate root, but a species of verbal noun ending in ‘chu,” ‘pu,’ or

18

‘mpu

This accounts for the presence of ¢chu,” which is in itself a

1ite

formative, in the imperative ‘cheruchu,’ and not only in the impera-

i

tive, but through all the moods and tenses of the Telugu verb. The

Tamil uses the equivalent verbal noun (ending in ¢ kku’) as the base

yll

of its transitive infinitive, and of the third person singular neuter of

par

the future or aorist of its transitive; e.g., ‘kedukk-a,’ to spoil, and

nite

‘kedukk-um,’ ¢t will spoil; but in every other part of the verb it uses

hen

the root alone (including only the inseparable formative, if there be

Hence it is easler to ascertain the

one) as its inflexional theme.

ple,

primitive, true root of a verb in Tamil than in Telugu.

with

The ascertained use of a species of verbal noun as the imperative

yith

and inflexional basis of certain classes of Telugu verbs, leads to the

conclusion that every Dravidian imperative, whatever form it may

take, is to be considered as a verbal noun.

The crude root is the

1501

imperative in Tamil; and yet that even the Tamil imperative is a

f Or

verbal noun appears from this, that the pronoun which the second

person plural of that imperative employs, is not the nominative, or any

y e

portion of the nominative, of the Tamil pronoun of the second person,

ween

but the oblique case or genitive, viz., that form of the pronoun which

‘1'ce1y

is used in construction with nouns; e.g., ‘ked-um,” spoil ye, or be ye

¢ the

spoiled, is formed by suffixing to the verbal theme, not nir,” you, but

t, for

‘um,” your,—a proof that the imperative in Tamil has the grammatical

ening

significance of a verbal noun, and that it is the context and the energy

of its enunciation that constitute it an imperative.

[ fOl’

afive

The particle ‘mu’ or ‘mi,’ is often added to the inflexional base of

the verb, or verbal theme, to form the imperative in Telugu.

The

I]O‘h

same practice obtains in the Ku; and even in Tamil ‘mé’ is some-

1

il

times suffixed to the singular of the imperative and ‘min’ to the plural,

—only, however, in the classical dialect.

In Telugu, nevertheless,

tense

et

as in Tamil, the verbal theme is more commonly used as the imperative

without the addition of any such particle ; and it seems probable that

jstinc

g ﬂﬂd

‘mu’ or ‘mi,” the only remaining relic of some lost root, is added as

422

THE VERB.

b,

an intensitive or precative, like the Tamil ‘én; eg., ‘virum-én,’ Ok

do come.

kke

“andi,” which is added to the root in Telugu, to form the

oy

second person plural of the imperative, is the vocative of an obsolete

U

noun, Sirs (sometimes used honorifically to mean Sir); it is probably

lar

identical with ¢andar,” an honorific plural suffix of the Canarese (e.g.,

Riu ol

of

‘av-andar-u,’ they), and the other signs of the same part of the verb

[

10

in Telugu (“di,” ‘udi,’ and ‘udu’ or ‘du’), are evidently abbreviations

1se

of ¢andi.’

a1

‘min’ (also ‘minir’), the particle occasionally used to form the

the

plural of the imperative in classical Tamil, is perhaps only a metamor-

Db

phosed pronoun, and equivalent to ‘nim,” the oblique case of the old

‘nim,” yow,; and probably €in,” the suffix of the imperative plural in

tive

Malayalam, has been softened from ‘min.’

wit

3. The infinitive.—It has been customary in Dravidian grammars,

tha

tru

especially in the Telugu, to call various verbal nouns infinitives ; as ‘tke

mfinibive wn ‘uta,’

2?9

and ¢the infinitive vn

16|

“the infinitive in ‘adam-u,

€éd1.’”

This use of terms is not sufficiently discriminative ; for though

18 i

Infi

each of those forms may be used with the force of a guast infinitive in

cha

certain connexions, yet the two first are properly verbal nouns, and

the third is a participial noun: each is capable of being regularly

Lay

Dih

declined, and each possesses a plural.

The Tel. ¢padu-ta,’” is identical

Com

with the Tamil ‘padu-dal, suffering,; whilst the infinitive proper, to

suffer, is in both languages ‘pad-a.

I have no doubt that the true

tha

infinitive was originally a verbal noun also, and this origin of the

my

Dréavidian infinitive will, I think, be proved in the sequel; but the

usus loquendi of grammatical nomenclature requires that the term

may

infinitive should be restricted to those verbal nouns which have ceased

thel

0y

to be declined, which are destitute of a plural, and which are capable

of being used absolutely.

ﬂ]io

Both in Tamil and in Telugu an infinitive in ‘u’ is occasionally

Wl

whi

used : it is identical with the root in Telugu and with the conjuga-

tional theme in Tamil; and therefore seems to be rather a verbal

fivy

noun used absolutely than a formed infinitive.

fror

The Malayala infinitive ‘vAn’ or ‘ppén,” is properly a future

Ty

gerund, and is used as such in High Tamil.

W he

o

The true Drayidian infinitive is generally formed by suffixing ‘a’

the

to the verbal theme.

This is invariably the mode in which the infi-

Suel

nitive is formed in Telugu; e.g., € chéy-a,” to do.

Ordinarily in Tamil

1ng]

and Canarese the infinitive is formed in the same manner; but a

verbal noun is also much used in Canarese as an infinitive, with the

ang

dative case-sign understood or expressed; e.g., instead of ‘mad-a,’ to

po

A_

E——

2

dad €

THE INFiN ITIVE.

do, they prefer saying ¢ méd-al-ke’ (in the modern dialect ¢ mad-ali-

Ok

kke’), for doing, or (without the case-sign) ‘mad-al’ or ‘méad-alu,’

the

doing or to do.

Similar constructive infinitives are occasionally used

Jete

in classical Tamil also, instead of the true infinitive in ‘a; eg., ¢ $ol-

bly

larku’ (‘éollal-ku’), for saying, and follal, saying, with the sign

&5

of the dative understood, instead of ‘8oll-a,’ to say. There is also

erh

another infinitive, or honorific imperative in € ga,” which is occasionally

T

used in classical Tamil; e.g., ¢ari-ga,” to krnow, or mayest (thow) know,

a form which will be inquired into presently.

Notwithstanding

the

these apparent exceptions, ‘a’ is to be considered as the regular

101

Drévidian sign of the infinitive.

old

Professor Max Miiller, noticing that the majority of Tamil infini-

|

tives terminate in ¢ ka, supposes this ‘ka’ to be identical in origin

with ‘ku,’ the dative-accusative case-sign of the Hindi, and concludes

It is

that the Dravidian infinitive is the accusative of a verbal noun.

Jars,

true that the Sanscrit infinitive and Latin supine in ‘tum’ is cor-

‘the

rectly regarded as an accusative, and that our English infinitive to do,

e 1

is the dative of a verbal noun; it is also true that the Dravidian

ough

infinitive is a verbal noun in origin, and never altogether loses that

e 1

character ; nevertheless, the supposition that the final ‘ka’ of most

and

T'amil infinitives is in any manner connected with ‘ku;’ the sign of the

larly

2

Dravidian dative and of the Hindi dative-accusative, is erroneous.

tical

comparison of various classes of verbs and of the varions dialects shows

o1, 10

that the ‘ka’ in question proceeds from a totally different origin.

108

The Tamil infinitive terminates in ¢ ga’ (‘ g-a’) only in those cases

f the

in which the verbal theme ends in a formative ‘gu’ (g-u’) ; and in

t the

many instances in which g’ appears in the infinitive (as in the verbal

tert

theme) in the ordinary dialect, ¢ v’ replaces it in the poets : e.g. ‘noga,’

eased

to be pained, is not so much used by the classics as ‘néva.’ ‘ppa’ is

Pa])le

also used in the higher dialect instead of ‘kkaj e.g., ‘madappa,’ fo

These interchanges of the formative consonant,

walk, for ‘ nadakka.’

nally

which is the termination of the verbal theme, and to which the infini-

jug

tival “a’ is added, are in perfect agreement with the Telugu ; and

;el‘bill

from both it is apparent that ‘a’ alone is the sign of the infinitive.

9

Tamil verbs ending in the formative ‘g-u

are intransitives; and

ufure

when they are converted into transitives, the formative is doubled for

the purpose of denoting the increased intensity of signitication. In

i3 ‘J)

such cases the formative ¢ g-u’ is converted into ‘kk-u;’ and accord-

o

g infl,

ingly the infinitive of all such verbs ends in ‘ kk-a.’

Tﬂmﬂ

Thus, the verb ¢ pé,” to go, takes ¢ gu’ for its intransitive formative,

bu[’, b

and hence its verbal theme is ¢ po-gu; from which is formed the acrist

th the

‘pog-um,’ @ will go, the verbal noun ° pog-al,’ going, and the infinitive

PR

i

424

THE VERB.

‘ pog-a, to go.

The corresponding transitive verb is ¢ pé-kku,” to drive

1t

away (‘gu’ being converted into ‘ kku’) ; and from this is formed in

i

a

like manner ¢pokk-um, ¢ will drive away, and also the infinitive

‘pokk-a,’ to drive away.

In some instances the intransitive shape of

be

the verb has no formative ; and when it is converted into a transitive,

101

the initial consonant of the tense-sign is hardened and doubled : <.e.,

th

‘gir’ becomes ‘kkir, ‘d’ or ‘nd’ becomes ‘tt, and ‘v’ or‘b’ be-

que

In such instances the verbal theme on which the infinitive

s

eomes ‘ pp.’

is constructed takes the doubled formative, ‘kk-u: e.g., compare

(‘76

‘valar-a,’ to grow, with ¢valar-kk-a,” to rear.

This formative, ‘kk’

)

oM

however, appears not only in the infinitive but also in the aorist

‘valar-kk-um,’ 4t will rear.

A very large number of Tamil verbs,

we

including many transitives, have no formative termination whatever ;

Th

Wi

and the infinitive of such verbs is formed by simply suffixing ‘a’ to

the root ; e.g., ‘ var-a,” to flourish, and ‘kan-a,’ to see.

In the event of

be

the root of a verb of this class ending in ‘i’ or ‘ei,” ‘y’ is inserted

and

between the root and the sign of the infinitive ; e.g., ‘ari-(y)-a, fto

Ma

know ; ‘adei-(y)-a, to obtain.

This ‘y,” however, is clearly euphonic.

Mal

When an intransitive root is converted into a transitive by annexing

]Zﬁ

‘tt-u’ to the root, e.g., ‘tAr-tt-u,” fo lower, the infinitive simply elides

15 ]

the euphonic ‘u’ and suffixes ‘a ; e.g., ¢ tar-tt-a.’

From a comparison of these instances, it appears indubitably certain

nf

that ‘a’ alone is the normal suffix of the Tamil infinitive, and that the

fory

‘g’ or ‘kk’ which so often appears, belongs to the formative of the

ver

verbal theme, not to any supposititious case-sign.

of ¢

What then is the origin of the infinitival suffix ¢ga,” which is

conr

occasionally used in classical Tamil; eg., ‘ari-ga,’ to know, instead of

the

the ordinary ¢amri-(y)-a,’ and ‘8ey-ga, to do, instead of ey (y)-a?’

the

This form is chiefly used as an optative, or as conveying a wish or

Clat]

It does not

polite command; e.g., ‘ni ari-ga, mayest thouw know!

Suff

follow, however, from this, that it would be correct to regard it as a

Tap

form of the imperative originally ; for the ordinary infinitive in ‘a’ is

Rppe

often used by the poets in the same manner, and not unfrequently even

fomy

by the peasants.

lecth

I am persuaded that the ‘g’ of ‘ga’ is simply the usual formative

s

‘g’ or ‘g-u’ of verbal nouns, and that its use is primarily euphonie.

infly

The same formative ‘g’ is found to be used in connexion with other

tige

parts also of the very verbs which are given as examples of this rule.

nfg

Thus, not only is ‘ari-ga,” o know, used instead of ‘ari-(y)-a, but

Cony

‘ari-g-il-ir, you know not, instead of ¢ ari-(y)-il-ir,” or ‘ari-(y)-ir; and

Moy

just as ‘Sey-ga, to do, is used instead of ‘Sej(¥)-a,” so we find

I

¢ éey-gu-v-én,” I will do, instead of ‘Sey-v-én.’

The ‘g’ which makes

i“Ste;

&

THE INFINITIVE.

425

e

its appearance in these instances, is in its origin the formative ‘g-u,” as

I

appears by the second example; but it is used rather for euphony than

five

any other cause.

It is also to be noticed, that the formative ‘gu’ may

6 of

be appended to any verbal root whatever, as a fulerum to the inflex-

Ive,

ional forms, provided only that the euphony is improved by it, or that

Uty

the prosody requires it.

This view of the origin of the ‘ga’ in

be

question, is conformed by the evidence of the Malayalam, for in that

itive

dialect ¢ ga’ is the formative of verbal nouns, answering to the Tamil

‘gei; e.g., ‘wariga, a coming,; and yet the very same form is used as

pal'e

Kk’

a polite imperative; e.g., ‘ni wariga’ (Tam. ¢ varuga’), mayest thou

orist

come! Here we see not only a verbal noun used as an imperative, but

erbs,

we see the infinitive of one dialect treated as a verbal noun in another.

ver

The Tamil verbal noun which directly answers to the Malayala

10

‘ wariga, @ coming, is ‘ varugei; and ¢ varuga’ in Tamil has ceased to

f

0t

[ 01

be used as a verbal noun, and been restricted to the use of an infinitive

orted

and imperative; but it is evident from the identity of both with the

3,; fo

Malayala ¢wariga,’ that both are verbal nouns in origin.

The

onlc,

Malayala € wariga’ is regularly declined ; e.g, ¢ wariga-(y)-al, through

xing

the coming.

We thus come back to the conclusion, that ¢a, not ¢ ga,,’

is the true infinitival suffix of the Tamil.

ides

On examining the Telugu we shall find that the only sign of the

3.1‘tiiiﬂ

infinitive which is recognised by that language is ‘a.’

The various

formatives which, as we have seen, are inserted between the Tamil

i the

f the

verbal root and the suffixes of the infinitive, form in Telugu part

of the verbal theme itself, and are found not only in one or two

connexions, but in every mood and tense of the verb, including

ich 18

ad of

the imperative.

In Telugu, therefore, the only difference between

the imperative and the infinitive is, that the latter elides the enun-

!

ish or

ciative ‘u’ of the former, and substitutes for it its own distinctive

sufix ‘a.’

5 nob

Thus, whilst the imperative of the verb ¢o open, is in

Tamil ‘tira,’ and the infinitive ‘tira-kk-a; the formative ‘kk ’ which

j s

‘a,’iS

appears in the Tamil infinitive, and which might be supposed to

form part of the infinitival suffix, appears in Telugu (in its dia-

/ even

lectically softened form of ‘ch’), not only in the infinitive, but

ﬁative

also in the imperative and throughout the verb ; e.g., ‘tera-ch-a,

infinitive, fo open,; ‘tera-ch-u,’ imperative, open thouw.

At the same

Jonic

] othe I

time, the Telugu sign of the dative case ‘ku’ or ‘ki’ is never softened

into ‘ch’ in any connexion ; consequently, there is no possibility of

s vule:

connecting the Telugu sign of the infinitive with that of the dative.

.a” bub

') and

Moreover, the formative ‘ch’ is often replaced, especially in the

imperative and infinitive, by ‘p; eg., ‘nadu-p-a,’ infinitive, to walk,

0 ﬁud

mukC‘S

instead of ‘nadu-ch-a,” corresponding to the Tamil ‘nada-kk-a,’ of

1

426

THE VERB.

Hence, it cannot be

fre

which the imperative and theme is ‘nada.’

doubted, that the Tamil ¢ g’ and ‘kk,” and the corresponding Telugu

be

“cl’ and ¢p,” alternating (after ‘i’) with ‘nch’ and ‘mp,” are merely

formatives, without any special connexion with the suffix of the

th

infinitive, which is ‘a’ alone.

il

In most instances in Canarese the formatives referred to above are

fo

discarded altogether, and the ¢a’ which constitutes the sign of the

infinitive is suffixed to the crude verbal root.

Thus, whilst the verb

th

pr

“ir-u,” to be, takes ‘iru-kk-a’ for its infinitive in Tamil, the simple?

Canarese infinitive is ‘ir-a.’

C0]

inf

Origin of the infinitival sufix ‘a’— 1 conceive that ‘al’ was

originally the sign of the infinitive in all the Dravidian dialects, and

)

that ‘a’ is a weakened form of ‘al’

Several analogies may be

to

adduced which render the softening of al’ into ‘a,” not only possible,

‘b

but probable.

It has been shown that a,’ the verbal sign of negation,

“ti

The

is probably derived from ‘al,’ the ordinary negative particle.

following analogy is more decisive.

Much use is made in Tamil of a

verbal or participial noun ending in ‘dal;’ e.g., ‘alei-dal,’ ¢ wandering,

vid

from ‘alei,’ to wander; ¢ muri-dal, @ breaking, from ‘muri,” to break.

a8

In Canarese the final ‘1’ of those and similar verbal nouns has

lan

systematically disappeared; eg., ‘ale-ta,; a wandering, ‘muri-ta,’ «

to

breaking.

Dy

The Telugu also has softened away the final <1’ of the same class

oy

of words; e.g., compare the Tamil ‘ méy-(t)tal, pasturage, with the

m

corresponding Telugu ‘mé-ta; ‘ché-ta,” Tel., an act, with ¢gey-dal,

dll

Tam. ; and ‘nada-ta,” Tel., walk, conduct, with ¢nada-(t)tal, Tam.

g

Even in Tamil also, ¢nada-(t)tei’ alternates with ¢ nada-(t)tal.’

ady

It bas already been stated that the verbal noun in ‘al, with or

fof

without the dative case-sign, is used instead of the infinitive in ‘a’ in

|

nif

both dialects of the Canarese and in classical Tamil.

In Gond also,

Opt

the sign of the infinitive is € alle;’ ampliﬁed from ‘al; e.g., ‘aille,’ ¢o

il

be, which is evidently identical with the Tamil verbal noun, ¢agal,

f

being—a form occasionally used in the higher dialect as an infinitive.

ll'llp

Now, as the Dravidian infinitive undoubtedly partakes of the character

se)

of a participial or verbal noun, and is considered by native gram-

beey

marians as a verbal participle or gerund of the present or aorist tense;

ki

as it is certain that it is intimately associated with a verbal noun in

Tay

¢al,” one of the most characteristic in the language, and which denotes

Vid

not the abstract idea of the verb, but the act; and as ‘al’ in other

hug

connexions has been softened into ‘a,” we seem to be justified in coming

0rg

to the conclusion that ¢a, the infinitival suflix, has been weakened

gy

THE INFINITIVE.

427

e

from ‘al and, consequently, that ‘4g-a,” to be, is identical with ‘4g-al,;

ugu

being.

rely

A parallel instance of the softening away of the final consonant of

the

the infinitive appears in the Indo-European tongues.

The sign of the

infinitive is in Persian and Gothic ‘an,” but in Frisian ‘a; e.g., ‘mak-a,’

) are

to make.

the

The present infinitive of the Finnish is apparently identical with

verb

the Dravidian, being also in ‘a; eg., ‘oll-a’ to be; but it appears

IIET

probable that this ‘a

was originally preceded by a nasal, for the

correspouding Esthonian infinitive is ‘olle-ma,” and the sign of the

infinitive in Hungarian is ¢ ni.’

Was

On the supposition that the Dravidian infinitive terminated origi-

and

nally in ‘I, there is a remarkable, but probably accidental, resemblance

| be

to it in the Armenian, in which ‘1’ is the infinitival suflix; e.g.s

ible,

¢ ber-e-l, to carry (compare Tam. ¢por-al,’ bearing or to bear);

fi

o,

“ta-l,” ¢o give (compare Tam. ‘ta(r)-al,” giving or to give).

Tl

16

| ofa

Use of the infinitive.—1If we look at the force and use of the Dra-

i,

vidian infinitive, we shall discover conclusive reasons for regarding it

peal

as a verbal or participial noun.

It is not only used as in other

b

128

languages to denote a purpose or end, e.g., ¢ var-a (§)Sollu,” tell (him)

, 4

to come, but also in the following connexions.

(i.) The majority of

Dravidian adverbs are infinitives of neuter verbs; e.g., he knocked

class

down, would be in Telugu ¢ pada gottenu,” in Tamil ¢vira (t)tallinan ;

|

the

in which phrases down means to fall, i.e., so as to fall.

Through the

dal,

same idiom ¢ Ag-a,” the infinitive of the verb ¢o become (in Tel. < k4, or

Tam.

¢gh’), is ordinarily added to nouns of quality to convert them into

adverbs ; e.g., ‘nandr’-aga,” Tam. well, from ¢ nandr-u,” good, and ‘ ag-a,’

th or

to become. (ii.) The infinitive is elegantly used with an imperative sig-

a’in

nification (in accordance with the Hebrew idiom), or rather as an

optative, seeing that it conveys a wish rather than a command; e.g.,

{1150»

‘ni var-a

(more frequently ¢vér-ga’), mayest thouw flourish!

The

le, fo

ﬁgnj;

infinitive of the verb to be, also regularly forms an optative, or polite

tive:

imperative, by being annexed to the future tense of any verb; e.g.,

¢ seyvay-aga, mayest thow do, from ‘Seyvay, thou wilt do, and ¢ Aga,’ to

racter

become, literally, may it be (that) thow wilt do.

(iii.) It is used as a

gram-

onse

kind of ablative absolute; e.g., ‘porudu vidind’ irukk-a, én tingugiray,’

un ill

Tam., the sun having arisen, why sleepest thou?

In this instance,

‘vidind’ irukk-a,’ (literally ¢o be—having arisen,) is in the perfect tense,

Jn{)tes

but ¢irukk-a’ is not a preterite infinitive, but is the ordinary present

other

or aorist infinitive of the verb ¢ir-u,” fo be.

The infinitive used in this

ming

kcHC‘.1

manner is styled a verbal noun in Malayalam, and is capable of being

428

THE VERB.

101

regularly declined, which proves that it is a noun. The Malayalam

prefers to use as an infinitive ¢ van,” which is properly a gerund of the

il

(a

future; but some of the uses to which it puts its verbal noun in ¢ ga,’

‘ka,” or ‘kka, show that that verbal is identical with the Tamil

tho

infinitive ; e.g., ‘ellawarum kélkka,’ Mal., (Tam. ‘ellarum kétka,’) in

cip

the audience of all is literally so as that all should hear, or, whilst all

Jur

were hearing.

(iv.) A series of infinitives is often elegantly used,

1101

somewhat as in Latin, to express minor actions that take place

pal

contemporaneously with the principal action; e.g., they would say in

to

Tamil ‘mugil erumba’ (whilst the clouds were rising), ¢ vanam irul-a’

(whilst the sky was gathering blackness), < marei porindu pey(j)-a’

bei

(whilst the rain was falling abundantly), ‘Grar tiru-vird nadattinirgal’

ukl

(the villagers celebrated their sacred festival).

(v.) The reduplication of

any infinitive expresses exactly the force of the Latin gerund in ‘do

e.g., - pog-a pog-a, balan kollum, ‘wires acquirit eundo,” more closely,

tha

as it goes—as it goes (literally to go—to go) it gathers strength.

These illustrations prove that the Dravidian infinitive has the force

par

151

of a gerund or verbal participle, or of a verbal noun, as well as that of

the infinitive properly so called. The examples adduced are all from

of ¢

the Tamil, but parallel examples could easily be adduced from each of

par

the other dialects.

itde

I by

Formation of Verbal Nouns.

dist

the

Dravidian verbal nouns divide themselves into two classes, viz.—

participial nouns, which are formed from the relative participle, and

exc

am

verbal nouns of each tense and retaining the time of the tense to which

Ong

they belong, which are always formed directly from the theme, and

are determinate in point of time.

tive.

86y

1. Participial mouns.— The greater number of nouns of this class

g

are formed by suffixing the demonstrative pronouns, or their termi-

g

nations, to the present and preterite relative participles; e.g., from

how

‘feygira,’ that does (the present relative participle of ‘&ey, to do), is

regu

formed ‘Seygira-(v)-an,” ke that does; ‘seygira-(v)-al, she that does, &ec.

ﬁpm

In like manner from the past relative participle ‘&ejda, that did, is

time

formed ‘$eyda-(v)-an,’ ke that did ; ‘seyda-(v)-al,’ she that did, &e.; and

the {

by simply adding the appropriate terminations, participial nouns of

the }

any number or gender (but always of the third person only) may be made

fory

at pleasure. A similar series of future participial nouns exists, or may

the

be constructed if required ; e.g., ¢ 6duvan,’ ke who will read, or is accus-

loyy

tomed to read.

The Tamil future in v’ or ‘b’ is destitute of a rela-

Not

tive participle ; but its existence is implied in that of future participial

g (

VERBAL NOUNS.

429

alam

nouns, like ¢pdva-du,’ that which will go, and ‘kanba-(v)-an,” ke who

f

the

will see, and must have ended like the future relative participle of the

&

Canarese, in ‘ va,” ‘ba,” or ‘ppa.’

The Tamil aoristic future in ‘um,’

[amil

though a relative participle as well as a future tense, forms no parti-

) 1

cipial nouns, probably in consequence of ‘um’ being in reality a con-

st all

junctive particle, not a true suffix of relation.

Negative participial

used

nouns of each number and gender are formed exactly like the affirmative

place

participial nouvns, by suffixing the various demonstrative terminations

Ay 10

to the negative, instead of the affirmative, relative participle.

-4

These participial nouns are declined like other nouns; nevertheless,

j)a

being parts of the verbs, they have the same power of governing nouns

freal

as the verbs to which they belong; e.g., ‘vittei (k) kattinavan-

jon of

ukku,’ ¢o him who built the house.

In these respects all the Dravidian dialects are so perfectly agreed

“do;

o3¢

that it is needless to multiply quotations.

There is a peculiarity about the words which are used as neuter

01¢6

participial nouns in Tamil which requires to be noticed. Each of them

;

hat

of

is used in three different significations, viz.—as the third person neuter

of the verb, as a neuter relative-participial noun, and as a verbal-

| from

ach of

participial noun.

Thus, ‘&eygiradu’ in the first connexion means

it does ; 1 the second, that which does; in the third, the doing or to do.

I have termed it in the third connexion ¢a verbal-participial noun,” to

distinguish it from the ordinary verbal nouns, which are formed from

the theme, not from participles, and from which the idea of time is

vin—

excluded.

I

It is a verbal noun in use, though participial in origin.

p, and

am persuaded that of these three senses the original and most correct

) Whi(:h

one is the last, viz., that of the verbal-participial noun ; for the rela-

16, and

tive-participial noun ought by analogy to be ‘seygira-(v)-adu,” not

‘Seygir-adu ;’ and whilst it is certain that a participial or verbal noun

s class

might easily be used as the third person neuter of the verb, in accord-

ance with the analogy of many other languages, it is difficult to see

feri

how the third person neuter of the verb could come to be used so

; from

regularly as it is as a verbal-participial noun,

This species of parti-

| do), i

cipial noun, though neuter or without personality, includes the idea of

Oes‘ &C.

did,

time : it has three forms, in accordance with the present, the past, and

the future tenses of the verb ; eg., ‘§eygiradu,” the doing; ‘Sejdadu,’

0 ad

Each of these

the having done ; and ‘Seyvadu,’ the being about to do.

ouns of

forms may be pluralised, as far as usage permits, when it is used as

p made

the third person neuter of the verb, or as a relative-participial

or may

noun ; but when used abstractly as a verbal-participial noun it is

g qoetls”

not pluralised.

The participial noun formed from the future is

10 1'913‘

one of the most commonly used forms of the verbal noun in Canarese,

riiﬁiPi"ll

VR

430

THE VERB.

1

e ‘i\liyu-v—adu,’ or ‘ilivu-du,” the act of descending, from €ili, to

descend.

a1

Words of this kind have sometimes been called infinitives ; and it

is true that they may generally be rendered in the infinitive on trans-

fl

fn

lating them into English, e.g., ‘appadi seyjgiradu sari (y) alla,” Tam.,

it s not right to do so.

But this is simply because the English infini-

U

tive itself is sometimes used as a verbal noun, and ¢o do is equivalent

Ir

to the participial noun, the doing. The phrase might be more closely

Verbal nouns of this class

rendered, the doing thus (is) not right.

i

ka

become more allied to infinitives when they are put in the dative ; 6.1,

‘seygiradu-kku,” for the doing, i.c., to do.

As the pronoun ‘adu’

Wi

becomes optionally ‘adan, so the participial noun ‘Sejgiradu’ may

an

become ‘seygiradan.’

This change, however, is exceedingly rare

except in the dative ; and in that connexion ‘§ejgiradan-ku,” euphoni-

an

cally ‘&eygiradar-ku,” is more common in written compositions than

Wo

‘seygiradu-kku.’

i

The Tamil alone possesses an abstract relative-participial noun, ex-

i

pressing in the form of a declinable participle, the abstract idea denoted

Vo

by the verb.

It is formed by appending ‘mei,” the suffix of abstracts,

S

to the present or preterite relative participle of any verb: e.g., from

In]

‘irukkindr-a,” that 7s (the present relative participle of ¢iru,’ o be),

by the addition of ¢mei’ Tamilians form “irukkindra-mei,” being.

i

The use of this form is confined to classical compositions ; but the

ver

abstract derivative nouns which are formed by annexing ‘mei’ to the

lite

crude verbal theme (e.g., ‘poru-mei, patience, from ‘poru,’ to bear)

lge

are much used even in the colloquial dialect.

The relative-participial

thog

noun in ‘mei, whilst it is declined like a uoun, has the governing

it

power of a verb ; but the corresponding verbal derivative in ‘ mei’ has

al

the force of a substantive only.

for

The Tamil suffix ‘mei’ is ‘me’ in Canavese, ‘mi’ in Telugu. In

tive

several of the Scythian tongues we find a suffix used which bears a

fory

considerable resemblance to this.

The suffix of the participial noun

! na@

in Finnish is ‘ma’ or ‘mA :

in Esthonian ‘ma’ is the suffix of the

stan

infinitive : supines are formed in Finnish by suffixing ‘man :’ the

gt

Turkish infinitival suffix is ‘mak’ or ‘mek.’ Possibly we may also

also

compare with this Drividian ‘me’ or ‘mei,” the old Greek infinitive

g

in ¢ pev,” and such nouns as ¢ woly-pa, ¢ dec-po-s,” and ¢ oxio-un,’ each

tion

of which exhibits an old participial suffix.

byu

ang

2. Verbal nouns.—Dréavidian verbal nouns are indeterminate with

Clrey

respect to time, being formed, not from participles, but from the verbal

Verh

root or the formed theme ; but they express the act, not the abstract

tong;

VERBAL NOUNS.

431

fo

idea, of the verb to which they belong, and hence are called by Tamil

grammarians ¢ toril pejr,’ nouns of operation.

dit

Verbal nouns are carefully to be distinguished from verbal deriva-

WS

tives, or substantives derived from verbs.

The latter, though derived

I,

from verbs, are used merely as nouns; whereas the verbal noun,

fint

properly so called (like the participial noun), is construed as a verb.

lent

In several Dravidian grammars written by Europeans this distinction

sely

has not been attended to; and Tamil words like ‘nadei’ or ¢ nadappu,

class

walk, have been classed with verbal nouns like ‘nadakkei,” ¢nadak-

0.0y

kudal, and ‘nadakkal, walking.

Though, however, each of these

o

words may be translated walking, the first two are simply substantives;

may

and adjectives, not adverbs, must be used to qualify them; whereas

118

‘nadakkudal,’ the corresponding noun of operation,is a true verbal noun,

o0l

and is qualified by adverbs, precisely as the verb itself, ¢ nada,’ to walk,

than

would be.

Thus, we can say ‘nidi(y)4dy nadakkudal, acting or walk-

wng Justly ; but we could not use the adverb ¢nidi(y)ay’ to qualify

ex:

either ‘nadappu’ or ‘nadei.’

It would be necessary to qualify those

oted

words by the adjectival form °¢nidi(y)ina,” there being nearly the

acls,

same difference between ‘nadappu’ and ° na@akkudal’ that there is

in English between bekaviour and behaving.

from

A verbal noun in ‘gei’ or ‘kkei’ is often used in Tamil, e.g.,

) le),

et

“irukkei,” the being, Seygei, the doing ; but though this is used as a

verbal noun, e.g., “appadi irukkei-(y)-al,’ seeing that 4t is so, more

the

o the

literally ¢hrough its being so, yet the forms which are most commonly

used as verbals, and which have the best claim to that character, are

bear)

those which terminate in ‘al i’ e.g., ‘Sej(y)-al,” or ‘Sey-dal,’ doing ;

cipial

g

‘nadakk-al’ or ‘ nadakkudal,” walking. Whether the suffix appended be

“al’ or “dal,’ it is generally suffixed, not to the crude root, but to the

- has

formed verbal theme, i.e., to that which forms the basis of the infini-

Tn

tive and of the defective future or aorist: e.g., the verbal noun that is

formed from ‘ir-u,’ o be, is not ¢ir-al,’ but ¢ iru-kk-al,’ being ; and from

18 &

‘nad-a,’ to walk, is formed not ¢na-d-al,” but ‘nada-kk-al’

Notwith-

nout

f the

standing this, ‘al’ or ¢dal’ is sometimes added directly to the ulti-

mate base: e.g., not only have we ‘pédg-al’ or ‘ pogu-dal,’ going, but

* the

also ‘po-dal ;7 and not only ‘4g-al’ or ‘Agu-dal, becoming, but also

/ alSO

¢a-dal.

Probably, however, in these instances the right explana-

pitive

tion is, that the formative ‘g’ of ¢ po-gu’ and ‘4A-gu’ has been softened

' ach

by use.

The ¢d’ of “dal’ is clearly a formative of the same character

and force as the ‘g’ of “gei’ or ‘kkei;’ and this is proved by the

circumstance that the ¢d’ is doubled and converted into ‘tt > when the

; With

verb becomes a transitive instead of an intransitive, or when euphonic

vel‘bal

considerations require: e.g., comp. ‘kurei-dal,” intransitive, a being

>sh‘ﬂ0t

o

432

THE

VYERB.

fro

cw*tailed, with ¢ kurei-ttal,’ transititve, a curtailing. It is evident

COL

that this ‘d’ is unconnected with the ¢d’ which constitutes the sign

16

of the preterite tense of many verbs; for the verbal noun in ‘dal’ is

fon

as indeterminate with respect to time as thatin ‘al’ or that in ‘kkei;’

V0

and the corresponding Telugu forms are ‘ta’ and ‘dam-u;’ eg.,

son

‘chéyu-ta’ or ¢ chésu-ta,’ or more commonly ‘chéya-dam-u,” doing.

oD

The distinction which has been shown to exist between verbal

i

nouns, properly so called, and verbal derivatives, furnishes, I con-

ceive, some confirmation of the hypothesis that the infinitive in ‘a’

the

has been softened from al,” the Tamil suffix of verbal nouns.

it

fon

8. Verbal derivatives.—It is not my intention to enter fully into

e

the investigation of the formatives of werbal derivatives, or substantives

derived from verbs, most of those formatives being merely euphonie,

qua

it

and their number in the various dialects being very great.

It may be

desirable, however, to direct the reader’s attention to a few of the

al

more characteristic and interesting modes in which the Dravidian

of

languages form nouns of this class.

(1.) The first class of derivative nouns (if indeed it is correct

“nd

“nd

to consider them as derivatives) consists of those that are identical

with verbal themes ; e.g., compare ‘katt-u, a tie, and katt-u,’ ¢o ¢ie.

fror

bees

(2.) Some verbal themes become nouns by the doubling and

(o

hardening of the final consonant; e.g., ‘erutt-u,” @ letter, from ¢ erud-u,’

to write; patt-u,” a song, from ¢pad-u,’ to sing. This is especially a

V1

Tamil method of forming derivative nouns, for some of the corres-

ponding Telugu nouns are formed differently; and where they do

the

resemble the Tamil, the resemblance consists only in the hardening,

of {

(or

and not also in the doubling of the final consonant; e.g., ¢ pata,” Tel.,

a song, from ¢ pad-u,’” to stng. The Telugu differs also from the Tamil

and

e

in changing the final or enunciative ‘u’ of the verbal root into ‘a.’

Compare ‘ét-a, play (Tam. ‘att-u’), from ¢ad-u, to play.

The

uvi

Tamil mode of doubling, as well as hardening, the final consonant,

seems most in accordance with Dravidian analogy; for it is when a

ohj

sonant is doubled that it is naturally converted into a surd, and when

i

1t iy

it is not doubled, it should be pronounced as a sonant.

It is remarkable how many purposes are served by the doubling

Byl

of Dravidian final consonants.

(i.) Tt places substantives in an

El'll‘l

adjectival relation to succeeding substantives; (ii.) it converts intran-

iS U

sitive verbs into tramsitives; (iii.) it forms a sign of the preterite

di&h

tense; and (iv.) it forms derivative nouns from verbal themes.

(3.) A remarkable mode of forming derivatives is that of lengthen-

and

ing the included vowel of monosyllabic verbal roots: e.g., in Tamil,

fiat

Y

I —

sdEEEEE——

VERBAL DERIVATIVES

433

dent

from ¢pad-u, to suffer, comes pad-u,’ sufering; from ‘min,’ to glitter,

g

comes ‘min, a star.

Nor is this method found only in the classies :

5

it appears in words of the most familiar class; e.g., ¢ nikk-u,’ the

kel ;'

tongue, from ‘nakk-u,’ to lick.

The Tamil simply lengthens the root

vowel in forming derivatives of this class, and leaves the final con-

60,

sonant unchanged; but the Telugu and Canarese harden the final

ethal

congonant, in addition to lengthening the root vowel; e.g., from

~

<

ee

¢ pad-u,’ to suffer, they form not ‘pad-u,’ but ¢ pét-u,” suffering.

000

the section on ¢ Roots.’

e

(4.) Abstract nouns are formed from verbal themes by suffixing

The same suffix

‘mei; e.g., < tAr-mei,” humility, from ¢ tar,” to be low.

forms abstracts also from nouns of quality or relation and pronominals;

Info

e.g., peru-mei, greatness, from fper-u, great, and ¢tan-mei,’ nature,

tives

quality, from ©tan,’ wself, literally self-ness

This suffix is in Telugu

onic,

‘mi; e.g., ‘kali-mi,” wealth, from ‘kalu-gu,’ fo accrue.

Y he

(5.) Many nouns are formed from verbs in Tamil by suffixing

f the

¢am,” and at the same time doubling and hardening the final consonant

idian

of the verbal theme.

‘ng’ being the equivalent of ‘g’ ‘nd’ of ‘d;

rrect

‘nd’ of °d, and ‘mb’ of ‘b, ‘ng’ on being doubled becomes ‘kk,’

‘nd’ becomes ‘tt; ‘nd’ becomes ‘it and ‘mb’ becomes ‘pp;’ e.g.,

tical

from ¢ tlng-u, fo sleep, is formed ¢ tikk-am,’ sleep ; from ¢ tirund-u,’ fo

fo tie.

become correct, comes ©tirutt-am, @ correction; from ¢tond-u, to dig,

and

comes ‘tott-am, a- garden; and from ¢virumb-u,’ fo desire, comes

-1,

¢ yirupp-am,’ a desire.

lly &

In most instances the Telugu (and the Canarese always) rejects

ITES~

the final ‘m’ of nouns of this class; e.g., ¢ ting-a,” Tel., sleep, instead

Y do

of the Tamil ¢tikk-am.’

Though the final consonant, if ‘g’ “d, ‘b’

ing,

(or their equivalents), is always doubled before this ‘am’ in Tamil

Tel.,

and Malayalam, verbal themes which end in other consonants often

Jamil

become nouns by simply annexing ‘am; eg., ‘uyar-am,’ keight, from

)‘a.

<uyar,’ to be high; ‘Ar-am,’ depth, from ‘ar, fo be decp.

The

Possibly this ‘am’ is derived from the Old Canarese sign of the

)Il?lﬂt’

objective case.

‘am’ being in that dialect a sign of objectivity, it

en &

might naturally be used as a formative of abstract neuter nouns; and

when

it is certain that this would be in accordance with analogy, for this is

evidently the reason why the nominative singular of so many Indo-

ibling

European neuter nouns is formed by suffixing ‘am’ or ‘um, which

4

is properly the sign of the accusative.

ntral-

(6.) A vast number of verbal derivatives in all the Dréavidian

terite

dialects, are formed by suffixing to the verbal themes those favourite

and multifariously used formatives, ‘g, ¢d,” ‘b,” under various modi-

fications, and with various vowel terminations.

;theﬂ‘

2 F

—

—

———

s

434

THE VERB.

{ire

i. The ‘g’ formative becomes in Tamil ‘gei, e.g., $ey-gei, an

action, from < &ey, to do, it is nasalised to ‘ngei, e.g., ¢ ka-(ng)gei,’

“u(

SR

heat, from ‘kay, to burn; or is doubled and hardened into ¢kkei,’

(Tar

e.g., ¢ padu-kkei, @ bed, from ¢ pad-u,’ to lie.

The corresponding

g

Canarese formatives are ‘ke’ or ge, with not unfrequently the

chan

[3

1.

prefix of an euphonic

The Telugu nouns which take this for-

‘s

mative terminate in ‘ka’ or ‘ki; eg., ‘éli-ka, government, from

of fe

¢ él-u, to govern, and ¢ uni-ki,’ residence, from ¢ undu,’ to be, to dwell.

18 ¢

ii. The ¢d’ formative is in Tamil ‘di; e.g., ‘kedu-di,” ruin, from

ufl

¢ ked-u, Zo spoil : being doubled and hardened it becomes tti;’

refer

e.g., ‘unar-tti, sensibility, from ‘unar, to feel, to be sensible.

This

also

‘tt’ is generally softened into ‘chi; eg., pugar-chi’ (instead of

used

‘ pugar-tti *), praise, from ‘pugar, to praise.

This formative 1s ‘t’

“kay

instead of ‘d’ in Canarese and Telugu.

It appears in Canarese under

Sang

the forms of ‘ta’ and ‘te; eg., ‘hogal-te,” praise, from ‘hogal ’ (Tam.

o}

‘pugar’), to praise; ‘ kay-ta, producing fruit, from ‘kay, to fruit.

I

In Telugu we find ‘ta’ ‘or ‘ta’ and ‘ti; eg., ‘alafa-ta, fatigue,

spruy

from ‘alay-u’ (‘ala-u’) to be tired; °tin-ta,’ ecating, from ‘tin,’ to

S0me

eat

‘mi-ta,” a lid, from ‘mi-yu,’ fo shut; and ‘nadi-ti,) conduct,

diree

from ° nadu-chu,’ to walk.’

have

iil. The ‘b’ formative is in Tamil generally softened into ‘v, d.e.,

Ity 3

(4

Vi

or ‘vu; eg., ‘kél-vi, hearing, from ‘kél,” to hear, and ‘marei-

from

In some instances, how-

vu,

concealment, from ‘marei,’ to conceal.

(

ever, ‘b’ is euphonised into ‘mb’ (‘mbu’); e.g., ¢ vé-mbu,’ the Mar-

arg |

gosa tree, from ‘veé-y,” to be umbrageous; ‘pa-mbu, a snake, from

confe

¢ pA-y, to spring.

‘b’ cannot retain its proper sound before a vowel,

@ Py

and when single either becomes ‘v’ or ‘mb; and that the ¢vu’

hecay

which is so common a formative in each Dravidian dialect was

Tiatiy

softened from ¢bu,” appears from the circumstance that when it is

cu)

|

doubled it becomes ‘ppu;’ e.g., ‘nada-ppu,” @ walking,; ‘iru-ppu,’ @

thegs

betng ; ¢ mu-ppu,” old age.

In Telugu this formative is ‘vu,” “vi,’ or

pomnt

‘pu; e.g., ‘cha-vu, death, from °cha-chchu,’ to die (corresponding

appl

Tam. and Can. ‘§i-vu,” from “84°); °digu-vu, ¢the bottom, from

“dig-u, to descend; ‘teli-vi,” understanding, from ¢teli-yu,’ to know

(2

dey

¢ chéru-pu,” nearness, from ¢ chér-u,” to draw near; ¢ édu-pu,’ a weeping,

cly

from ¢édu-chu,” ¢o e¢ry (corresponding Tam. ¢ ara-ppu,’ from ‘ara’).

The Canarese uses in this connexion ‘va’ alone; eg., ‘ira-vu,’ a

kil

(3

being, corresponding to the Tamil ¢iru-ppu.’

oftey

that

4. Nouns of agency or operation.—The participial nouns of the

(]efect

Dravidian languages are largely used as nouns of agency; but such

nouns are also formed in each of the Dravidian dialects in a more

(4

DF&\]

NOUNS OF

AGENCY.

435

g

>

direct and primitive manner by suffixing ‘1’ to the verbal root; e.g.,

lgel,

‘an(n)-i’ (Tam. and Can.), an eater, from ‘un, fo eat; ‘kol(l)-i’

kkel,

(Tam. and Can.), a killer, from ‘kol, ¢o ill.

The Dravidian lan-

ding

guages in borrowing feminine derivative pouns from the Sanserit,

¢ A

9

y the

change the final

1

of the Sansecrit feminine into short ¢i;

eg.,

g for-

¢sunda-ri,” Sans., ¢ fair woman, becomes ¢ sundari.’

But this final ‘i’

from

of feminine derivatives, which is directly borrowed from the Sanserit,

I

is not to be confounded with the more distinctively Dravidian ¢i,’ by

from

suffixing which nouns of agency or operation are formed, without

‘i

reference to gender, whether masculine, feminine, or neuter. Tt is

This

9

also to be distinguished from the ‘i

which in Sanserit is sometimes

ad of

used as a suffix of noums of agency, gemerally masculines, e.g.,

is ‘4’

‘kav-i-s,” a poet, literally a speaker, in borrowing which from the

under

Sanserit, the Dravidian languages invariably reject the sign of the

(Tam.

nominative, and use the crude theme (e.g., ¢ kavi’) instead:

it

Possibly i, the Drividian suffix of nouns of agency, may have

e,

sprung from the same origin as the ‘i’ by which similar nouns are

in, 10

sometimes formed in Sanserit; but it is certain that it has not been

ndicty

directly borrowed from the Sanscrit, and it does not appear even to

have been introduced into the Drividian languages in imitation of it.

v; i,e.,

Its independence of a direct Sanserit origin will sufficiently appear

naRel-

from the following statement of the manner in which it is used.

)y how-

(1.) Dravidian nouns of agency which are formed by suffixing ‘i,

o Mor-

are destitute of gender: their gender depends entirely upon the

, from

context; e.g., ¢ panei-(y)-ér-i,” Tam., a Palmyra climber (from ¢ panei,’

VOW@L

a Palmyra, and ¢ ér-u,’ fto climb), may be considered as masculine,

0 (‘ru,

because men only are climbers of the palmyra; ‘man-vett-i,” Tam., a

i Was

native spade, a hoe (from ‘man,’ the ground, and ‘vett-u,” to dig or

3 it 18

cut), is in like manner neuter by the necessity of the case: but both

¢

these nouns, and all similar nouns, when regarded from a grammatical

i, OF

point of view, are destitute of gender in themselves, and may be

onding

applied at discretion to objects of any gender.

from

)

(2.) Nouns of agency may be formed in this manner from primitive,

] l[ TLO”-’I )'

underived nouns, as well as from verbal roots; eg., ¢ nir-kal-i, Tam.,

!lf/fp iﬁf/ ) :

a chair, literally that which has four feet, from ‘nal-u, four, and

.'Ma ’).

‘kal, a foot.

{"wl;" 0

(8.) When nouns of agency are formed from verbs, the suffix is

often added, not to the crude root, but to the conjugational theme, or

that form of the root which appears in the infinitive and in the

defective aorist; e.g., ‘ung-i, Tam. (as well as ‘ un(n)-i’), an eater.

ot suc

(4.) My chief reason for regarding this suffix as a true and ancient

9 mOI’e

Dravidian form, and as independent of the Sanserit, whatever may

LR 2

436

THE

VERB.

have been its ulterior relation to it, consists in the very extensive use

which is made of nouns of agency formed by means of this suffix, not

only in the Tamil classics, but also in the language of the peasantry.

It appears in the names of plants and animals, in the names of many

of the objects of nature, in old compounds, in proverbs, in nicknames,

in the very highest and in the very lowest connexions, and to a much

larger extent in all these varieties of use, than in Sanserit. The

following Tamil examples cannot be supposed to have been derived

from Sanscrit precedents :—¢kal(l)-1,” cactus, from kal,’ toddy, sweet

sap; < vel(l)-i, silver, from ‘vel to be white; ¢ puld, the cheetah, or

9

the sea, from ¢uvar,’ saltness;

leopard, from ‘pul, small; ¢uvar-i

“ar-i,) the sea, from ‘ér-u,’ to be deep. Compare also the following

compounds, ¢ vari-katt-i,) a guide, literally a way-shower ; ¢ vanam-

pad-i,’ the lark literally the heaven-singer ; ‘ tottal-vad-i, the sensitive

Tt

plant, literally if (one) touch, the witherer, or as we should prefer to

msol

say, touch-me-and-I-wither.

out I

Of gra

AvverBs.—It is unnecessary in a work of this kind to enter into

fallen

the investigation of the Drividian adverbs, for, properly speaking,

& com

the Dravidian languages have no adverbs at all: every word that is

used as an adverb in the Dravidian languages is either a verbal theme,

less )

and Ve

or the infinitive or gerund of a verb; and illustrations of the manner

in which those words acquire an adverbial force will be found in the

ad()pt {

overly

ordinary grammars of each of the Dravidian dialects.

the b

and (]

Tegar]

ducted;

and gt

Whig)

Drivig

With p

Burgp,

gtoup,

and g

Ve use

¥, not

antry.

- many

names,

a uch

. The

derived

SECTION VII.

!y, suect

il oF

———

altnes;

llowing

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

yanan-

sensifive

TuE comparison of the vocables of languages was often conducted

refer t0

in so loose and unscientific a manner, without definite principles, with-

out regard to dialectic changes, and to the neglect of the comparison

of grammatical forms and structure, that this branch of philology has

ter 1nto

fallen into indiscriminate and not undeserved disgrace.

I admit that

peakinr'

a comparative vocabulary, however carefully prepared, is of much

| that 1§

Isolated nouns

less philological value than a comparative grammar.

] theme,

and verbs are very apt to get corrupted in the lapse of time, and to

manner

adopt one pbase of meaning after another, till the original meaning is

lm the

overlaid or forgotten; whilst declensional and conjugational forms—

the bones and sinews of a language—retain for ages both their shape

Nevertheless, I

and their signification with marvellous persistency.

regard the comparison of vocables, when carefully and cautiously con-

ducted, as an important Aelp to the determination of lingual affinities ;

and it will be found, I think, that the following vocabularies bear

independent testimony, in their own degree, to the very same yesult at

which we arrived by grammatical comparison, viz., that whilst the

Dravidian idioms exhibit traces of an ancient, deep-seated connexion

with Pre-Sanscrit—the assumed archaie mother-tongue of the Indo-

European family—their relationship to the languages of the Seythian

group, especially to the Ugrian tongues, is closer, more distinctive,

and more essential than any other.

438

G’L()SSARIAL AFFINITIES. |

T

I

vidi

Indo-Europea;n Affinities.

YO0

Section 1.

fain

SANSCRIT AFFINITIES.

foll

|

Before entering upon the comparison of Dravidian with Sanscrit

and

vocables, it is desirable to disentangle the subject from extraneous

witl

matter by a preliminary examination of words which appear to have

Poss

been borrowed by the Sanscrit from the Dravidian languages.

tong

I have long felt persuaded that some words of pure Dravidian

foun

origin have found their way into Sanscrit vocabularies; and I have no

15 fo

doubt that a still larger number of words have been introduced into

diale

Sanserit from the North-Indian vernaculars.

I have also already

Jexic

stated my opinion (in the section on ‘Sounds’) that it was from the

whil

Dravidian languages that the Sanserit borrowed its ¢cerebral’ con-

verb:

sonants.

varig

There is probably alinost as large a proportion of Drévidian words

tion

in Sanserit, as of British words in English: but this fact has generally

and |

remained unnoticed or unknown; and wherever any word was found

only

to be the common property of the Sanserit and any of the Dravidian

withs

tongues, it was at once assumed to be a Sanscrit derivative.

Doubt-

t]le g

less, the number of Sanscrit derivatives, properly so called, which

a g

have been introduced into the Dravidian languages is very great; but

EXist,

those words are always recognised and admitted to be derivatives by

Celye

Tamil and Telugu lexicographers, and carefully distinguished from

10t g

national or native Dravidian words.

In a few cases, as might be

expected, but in a few cases only, some doubt exists whether a par-

Ji

ticular word was borrowed by the Sanscrit from the Tamil, or by the

Tamil from the Sanserit.

Sanscrit lexicographers and grammarians

akky

were not so discriminative as their Dravidian brethren; and if any

writer had happened to make use of a local or provincial word, that

is, a word belonging to the Dravidian vernacular of the district in

att

which he resided (and it was natural that such words should occasion-

b

ally be used, for variety of metre or some other cause, especially after

Sanscrit had ceased to be a spoken tongue), every such word, provided

=lt:wi)

only it were found written in Sanscrit characters, was forthwith set

down in the vocabularies as Sansecrit.

Some words of Greek or Roman

origin, such as ¢ denarius,” ¢ dpa, Nerrov’ (in the sense of @ minute of a

degree), and even the Greek names of the signs of the Zodiac, have

found their way into Sanscrit.

If so, it may be concluded that a

e

S

——

S ——

T

\

SANSCRIT.

Q

9

much more considerable number of words belonging to the old Dra-

vidian vernaculars must have obtained a footing in the Sanscrit

vocabularies.

The grounds or conditions on which I conclude any word con-

tained in the Sanscrit lexicons to be of Dravidian origin, are as

follows :

(i.) When the word is an isolated one in Sanscrit, without a root

mserit

and without derivatives, but is surrounded in the Dravidian languages

aneous

with collateral, related, or derivative words; (ii.) when the Sanscrit

0 have

possesses other words expressing the same idea, whilst the Dravidian

tongues have the one in question alone; (iil.) when the word is not

yidian

found in any of the Indo-European tongues allied to the Sanserit, but

ave 10

is found in some of the Scythian idioms, or at least in every Dravidian

o info

dialect however rude; (iv.) when the derivation which the Sanserit

lready

lexicographers have attributed to the word is evidently a fanciful one,

om the

whilst Dravidian lexicographers deduce it from some native Dravidian

1’ con-

verbal theme of the same or a similar signification, from which a

variety of words are found to be derived; (v.) when the significa-

| words

tion of the word in the Dravidian languages is evidently radical

and physiological, whilst the Sanscrit signification is metaphorical, or

perally

s found

only collateral ; (vi.) when native Tamil and Telugu scholars, not-

aidian

withstanding their high estimation of the Sanscrit, as the language of

Doubt-

the gods, and the mother of all literature, classify the word in question

as a pure Dravidian one;—when any of these reasons are found to

, which

‘lt,' but

exist, and more especially when several or all of them coincide, I con-

tives by

ceive we may safely conclude the word in question to be a Dravidian

not a Sanscrit derivative.

I here subjoin a selection of such words.

ed from

jght be

8 O

Words borrowed by the Sanscrit from the Dravidian tongues.

I by the

akka, a mother. For the exclusive Scythian relationship of this word,

nn}ﬁl‘iaﬂs

and proof of its derivation by the Sanscrit from the Scytho-

| if any

ord, that

Indian vernaculars, see the list of ¢Scythian Affinities.’

strict in

attd, a mother, an elder sister, a mother’s elder sister.—See ¢ Scythian

Affinities.

lly alter

70 Vide

atavi, a jungle, a forest.

The root of this word is represented in

Sansecrit dictionaries to be ¢ ata,’ to go, because a forest is a place

ith b

where birds, &e., go; which is evidently a fanciful derivation.

i Boma?

All the Dravidian languages contain a primary root ¢ad,” the

qafe of 0

1, b

AL

radical signification of which is nmearness, closeness; and this

monosyllabic root is modified and expanded so as to signify

] that &

ey

e

_—

440

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

every variety of closeness.

Amongst other derived words we

have in Tamil ¢ adar, to be crowded, to grow thick together (like

the trees of a forest); and T have no doubt that it was from

this verbal root, not from any native Sanscrit one, that ‘atavi’

(in Tamil and Telugu ‘adavi,’) was derived.

Even the forma-

tive ¢ vi’ is one which is distinctively Dréavidian; e.g., ¢kélvi,’

Tam., hearing, from ¢ kél, ¢o hear.

ali

ani,

ani,

}t]ze pin of the axle of a cart; derived, it is said, from ‘an-a,’ o

sound. On comparing this word with the Tamil ¢éni, a nail,

katy

a pin or peg of any kind, it is evident that they are not

different words, but one and the same; and the only question

is which vs the original ?

The Tamil word is connected with a

family of roots, each of which has a real affinity in signification

to that of @ nail, considered as a fastening,; e.g., ‘an-ei, to

embrace, to tie; ‘an-i, to put on,; ¢ an-avu,’ to cleave to; ‘an-u,’

to touch.

The derivation of the Sanscrit word from this Dra-

vidian root is, therefore, beyond comparison more natural than

that whieh Sanscrit lexicographers have devised.

amba,

amma,

} mother, vocative ‘ammi.’ This word is found also in some of

the Western Indo-European dialects; e.g., Old High German

and Oscan ‘ amma; Icelandic ‘amma’ (grandmother); German

‘amme’ (nurse).

Notwithstanding this, I am inclined to believe that it was

from the Drévidian languages that this word found its way into

the Sanserit.—See proofs of its Seytho-Indian character in the

¢ Scythian Affinities.

aré, interjection of calling to an inferior: no derivation given. Com-

pare with this the Telugu ¢aré,” and the Tamil € adé”’ or ¢ ada

which are used in exactly the same manner as the Sanscrit

The dialectic interchange of d” and ‘r, has so

interjection.

kaly

often been illustrated, that ¢aré’ may safely be considered as

equivalent to °adé.’

The supposition of their identity 1is

9.

strengthened by comparing the Sanscrit reduplication €aréré,

with the corresponding Tamil reduplication ¢adada.’

Whilst the Sanserit interjection is underived and perfectly

isolated, the equivalent Tamil intel‘jection claims to be derived

from a Tamil root; viz., from ‘adi,’ a slave, the primary signi-

fication of which word is the lowest part of anything, e.g., the sole

of the foot. The corresponding interjection addressed to women

R R Rt CTRT DI e

SANSCRIT.

441

} We

in Tamil is ‘adi,” and this becomes ‘adé’ by the addition of ‘&’

like

emphatic, which is the ordinary sign of the vocative case.

So

om

closely is the meaning of @ slave still connected with these inter-

an

jections in Tamil, that I have heard persons when thus

TR

addressed turn round angrily and say, did you buy me, that

elyi

you call me “adi ¥’

ali, @ woman’s female friend. Probably from ‘alu,” a wife, @ woman, in

poetical and vulgar Telugu, and also in Géond.

3, 10

natl

katu, sharp, vehement, pungent: assumed Sans. derivation ‘kat-a,” to-go.

o 100

In

The corresponding Dravidian word is in Tamil ¢kad-u.’

stion

Telugu ¢ katu’ is represented as Sanserit, and "kac}-u,’ with the

rith 8

very same meaning, as native Telugu.

The most important

ation

derivative of this root in Sanscrit is ‘katuk-ah,” masculine, or

e,

7]

¢katuk-i, feminine, mustard.

The word ‘katu’ is deeply

an-l,

rooted in Sanscrit, and is @ prior? unlikely to have been bor-

y Drﬁ-

rowed from the Dravidian tongues; and yet it cannot be

than

doubted, I think, that its origin is Dravidian.

Not only are the direct derivatives of this word much more

numerous in Tamil than in Sanserit, but collateral themes and

me of

meanings are also very abundant, whereas in Sanserit no cor-

relative root exists.

‘kad-u,” Tam., o be sharp, is one of a

erinan

cluster of roots which are united together by a family resem-

emal

blance.

Some of those are ¢kad-u-gu,” to make haste,; *kad-i,

to cut, to reprove; ‘kad-i’ (with another formative), o bite;

it was

<kari,” identical with ¢kadi,’ curry; ‘kadu-kadu’ (a mimetic

y mto

word), to appear angry. Moreover, the Sanscrit ¢ katuk-(ah

in the

or 1),” mustard, appears to have been derived from the Tam.

‘kadugu, mustard ; for nouns formed from verbal themes in

this manner, by suffixing the formative ‘ku,” pronounced ‘gu,’

Com-

ol )

are exceedingly abundant in Teymil.

ﬂﬂSCﬂt

kala, any practical art, mechanical or ﬁne: assumed derivation ¢ kala,’

ias §0

to sound. The Tamil makes uze of the:same word (“kalei’ for

ored 85

‘kala’), but includes in the signification every science, as well

fity 18

as every art.

We cannot, I think, doubt the derivation of

‘ al‘él'évl

¢kalei’ or ‘kal4, from the primitive Tamil root ‘kal,’ to learn,

(another derivative of which is < kalvi,” learning.)

afectly

The other meanings of the Sanserit word ‘kald,” are so

entirely unconnected with this, that it is evident that two

! siglli'

different words spelled in the same manner (one of them Dra-

b

\4’"’

th

e

vidian), have erroneously been supposed to be one and the same,

b

442

GLOSSARIAL

AFFINITIES.

kavér-i, saffron, also the river Cavery (from its muddy colour): assumed

root ¢ kava,’ to colour. Greek name of the same river, yapypes.

Possibly this word may be of true Sanscrit origin.

I may

suggest, however, the possibility of the origin of the name of

the river Kévéri, from the Dravidian ¢kavi,) red ochre, and

“ér-u,” Tel.,, a river, or ¢ ér-i,” Tam., a sheet of water.

kiicha-h, a female breast, especially that of a young unmarried woman :

k

ko

derivation ¢ku,’ to sound. There is a much more natural deri-

vation in the Tamil word ‘kiicha-m,” bashfulness, a verbal noun

from ¢ kas-u,’ to be shy, to be ticklish.

kij-a, to utter a cry, as a bird. Probably this word is mimetic; we

may compare it, however, with corresponding Dravidian words,

which also appear to be mimetic; viz., Tam. ‘k{i-vu; Tel.

‘ki-su; Can. ‘ki-gu; each of which is derived from a Dra-

vidian root, ‘kl,’ an <narticulate cry.

Compare also our

English ¢ coo0.’

kuti, a house; related words ¢ kutiram,” also ¢kutérah,’ a cottage, a hut,

and ‘kutumba,’ @ family: assumed derivation kuta, crooked.

There cannot be any doubt of the derivation of ¢kuta-m,” «

water pot, from ¢ kuta,” crooked; but the other words are pro-

bably of Dravidian origin.

In Tamil ‘kudi’ means a house,

1\ h

habitation, also an vnhabitant, a farmer; related Tamil words

are ‘kudil * and ‘ kudifei,” a Zu¢; a provincial form of the latter

of which is ‘kuchu.’

In Telugn and Canaresc ‘gudi’ means a

temple, and ¢ gudishi’ or ¢ gudise,” a hut.

In Hindustani ¢ guti’

means a house.

Say

By all native grammarians, these words are

considered to be of pure DrAvidian origin; and the existence of

sy

the same root in all the Finnish tongues favours the supposition

that it was not borrowed by the Drividian langnages from the

Sanscrit, but by the Sanscrit from those languages.

Compare

the Finnish ‘kota,” Tscheremiss ‘kuda,” Mordwin ‘kudo,” Ostiak

‘ chot,’—each signifying a house.

Was the Saxon ‘cot’ also

derived from this same Scythian or Finnish source ?

kuni,

kini,

}having a crooked or withered arm. Compare this with ¢kiin,’

Tam., crook-back; and especially with ‘kun-i’ Tam. to stoop,

an undoubted Dravidian root, from which it is probable that

both the Tam. ‘kiin,” and the Sanscrit ¢ kuni’ or ¢ kiini’ have

Y

been derived.

kula, a pond or pool : assumed derivation "kﬁi-a,’ to cover, Com-

SANSCRIT.

443

med

£

pare the Tamil ‘kul-am’ and the Tel. ‘kol-anu,” a tank, «

s

pool.

nay

We can scarcely doubt that the Sanserit word is identical

6 of

with the Dravidian one ; and if so, it must have been derived

and

from it, for the Tam. ‘kul-am, a tank, is unquestionably a

verbal noun from ‘kul-i,’ o bathe, a pure Dravidian root.

W

kotta

lert

kota,

}a Jort, a stronghold : assumed derivation ‘kuta,’ to be crooked,

Jount

or ‘kutta,” to cut. The Dravidian dialects make use of the same

or a similar word for a fort, viz., ‘kéta’ in Tel., ‘kéte’ in Can.,

and ¢ kottel ’ in Tam.

we

The Tamil having another and very ancient word for

(I

I

Tel.

stronghold, viz., aran,” which is certainly a Dravidian root, it

may be concluded that ¢koéttei’ has been borrowed from the

Dra

Sanserit.

But where did the Sanserit itself obtain this word ?

our

Probably from a Tamil root after all ; for the Sansecrit deri-

vations of ‘koéta’ are very fanciful, whilst we could not desire

T,

a better or more natural derivation than the Tamil ‘kdd-u,

line, a Uline of circumvallation, which is sometimes used to

4;];411

0,

denote also a walled village, a fortification. ‘kod-u,” when used

pIO

adjectivally, becomes ‘kott-u.’

186, (0

khatva, a couch, a cot : assumed derivation ‘khatt-a,” #o screen. Com-

ords

pare the Tam. ‘katt-il, a cot, from ‘katt-u,” ¢o tie or bind, to

Jatter

at

build. The word ‘ katt-u’ is thoroughly and essentially Dravi-

ans

dian, and one which abounds with derivatives and related words,

qutl

sava-m, @ corpse.

are

106 of

sava-m, adj., relating to a dead body.

1100

These words are said to be derived from * sava, to go, but

m he

this derivation is much less probable than the Dravidian verbal

ZA S

np‘lle

root ¢

sa,

Tam. and Can., to die.

The vowel of ‘64’ is short

)stiak

(18

in the Telugu cha’ (for ‘%a’), in the corresponding verbal

‘1130

theme ‘chachu ;’ and both in Tamil and Canarese it is short

¢ LA

in the preterite tense.

Sa

is undoubtedly a pure Dravidian

root ; and it re-appears in the Samofede ¢ chawe,” dead.

kun

Probably also the Sanscrit ‘shei’ (‘sayati ), to waste away,

and ‘shé,’ 0 be destroyed, have some ulterior connexion with it.

§t00py

g [hﬂt

siya, the cvening : assumed derivation ¢sho,’ 7o destroy, to put an eﬁd

" Jave

to. The Tamil ‘84§, to lean, to incline, a pure Dravidian word,

seems to be a much more natural derivation, the evening being

the period when the sun inclines to the west.

(om-

444

GLOSSARIAL

AFFINITIES.

nana, several, various, multiform. Bopp derives ‘nana’ from certain

assumed obsolete demonstratives signifying this and that.

It is more likely to have been derived from the Tamil

‘nal-u’ or ‘nan-gu,’ fowr, this numeral being constantly used

in the Dravidian languages to signify several, various, or an

iﬁd@ﬁnite number of moderate extent. By a corresponding usage

the numeral ¢en is taken to represent any large indefinite num-

ber.

Thus a Tamilian will say, 7 was told so and so by four

persons,—i.e., by several persons; or, we must do as ten people

do,—t.c., as the world does.

The numeral adjective ‘nala’

(from ‘nil-u,’ four) is regularly used in Tamil to signify

|

various, though literally meaning four-fold ; and the euphonic

pa

change of 1’ into ‘n’ in the High Tamil ¢ nin-gu,” four, shows

a

how ‘ nand’ may have originated from ‘nAlA.

The Tamil Die-

a

tionary gives us, amongst other instances of the use of ¢ nala,

one which is identical with the instance of the use of ‘nani’

;;?

given in the Sanscrit Dictionary, viz., ‘nAla vidam, in various

ways, literally in a four-fold way; which we may compare

with the corresponding Sans. ‘nana vidha,” in various ways.

With respect to the Dravidian origin of this word, the testi-

mony of the Tamil standsalone ; for in the Canarese and Telugu

Dictionaries ‘nana’ is regarded as Sanscrit.

Kl

nira-m, water : assumed derivation °ni

7)

to obtain.

This derivation

shows that the word was not familiar to the Sanserit lexico-

graphers.

ji

‘niram’ is rarely used, in comparison with ‘ap

(connected with ‘aqua’), and ‘uda’ (connected with ¢unda’

i

and ¢ 178wp 7).

‘jala,” another Sanscrit word for water, is sup-

posed to have been borrowed from the northern vernaculars ;

whilst I have little or no doubt that to ‘nira’ a Dravidian

origin should be ascribed.

The corresponding Dravidian vord

is ‘nir’ or ‘nir-u; and this is the only word properly signify-

ing water which the Dréavidian dialects possess.

The Telugu

ordinarily uses ‘nillu’ for ‘niru,’ 4.e., the plural (‘nirulun,” cor-

2

rupted to ‘nillu’) for the singular ; but ‘niru,

the singular, is

also occasionally used.

Pan

‘nir

is in Go6nd softened to ‘ir

and in Brahui it has

il s s Sl

become * dir.’

The Malayalam alone commonly uses for water

another word, viz., ‘vellam,’ which properly means a food.

This word is used in Tamil to denote the water with which rice-

pall

Jields are flooded ; and it has probably thence come to signify

water in Malayalam. Even in that dialect, however, ‘nir’ is

::

Bt i i

s

SANSCRIT.

445

L(‘ 1“

also used. In Tamil the adjective ¢tan,’ cool, is o frequently

prefixed to ‘nir,” that in the colloquial dialect the compound

mil

“tannir,” water, literally cold water, has superseded the original

sed

and simple noun.

(n

Whilst I have no doubt that ‘nir’ is a true Dravidian word,

g6

it may have descended to the Drévidian family from some

(it

Japhetic source older than the Sanscrit; and hence, it may

foui

have some ulterior connection with the Greek “vypos’ and

/)p/e,

‘vapos, wet, (and throngh them with the modern Greek ¢ vipo,’

ila

water), though these words are supposed (and perhaps cor-

nify

rectly) to be derived from ¢ vdw, to Aow.

0016

patta-m

J0WS

pattana-m

(

@ city, town, or village: assumed derivation ¢ pata,’ to sur-

pattana-m,

f

Dic

ald,

round.

The Tamil has borrowed the word ‘ pattanam ’ from

ind’

the Sanscrit ; and yet, as in the case of ¢ kota,’ a fort, it will be

1101

found, I think, that the Sanscrit word itself was derived origi-

1pm’e

nally from the old Dravidian vernaculars.

Professor Wilson

)

conjectures that, ¢ pattam’ is probably identical with the

st

‘pettah,” of Southern India; but the word from which I con-

lugt

ceive it to have been derived is ‘patti,” Tam. a fold for cattle, a

pound, a small village,—a word which constitutes the final

portion, or termination, of the names of so many towns and

villages in the south; eg., ¢ Kovil-patti, Zemple-town.

In

gtion

xi00-

Canarese the same word is hatti; e.9., Dim-hutty. The Old

)

ap

Sanscrit seems to have adopted this word ¢ patti,” in addition to

its own ‘pura’ (which is a true Indo-European word), and

inds’

5 sup-

formed from it first ¢ patta-m,” and then ¢pattana-m.’

The word ¢pettah,” @ suburb (Tam. ‘péttei’), which is re-

lars ;

»’idmn

ferred to by Wilson, belongs to a different root from ‘patti,’ and

o

cannot have been the origin of the Sans. ¢pattam.” * péttei’ is

derived from ‘pédu, Tam. « sufix to the names of willages;

gnify,

‘elugt

which, again, is identical with ‘padu’ and ¢ padi,’ a place, each

of which is suffixed to names of villages like ¢ pédu.’

0o

panno,

llm’; 8

Prakrit, gold. This word is supposed by Ellis to be derived

from the Sans. ¢ suvarna.’

I think it much more probable that

1t ha

it was adopted into the Prakrit from the Tam. ‘pon, or the

qaler

Tel. ¢ ponn-u,” gold.

vt

palli, @ city, a town, a village. This is without doubt identical with

j i

the Drividian word ¢ palli,” which is added to various names of

:} g’ ll’lft\'

places in the South ; e.g., Zrichinopoly, properly ¢ Trisirapalli.’

e !

446

GLOSSARTIAL AFFINITIES.

The DréAvidian origin of this word is sufficiently proved by the

circumstance that it is chiefly, if not exclusively, used to denote

places which are within the limits of the Dravidian tongues.

bhaj-a, to share.

Va

bhéga, a portion.

I am doubtful whether to regard these words as

SEa

derived from the Tamil ‘pag-u,’ to divide, to share, or to suppose

=

LS

both the Sanscrit and the Tamil to be derived from a common

=

and earlier source.

Probably the former supposition is in this

case the more correct.

At all events the Tamil ‘pag-u

9

1S a

pure, underived Dravidian root.

The noun formed from it,

signifying @ share, is ‘pang-u’ (‘ng’ for ‘g’ as is often the

case); and a collateral root is pag-ir, meaning also to share.

al

The Sanscrit word ‘pangu’ means lame, and is altogether un-

connected with the Tamil one.

vl

~mina-m, ¢ Jish; assumed derivation ‘mi’ (‘minéti’), o hurt.

5

The Dréividian word for fisk is ‘min,” a word which is

found in every dialect of the family, and is the only word

signifying fish which these languages possess.

‘min’ is found

even in the small list of decidedly Dravidian words contained

R R e L SRR S

The Goénd has ¢ mind.’

It seems

in the Rijmahal dialect.

much more probable that the Sanscrit-speaking people bor-

rowed this word from the Indian aborigines, and then incor-

porated it in their vocabulary with other words signifying the

same object, than that the Dravidian inhabitants of the Malabar

and Coromandel sea-boards were indebted for the word which

denoted so important an article of their food and commerce,

to a race of inland people coming from the North-West.

Moreover the derivation of ¢min,” which is supplied by the

Dravidian languages, is as beautiful as the Sanscrit derivation

is uncouth.

The root of ‘min, a fish, is ‘min, Tam., to glitter, to be

phosphorescent.

Hence the glow-worm is min-mini’ by redu-

plication; and ‘min,’ a verbal noun which is formed from

‘min’ by the lengthening of the included vowel (like ©péru,

Tam., a birth, from ‘peru,’ to bear, and “kol,’ reception, from

¢kol, to receive), signifies in poetical Tamil a star, as well as

a fish; eg., ‘van-min, a star (literally a sky-sparkler); and

¢aru-min, the Pleiades, literally the siz stars.

Who that has

seen the phosphorescence flashing from every movement of the

fish in tropical seas or lagoons at night, can doubt the appro-

e A

R ——

o d

SANSCRIT.

44

(

the

priafeness of denoting the fish that dart and sparkle through

ote

the waters, as well as the stars that sparkle in the midnight

sky, by one and the same word, viz, a word signifying that

which glows or sparkles?

valacsha-m, white; assumed derivation ‘vala,” to go.

Much more

a8

probable is the derivation of this word from the Dravidian

)0S6

“ vel, white. Compare also the related Dravidian words ‘veli,

o1

The

space, the open air; ‘velli) silver; ¢velicham,” light.

this

Hungarian ¢vilaga, light, appears to be an allied word. Has

1§ a

the Slavonian ¢veli, white, been borrowed from a Seythian

1t

source ! or is it one of those ultimate analogies which bind

the

both families together ?

(11,

val-a, fo surround.

Uil

valaya-m, a circlet, a bracelet.

The Dravidian languages have bor-

rowed the Sanscrit noun, with or without modification ; but

the verb from which the noun has been formed was itself, I

b s

doubt not, borrowed by the Sanscrit from the Dravidian

ord

languages. The corresponding Dravidian root is ‘val-ei,” to

yund

bend, to crook, metaphorically to surround. This word has a

ined

larger store of secondary meanings and wider ramifications

oIS

than the Sansecrit verb. It is also used as a noun, without any

hor

formative addition, when it signifies a /hole, SInuosity ; e.g.,

“eli-valei,” Tam., a rat-hole.

Whilst the Tamil makes occa-

1COT-

sional use of the Sanserit ¢ valayam, « bracelet, an armlet; it

g the

also uses valeiyal,” a verbal noun formed from ‘valei,’ its

[abar

lel(‘h

own verbal root, to signify the same thing.

Taking these

181Cey

-arious ecircumstances into consideration, I conclude that the

Dravidian verb has certainly not been borrowed from the

Sanscrit, and that the Sanscrit verb has probably been derived

y the

from the Dravidian.

ation

In the foregoing list of Dravidian words which have found

a place in the vocabularies of the Sanserit, I have not included

{0 e

the names of various places and tribes in Southern India which

redu-

are mentioned in the Sauscrit historical poems, and which

from

have in consequence found a place in the dictionaries.

In

PéRlli.

general the vernacular origin of those words is admitted by

) from

Sanserit lexicographers.

In one case, however, a Sanscrit

ell 88

origin has erroneously been attributed to a Dravidian word of

), 3,11"1

this class.

‘Malaya,” a mountain or mountainous range in

bas

Southern India, is represented as being derived from ‘mala,

if the

Sans., to kold or contain (sandal-wood).

The real origin is

3PP1‘O 7

448

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

{

unquestionably the Drévidian ‘mal-a’ or ¢mal-ei,” a hll or

mountain, and also a hilly or mountainous country; and the

1t

th

range of mountains referred to under the name of ¢ Malaya’ is

doubtless that of the Southern Ghauts or the ‘Malayéla’ country,

10

which was called ¢ Male’ by the Arabian geographers.

he

[

I now proceed to point out the existence of some real Sanscrit

&

The words

affinities in the vocabularies of the Dravidian languages.

which are contained in the following list are true, underived Dravidian

ad

roots, yet they are so closely allied to certain Sanscrit words, that

ud

they must be concluded to be the common property of both families

of tongues.

ad

Possibly one or two words may have been borrowed at an early

period by the one language from the other; but in most cases, if not

in every case, there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of the

an

€l

mutually independent origin of both the Sanscrit word and the Dra-

vidian one, from a source which appears to have been common to

-

both.

The various words appear to be too deeply-seated in each

family of languages, to have too many ramifications, and (whilst they

Sl

retain a family likeness) to differ too widely, either in sound or in

kad

signification, to allow of the supposition of a direct derivation of the

one from the other.

Moreover, notwithstanding the general resem-

kan

blance of the Dravidian words contained in the following list to the

Sanserit ones with which they are compared, and notwithstanding the

prejudice of mative grammarians in favour of everything Sanscrit,

j?

these words are invariably regarded by native scholars as independent

Con-

of the Sanscrit, and as underived, ‘national’ Dravidian words.

sequently, if a connexion can be traced, as I think it can, between

these words and the corresponding Sanscrit ones, it must be the

kiny

connexion of a common origin.

I place in another and subsequent

list those Dravidian words which are more directly allied to the Greek

sji

or Latin, the Persian, or some other Extra-Indian member of the

In this list 1 place those

Indo-European family, than to the Sanserit.

Dravidan words which appear to be allied to the Sanscrit alone, or

more directly to the Sanserit than to any other Indo-European lan-

guage ; and it is remarkable how few such words there are, compared

with those of the other class.

A comparison of the two following lists

kugj

will, T think, lead to the conclusion that the Indo-European elements

which are contained in the Dravidian languages were introduced into

those languages before the Sanscrit separated from its sisters, or at

least before the Sanserit, as a separate tongue, came in contact with

the Dravidian family.

ca

SANSCRIT.

449

(U}

The Dravidian words which follow are quoted from the Tamil, if

the

Where it is certain

18

1t 1s not expressly mentioned that it is otherwise

that the final vowel or syllable of a Dravidian word is no part of the

17,

root, but is a separable formative accretion, or a particle which has

been added merely for euphony, or for the purpose of facilitating

enunciation, I have separated such vowel or syllable from the genuine

orlt

portion of the word by a hyphen.

ou

Jian

d

to strike, to beat, to kill

that

ud-ei, to kick, to stamp

Compare ‘ut-a,” Sans

to strike, to knock

il1es

down

ad-ei, to get in, to obtain, to possess.

Compare ‘ad-a,” Vedic Sans., fo

atly

106

occupy or possess

he

an-u, Tel

Dra

en,

Tam

} to speak, to suy. Compare ‘an-a,” Sans., to sound

n 10

Qr-u, to creep; in the higher dialect of the Tamil, ¢o ride (as m a palan—

each

quin).

hey

Compare Sans. ¢ ur-a,’ ¢o go.

or 1

kad-a, to pass, to pass by or over

Compare ¢kat-a,” Sans. to go

f the

psent:

karudei, an ass

Tel. ‘gadide; Can. ‘katte

Compare Sans. ‘khara,

ar ass

o the

The Sanscrit word is borrowed and used by the Tamil

¢ the

poets; but it is never confounded with ¢karudei, which is

qSC]lt

considered to be a purely Dravidian word.

Nevertheless,

dent

“karudei’ is evidently allied to ¢khara’ in origin, and also to

(on

the Persian ‘char,’ and the Kurdish ‘kerr.’

Compare especially

fyveel

the Laghmani ‘karatik,” a female ass

kinna, Can. small; Tuda ‘kin;

Tel. ¢ chinna;

Tam.

smna

Com-

aquent

pare ‘kana,” Sans. small a minute partacle also ‘kamga the

(treek

smallest, the youngest.

There is no doubt of the Tamil ¢ éinna’

f the

having been softened from ¢kinna

but I have some donbt

) those

whether the ‘n

has not been corrupted from ‘r, for the

one, OF

ultimate root to which ‘§inna’ is referred by Tamil scholars is

l hﬂ

SIR-U

mp’tlel

ng ]1‘t

kudirei, a %orse; Can

gudure

Compare Sans.

‘ghoda,” a horse,

el

ghorati,” to go as a horse.

The Dravidian lanwuages have

o 010

borrowed ‘ghdda’ from the Sans. (in Tamil ‘goram,’ ‘gédagam’);

o o

but ‘kudlrel is regarded as an underived, mdxgenous Dravidian

word.

It is evident, however, that the two WOIdS are ulti-

d’, Wlth

mately related,

2¢a

—

450

GLOSSARTAL AFFINITIES.

kir-u, fo cut, to scratch, to rend.

kir-i, 2o tear. ‘Compare ¢ khur-a,” Sans. to cut, to scratch.

ked-u, fo spoil or destroy, or (intransitively) to be spoiled or destroyed :

verbal noun ‘ kéd-u,’ ruin, relative participle ¢ ketta’ (‘tt’ for

1l

« dd’), bad.

Compare the Sanscrit ¢ khid-a,” to suffer pain or misery, and

its verbal noun ‘khéda,” sorrow, distress. Compare also ‘khit-a,’

to terrify, and its derivative ‘khéta,’ bad, low.

If these words are allied to the Dravidian one, as they

appear to be, it must be in virtue of a common origin; for there

is not a more distinctively Dravidian word in existence than

‘ ked-u.’

fir-el, to shave: base ‘sirR’.

Compare Sans. ¢ kshur-a,” fo scrape, and

¢‘kshaura,” shaving. Compare also the corresponding Greek

verbs ¢ fvp-dw,” ¢ Evp-éw, to shave; our English shear, from the

’

pa

Germ. ¢ scheer; and even the Greek ¢ «éip-w,” to share.

gil-ir, to tremble, to have the hair standing on end. Compare °chél-a,’

Sans. to shake, to tremble.—See also subsequent list under

¢ kulir,” cold.

§e, to be red. This root forms the basis of many Tamil adjectives and

nouns (e.g., ‘Sen,” red); but is not used anywhere in its pri-

mitive unformed shape. Compare ‘sona,’ Sans. to be red.

ﬁd-j, a stick, a club; verbal theme ‘tadi,’ ¢o be thick or heavy. Com-

pare“ tad-a,” also ¢ tad-i,” Sans. to strike, to beat.

fﬁv'-u, to sprinkle gently (as dust).

ti-ru, to drizzle, to scatter, to spread abroad (as a report).

The transitive of ‘tu-ru’ is ‘ti-rRu’ (pronounced ‘tuttru’),

pal,

to winnow; and a derivative from ¢ tivu’ is ‘tasi,” dust.

The

ultimate root of all these words evidently is ‘ti.’

Compare

¢ dht, Sans. to shake, to agitate; a derivative from which is

iy

¢ dhuli, dust.

Compare also ‘tista-m,” dust (assumed deriva-

tion tlis-a,” fo sound), with which our own word ‘dust,’ is

evidently identical.

From the Sanscrit ‘dhli; the Tamil has borrowed °tali’

and also ‘tll,’ dust: °tis-i,” on the other hand, is a pure Dra-

vidian word, allied to the Turkish ‘tus’ or ¢tusan,’ powder,

and possibly to the Mongolian ‘toghoz; and there cannot be

any doubt of the Tamil verbs ‘tiv-u’ and ‘tir-u’ being un-

derived Dravidian themes.

“dhli’ or ‘ti’ appears, therefore,

SANSCRIT.

451

to be the common property of both families of languages; whilst

it is in the Dréavidian family that the original meaning of this

ol

root appears to have been most faithfully preserved.

for

nad-a, o walk. Compare the Sanscrit theme ¢ nat-a,” fo ddﬁlﬁ?e, to act,

to shake; derivatives from which are ¢ nata-m,’” dancing, ‘nata-

and

ka-m,’ @ drama, a play. It seems improbable that the Sanscrit

4,

word has been borrowed from the Dravidian tongues ; and yet

it is certain that the Dravidian word has not been borrowed

ey

here

from the Sanscrit, for the Telngu and Canarese make a broad

distinction between the Sans. derivative ‘natinchu’ or ‘natisu,

han

to dance, and their own theme ‘naduchu’ or ‘nadi, to walk,

and whilst the Sanscrit has many words signifying walking, the

and

Dravidian languages have ‘nad’,) alone.

Probably, therefore,

both words have been derived from a common sonurce.

reck

the

pad-u, Tam. Tel,, and Can. to sing. Compare Sans, ¢ path-a,” to read,

to recite.

The Sans. “path-a’ is, I have no doubt, the theme

3,

from which the corresponding Tel. ‘path-i, and the Tamil

nder

‘ pad-1,’ o 7ead, have been borrowed; and the Tamil ¢ pAda-m,’

@ lesson, is clearly derived from the Sans. ¢ patha,” reading.

‘pad-uy’ to sing, however, and ¢ patt-u,’ @ song, (Tel. ¢ pata,’

| anfl

Can. ‘pat-u;’ Gond ‘ pita,’) are certainly not derivatives from

PI'I

the Sanserit; but I suspect them to be ultimately related to

‘path-a’ and ‘patha,” as descended from some ancient source

(Jom

common to both, The ideas expressed are nearly related ; for

the reading of all Hindus (and of all Orientals) is a sort of

intoned ‘cantilena;’ and even the Sanserit derivative ¢ padi,’ 7o

read, often receives in colloquial Tamil the meaning ¢o sing.

pal, Tam. and Can. « portion, a part, a class. Compare Sans. ‘phal-a,’

ru')

/

The

to divide; also Lat. ¢ par-s) a portion.—See especially the

npare

Semitic affinities of this qud.

oh 18

piRa, other; eg., ‘piRa-n,’ another man; <hera’ (for ‘pera’), Can.

el,iv 9

Compare ‘para,” Sans. in the sense of different, a sense which'it

g, 18

often bears. It is with this preposition, and not with *pra,’

before, forward, that I think the Tamil ¢ pira,’ other, should be

)

tuh

compared.

) Dfé‘

The use of the Tam. ‘ pira,’ and that of the Sans. ‘para’ (in

ey

the signification adduced above) are identical ; and we might

of be

naturally suppose the Tamil word to have been derived from

the Sanscrit.

The Tamil, however, whilst it admits that

g m

op1016)

’ paraf was borrowed from the Sanscrit, regards ‘ pira’ as an

262

s A P i

45

[}

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

indigenous theme.

The ‘®’ of ¢pira, is unknown to the

Sanscrit, and is considered to be a distinctive mark of Dra-

vidian words.

Moreover, the Tamil ascribes to ‘pira’ the

meaning of other alone, whilst the Sanscrit ¢ para’ has a much

wider range of signification.

It is remarkable that the Tamil has another root, ‘pir-a-gu,’

D

after, (ultimate base ¢ pir,’) which is considered to be perfectly

independent of, and unconnected with, ¢ pira,’ other; and yet

that this very meaning, after, is one of the many significations

which are attributed to ¢ para’ in Sanscrit.

It may be concluded, I think, that ‘para’ and ‘ pira,” are

radically allied; and yet the supposition that the one is derived

Sa

from the other, is quite inadmissible.

Each is too deeply

e

seated in its own family of tongues to allow of this supposition,

Ar

and we are therefore driven to conclude, that both have been

Sar

derived from a common source.

th

Wit

pél, milk. The Dravidian languages do not contain the verbal theme

oon

from which this word is derived. We may compare it with

the Sanscrit ¢ pAyasa, milk, and also with °phya,” water, Zend

blis

¢ péo,” Affghan ¢ poi; all of which words are derived from pa

Sans. to drink, a root which runs through almost all the Indo-

ear

to ¢

European languages.

Possibly the Dravidian ¢pal,’ milk, may be a verbal noun

tha

formed from this very theme; for a large number of verbal

ang

nouns are formed in Tamil by simply adding ¢al’ or €1’ to the

root.

Notwithstanding this, the purely Dravidian character

the |

Sey

and connexions of this word ¢pal, preclude the supposition of

its direct derivation from the Sanscrit ¢ pa

Toay

the

pés-u, to speak. Compare ‘ bhash-a,’ Sans. to speak.

el

pl, a flower, or to blossom, Tam., Tel., and Can. Compare ‘phull-a,’

fam

Sans. to blossom, and ¢ pushpa,” a flower.

1t g

i

IS

al ol

Vg

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

453

the

Ia

Indo-European Affinities.

the

uch

Sectron I1.

EXTrA-SANScRITIC OR WEsT INDO-EUROPEAN AFFINITIES, Viz.:

U

atly

Dravidian words which appear to be specially allied to words that are

yet

contained in the languages of the Western or non-Sanscritic branches

1008

of the Indo-European family.

are

Some of the words which are contained in the following list have

ived

Sanscrit as well as Classical or West-Aryan analogies; but they have

eply

been placed in this, rather than in the preceding, list, because the West-

jon,

Aryam affinities are clearer, more direct, and more certain than the

been

Sanscrit ones. The greater number, however, of the words that follow,

though indubitably connected with the Western tongues, and especially

eme

with the Greek and Latin, exhibit no analogy whatever to any words

with

contained in the Sanscrit.

Jend

If the existence of this class of analogies can be clearly esta-

blished, it must be concluded either that the Dravidians were at an

( pa,

[ndo

early period near neighbours of the ‘Vest-f&ryan tribes, subsequently

to the separation of those tribes from the Sanscrit-speaking people, or

noun

that both races were descended from a common source.,

atbal

The majority of the Dravidian words which exhibit West-Aryan

analogies, do not belong to that primary, rudimental class to which

the

a6t

q0lel

the words that the Dravidian languages have in common with the

Scythian are to be referred. Nevertheless, they are so numerous,

on Of

many of them are so remarkable, and, when all are viewed together,

the analogy which they bring to light is so distinet, that an ultimate

relation of some kind between the Dravidian and the Indo-European

families, may be regarded as conclusively established.

ull'aa’

As before, the Dravidian words are to be regarded as Tamil, except

it is stated that they are taken from some other dialect.

K

as-el, to shake.

Compare ‘ sel-w,

to shake, to move to and fro.

arn-vi, @ waterfall; from ar-u,’ to ebb, to trickle down.

’

Compare

‘riv-us,” Latin, @ brook, English ‘river,

also the verbal theme

of those words, ¢ gé-w’ or ‘pv-w’ (asin piy’), to Sow.

al-ei, to wander, to be unsteady: ‘alei, as a noun, means « wave.

Compare a\d-opar,” to wander; Germ. ° welle, Armen. ‘alik,

a wave.

av-a, desire; also ‘av-al’ a verbal noun, derived from an obsolete

454

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

root ‘av-u,’ to desire. Compare Sans. ‘av-a, of which one of

[}

the rarer meanings is fo desire.

The affinity between “ava’

and the Latin ‘ave-o,’ fo desire, is still more complete, inas-

much as this is the only meaning of the word in Latin, as in

Tamil.—See also ¢ Semitic Affinities.’

I

ayv-a,

Tel., a grandmother.

In Tuda ‘avva, means a mother,; in

Canarese ‘avva’ or ‘avve’ means either @ mother or grand-

mother, or, generally, an old woman.

The ordinary Tamil form

of this word is ‘auv-ei,” an honorific term for a matron, an

ul<

elderly lady, but ‘avv-ei’ is also used. Compare the Latin

The root of

Ul

‘av-us, a grandfather; ©avi-a,” a grandmother.

the Latin word appears to have been applicable to any elderly

relation ; e.g., ‘av-unculus, a maternal uncle.

6y,

avi, a

spirit, literally wvapour, breath; then life, and also a spurit :

verbal theme ‘avi,) to yawn, to breathe.

Compare the Gothic

611

¢ahma,’ spirit; the Sanserit ‘atma,” self, or soul; the Greek

‘ dvepos, wind,; the Latin ‘anima,” and the Tamil ‘anma,’

soul or spirit.

Compare also the High Tamil ¢én-dal, the

)

breath. The resemblance of the Tam, ‘avi’ to the Greek

aw

e

to blow, is especially remarkable.

ir-u, to draw, to pull.

Compare ‘épv-w, to draw.

Compare also

“ele,” the Canarese equivalent of ¢iru, with ¢ é\k-w, fo drag,

a word which is probably related to ¢épd-w,” through that

alliance of ‘r’ to ‘1’ which is apparent in all languages.

or

F

the ultimate root, and ‘mbu,’

iru-mbu, won,; from ‘iru

’

a formative, euphonised from ‘bu’ or ‘vu

Tel. ¢inumu.’

Compare the Saxon ‘iren,’ Danish ‘iern,’ Armenian ‘ergad.’

The ‘r’ of these words has been hardened from ‘s, as appears

from comparing them with the German ‘eisen’ and the Sans-

flr-a[

crit ¢ ayas.

None of these words, however, though possibly

they may have some ulterior connexion with the Tamil, seems

to be so nearly velated to ‘iru’ as the Motor (a Samoiede

dialect), ‘ur.’

in-u, to bring forth young, said of cattle only. Compare Engl. ‘¢

yean, Sax. ‘eanian.’

kaq.j

uyar, high; when used as a verb, fo raise. Compare ¢ deip-w’ to

¢

raise up ; also “dep’ in

aep-Bels’ (Aor. pass. past), and in the

adverb ¢ aép-dyv, lifted up.

Compare also ‘dzyp, the awr;

Armenian ‘wor, high, Ossete ‘arw, heaven.

T

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

455

o of

Ad

ur-i, Can

to burn

Tam., ¢er-i

Compare ‘ur-o, Lat., to burn,

Ya

Armenian

There are also

or, fire; Affghan ‘or,” ¢ wur

135

very remarkable Semitic analogies

e.g., Hebrew ¢ur, fire,

§ 1

and ‘or, light

ur-u,

to plough

Compare Lat. ‘ar-o;

Greek

apo-w ,

Lithuanian

11l

‘aru

‘uru-dal

tillage, may also be compared with the equi-

ind

valent Greek ¢ apo-7os

Orm

an

ul-ei,

mare

Compare

€N-0s,

marsh

atin

ul-el

a howling

Lat

ululo,” to Aowl

Greek

oNo\v{w ;' English

t of

‘howl.’

erly

¢

ey, to shoot (an arrow), to cast (o dart)

Compare

LOS‘

an arrow

it

to shoot, to cast; éw, to send

ot

hie

er-u, to rse, to get up

Compare Lat. ‘ori-or, to 7ise, to get up

1ok

‘eru jiiAyiru,” Tam., the rising sun, may be compared with the

lma,

Latin ¢ ori-ens sol

" the

(!’

ell-a, all

The Canarese ‘ellar, all they, corresponding to the Tamil

a,

ellor’ (for ‘ellar’), together with the Tamil ‘ellir,) all ye

¢ A ]

iv.

(from ¢ ell,’ all, and

for “nir,” you), prove that the ultimate

also

Dravidian root of this word is

el.

A vowel has been eupho-

afterwards

drag,

nically added to

el’ (at first a short vowel

hat

lengthened), in consequence of which addition the consonant

is doubled by dialectic rules

mbll;

Compare Ossete ‘al,” “ali, “all; Saxon ‘eal; Danish al

English “all

Probably the Greek

G \-058

and the Hebrew

umll.

“kol’ are allied rather to our own ‘whole,” Lat. ¢salv-us,’ Sans

tod

sarva,

than to the Dravidian and Germanic

el all

)peara

ans

or-am

border, brim, margin, coast

Compare Lat

ora,

border

ssibly

MaArgin

¢6r-am’ has no connexion with any Dravidian word

gpems

signifying mouth ; and possibly the derivation of the Lat ¢ ora

ofede

from ‘os,” ¢oris

may be open to question

The correspond-

ing word in Gujarathi, Marathi, and Hindi, is ‘k

], o

kad-l, to eut, to rend, to reprove.

“katti, a knife.

Compare Sans

¢ krit-a,” to cut, but especially the Enghsh ‘cut;’

Norman ‘cotu,

Welsh ‘cateia ;’

Latin

¢ caed-o.

Compare also the Persian

o 10

and Ossete ‘kard, a knife, and the Sanserit ¢ karttari, which

n the

g 01y

words, however, are more nearly related to ‘krut-a, Sans.,

than to the English

cut.’

EERER

|

+

D

»

6

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

kar}, the eye; ‘kan’ (in the preterite ‘kan’), to see, also to mark, to

consider, to think.

In the latter sense it becomes euphonically

‘kanpu’ in Tamil, but the base remains unchanged.” In

Telugu, the ordinary ‘n, the nasal of the dental row, is used

instead of ‘n, the cerebral nasal.

Compare the Welsh ceniaw, to see; English ‘ken,’ view,

power or reach of wvision.

In Webster’'s English Dictionary

‘kanna’ is said to be an eye in Sanscrit; whereas it is exclu-

sively a Dravidian word.

This mistake may be compared

with that of Klaproth in representing ‘kuruta, bdlind, as a

Sanscrit word, instead of referring it to the Dravidian lan-

guages, to which alone it belongs.

Possibly the Dravidian

‘kan,” to see, to consider, may have some ulterior connexion

with the Gothic ‘kunn-an,’ to know,; Greek ¢qvid-vac; Sans.

‘jia; Latin ‘gna’ (‘gnarus’), Old High German ¢chann.’

The different shades of meaning which are attributed in

Greek to ‘qvid-var’ and ‘éwdé-var,’ seem to corroborate this

supposition ; for the latter is represented as meaning to know by

reflection, to know absolutely, whereas the former means fo per-

cewve, to mark, and may therefore have an ulterior counexion

with the Dravidian root.

karadi, ¢ bear,; from ‘karadu,’ rough, knotty, unecven, the ultimate

base of which must be ‘kara’ or ¢ kar.

The Tuda word for a bear is ¢ kar.’

Compare the Persian

¢ chars,” Kurd ‘harj,” and even the Latin ‘urs-us.’

Compare

also the Samoiede °korgo,” and the Tungusian kuti.’

karug-u, an eagle.

Compare Persian ¢ kergish,” Ossete ¢kartziga.’

ki

S

kal-a, Can., to steal;, Tam., ‘kalavu,’ a theft; Malayalam, ¢ kall.am,’

a lee.

Compare Latin ¢clep-o, to steal; Greek ¢ r\am-els.’—

ki

See also ¢ Scythian Affinities.’

gav-i, Can., a cave, a cell; Tam., < keb-i,’ a cave.

The equivalent

Sanscrit words are © gubd,” a cavern, from ¢ guh-a,’ to conceal,

and ‘gaha’ a cave, @ forest, from ‘gah-a, to be vmpervious.

ki

‘guhd’ has become in Tamil < kugei; but the Tamil ¢kebi’

e A

and the Can. ¢ gavi,’ are altogether independent words.

Compare with them the Latin ‘cave-a, a cavity, a den,

from

¢cav-us, hollow, theme ¢cav-o, to hollow out: and

with this compare the Tel. ¢ kapp-u,’ fo cover over, the origin

of the Tamil ‘kapp-al’ a ship, and also, probably, of ‘keb-i,’

and ‘gav-i, a cave.—See also ¢ Scythian Affinities.’

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

457

, b0

kay, to be hot, to burn. Thé Telugn ‘kagu,” Can. ‘kay-u, to burn,

lly

and the Can. ‘kéage, heat, compared with the Tamil ‘ kanggei,’

In

show that the ultimate root is “ka, to which ¢y’ or ‘gu’ is

bEd

added dialectically as a formative.

The only Sanscrit word

which secems to be at all related to this Dravidian one, is

il

“kam-a,’ fo desire; and we should not, perhaps, have suspected

\&I‘y

it to be related, were it not for its connexion with the Hebrew

clu

‘ham-ad,” to desire, and the derivation of that word from

red

‘ham-am’ (base ‘Lam’), to be warm.

S 4

Compare with the Dravidian ‘ka’ or ‘kay,’ the Greek

lan

The words seem

‘karw’® (Attic € kd-w’), to burn, to be hot.

Jian

absolutely identical.

Liddell and Scott represent ¢ xaw’ to be

xion

connected with the Sanserit ¢such-a,” ¢0 dry. How much more

a0,

nearly connected with the Dravidian ‘kay !’

Besides, the Dra-

vidian languages have another word which seems to have a

d.in

real relation to ‘sush-a,’ viz., sud-u,” o burn.

this

ki, Gond, to do; Ku ‘gi;’ Kéta ‘ke; Can. ¢géy-u; Tel. ¢ chéy; Tam.

by

‘§ey.” The harder form is always to be regarded as the primitive

per

one, and hence ‘ chéy’ and ¢ §ej ’ are to be referred to the Can.

xion

‘géy,’ and that to an ultimate ‘ke,” allied to the Gond ¢ ki.’

Compare the Old Persian ‘ki,” to do; a root which is pro-

mate

bably related to the Sans. ¢kri,” but more nearly still to the

Dravidian words now quoted.

The Pracrit form of “kar’ (for

rslan

‘kri’) is ‘ka; eg., ‘ka-da,” made, instead of ¢kar-da: and

the corresponding Marathi is ‘ke; e.g., ‘ke-la, made.

The

]pare

Kotra has ¢ kek,” to do.

kind-u, to stir, to search, to turn up the ground. Compare ¢ kevr-ew,

to prick, to goad, to spur on.

!,am,’

()

kira, old (not by use, but with respect to length of life).

Compare

(1)

Sans. ¢jaras, age, but especially the Greeck words signifying

age, aged, Viz., ‘ yfjpa-s, ‘epa-os, € qepar-os, oép-wv.’—See

ralellt

also the Scythian affinities of this word.

et

kira-mei (base -kira’), a weck, literally property, possession, each

iU,

portion of a week being astrologically regarded as the property

fehi'

or inheritance of some planet.

Compare Ossete ¢ kuri, ¢ kore,’

a week; Georgian ‘kuire.’

Possibly these words are derived

ety

qnd

from the Greek ¢ kvpi-axy,” Sunday, the Lord’s day; but whence

is the Greek word derived ? from ¢ «xdpe-os,” a Lord, a possessor,

arigit

the base of which seems to be allied to the Tamil ¢kira,’

keb—i;'

POssession.

458

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

kil-ei, @ young branch. Compare Ossete ‘kalius; Servian ¢galusa;

Greek ‘w\ddos, o young shoot, @ branch. The theme of the

Greek word is ¢ k\d-w,” to lop, to break,; and the Tamil ¢ kil-ei,

considered as a verbal theme, means not only to sprout, but

also to pluck off.

‘kill-u, to pinch, to pluck, is a collateral

theme,

kupp-ei, sweepings, refuse, dung, a dung-heap.

Compare ¢ kompos,’

dung, dirt, a farm-yard.

kur-u, skort, brief: derivative verb ¢ kuru-gu,’ to diminish: collateral

root ‘kur-ei) a defect, to be or make defective.

Compare

Persian “chord,” short, German ‘kurz; Latin ¢curt-us,” short,

small, defective.

On comparing the Latin word ¢ curt-us, with

such words as ¢sert-us, connected, from ser-o,” it may be

concluded that °curt-us,” is derived from an obsolete verbal

theme ¢cur-o,’

which would bé identical with the Tamil

‘kur-u.

kuru-du, blindness, blind; ultimate base ‘kuru’ (like *kira,’ the

ultimate base of ‘kiradu,’ old).

Compare Persian ¢ kir ;’

Kurd ¢kor; Ossete ‘kurm, blind.

kuri, Can., a sheep, Tuda °gurri.’

Compare Irish kaora; Georg.

¢ chhuri.’

kul-ir, cold, Tam. and Can.: ultimate base, by analogy, ‘kul; Telugu

and Canarese ‘chali, cold : collateral root, <ilir, Tam., o

tremble.

¢kiudal’ and ‘kudir, cold, are doubtless derivative

or allied words.

Compare German ‘kiihl; Saxon ‘eyl,” ¢ col,

‘cele;’ Russian ‘cholod;’ English ¢ cool,’ ‘cold; Latin ¢gelu;’

English ¢ chill.’—See also ‘Scythian Affinities.’

kél, to hear, Tam. and Can. Compare Latin ‘aus-cul-to, to hear, to

listen; also the Greek kh\i-w,” to hear; Welsh ©clyw, hear-

tng; Irish ‘cluas,’ the ear; Lithuanian klau,” to hear; Latin

‘clu-o,” to be called.—See also the Scythian affinities, which

are still closer than these.

kol, to kull.

Compare Russian ‘kolyu,’ o stab; and especially the

English ¢ kill” and ‘quell.’—See also ¢ Scythian Affinities.’

sakk-u, @ sack. Compare Greek °cdrk-os’ or ‘edr-os, @ sack.—See

also ¢ Semitic’ and Scythian Aflinities.

Greek lexicographers derive this word from a Greek

etymon; but we can suppose it to have sprung from a Greek

ta

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN

FAMILY.

459

base only on the supposition (which is an inadmissible one)

16

that the Greeks were the great carrying traders of antiquity.

l

The Tamil word ©sikk-u,” denotes a loose bag of coarse cloth,

It

but not also as in Hebrew and Greek, the coarse cloth itself of

al

which the bag or sack is made.

Those languages, therefore,

would appear to come nearer than the Tamil to the original

source of the word.

>\,

satt-u,

to close a door, to shut; Saxon ¢seytt-an,’ to shut tn; Dutch

¢ schutt-en,” o stop ; English ¢ to shut.’

9l

(7

ad-i (pr‘onounced ‘jadi’), a jar. Compare Spanish ‘jarra; English

<

1ty

jar

th

be

sal, @ bucket. Compare oy\-ia,” any flat board or tray witk a raised

rvm.—See also ¢ Semitic Affinities.’

al

fivar-u, Can., a splinter.

iil

Compare English ¢a shiver.

&ir-u (pronounced ¢siir-u’), to Aiss.

Compare ©ovp-i{w, to ppe, also

he

to hiss; Latin €su-surr-us, a whispering, or whistling.

Our

English word ¢%iss’ is evidently mimetic; but ‘siru’ and its

allied roots bear no trace of an imitative origin.

'

$ud-u, Tam. and Can., to heat, to burn, to fire: related root ¢8ud-ar,’

to shine.

Compare. Persian ‘sus-an; Kurd ¢sodj-an; Ossete

¢ suds-in, to burn.

Compare also Sans. ‘sush-a,” and Latin

ol

‘sicc-0, to dry.

Probably Sans. ¢ kud-a,” to heat, to burn,

1]

contains the same base.

V6

ol

éepp-u, to speak. Compare ‘ém-w’ (for “fém-w’), to speak.

U

el to go, to proceed. This is unquestionably a pure Dravidian root,

and abounds in derivatives; e.g., ‘&el,” the white ant; *gel-avu,’

f0

expenditure; ¢Sel-vam, prosperity.

It forms its preterite also

(l

in a manner which is peculiar to pure Dravidian verbs.

It is obviously allied to the Sans. ¢shal-a,” fo go or move,

o

ich

¢shél-a,” to move, to tremble; chal-a’ and °char-a,’ Zo go, to

shake, to totter; and also to the Hindustani derivative, ¢chal,’

to go.

Close as these analogies are, ‘&el’ appears to bear an

the

equally close resemblance to ‘cel,’ the obsolete Latin root, sig-

%:

nifying to go, from which are formed celer, and also ex-

cell-o’ and ¢ pree-cell-o.”

The same root is in Greek ©«el ;

S8

e.q., ‘kéx-ns, @ runmer, and ¢ kéX\w, to urge on.

ek

tag-u, fit, proper, worthy. Compare ¢ élc-awos, right, proper, just.

ok

B

bl i .

460

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES

tayir, curds.

Compare ¢ rvp-os, cheese.

tin, 0 eat,; tindi, food. Compare ©7évé-w, to gnaw, to eat daintily,

“TeévOys, a gourmand.

tir-a (pronounced nearly like ¢tora’), fo open; °tir-a-vu,’ an open-

MY, & WAY, & MEAns.

Compare Greek ¢ 6Ypa,” a door; German

‘thur; Old High German ‘tor; Gothic ¢daur; Sanscrit

“dvara.’

These words are commonly derived from the Sansecrit

theme € dvru,’ fo cover,; but as they all mean not the door-Zeaf,

but the door-way, and metaphorically @ way, or means, this

derivation is far inferior to that of the Dravidian ‘tira’ or

‘tora’ (Can. tera ), fo open.

tind-u, to touch, to kindle.

Compare Gothic ‘tandya, 7 kindle.

Possibly there may be a remote connexion also with the Sans.

¢danh,’ ¢o burn, the intensitive of which is ¢ dandah.’

On the

other hand, the ‘n’ of the Tam. tind-u’ is probably euphonic,

for it disappears in the Can. °tid-u.’

tel, clear.

Compare éfjA-os,” clear, manifest.

tol-ei (base ‘tol’), distance, adverbially distant.

As a verb, ‘tol-ei’

signifies to end, or come to an end. Compare ¢ Tij\-¢, far of,

which Buttmann derives from ¢ 7é\-os, an end.

tripp-u, Tel., to turn; also, by corruption, ¢tippu;* Can. ¢ tiru-pu ;’

Tamil ‘tiru-ppu.’ These are causal or active verbs, and the

corresponding mneuter or intransitive verb signifying o turn, is

in Tel. ‘tiru-gu, in Tamil ‘tiru-mbu.’

The Canarese has

‘tiru-hu,” ‘tiru-vo,” and °tiru-gun.

There are also a few

related themes; e.g., < tiru-gu, Tam., to twist or twrn; from

which is derived ¢ tirugal,” a mill.

From a comparison of all

these words, it is manifest that their common base is ©tiru,” to

which various formative additions have been made, for the

purpose of expressing modifications of meaning.

“tiru’ itself,

also, has evidently arisen through the phonetic necessities of

the language, from ‘tru’ or ‘tri, which is to be regarded as

the ultimate base.

Compare Greek ¢ wpém-w, to turn,; which

bears a remarkable likeness to the Tel. ‘tripp-u,” and the

initial portion of which (with that of our English ¢turn’),

seems closely allied to the Dravidian base, ‘tru’ or ¢tri.’

Probably the Sanscrit ‘tarkun,” @ spindle, is not a collateral

word, but one which has been directly borrowed by the Sanserit

from the Dravidian tongues.

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

461

nas-u, fo crush, to squash. Compare ¢ vico-w,” to squeeze close, to stamp

down.

nar-a,

Can., a tendon, a sinew, catgut; sometimes, but improperly, @

vein or artery: adjectivally wiry, stringy.

Tel

‘narammu ;

Tam. ¢narambu; Rajmahal ¢néru.’

‘nara’ or ‘nar’ appears

to be the ultimate base; with which compare the Latin ¢nerv-

us’ and the Greek ¢ wvebp-ov, a tendon, a ligament.

I

nin-ei,

;

to think, to remember; Can., ‘nen-i.” This word is undoubtedly

a Tamil primitive, and is probably connected with “nefijju,’

§

I

Tam., the soul, literally the upper part of the chest, the dia-

phragm.

[With respect to this double signification of the

word ‘ nefijj-u,’ compare the twofold meaning of ‘@pyv, in

Greek, viz., the diaphragm or chest (supposed to be the seat of

the mental faculties), and also the mental faculties themselves.]

6

If there is any analogy between the Dravidian “nin’ or

Gy

‘nen,’ and the Sanscrit ‘man,’ fo think, it comes to light only

by comparing it with the corresponding Greek word ¢ vé-cw,’

by reduplication ‘vevo-yuar.

‘ pva-opal, to think on, to re-

member, and ¢ pév-os,” wish, are in perfect accordance with the

Sanserit ‘ mana,” and are probably more ancient than ¢ vé-ew;’

I

of which the initial ¢»* has possibly been changed from ¢ u.’

The Dravidian ‘nen’ or ‘nin’ has in like manner, I conceive,

been changed from an older ‘men’ or ‘min,” allied to ‘man-a’

and ¢ ,ue'v-oe.’

16

18

nind-u

(also ‘mifij-u’), to swim; €nich-u’ and ‘nitt-al, swimming.

18

Tel. ¢id-u,; Can. ¢ich-u,’ to swim; Tel. derivative noun, ‘ita,’

W

swimming. A comparison of these words shows that the final

‘ndu’ of the Tamil verb has been euphonised from ¢du.’

Il

I have no doubt that the base of this verb is simply “nid’ or

>

{0

e

of which ‘mi, Can., to bathe, is probably a collateral

form.

16

Compare ¢ni

with the Latin ‘no’ (‘navi’), fo swim;

lf,

of

Greek vé-w, also € vyj-xw; Sanscrit ‘nau; Greek ¢vad-s, a

boat.

ih)

Compare also ‘nid-u’ (the supposititious original of

h

both ‘nind-u’ and ‘id-a’) with the Latin secondary verb

16

¢ nat-o.

Bopp derives these Indo-European words from ¢sna,’

Sans., to bathe; but their root is not, I conceive, in Sanscrit.

1)’

It is only in the Classical and in the Dravidian tongues that it

is found,

al

b

ney, to weave.

Probably ‘nil, @ thread, and also to spin, is a word

462

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

of collateral origin. As pal, milk, may have been derived

rom ‘pa,’ to drink, and ‘til, dust, from ‘td;’ fo scatter, so

‘0l @ thread, may be supposed to be derived from an obsolete

‘nd,” ¢o spin: and this root would naturally be concluded to

be a correlative of ¢ney, to weave.

Compare ©vé-w, to spin, ‘vi-pa,’ @ thread; and more

especially the Latin ‘neo,” which not only means to spin, to

entwine, but also, secondarily, to weave; e.g., tunicam quam

molli neverat auro.’

Virg.

A collateral root, and one which bears, perhaps, a still

closer avalogy to the Dravidian ¢ ney,’ to weave, is that which

we find in the German ‘nih-en,” ¢o sew; Latin ¢nec-to, to

knit, to join; and Sanscrit ‘nah-a, fo bind, to tie.

pad-u,

to suffer, to recetve or feel an tmpression,; a word which is used

as an auxiliary in all the Dravidian langnages in the formation

of passive verbs: derivative noun, ¢ pat-u,” Tel. and Can., «

suffering.

Compare Latin ¢pat-ior, and Greek ¢maf-eiv,’ each of

which has precisely the same meaning as the Dravidian verb.

pa(}—u,

Tel. to fall.

This verb is identical in Telugu with the pre-

ceding one; but the meaning, to fall, which it bears in Telugu,

in addition to that of fo suffer, suggests a different set of

affinities.

Even in Tamil it means ¢o k¢, or to light, as well as

to suffer, or receive an impression.

Compare Slavonian ¢ pad,’

to- fall; Sanscrit ‘pat, to fall, to fly; Zend ‘pat, to fly;

Latin ¢pet’ in im-pet-o,’ to fall upon; Greek ‘mér-ouar, to

My, and alse ¢ wirr-w,” to fall.

L

pan, to make, to work, to produce: colloquial form ¢pannu; Tel.

¢ pannu.’

This word is evidently allied to the Sanscrit ¢ pan-a,

pa

to do business, to megotiate; the noun corresponding to which,

‘pana,” means business, hence property.

This noun, ‘pana,

has been borrowed by the Dravidian languages; but the only

signification which it bears is money.

Whilst ¢ pana-m,’

money, is always admitted by Dravidian grammarians to be a

BSanscrit derivative, they regard ‘pan(n)-u,’ to make, to work,

as a primitive Dravidian word; and this view is confirmed by

the circumstance that it stands at the head of a large family

of derivatives and collaterals; some of which are pann-ei,

tillage, a wrice-field; ©pan-i,) serwice, humility; °panikku,’ «

design, a clever performance; ‘pani,” Malayalam, dificulty, toil ;

—

A o

—

T

DR—

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

463

{

‘pani,’ Tel., work.

It is especially worthy of notice that

0

‘pan-i, as a verbal root, signifying ¢o be subservient, to obey, to

£

worshap, has become in its turn the parent of a host of deri-

0

vative words.

I have no doubt that ¢ pan,’ to make, to work, has an ulterior

{

connexion with the Sanscrit ¢ pan-a,’ fo negotiate; but it appears

fo

to have a still closer connexion with the Greek ¢mov-dw, to

toil, to work hard, ¢ mov-os, work, a task, and ¢wév-ouar, to

work, to toil.

Compare also the Babylonian ¢ban-as,’” to do, to

il

make.

ch

1]

pamp-u, Tel, to send: a softened form of the same word is ‘ampu,’

from which is derived the Tamil ¢anuppu,” to send, and

‘ambu,” an arrow; also the Tel. ‘ampa,” an arrow, and

ed

‘ampakam,’ dismission.

It is obvious from a comparison of

these words, that the Telugu has best preserved the original

on

form.

{

Telugu grammarians suppose ‘pampu,’ to send, to be a

causal from ¢ pd,” to go; and it is certain that some causals are

formed in Telugu by adding ‘mp’ to the root.

This supposi-

of

tion, however, would lead us to expect ‘pémpu’ instead of

‘pampu;’ and it is inconsistent with the existence of a causal

16

formed from ¢pampu’ itself, viz., ¢ pamp-i-inchu, to cause to

4

send, corresponding to the Tamil ‘anuppu-vi.

I therefore,

of

think that ¢ pamp-u,’ ¢o send, should be regarded as a primitive

word.

3

d,

Compare the verb ¢ pamp-u’ with Greek ¢meum-w, to send,

i

and the noun ,_‘ pamp-u,’ @ dismission, with ¢ woum-1).

{0

pal-e, Can., old, long in use, of ancient date; Tamil ¢ para.’

Compare

¢ rakat-os, lold, ancient, antiquated ; * mi)\azl,’ in olden time.

el

par-u,

to fruit, to become ripe; *para-m, a ripe fruit; Can. ‘pala’

Hy

(‘r’ changed into ‘1’); Tel. ‘pandu’ (‘r

changed dialec-

lCh,

tically into ‘d’ and then nasalised).

Compare Persian ¢ ber,’

nd

Jruit; Armenian ¢ perk; Latin ¢fru-or, ¢fru-x,

Compare

»nl):

also the Sanserit ‘phala, fruit; a word which has been

Iy

borrowed by the Tamil in the sense of effect or profit, but

0 &

which is never confounded by it with its own ¢para-m.’

I

07"1'7

suspect this root to be identical in origin with the preceding

by

one

In Tamil to be old or long vn wuse, is ‘ para; to be ripe,

pily

‘paru; and both the words themselves and the ideas they

£y

express seem to be allied.—See also, however, the Semitic

!

analogies of this word.

'O‘l'l}

|

464

GLOSSARIAL

AFFINITIES.

N A oA

pal, many, wvarious; ¢pal-ar, many people; ©pal-a, many things.

The ordinary adjectival form of this word, which is used with-

out discrimination of number or gender, is pala;’ but pal’ is

more classical.

There is also a verb formed from the same

base, ¢ pal-gu,’ to become many, to be multiplied, to increase.

If there is any connexion between this word and the Sans-

crit “puru’ (for ¢paru’) much, it is a very distant one;

whereas ‘pal’ appears to be closely allied to the Greek

“molvs, ¢ mohv, many, much, and the Latin ¢ plus.’

Compare

¢palar,” many persons, with ‘6. wo\\o,’ the many, the majority.

The Sanscrit ¢ puru’ is derived from ¢ pri,’ to fil{ (‘ pi-par-mi’);

but the Tamil ‘pal’ is an ultimate root.

pall-i, a town, a willage, a school, @ mosque; in Travancore a church,

and generally a place of concourse.

Compare molws, a city,

i

from ¢ 7oléw, to haunt, to frequent.

palli’ is found in Sanscrit dictionaries; but I consider it

to be a purely Dravidian word.

jul

piykk-u, to rend in pieces, to card, to comb cotton, to pick. Compare

¢ mék-w, to comb; English ¢to pick.’

pir-i, to divide; also ‘por,’ to cleave.

Compare Sanscrit ¢ phal-a,’ o

dwvide; but especially the Latin ¢ par-s,” @ portion, also ¢ por-

tio,” from the supposititious root ¢por-o’ or ‘par-o,” fo appor-

pe

tion, to divide. The Greek ¢ mop-w,” in the sense of im-par-ting,

is doubtless an allied word.

The closest and most remarkable

analogies, however, are those which we find in the Semitic

*

vocabulary,—which see.

pill-ei, Tam., @ ckild; Tel. “pilla; Can. pille;’ Latin ¢ puell-us,’

If the Latin word is derived from

‘puell-a, a boy, a girl.

¢ puer-ulus,” it is probably unconnected with ‘pill-ei.” Perhaps

a more reliable affinity is that of ¢fil-ius,” “fil-ia, @ som, a

daughter, supposed to mean literally a suckling.—See also the

PeR

¢ Scythian Vocabulary.’

pugar, to praise. Compare Old Prussian ¢ pagir-u’ 7 praise, and the

corresponding noun ¢ pagir-sna, praise.

pur-am, a side, especially the outside, the exterior; e.g., ‘appuRam,’

that side; ippuram, this side: adjectivally ¢ pur-attu,’ ex-

ternal: adverbially ‘ purambéga’ ( puram-b’-aga’), externally:

as a verbal theme ¢ purappadu’ (‘ pura-(p)-padu’), to set out :

Can. ‘pora-ge,’ outside: ‘pora-du,’ to set forth. . There is,

465

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN.

S

doubtless an ulterior connexion between °pura-m,’ the outside,

externally, and ¢ pira,” other

yet they are not to be regarded

1§

as one and the same word; and ‘puram’ has affinities of its

own, as well as meanings of its own

16

Compare Greek ¢ mapa,

beside, in which one of the meanings of the Drividian word

§

appears, whilst the meaning of side is not conveyed by the

correlative Sanscrit

)

para

Compare especially the Latin

ek

¢ foris

abroad

‘forum,” a public place; *fori

the decks of a

e

ship, with the Canarese

pora,

outside

This seems a more

natural derivation of ¢ foris

iy

than the Greek ¢ 0ipa,’ a door

word which I have connected with the Dravidian ¢tira,” fo

7)’

open

In the Dravidian Janguages ‘f’ is unknown, and ‘p’is

always used instead

ch,

pls-ei,

@ cat, especially in the South-Tamil idiom

In the Cashgar

by

dialect of the Affghan,

pusha ’ signifies @ cat

Compare Irish

‘ pus

a cat

English ¢puss

1t

pill-1,

Tel., a cat

pul-i

signifies @ tiger, or more commonly a

cheetak, or hunting leopard, in all the Dravidian dialects, and

e

a cat also in Canarese

Compare Persian ‘pelang,’ a tiger,

but especially the Latin ‘feles’ or ‘felles,’ @ cat, a word which

f0

is also used to denote various animals of a similar character

or"

per-

great, also ‘per-ia

another form of the same adjective in

07

Tamil, and probably a more ancient one, is ¢par-u

Possibly

/2‘/,

pal-a,” many, is a related root, seeing that there appears to

ble

be the same relation between ‘per-u

0

par-u,” great, and

i

SIR-U1

7

E

small, and

sil-a,

pal-a, momy, that there is between

Jfew

‘per-u,” great, is also used as a verbal theme, and in

18

that connexion it signifies ¢0 increase.

‘varh’ and ¢vih,’ to grow

o

Compare Sanscrit ¢ puru,” much

but especially the Zend ‘berez’ and ‘barez,’ great

aps

y

verbal ‘noun

PeRr-u,

to bear, to bring forth, to obtain, to get or beget

the

Péer-u,

a bringing forth or birth, a thing obtained or a

benefit

PIR-a

to be born, to proceed from, is doubtless a

the

b

related word; and there is probably a relationship between

these words (especially the latter) and ‘pira,’ otker, foreign

F

pura-m, the exterior, and even ‘por-u, to bear or sustain.

Ll

g

s

Compare the Latin

par-10

pe-per-i,

to bring jorth, to

73

acquare

Possibly the ultimate base of all these words is the

Iy

Indo-European preposition, ¢ pra,’ signifying progresswwe motion,

i

expansion, excess, &c.; and the Zend form of this preposition,

=

15

2 H

o A

——

466

GLOSSARTAL AFFINITIES,

‘fra, indicates the propriety of classing the Latin ¢ fru-x’ with

the other derivatives.

See also the Semitic Vocabulary.

péy, a demon.

Compare the English ‘fay,” an elf; French ‘fée.

peiy-an, a boy, a servant; also ‘ pay-an,” ‘pay-al,” and ¢ peiy-al:’ Mala.

fal

is that of

¢ pei-tal ;7 Can. ¢hei-da.’

The termination

the neuter verbal noun; and consequently ¢ payal’ might be

applied to a youth of either sex, though restricted in Tamil to

the masculine.

The Malayalam has ‘an pei-tal,’ @ boy, ¢ pen

pei-tal,” a girl.

Compare Greek ‘wais, ¢ 7waié-os, a boy or girl, a servant;

Laconian ‘mowp ; Latin ‘puer; Persian ¢ bach,” a boy, ¢ puser, o

1l

son; Swedish ‘poike; English ‘boy.'—See Scythian Affinities.

POR-1t,

to sustain, to bear, to suffer patiently: ‘por-u-ppu,’ respon-

sibilaty ; ¢ por-u-mei,” patience.

Compare Gothic bair-an,” to

bear,; Greek ‘@ép-w; Latin ‘fer-o.

The Tamil distinguishes

between this word and ¢pir-a,” to be born, though both are

probably from the same base.

The Latin in like manner dis-

tinguishes between ¢par-io’ and fer-o,” whilst the Gothic

tongues make no difference between ¢bear, fo sustain, and

“bear,” to bring forth. They constitute one word, from which

is formed the past participle to be born or borne, and also the

1l

noun birth.

por-u-du, fvme: theme por.

Compare Sanscrit ¢ var-a,’ fume; Per-

sian ¢ bar,” the theme of ¢ bari, once; Latin ‘ber, the suffix

of time, which appears in the names of the months from Sep-

tem-ber to Decem-ber.

povrv-u, to 7ise, to be puffed up, like bread: a real Tamil word, though

a local, vulgar one.

Compare English ‘to puff, and Dutch

‘boff-en,’” also ‘pof,” a blast which swells the cheeks.

po, fo go; also ‘pd-gu’ (with the usual formative addition of ‘gu’).

The second person singular of the imperative of ¢pdgu’ is

‘ po.’

Laghmani (an Affghan dialect), ‘pak,’ to go; Greek

‘Ba-w,’ to go; Latin ‘va-do,” to march; Hebrew ¢bo,’ to come,

occasionally Zo go.

pod-u,’ to put.

Compare Dutch ‘poot-en,’ to set or plant; Danish

‘pod-er, to graft; English to put.

Bil—u, Can., fo fall; Tam. ‘vir-u” Compare English “to fall; Ger-

man ‘ fallen.’

y

WEST I'NDO-EUROPEA&.

46

i

mag-an, ¢ son, @ male; Tulu ‘mag-e.

Compare Gothic ‘mag-us,’ «

boy, a son, from the verbal theme ‘mag,’ originally to grow,

then Zo be able; Gaelic ‘mak,” « son,; Tibetan ‘maga,’ son-in-

law.

Compare also Latin ‘ mas,’ a male.

b,

of

may-ir, hair.

Compare Persian ‘mui; Armenian ‘mas,” Aair.

e

maRr-a, to forget.

Compare Lithuanian ‘mirsz,” fo forget.

to

\e]‘]

ma, a male, particularly the male of the lion, elephant, horse, and

swine; e.g., ‘ari-ma,” a male lion.

Compare Latin ‘mas,” a

it

male.

i]

marg-u, to die, to be bewildered, to mingle: velated theme ‘mar-u,” 7o

5,

be confused, to be lazy.

01l

Compare Latin < marc-eo, to wither, to be faint, to be

1]

languid or lazy, and also the Greek ¢puapaivw, which in the

hes

passive voice signifies fo waste away, or die.

Possibly all these

are

words have a remote connexion with ¢ mri,” Sanscrit, to die.

li

It is evident, however, that there is a closer and more

hic

special connexion between the Latin and Greek secondary

nd

themes here adduced and the Tamil.

lich

mig-u, much, great: as a verbal theme, fo be much.

‘ mifij-u,’ o

the

abound (from ‘mij,’ nasalised), is probably a collateral root.

Related words, Tel., ‘migal-u,’ remainder, that which s too

Per-

much,; ‘migula’ and ¢migala,” adverb and adjective, much, ex-

ifiix

ceedingly, also ‘mikkili,’ the same. Can. ‘mig-u,’ to exrceed, also

Sep

‘migil-u,’ both as a verb and as a noun; ancient dialect of

Canarese ‘ migal,” much; °mogga,’ and also * mokkala,” @ mass,

a heap, an assemblage.

uch

f

The Sanserit ‘maha,’ great, from ‘mah,’ fo grow, is fre-

ateh

E

quently used in the Dravidian dialects, but it is always

considered to be a Sanscrit derivative, not the original base

from which the Dravidian words have been derived.

This

o)

view is confirmed by the circumstance that the Dravidian

ook

languages have no word signifying much, except ‘ mig-u,’ and

. 1ts correlatives.

(ot

The Drévidian words quoted above, bear a

much closer resemblance to the corresponding words in the

Thus,

Classieal and Germanic tongues than to the Sanserit.

)a,nish

the Latin ‘ mag-nus,’ ‘mag-is; the Persian ‘mib’ or ‘meah;

the Greek ¢ uéya’ or ¢ peyalos; the Old High German ¢ mih-

hil; Norse ¢mikil; Danish ‘megen; English ¢migh-t ;

(rer-

Scottish ¢ mickle,” are more closely connected with the Tam.

2. °H 2

468

GLOSSARIAL

AFFINITIES.

‘migu,’ the Can. ‘migal’ and ¢ mokkala’ and the Tel. ‘migala’

and ‘mikkili, than with the Sans. ¢ mah-at.’

The final ¢1° of

the Dravidian words seems to be ¢a particle of specialisation.’

—See the section on ¢ Roots.’

mirg-u, to plunge, to sink.

‘amir’ appears to be a softened form of

the same word; and probably the ‘g’ of ‘mirgu’ is only a

formative.

Compare Latin “merg-o,” to plunge, to immerse.

The preterite being ‘mersi,” not ¢ merxi,” possibly the ‘g’ of

‘mergo’ is a formative addition like the g’ of the Tam.

‘mir-g-u.’

mugil, Tam. and Ancient Can., @ cloud. Compare Sanscrit ‘mégha,’

a cloud, from ‘mih’ (‘méhati’), to sprinkle. The word ‘ mégha,’

has been borrowed from the Sanscrit By the Dravidian lan-

The

guages, and is now more commonly used than ¢mugil.’

latter, however, is found in the classics, is much used by

the peasantry, and is undoubtedly a pure Dravidian word.

Doubtless ‘mégha’ and ¢mugil’ are ultimately allied; but

there is a direct and special connexion between the Dravidian

word and the Greek ¢ ¢-u/x\-1,” a cloud, the Lithuanian ‘ migla,’

the Slavonian ‘mgla, and the Gothic ‘milh-ma; in each Qf

which the ‘1’ of ‘mugil’ retains its place.

muyal, fo labour, to endeavour.

Compare Latin ¢ mol-ior,” to endea-

,%

vour, to strive; Greek ¢u@d\-os, the toil of war,; English ‘to

moil,” to labour or strive.

i)

muRumuru, to grumble, to murmur.

A very similar word, ‘ moru-

moRru,” to murmur, would naturally be regarded as identical

with ¢ murumuru; but a different origin is ascribed to each.

‘morumoRru’ is said to be simply and solely a mimetic word,

§

one of a large class of imitative, reduplicated exclamations;

e.g., ‘ he said ¢ moru-moru ;

i.e., he spoke angrily: ‘his head

said ¢ kiru-kiru

i.e., 16 went round.

‘murumuru,’” on the

other hand, is not purely imitative, but seems to be regularly

ra)

formed by reduplication from ‘muru,’ the base of ¢ murukku,’

to twist, to chafe; and the signification of grumbling, and being

discontented, has arisen from that of ckafing.

Yal

Whatever be the derivation of the Tamil word, it may be

compared with the Latin ¢ murmuro,” to mutter.

The Latin

R B T e R

word is evidently an imitative one, the reduplication: of the

syllable ¢ mur’ being used to signify the continuance of a low

muttering sound.

¢mur’ has doubtless some connexion with

s st ah e

N T O R T e e

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN.

469

the base of ‘musso,” ‘mussito,’ to mutter or grumble.

Compare

also the Greek expression fo say ©ud us,” to mutter, to grumble.

The Old Prussian ¢ murra,” to murmur, is evidently related.

—=See also the ‘Scythian Vocabulary.’

The Tamil word means not only ¢o utter a muttering sound,

f

but also to ewpress discontent, to be angry; and in this it goes

i)

beyond the meaning of the corresponding Latin ¢ murmuro.

Muttering, is in Tamil expressed by ‘muna-muna,” a some-

of

what similar, yet independent, imitative word.

|

mukk-u,” the nose: theme ‘mig-u, Can., to smell; related Tamil

verbs ‘mugar’ and ‘mokk-u,” to smell.

Compare Greek ¢ uvemip, the nose.

The Greek word is

dy

said to be derived from ¢ udCw, to moan, to mutter, to suck in,

or from °uifa, the discharge from the nose (Latin € mucus’).

he

It 1s worth consideration, however, whether the Dravidian

by

derivation is not, after all, a more probable one.

1

b

mett-a, Tel., a bed, a cotton bed, a cushion; Tamil ‘mett-ei; Canarese

‘ mott-e.’

an

The word seems to be a derivative from ¢ mel,

3,

Tam., soft, fine.

of

Compare Latin < matta,” @ mat, @ mattrass; Slavonian ‘mat ;’

Saxon ‘meatta:’ also the Hebrew “mittah,” a bed, a cushion.

The Tamil seems to give the best and most natural deriva-

el

tion of these words.

4t0

mel, fine, thin, soft, tender; mell-a,’ softly, gently.

Compare Latin ¢ moll-is,” soft, tender, pliant; Greek ¢ paa-

RI-

Ko<, Soft, gentle, tender.

The derivation of the Latin ‘mollis,

il

from ‘movilis,’ is inconsistent with the connexion which cer-

ach.

tainly subsists between ‘mollis’ and ¢ patacos; and the re-

'01'(]1

semblance of both to the Dravidian ¢ mel > is remarkable.

IH

Compare Sauscrit ‘mridu,” soft, which is in Tamil ¢ med-u.’

head

the

ray, Tel., a stone. Bearing in mind the mutual interchange of ‘r’ and

larl)"

¢l we may perhaps compare this word with the Greek

?

‘Na-as

or ‘\ai-a, a stone.

Ko,

jein]

val-i, strength; ¢val-i-ya,’” strong; ‘van-mei’ (‘val-mei’), strength.

The Drévidian languages bave borrowed, and frequently use,

}y be

the Sanscrit “bala’ (in Tamil ¢balan,” ¢balam,’ and even

[atin

f the

‘valam’) ; and it might at first be supposed that this is the

origin of ‘vali, &e.

I am persuaded, however, that the words

) Jow

cited above have not been derived from the Sanscrit, but have

with

|

470

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

been the property of the Dréavidian languages from the begin-

ning. The Dravidian ‘val’ has given birth to a large family,

not only of adjectives and nonns, but also of derivative verbs,

which have no connexion whatever with anything Sanscrit ;

e.g., ‘vali) a spasm; ‘vali, to row, &c.; and if this word is

not to be regarded as Dravidian, this family of languages must

be supposed to be destitute of a word to express so necessary

and rudimental an idea as strong.

“val, also, more closely

resembles the Latin ¢ val-eo,” to be strong, and °val-idus,” than

the Sanscrit ¢ bala-m.’

val, fertility, abundance; ¢ val-ar, and many related verbs, to rear, to

cause to grow.

Compare Latin ‘al-o,” to nowrish.

Connexion

doubtful.

E

The

vind-u, the wind. Compare Latin ‘vent-us; English ¢ wind.

2

Tamil word is said to be derived from

¢

vin,

the sky: its

resemblance to ¢ vent-us’ is, the}refore, probably accidental.

virel, fo shiver from cold, to grow stiff from cold. °vR1’ was pro-

I

bably the primitive form of this theme.

Compare Greek ° ¢pios-w, to tremble, to shiver; puy-éw,’ to

¢

It

shiver or shudder with cold,; © piy-os, frost, cold, a shwvering

0

from cold; also Latin ‘frig-eo,’ to be cold; °frig-us,’ cold;

§

‘rig-eo, ‘rig-or,” to be styf, as from cold; English ‘to freeze.’

vin, wuseless, vain.

Compare Latin ‘van-us, empty, unreal, frivolous,

€8

vaIn.

h

th

vend-u, fo wish, to want.

Compare English ¢ want’ from Saxon

If the ‘n’ of the Tamil word is euphonic,

fu

¢ wanian,’ fo fal.

as it appears to be from comparison with ‘bed-u,” the corre-

hy

sponding Canarese word, this resemblance is merely accidental.

i

W]

VER-U,

different, other.

Compare Latin ¢ var-us,’ the secondary mean-

Vi

ing of which is different, dissimilar; ‘also ‘ var-ius,’ diversified,

1t

various, different from something else.

Elpw

001

vray, Tel., to write; Tam. ‘erud-u.

If these words were originally

be

_identical, as it is probable they were, the Telugu °vray’ must

have lost a final <d.’

or

Compare English ‘to write’—See also

‘Scythian Affinities.’

tuf

ap]

——

R—

R ———

—

EE—— - S——

471

IT

[’v

N

Semitic Affinities,

OR,

18

st

Dravidian words which appear to be allied to the Hebrew and its

stster tongues.

i)

)h

The number of such words in the Dravidian languages is not

all

great; and it might be supposed that in attempting to prove the

existence of this class of affinities, in addition to aflinities of the Indo-

fo

European and Scythian classes, I prove nothing by attempting to

prove too much.

[ submit, however, the following list of words to

01

the scrutiny and judgment of those who may ‘entertain this supposi-

tion ; and they will find in it, if I mistake not, clear evidence of the

fie

existence of a few highly interesting points of resemblance between

Its

the Dravidian vocabulary and that of the Hebrew.

In some of the instances which will be adduced, the Semitic

vocables are allied to the Indo-European as well as to the Drividian

10

languages; but it will be found that the Dravidian analogies are

closer and more direct than the Indo-European, and it is for that

fo

reason that the words are inserted in this list rather than in the pre-

ing

ceding one.

I

In some instances, again, the only analogies to th'e

Semitic vocables are such as are Dravidian.

If the existence of Semitic affinities in the Dravidian languages is

DIl

established, those aflinities cannot be explained by supposing them to

have been introduced by the Jews who have settled on some parts of

the Malabar eoast ; for the Jews, whether ‘black’ or ‘white,” have care-

X0l

fully preserved their traditional policy of isolation : they are but a small

»niC,

handful of people at most; they have never penetrated far into the

17e-

interior, even on the Malabar coast, whilst on the Coromandel coast,

tal.

where the Tamil is spoken, they are entirely unknown ; and the Dra-

vidian languages were fully formed, and the Tamil and Telugu were,

oAl

i

it is probable, committed to writing long before the Jews made their

appearance in India.

Whatever words, therefore, appear to be the

common property of the Hebrew and the Dravidian languages, must

mlly

be regarded either as indicating an ancient, pre-historic intermixture

nust

or association of the Dravidians with the Semitic race, or as consti-

also

tuting traces of the original oneness of the speech of the Noachidae.

This word is found unaltered in

app-a, father! vocative of ¢app-an.’

all the Dravidian dialects.

The Mech also, a Bhutan dialect,

has “appa’ for father; the Bhotiya ‘aba; the Singhalese

p—

472

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES

“appa.’ Analogies will also be found in the Scythian voca-

bulary.

In all the languages of the Indo-EKuropean and Semitic

families, the ultimate base of the words which denote father, is

‘p’ or ‘b,” and that of the words which denote mother is ‘m.’

The difference between those two families consists in this, that

the Indo-European words commence with the consonants ‘p

or ‘m; e.g., ‘pater, ‘mater; whilst in the Semitic languages,

those consonants are preceded by a vowel; e.g., Hebrew €ab,’

father, < ém,” mother. In this particular the Dréavidian lan-

guages follow the Semitic rule; e.g., Tam., ‘app-an,’ father,

‘amm-al,” mother.

The resemblance between ‘appan’ (vocative

appa’), and the Chaldee €abba,” father (Syriac € b ’) is very

remarkable.

It is so close, that in the Tamil translation of

I

Gal. iv, 6, < ‘abba,’ father, there is no difference whatever, either

in spelling or in sound between the Aramaic word ¢ abba’ (which

by a phonetic law becomes ¢appa’ in Tamil), and its natural

and proper Tamil rendering ‘appa; in consequence of which

it has been found necessary to use the Sanserit derivative

¢ pita-(v)-6, instead of the Tamil ‘appa,’ as the translation of

IR

the second word.

amm-4, mother! vocative of ‘amm-ei’ or ‘amm-al,’ mother.

ur

Compare Hebrew ém’ or ‘imm,’ motker; Syriac ‘4mo.”

See also the Scythian and Indo-European affinities of this word,

which are still closer than the Semitic.

ur

K

Ar-u, @ riwer,; Tel. ‘ér-u; Malayalam ‘4Rr-a

correlative root ¢éri,’

Tamil, @ natural reservoir of water.

Compare Hebrew ¢or’ or

R

‘yeor,” a river; Coptic ‘jaro.’—See also ‘Scythian Analogies.’

al, not.

In Tamil, ‘al’ negatives the attributes of a thing; ¢il,” its

il

The

existence: ‘él’ (and sometimes ‘al’), is prohibitive.

vowel is transposed in Telugu, and ‘1&’ (the base of ‘lédu’),

used instead of ¢il.

Compare the negative and prohibitive

particles of the Hebrew, al’ and €16 also the corresponding

Arabic and Chaldaic ‘1.

¢16° in Hebrew negatives the pro-

perties of a thing, like “al’ in Tamil, and another particle

(‘ain’) is used to negative the existence of it. This idiom is

ki

one which remarkably accords with that of the Dravidian

languages.

ik

Compare also the Chaldee ‘léth,’ it is mot, a compound of

“]a,’ the negative partiqle, and ¢ith,’ the substantive verb i s

SEMITIC.

473

0~

(a compound resembling the Sanscrit nasti’), with the cor-

responding Telugu ‘lédu,” 7t is not, which is compounded of

tie

1é,” the negative particle, and ‘du,’ the formative of the third

I

person neuter of the aorist.—See also ¢ Scythian Affinities.’

gl

i

av-a, desire: a related word is ‘Aval, also desire, which is a verbal

D

noun derived from the assumed root €Av-u,’ to desire (Marathi

‘avad,” love).

Compare Hebrew ¢ avvah,” desire, a verbal noun

g,

( ﬂb,,

derived from ‘avah, to desire.

The ultimate base of the Hebrew ‘4v’ or ‘av’is identical

Jan-

not only with the Tamil ¢av’ or “av,” but with the Latin ‘av-

ther,

tive

eo,” to desire, and the Sanscrit ¢ av-a,” of which to desire is one

of the rarer meanings.

Compare also Hebrew ¢abah,” to will.

very

n of

ir-u, to be; Brahui ‘ar’

Compare Babylonian ‘ar,’ fo be; also Coptic

ther

‘er’ or ‘el, and the Egyptian auxiliary ‘ar.

hich

The Dravidian word appears to mean primarily fo si,

fural

secondarily to be, i.e., to be ¢ simpliciter,” without doing any-

iich

thing.

tive

n of

iR—a, the ultimate base of ‘irRa-ngu,’ neuter, fo descend, and its tran-

sitive € ira-kku, to cause to descend.

Compare Hebrew

¢ yarad’ (biliteral base ¢ yar’), fo descend.

5

mo.

ur-i, Can., to burn; Tamil ‘er-i.

Compare Hebrew ‘tur, fire, ‘or,

light.—See also Indo-European Affinities.”

vord,

[4

A

9

ar, a city, a town, a village.

Compare Hebrew

ar

or *Mr a oy,

Babylonian ¢er.

‘b,

' o

eR-1, to cast, to shoot.

Compare Hebrew ¢ yaradh’ (biliteral base

gies.’

yar’), to cast, to shoot.

erum-ei, a buffalo; Gond ‘armi, a ske buffalo; Telugu ¢yenumu ;’

) its

Canarese ‘emmeyu.’

These synonyms (in which ‘m’ is used

The

as a radical) seem to prove that the final ‘mei’ of the Tamil

i)

word ¢erumei, has no connexion with ‘mei,’ the formative

jitive

termination of Tamil abstract nouns, but represents an essen-

yding

tial part of the root.

Compare Hebrew ‘rém, a bugfalo or

I)I'O

wild ox.

ricle

*)m iS

kir, a sharp pownt.

Compare Hebrew ¢Kkir,” to pierce, to bore.

dian

gakk-u, a loose bag of coarse cloth, a sack ; Ma]a,yélam ¢ chakk-a.’

Compare Hebrew ‘sak, a sack.—See also the Greek affinities

od of

of this word.

1

it 18

474

GLOSSARIAL

AFFINITIES.

We find the same word in many languages; e.g., Celtic

‘sac; Finnish ¢sakki; Magyar ‘saak.’

The use of this word

in Genesis xlii., is unquestionably more ancient than its vse in

it

Greek, or in any other Indo-European tongue.

The Baby-

i

lonians having been the great carrying traders of the earliest

period of human history, it would seem probable that the word

It is remark-

“sak ’ was originally theirs, and if so, Semitic.

able that though this word is in Tamil, it is not in Canarese

10

or Telugu; nor is it in Sanserit.

Possibly it is a relic of the

commerce which the old Phenicians and Hebrews carried on

with the Malabar coast.

They brought with them to Palestine

A

the Old Tamil and Malayalam name of the peacock, ¢ tok-a’

(‘thuka’ in the Book of Chronicles); and they left behind

them in India their word for sack.

2 A

sa

l, a bucket.

Compare Hebrew ‘sal, a basket; Greek ¢op\-la, a

tray.

§ay, to lean, to wncline.

Compare Hebrew ‘sha’an’ (biliteral base,

‘sha’’ or ‘sha’), to lean.

péll

§ina-m, anger: verbal theme ‘&ina-kku,’ to be angry.

Compare

Hebrew ¢sané; Chaldee ‘sené, to hate; Hebrew °sinah,

hatred. The corresponding Canarese word being ¢kini,’ fo be

offended, ‘sina-m’ is probably softened from ‘kina-m,

The

analogy is therefore somewhat doubtful.

§ir-u, to hiss.

Compare Hebrew ‘sharak’ (biliteral base ‘shar’), o

hiss; Greek ¢ ovplCw,” to pipe, to hiss.

fum-ei, a burden: verbal theme ‘suma-kku,’ ¢o bear, to carry.

Com-

pare Hebrew ‘simak’ (biliteral base ‘sam’), to support, to

uphold, to weigh heavily on.

suv-ar, @ wall.

Compare Hebrew ‘shir, « wall.

gevv-el, equal, level, correct: base ‘Sev’ or ¢Se.

A nasalised, adjec-

JéR

tival form of the same root is ‘sen; e.g., ‘en-Tamir, correct

Tamil, the classical dialect of the Tamil language.

From ¢se,

“sev,” or ‘sen,’ is formed ¢ semm-ei’ (‘sen-mei’), an abstract

of the same meaning as ‘sevvei.

Compare Hebrew ¢shavah;

Chaldee sheva’ (biliteral base ‘shav’ or “shev’), to be equal,

to be level.

If the Sanscrit € sama,” even, is at all connected

with the Tamil ‘sev’ or ‘sen,’ the connexion is very remote ;

whereas the Tamil ‘and the Hebrew word seem to be almost

identical.

SEMITIC.

475

tie

natt-u, to fix, to set up, to establish: ulterior verbal theme ‘nad-u,’ to

plant.

Compare Hebrew ¢natd’’ (biliteral base ‘nat’), to

»rld

10

plant, to set up, to establish.

)y

est

nitt-u, to lengthen, to stretch out,; formed by causative reduplication of

the final consonant from nid-u’ (also “nil”’), long. Compare

i

Hebrew ‘natadh’ (biliteral base ‘ nat’), to stretch out.

k

Bse

nokk-u, to look direct at, to address.

Compare Hebrew ‘nokah’ (base

the

‘nok’), straight forward, over against.

on

116

par-u, to become ripe, to fruit; para-m, a ripe fruit.

Compare

Hebrew ¢ pardh,” to be fruitful, to bear fruit; ¢parah,’ fo

blossom, to break forth: biliteral base of both ¢par.” Especially

\ind

compare peri, fruit.

Compare also Arnienian ‘perk, and

Persian ¢ ber,” fruit.

Doubt is thrown upon the aflinity of

1}

these words with the Dravidian ¢ par-u,” by the apparent con-

nexion of that word with

accustomed.

‘ par-a,’ Tam., to become old, to be

156,

pal, a

part, a portion; « class; Canarese ‘pal-u:’ collateral Tamil

are

roots ‘pir-i,) to divide; °pil-a, also ¢ por, to cleave.

The

7

and ¢1’° confirms

ah,

regularity of the dialectic interchange of ‘r

the supposition that ¢ pal’ and ¢ pir-i’ are related roots.

Com-

o be

The

pare Hebrew ¢pélah, ¢pala, ¢palah, ¢palag,

‘palal; and

also (by the interchange of ‘r’ and ¢1’), ¢parash,” ¢paras;

and Chaldee ‘peras,’ to separate, to divide, to distinguish, &ec.

) {

All these words, like the Tamil ¢pal’ and “pir-i’ (and also

¢ pagir,’ to divide), include the idea of separation nto parts.—

See also the Indo-European analogies of these roots; e.g.,

lom-

10

Sanserit ¢ phal-a,” fo divide; Latin °par-s, and ¢por-tio,” a

portion.

It is evident, however, that the Semitic analogies are

the closest.

peRr-u,

to obtain, to bear or bring forth, to get or beget: verbal noun

Jjec-

‘per-u,’ @ bringing forth or birth, a thing oblained, a benefit:

preet

collateral root °pir-a,” to be born; Gond ‘pirra, fo spring

‘gp,

Jorth ; also ‘pira, Tam., other, different.

Compare Hebrew

tract‘

‘parah,’ to be fruitful; ‘ peri, fruit; ©parah, to blossom, to

jah

break forth.

Whether the connexion between ¢ par-am, Tam.,

qllﬂl’

and ‘peri,’ Heb., fruit, be real or only apparent, I have no

el

doubt of the existence of an intimate relation between ¢ per-u,’

0te )

to bear, ‘pir-a, fto be born, and the Semitic words which are

mosh

here adduced, as well as the Latin ¢ par-io,’ ¢ pe-per-i.’

476

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

ba, Can., to come, Gond ¢ wai; Tamil ‘va’ or ‘var; Telugu ‘ra;

:;

Tuda

‘wo.’

Compare Hebrew ¢ bo,” to come, to come in;

Babylonian ba,” ¢o come

|

Com-

may, to die, to put to death.

Compare Hebrew ‘mith,” to dee.

pare also ‘muwo, dead, in the Lar, a Sindhian dialect.

P ey RSP s LSS |

maRr-u, to change; Can. to sell.

Compare Hebrew ¢ miur,’ to change

%

or exchange, of which the ‘niphal’ is ¢namar, as if from a

T

base in ‘marar’ or ‘mar.

The corresponding Syriac ¢ mor,’

means to buy.

misukka-n, a poor, worthless fellow; ‘misukk-ei, a worthless article.

Compare Hebrew ‘miskeén,” poor, unfortunate.

i

The Hebrew word is commonly supposed to be derived

from ¢sakan; but Gesenius considers the ‘m’ of ‘miskén’ to

be a radical letter, not a servile.

This word has found its

way (probably by means of the Saracens) into several Euro-

pean languages; e.g., French ‘mesquin.’

The Tamil does not

contain the root of this word ; and it may therefore be supposed

to have borrowed it an early period from some Semitic dialect,

after the manner of ¢ sikk-u,” a sack.

At all events, the coincidence between ¢ miskén’ and

¢ misukkan,” is one which deserves to be noticed.

R R S o o R A S D

mett-a, Tel. (Tam. ‘mettei;’ Can. ‘motte’), a bed, a cotton bed, a

cushon.

The Dravidian word appears to be derived from

‘mel,” soft.

Compare, however, the Hebrew ‘mittah,” a bed,

cushion, a litter, from ¢natah,’ to stretch out.

|

I

Scythian Affinities,

OR,

Dravidian words which exhibit a near relationship to words contained

in some of the languages of the Scythian group, particularly to the

Finnish dealects.

The majority of the affinities that follow are clearer, more diréct,

and of a more essential character than the Indo-European or Semitic

affinities which have been pointed out in the preceding lists.

Many

of the words which will be adduced as examples are words of a

primary character, and of almost vital necessity—words which carry

SCYTHIAN

4

(s

authority and convey intuitive convietion, in comparisons of this kind

I

Some of the Dravidian words in the following list have Sansecrit or

Indo-European affinities, as well as Scythian; a very few also have

i}

Semitic affinities ; but I have preferred placing them in this list, because

the Scythian affinities are not only the most numerous, but the closest

that appear to exist.

Such words, though they are but few, are of

e

peculiar interest, as tending to prove the primitive oneness of tbe

| &

Scythian and Indo-European groups of tongues.

o,

For the important Scythian affinities which are apparent in the

Dravidian pronouns and numerals, see the sections devoted to those

dle

parts of speech

akk-a, Can

and Tel

elder sister,

Tamil ¢akk-al

Marathi

aki

ved

In Sanscrit

{0

akka, signifies a mother

and an improbable

Sanserit derivation has been attributed to it

I believe this

1ts

110

word to be one of those which the Sanserit has borrowed from

the indigenous Dravidian tongues; and the proof of this sup-

not

position is furnished by its extensive use in the Scythian

\ed

The Sansecrit signification of this word, a mother

ot

group

differs, it is true, from the DrAvidian, an elder sister; but a

and

comparison of its significations in various languages, proves

that it was originally used to denote any elderly female relation,

and that the meaning of the ultimate base was probably that

1

of old

rom

The following are Seythian instances of the use of this root

d (

with the meaning of elder sister, precisely as in the Dravidian

languages —Tungusian ‘oki’ or

akin ;7 Mongolian ¢ achan;

Tibetan

achche

Mordwin

a dialect of the Turkish ‘ege

‘aky ; other Ugrian idioms ‘iggen

The Lappish

akke,” signifies both wife and grandmother

I'he Mongol ‘aka,” Tungusian ‘aki,” and the Uigur ‘acha,’ sig-

nify an elder brother

whilst the signification of old man is

conveyed by the Ostiak ¢iki,’ the Finnish

ukko,” and the

mﬁ]

Hungarian ‘agg

Even in the Ku, a Dravidian dialect

The ultimate base of all these

o the

akke,” means grandfather

words is probably ‘ak, old. On the other hand ‘akka,

Osmanli Turkish, means a younger sister; and the same mean-

ing appears in several related idioms. It may, therefore, be con-

rect

sE

sidered possible that ‘akka’ meant originally sister; and then

it

any

elder sister, or younger sister, by secondary or restricted usage

It is proper here to notice the remarkable circumstance

of &

i

a1ty

that the Dravidian languages, like those of the Secythian group

:l

478

GLOSSARIAL

AFFINITIES.

in general, ave destitute of any common term for brother, sister,

uncle, aunt, &c., and use instead a set of terms which combine

the idea of relationship with that of age; e.g., elder brother,

younger brother, elder sister, younger sister, and so on.

a

The derivation of ¢akka,’” from a root signifying old, would

i

a

appear to be the more probable one.

att-an, father.

att-al, mother.

We find in the Sanscrit lexicons ‘atta, a mother, an

elder sister, a mother’'s elder sister ; also ‘atti, in theatrical

langunage, an elder sister.

I regard this word also as probably

of Dravidian origin; and it will be found that in one or

another of the related meanings of father or mother, it has a

The

wide range of usage throughout the Scythian tongues.

difference in quantity between the Tamil €att-al’ or €att-ei,

and the Sauscrit ‘attd,” does not appear to be of much con-

1

sequence ; and the change of “tt’ in some Dravidian dialects

into ‘ch’ or ‘tch, is in perfect accordance with generally

prevalent laws of sound.

Hence the Malayala ‘achchh-an’

(pronounced ‘atchhan’), and the Canarese ajj-a,’ are iden-

tical with the Tamil ‘att-an; and probably the Hindi and

Marathi ¢ 4ja, @ grandfather, is a related word, if not identical.

The related words, ¢ dtt-ei,” Tamil ; ‘att-e, Canarese; ‘att-a,’

Telugu, have also the meanings of mother-in-Zuw, sister-in-law,

paternal aunt; and the coresponding Singhalese ‘att-a,” means

a maternal grandmother ; meanings which are not found in

Sanserit.

For the Seythian analogies of these words, compare Finnish

“aiti, mother, together with the following words for father,

viz., Turkish ¢ ata; Hungarian ‘atya; Finnish ‘atta; Tchere-

-

Compare also

miss ‘atyad; Mordwin ‘atai; Ostiak ‘ata’

i

Lappish ‘aija,” grandfather, and also attje.’

It is remark-

able that ‘atta’ is also a Gothic theme ; e.g., ‘attan,” father,

al

“aithein,” mother.

il

‘ann-el ’ and ‘amm-ei’ are

ann-ei, mother: honorifically elder sister.

probably correlative forms of the same base, ‘m ’ being some-

times softened into ‘n.’

vy

Compare however Finnish ‘anya,’ mother ; Mordwin ‘anai ;

Ostiak ‘ane; and also ‘anna’ and ‘ana’ in two dialects of

the Turkish.

The Hindi ‘anni,’ a nurse, is probably the same

word.

&Lei:

SCYTHIAN.

by

4

{

9

o,

app-an, futher. Compare the following words for Jather-in-law, viz.,

e

Ostiak “{p,” “6p;’ Finnish ‘appi; Hungarian ‘ip, ‘ipa,’

¢y

‘apos.’—See also ¢ Semitic Analogies.’

amm-al,

uld

amm-el,

mother : the word is also used honorifically in addressing

amm-an,

matrons.

The following are correlative words, ‘amm-ay,’

maternal grandmother, aunt by the mother’s side, and amm-an,’

an

mother’s brother.

Compare Samoiede ‘amma,” mother; Jenesei

cal

‘amma’ or ‘am ;" ¢ Estrian ‘emma ;" Finnish ¢ em4.’ Compare

bly

also Ostiak ‘in-a,” woman, wife; Hungarian ¢eme.’—See also

Or

Semitic analogies.

The Sanscrit ‘amba’ or ‘amma,” mother,

8 &

properly a name or title of Durgh, is doubtless derived from

the Dravidian word.

'

The bloody rites of Durga, or Kali,

el

were probably borrowed from the demonolatrous aborigines by

(oM

the Brahmans; and ‘amma,’ mother, the name by which she

R

was known and worshipped—her only Dravidian name—would

ally

naturally be borrowed at the same time:

all

From the same source is derived the Scindian ‘ama’ and

ell-

the Malay ¢ama,” mother.

and

It is remarkable that in one or two Dravidian dialécts the

ical

words which denote father and mother, have mutually changed

it-a,

places. In Tulu, ‘amm-e,’ is father; appe,” mother; and in

Ju

i,

Tuda the former is “en,’ the latter <aph.’ Compare the Mon-

gans

golian ‘ama,’ father.

d

In Tibetan and its sister dialects, ‘pa’ or ‘po’ denotes a

man; ‘ma’ or ‘mo, @ woman: and these words are post-fixed

ish

to nouns as signs of gender; e.g., ‘Bot-pa,” a Tibetan man,

!l‘]{eh

‘ Bot-ma,” a T%betan woman.

here

ar-u,

also

ar-u,

}preaious, dear, scarce. Compare Hungarian ‘aru,’ ° ar,” price;

‘lﬂll\

Finnish and Lappish ‘arwo.’

qiher

al,

&l

} the prohibitive particle, ‘noli; e.g., ¢ kodél’ (from ‘kod-u, give),

- giwe mot: Séntal prohibitive ¢4l Compare Lappish ¢ali’ or

L) {ue

‘ele; Ostiak €ila,’ and Finnish €Ala.’—See also ‘Semitic

ome-

Analogies.’

avva, Tel., a grandmother; Tuda ¢avva,’ a mother; Tamil avv-a, «

13l }.

matron, an elderly woman.

Compare Mordwin ‘ava,” mother.

fs of

—See also ¢ Indo-European Analogies.’

sl

al-ei, @ wave; Can. ‘ale:’ as a verbal theme ‘alei,” means o wander,

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

480

to be unsteady. Compare Finnish ¢allok,” @ wave; Armenian

¢ alik.’

4r-u, a river; Telugu ‘ér-u.’ Compare Lesghian ‘or; Avar CHoks

Yakutan (Siberian Turkish), ¢ oryas; Lappish ¢ wiro;’ Ostiak

‘jeara.’ Compare also Armenian ‘aru ; Coptic ‘jaro; and

Hebrew ¢or,” ¢yedr.

Am, 1t s, yes.

Compare Vogoul ‘am,’ yes.

iru-mbu, wron.

Compare Motor (a Samoiede dialect), ‘ur,’ eron.—

See also ‘Indo-European Analogies.’

id-u, Tel., to swim; Tamil ‘nigj-u.’ Compare Ostiak ¢fidem ; Finnish

“uin,” to swim.

uyarka, high: infinitive (used adverbially) of ‘uyar, to be high,

Compare Samoiede ©arka,’

Rajmahal idiom, ‘arka,’ htgh.

hagh.

ul, o be in, to be: as a noun, a being, an entity : as a post position un,

within ; Ancient Canarese o6l

As a verb ‘ul’ is very irre-

gular; and the €1’ though radical, has generally been eupho-

nised into ‘n. The primitive form and force of the root are

apparent in the Tamil appellative verb ¢ulladu’ (‘ul(l)-adu’),

it 1s, there is ; the Canarese ‘ullava’ (‘ ul(l)-a-vu’), there are;

and such nouns as ‘kadavul’ (‘kada-(v)-ul’), Tamil, God,

literally the surpassing or transcendent Being. ‘ulladu’ has in

Tamil been euphonised into ¢ undu’ (like ‘kol-du, having

taken, into < kondu’); and this euphonised appellative forms

Compare with

the inflexional base of the Telugu verb to be.

“ul, to be, the Ugrian substantive verb ¢ ol,” to be; e.g., Tchere-

miss ‘olam, I am; Syrianian ‘voli, I was; Finnish ¢olen,

7 am. Compare also the Turkish ‘0l," o be.

The primitive meaning of the Dravidian ‘ul,’ seems to be

‘within, in which sense it is still used as a post position in

Tamil.

ka

erud-u, to write. Compare Hungarian ‘ir, fo write; Manchu ‘ara;

Finnish ¢ kir.

elu~mbu, bone. Compare Finnish ¢lua; Samoiede ‘luy,” bone.

Compare Mordwin ‘wok,” all.

okk-a, Malayélam, all.

katt-i, @ knife. Compare Tungusian ‘koto,” a knife.—See also ¢ Indo-‘

European Affinities.’

SCYTHIAN,

481

All

kad-i,

{ to bite.

kar-i,

J

Compare Lappish ¢ kask,” ¢ bite.—See also ¢ Indo-

European Aflinities.’

ak

katt-u, to bind, to te.

Compare the following words, each of which

nd

has the same signification :—Hungarian ‘kot; Ostiak ¢katt-

em’ (to fasten, to catch); Syrjanian ¢kuta; Finnish ¢keitt;

Lappish ¢ karet."

kannir, tears. Compare Finnish ¢kényv.” The Tamil word (¢ kén—

nir’) literally signifies eye water; so that it is doubtful whether

this resemblance is not accidental.

l]\ll

kapp-al, @ ship, a vessel, originally a verbal noun from ¢ kapp-u,” Tel.,

to cover over : derivative Telugu noun ‘kapp-u,” @ covering. The

oh;

verb is not found in Canarese or Tamil, but the Canarese noun

ka,

‘kapp-u,” a subterraneous room, a pit-fall for catching elephants

(covered over with branches of trees and grass), and the

| Ul

Tamil noun ‘kappal,’ @ ship, properly a decked wessel, in con-

16

tradistinction to ‘padugu,” an open wessel, are evidently iden-

ho

tical in origin with the Telugu verb and noun.

are

The Malay word for skip is ‘kapal;’ but this has probably

),

been borrowed directly from the Tamil, and forms one of a

e

small class of Malay words which have sprung from a Dra-

(od,

vidian origin, and which were introduced into the Eastern

Archipelago, either by means of the Klings (Kalingas) who

18 iIl

g

settled there in primitive times, or by means of the Arab

traders, whose first settlements in the East were on the Malabar

TS

with

coast, where the Malayalam, the oldest daughter of the Tamil,

is spoken.

The following Secythian words for skip appear to

here-

plen,

be really analogous to the Tamil, and have certaiuly not been

borrowed from it:—Vogoul ‘kap’ or ¢kaba ;

Samoiede

{0 be

‘kebe; Jenesei ‘kep; Yerkesian ¢ kaf; Ostiak ¢chap.’—

See also the analogies adduced under the word ‘kebi,” a cave.

i iﬂ

kar-u, black,; euphonised from ¢kéar; Gujarathi ¢karo.

Compare

' ar&}’

Tuarkish ‘kara ;7 Calmuck ¢ chara ;7 Mongolian ¢ chara,’ ‘ kara;

Manchu ¢kara ;’ Japanese ¢ kuroi.’

These Scythian affinities

are too distinet to admit of the smallest doubt.

There is pos-

sibly an ulterior,

but doubtful

Py

, connexion between this Scytho-

Dravidian root and the Sanscrit ‘kala, black, or Tamil ‘kal-

am,” from which there is a derivative, ‘ kira-g-am,” that throws

Iudo

light on the relation of ¢ kala’ to < kar-u.’

Possibly also ¢kri,’

oI

482

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

the radical portion of ¢ krishna,” Sanscrit, black, may be related

to the same Scythian theme.

kara-di, @ bear; probably from ¢kara-du,” rough. Compare Samoiede

‘korgo; Tungusian ¢kuti,” ¢kuuti.’— See also ¢Indo-Euro-

pean Affinities.’

Compare Ostiak ¢ kuru

karug-u, an eagle.

k,’ an eagle.— See also

¢ Indo-European Affinities.’

karutt-u, the throat; also ¢ kur-al,’ the wind-pipe.

Compare Vogoul

‘kuryd, the throat; Finnish ¢kurko,” ‘kero,” ‘kerri; Kurd

¢g’eru; Lappish ‘karas,” ¢kirs; Slavonian ‘gorlo.’

kal, @ stone.

Compare Lappish ‘kalle,” also *kedke’ or ‘kerke;

Lesghian ‘gul; Kamtschadale ¢kual,” ¢kualla.’

Probably

these words have an ulterior connexion with the Finnish

‘kiwi; Hungarian ‘ké; Ostiak ‘key, ¢kaiick.’

Compare

1

also (through the interchange of ‘1’ and ‘r’) the Tamil ‘kar,’

gravel, a pebble; with the Greek ¢ xep-ds,” gravel, and xep-pas,

The Dra-

a stone,; and the Armenian ‘K’ar,” ‘kuar, a stone.

vidian root cannot be traced farther than ¢kal’ a stone; but

the corresponding Lappish ¢kalle,” appears to be derived from,

or connected with, ‘kalw-at,” to become hard. Compare also

‘karra,” Lappish, kard, rough.

k

kall-am, Malayalam, e le; Tamil ¢kala-vu, a theft.

Compare

Lappish ‘keles,” a lie.

karr-u (pronounced ‘kattr-u’), wind. Compare Kangazian (a Turkish

dialect) ¢ kat,’ wind; Sojoten (a Samoiede dialect) ¢ kat; other

Samoiede dialects ‘chat, ‘kada’ (also a storm, °charru’);

Georg. ‘kari; Jurazen ‘chada.’

ke

kay, to heat, or be hot, to burn, to boil.

Compare Finnish ¢ keite,’

¢ keitta,” to boil, to cook; Hungarian ‘keszil.’

Compare espe-

cially the Indo-European Affinities of this word.

kal,” oot dLuda . kol.;” .Tulu. © kir

Compare Mongol ¢ kol;

Ostiak ‘kur; Tungusian ‘chalgan,” ‘balgan; Permian ‘kok;

Ossete ‘kach,” ‘koch; Vogoul ‘lal;’ Korean ¢ pal; Canton-

Chinese ‘koh.’

kir-a, old, aged. Compare Oriental Turkis‘h “chari; other Turkish

idioms, ‘kar, ‘kart; Wotiak ‘keres; Lesghian ‘heran.’—

See also the Indo-European analogies of this word.

SCYTHTIAN.

483

d

kil, Can., below,; Tamil ¢kir.

Compare Wolgian ‘kilgi, ‘kelga,

deep. From the Tamil ¢kir’ is derived ¢kir-angu,” a bulbous

le

FEASERRT

root ; with which we may perhaps compare the Slavonian

[0

‘koren; Jensei ‘koryl, a root.

kudir-ei, @ horse; Canarese ¢ gudur-e.

The Sanscrit ¢ ghoda,” a horse,

has doubtless an ulterior connexion with the Dravidian word ;

la()

but I cannot suppose the Dravidian word to have been directly

borrowed from the Sanscrit one, for the Tamil occasionally

oul

borrows and uses ‘ghéda’ (in Tamil ‘ ghéram,” also < gédagam ;’

Both

ind

Telugu ¢gurram-u’), in addition to its own ‘kudir-ei.’

words seem to be derived from a common origin. The Scythian

analogies are Jenesei ¢ kut’ and Lesghian ‘kota.’

Compare

¢

also Malay ¢kuda.’

bly

ish

kud-i, a habitation; ‘kud-il, ¢kudis-ei,’ a hut, a cottage.

In Telugu

are

and Canarese ‘ gud-i,” means a temple.

A similar word, ¢ kuta’

i,

or ‘kuti, is also contained in Sanserit ; but it appears to be one

of those words which the Sanscrit has borrowed from the

5,

ra:

Dréavidian tongues.

It has a place in each of the dialects of

but

the Finnish family ; e.g., Mordwin ¢ kudo,” @ kouse; Tscheremiss

‘kuda; Finnish ‘kota; Ostiak ¢chot; Lappish ‘kata.’

I

0ml,

=

als0

suspect the Saxon ‘cot’ had a Finnish origin.

kul-ir,

cold, to become cold: ultimate base ‘kul; related words

‘kiid-al” and ‘kid-ir, cold; also Telugu and Canarese chali,’

pare

cold.

¢&il-ir, Tamil, to tremble, seems to be a collateral root.

With ¢kul-ir,” compare Lappish ¢ kal-ot,” to freeze; Finnish

kish

“eyl-ma; and with ‘chali’ (Telugu and Canarese), compare

fher

Permian ¢ cheli,” cold.—See also ‘Indo-European Affinities.’

ll)’

kei, hand,; Canarese ‘kye, keiyyi; Telugu chéyi’ A comparison

of these words seems to show that ‘kéy,’ was the primitive

ite,

form of this root.

Possibly there is a remote ulterior con-

8Pt

nexion between the Sanscrit ‘kara,” the hand, and the Dravi-

dian word : possibly, also, as ‘kara’ is supposed to be derived

1\01 )

from ‘kri, to do (or ¢hri) to take), so ‘kéy,’ the hand, may

b

be derived from, or connected with, the Dravidian ¢ki, ‘gi,

xOl\

‘gé’ ‘chey’ or ‘gey, to do.

There appears also to be a

ytoD-

special resemblance between the Tamil ‘kei’ and the Greek

‘xelp; yet when the Greek gemitive ¢ xep-os’ is compared

with the Old Latin “hir’ and the Sanserit ¢ kara,” it is obvious

r]\l»h

tu.'"

that it is with the latter that ‘e’ is to be connected, rather

than with the Tamil ¢kei.

The analogies of the Dravidian

2 12

484

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

word seem to be exclusively Scythian.

Compare Hungarian

“kéz’ (pronounced ¢keis’); Finnish ¢kchési’ (root Ska s €.

genitive ‘ké-an’); Estnian ‘kési; Ostiak ‘ket; Lappish

‘kat; Permian ‘ki; Lasian ¢ke; Mingrelian ‘che 7 Quasi-

Qumuq (a Turkish dialect), ‘kiiya.’

Compare also Persian

¢‘ kef.

The Hungarian has both ¢kar’ and ‘keéz 7 but the

former is used to signify arm, the latter hand, a distinction

which seems to prove that those roots, though perhaps ulti-

mately related, have long been independent of one another.

keb-i, @ cave; Canarese ‘gav-i; also ‘kapp-u,’ Canarese, a subter-

raneous room, a pit-fall. Compare Mongol and Manchu ¢ kobi,’

a cavity, a cave ; Ostiak ‘kaba, “kebi, ¢ kavi, a chamber.

Compare also ‘kapp-al,” Tamil, a ship, from ¢ kapp-u,’

Telugu, to cover over.—See ¢ Indo-European Affinities.’

kev-i, Can., the ear ; Telugu (euphonically softened) ¢chevi; Tuda

‘kavi; Brahui ‘khaff: related words ‘kad-u, the ear, and

“kél,” to hear. Compare the following Scythian words signify-

ing the ear :—Samoiede dialects ‘ko, €ku, ¢kus ;’ Korean

‘kui; Ossete ‘kus; Kurd ¢goh; Turkish dialects ¢kulak.’

kél-u, Ancient Telugu, the hand.

Compare Kuralian ‘kell’ and

Georgian ‘cheli, the hand.

kél, to hear; ‘kél-vi) hearing. Compare Finnish ‘kuul-en,’ to hear;

9

Syrjanian ‘kyla; Tcheremiss *kol-am;

Hungarian ¢ halla ;

Lappish ‘kull-et’ (‘kullem, hearing); Ostiak ©kidl-em.

8

Notice the change of the final ‘1’ of the other Finnish dialects

into “dl’ in Ostiak, a single cerebral consonant, precisely

similar in sound to the final ‘1’ of the corresponding Tamil

‘kél.’—See also the Indo-European affinities of this word.

kol, to kill. Compare Finnish ¢kuol’ to die; Tcher. ‘kol-em;

Syrj. ‘kula ; Hung. ‘hal. See also ‘Indo-European Analogies.’

b

kon, a king, a ruler; in honorific usage a shepherd, or man of the

¢h

shepherd caste. Another form of the same word is ‘ko,” a king,

a god.

It is hard to determine whether k6’ or ‘kon’ is to

be regarded as the primitive form of this word. Compare the

tal

Turkish and Mongolian ‘khén,’ also ‘khagan,’ a ruler;

Ostiak ¢ khon ;

a

Scythian of the Behistun tablets, ¢ ko

king.

kor-i, the domestic fowl; Goénd korh ' Seoni Gond kor, a hen

t

485

SCYTHIAN.

This word is the common term which 1s

(¢ gogori, a cock).

used in the Dravidian languages for both the cock and the hen.

h

If it is required to express the gender °saval’ a cock, or

‘ pettel, a ken, is prefixed adjectivally to the common term

Al

“Ko.’

o

The Sanscrit ¢ kukkuta, a cock, from ‘kuk-a,’ to scratch

on

does not seem to have any affinity with the Drividian €kor-i.’

fl

The Scythian analogies, on the other hand, are close and direct.

Compare Vogoul ‘kore; Ostiak ‘korek,’ ‘kurek; Permian

7]

‘korech,’ ‘kuryg,’ ‘kuraga.’ Probably the North-Asian tongues

borrowed this word directly from the Dravidian ; for the domestic

i,

fowl had its origin in India, where the wild variety still exists ;

and when it was introduced into Upper Asia, the name by

Uy

which it was known in India would naturally be introduced

along with the fowl itself.

That name being, not Sanscrit,

1da

but Dravidian, it would appear that the domestic fowl must

nd

have been introduced from India into Central and Northern

Asia, prior to the irruption of the Aryan race, and the con-

fy

pall

sequent cessation of intercourse between the Dravidians and

k?

the other members of the Scythian family.

'The Dravidian word has found its way into two languages

and

of the western branch of the Indo-European family, viz., the

Persian and the Russian.

Compare Persian ‘khor-os,” a cock ;

‘kour-ek, @ poulet ; and the Russ ‘kilir,) a cock; ¢kir-itsa,’

o'y

a fowl ; diminutive ‘kar-otchka,” a chicken.

la ,

en

garal, rain driven by the wind: in the usage of the Southern Tamilians,

lef}ta

the rain brought by the south-west monsoon.

Compare Samoiede

sely

¢ sarre ; Permian ‘ser ;) Wotiak ‘sor, rain.

gl

4, or &ig-u, fo die; Telugu ‘chachu’ (base ‘cha’).

Compare

Samoiede ¢ chawe’ and ¢chabbi,” dead.

em 7’

7168

ched-u, Telugu bad. Compare Ostiak jat, bad.

f fhe

chér-u, mud. Compare ‘chedo,’ ‘zerta,” €choti,” and ¢ chat’,—Les-

klltﬂ:

ghian words for clay.

i t0

tal-a, Telugu, the head ; Tamil ‘tal-ei.” Compare Mongol ‘tologoi ;’

0 the

Buriat ¢ tulgai; Samutan (a Tungusian

i)

¢

Calmuck ¢tolgo ;

dialect) € dcll, ¢dollokin ;' other Tungusian dialects ‘diill,

sO;y e

¢del, € deli’

ti, fire.

The more commonly used Tamil word for fire is ‘neruppu 7

g b

486

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES,

‘*i

Telugu *nippu:’ but ‘ti

is the more classical word ; and it

SRR R

is much used by all classes of people in the southern districts

It is used also in Tulu.

of the Tamil country.

The Scythian affinities of this word ¢ti,) are peculiarly

distinet ; e.g., Samoiede ‘tu, ‘tui,) ‘ti, ¢ty ;' Mantchu ¢ tua;

Hungarian ‘tiiz ; Ostiak ‘tiit ;7 Tungus ‘togo; Lesghian

“tze,” ¢ zi

‘zle

Finnish ¢tuli; Lappish ¢tall’

Compare

also Gaelic ‘teine; and Welsh ‘taan ; Persian ‘tigh; Sanscrit

‘téjas.’

tus-1, dust, powder.

Compare Turkish ‘tus, ‘toosan; Mongol

‘toghoz,” dust.

tol, skin.

Compare Vogoul ‘toul, ‘towl, skin.

nakk-u, fo lick: derivative noun ‘nakku’ or ‘na,’ the tongue.

Com-

pare Ostiak ‘nal’ to lick, and ‘nal,’ the tomgue: Samoiede

e

‘nawa,’ the tongue.

nag-el, to laugh, laughter. Compare Ostiak ‘nag-am,” to laugh ; ‘nach,’

laughter.

nay, a dog ; Tuda ‘noi.

Compare Mongol ‘nogai,” @ dog; Calmuck

‘nokoi,” ‘nochoi.’

nu, Telugu copulative particle and. Compare Ostiak ‘no,” and.

nett-i, the jforchead ; Telugu ‘nud-ur.

Compare Lesghian ‘nata,’

‘nodo,” ‘nete-bek,’ the forehead.

i

ney, ghee, clarified butter, ovl. Compare Avar (Turkish family of idioms),

‘na, ‘nah,’ ‘nach,’ butter.

pal

nod-u, Canarese to see, to look. Compare Mongol ‘niidu,’ the eye.

fijayir-u, the sun.

Compare Hungarian ‘nar, tie sun ; ‘nyar’ (‘fjar’),

summer ; ‘nap, a day : also Mongol ‘nar-an,’ the sun ; Ostiak

pal

‘nai ;; Affghan ‘nmar.’

pas-u, green ; ‘pul; grass.

Hungarian ‘pusit,’ grass; Vogoul ‘piza ;’

Ostiak ‘pady.’

i

pay-an,

peiy-an,

1

-a boy, a servant,

Malayalam ¢ peidal ;’ Canarese ©heida,” a

PIR-

pay-al,

peiy-al,

boy or guirl.

The words terminating in ‘an’ are masculines ;

those in ‘al’ and ‘dal’ are verbal nouns.

‘dal’ 1s as commeon a

Pl

"

S ——

—

-

54

SCYTHIAN.

48

(

i

formative of verbal nouns even in Tamil as “al,” and the two

ts

forms are mutually convertible.

Both ‘payal’ and ‘peidal’

are necessarily abstracts, and are therefore capable of denoting

either sex.

ly

¢ payan,” Tamil, is restricted to signify a boy.

b

The theme or base of these words is evidently ¢pay’ or

il

‘peiy,’ which are equivalent sounds, and of which the ‘y’ seems

¢

to have been converted from, or is convertible into ‘8, if we may

I

judge from ‘pagan-gal,” which is often used as the colloquial

plural, instead of ‘payan-gal.’

Compare the following Ugrian words for son : Vogoul ‘py,’

rol

‘pu; Mordwin and Syrj. ‘pi; Wotiak ‘pyes;’ Finnish ‘poika ;’

Hungarian ‘fiu; Estrian ‘poeg; Ostiak ‘pach,’ ‘poch,” ‘pagul,

‘pagam,’ ‘pyram ;’ Lappish ¢ patja.’

The Swedish ‘poike’ is

evidently derived from the Finnish ‘poika ; and the Greek

Il

‘mai-¢’ and the Latin ‘pu-er’ are evidently related roots.

See

e

‘Indo-European Affinities.’

The Dravidian languages appear to contain the ultimate

h,

theme of all these words, viz., “pei,” Tam., to be green or fresh,

a word which has been softened from ‘pas-u’ (‘pay-u,’ convert-

ible into ‘pei’), green, by a common Dravidian law.

The deri-

1k

vation of ‘pay-an,’” @ boy, from this root would account for its

conversion in vulgar usage (in the plural) into ‘pas-an,’ and it

would also explain why ¢al’ and ‘dal, which are formatives

of verbal nouns, are often used as terminations.

fa,

par-a, old (by reason of wse); Canarese ‘pala-ya; ‘paras-u,” Tamil,

old, what s old.

Compare Mordwin ‘peres; Syrj. ¢ porys ;

ns

and Ostiak ¢ pirich, old.

pal, tooth.

Compare Lappish ‘pane, ‘padne; Wolgian ¢padne,

“pai, ‘pin ;7 Ostiak ‘pank, ‘penk, ‘pek ; Techer, ‘py.

al

A‘)

)

pal, a part, a division.

Compare the following Ugrian words signify-

tiak

ing a half:—Samoiede ‘pealed; Tcher. ‘péle; Lappish

‘bedle ; Ostiak ‘pélek ; Hungarian ‘fél.” See also ¢ Semitic

Affinities.’

7

pid-t,

to catch. Compare Finnish ¢ pidan,” to caich.

pir-agu (base ‘pir’ or ‘pin’), behind, after.

Compare Ostiak ¢pir,’

[a’ {0

¢ pira,” behind, hindermost ; Finnish ¢pera.’

pill-ei, a child.

Compare Yarkand Tartar ¢billa, @ child; Hindi

165

‘pilla,” a cub, a pup.

See also ¢ Indo-European Affinities.’

on &

488

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

pug-ei, smoke.

Compare the following words signifying vapour in the

Turkish dialects, ‘bug,” ¢buch,’ ‘bugu’

Compare also the

English “fog.’

pen, a female; Canarese ‘henn-u.’

Compare Lappish ‘hene,” a female.

pokkul-i, Telugu tke navel.

Compare Ostiak ¢ puklam,’ the navel.

bayir, Canarese the belly ; Tamil ¢ vayir-u; Gond pir.

Compare

Kangazian (a Turkish dialect), “bar,’ tke belly ; Armenian ‘por;’

Albanian ‘bark ;? Ostiak ‘perga ;7 Mordwin ¢ pak.’

bal, Canarese to exist; Tamil var,” to flourish, to live prosperously.

Compare Oriental Turkish ¢bél,” to exist.

man-a, Canarese @ Aouse: classical Tamil ‘man-ei.” Compare Samoiede

‘men,” @ house, Vogoul ‘unneh’

mar-am, @ tree, wood,; Canarese ‘mar-a ; Telugu ‘méan-u’ (for

‘mran-u’).

Compare Lappish ‘muor,” ¢ muorra,’ @ tree, wood ;

Quasi-Qumuk Turkish ‘murm, ¢murch ;7 Mongol ‘modo ;

Tomsk. ‘madji; Finnish ‘mezza ; Lettish ‘mes.’

maR-i, @ foal, the young of the horse, the ass, &e.

Compare Mongol

“mori, @ horse; Manchu ‘morin; Breton ‘mor; German

¢ mahre.’

This Dravidian

mal-a, Canarese a &ill, a mouniain ; Tamil ‘mal-el.’

root has found its way into the Sanscrit lexicons as the base of

¢ Malaya, the Sanserit name of the Southern and Western

Ghauts—* Malayalam,’ or as the Arabian geographers called it,

Male.

It has probably given their name also to the Mal-dives,

the ¢dives’ (Sanscrit ‘dwipa’), or wslands, pertaining to Male

or Malayalam.’

Compare Albanian ‘malli) @ %l ; Vogoul ‘molima ;

Permian ‘mylk ;; Wolgian (by a change of ‘1’ into ‘r’),

‘mar ;’ Samoiede ‘mari; Avar ‘mehr ; Finnish ‘magi.’

muRumuRuy, to mutter, to grumble.

Compare Finnish ‘muraj, and

Hungarian ‘morog, to murmur.

See also “Indo-European

Affinities.’

menj, Gond, an egg : plural ‘mensk.’ Compare Hungarian ¢ mony,’

an egg : Finnish ‘muna; Samoiede ‘muna.” Canarese ‘motte’

18 more remote.

SCYTHIAN.

489

van, heaven.

Compare Mordwin ¢ ménel,’ heaven ; Tungus. ‘iiyan ;

4

dialect of the Kookies and Bungoos in the Chittagong hills, ‘van.’

vay, the month. Compare Samoiede ¢ aiw-a,’ month ; Lappish ‘saiwe ;’

Hungarian ‘ayak.

vir-i, to watch. Compare Finnish ¢wir-ot, fo watch; Hungarian

¢ vir-ad.’

¢

velich-am, light.

Compare Hungarian ¢ vilaga,” light.

Y

y

de

o

)y

ol

Al

g‘

an

of

|

on

i

(7

ale

% ,”

)y

nd

oal

Hy;:

.tte

;:

|

(i

lc

b

al

|

t

i

€l

00

1¢

!

g

W

i

0!

ip

the

Tll

dann Lt e

DI

or

ey

By

Th

%

SEFENNIIEX

I

Are the Pariars of Southern India Dravidians ?

It is commonly supposed by Anglo-Indians, that certain tribes and

castes inhabiting Southern India, especially the Pariars and similar

low-caste tribes, belong to a different race from the mass of the inha-

bitants.

The higher castes are styled ¢ Hindus, or else ¢Tamilians,

¢ Malayalis,” &c., according to their langua

o

o

e and nation; but thos

names are withheld from some of the ruder and more primitive tribes,

and from the Pariars and other agricultural slaves,

As this supposi-

tion, and the use of words to which it has given rise, are frequently

met with both in conversation and in books, it seems desirable ft«

enquire whether, and to what extent, this opinion may be regarded as

correct.

The term ‘Hindu’ as used by some, is one which pertains to

religious nomenclature.

When they speak of certain classes as

‘Hindus,” they mean that they are followers of the Brahmanical

religion, or the religion of the Purinas; and according to this use of

words (which is open to serious objection, inasmuch as it is the use,

not of a theological, but of a geographical term, to denote one out of

several religions which prevail within the region to which the term

applies), the tribes and classes whose religion differs from that of

the Brahmans are not ¢ Hindus.

In this sense it is true, that the

Tudas and the Goénds are not Hindus, and that the majority of the

predatory, wandering tribes, and of the lower castes are not Hindus,

or at least are not ‘orthodox Hindus; though, geographically, it is

certain, that they have as much right to the name of Hindus as the

Brahmans themselves.

Some, again, use the term ‘ Hindu’ as synonymous with Aryan.’

They call the Brahmans and the higher castes of Northern India

492

APPENDIX

This seems

¢ Hindus,” but withhold the name from the aboriginal races

a still more improper use of words, inasmuch as it denationalizes not

only the low-caste inhabitants of the northern provinces, but also the

whole of the Drividian inhabitants of the Dekhan and the Peninsula ;

notwithstanding the proofs that exist that they crossed the Sind

Hind, or Ind-us, and occupied the ¢Sapta Sindhu,” or ‘country of the

seven rivers,—the Védic name of India—before the arrival of the

Aryans, and that they have, therefore, a better claim to be called

¢ Hind-us’ than the Aryans themselves

To deprive the Dravidians

and other aboriginal races of the name of ¢ Hindu,” is as unjust as it

would be to deprive all persons of Anglo-Saxon descent of the name

of ¢ Englishman,” and to restrict that name to the descendants of Nor-

man families

There are some, again, who with the error now mentioned, conjoin

an additional one.

They suppose the higher castes of the Tamil,

Telugu, and other Drévidian peoples, to be identical in origin with the

Aryan races of Northern India, and the lower castes alone to have

a Non-Aryan origin.

Hence they call the high-caste Dravidians

¢ Hindus,” and withhold that name from the Pariars, &c., not on geo-

graphlcal but on ethnological grounds.

I apprehend, however, that

the Non- AryaJn origin both of the higher and of the lower castes of

Dravidians, has been proved when the Non- Aryan structure of the

Dravidian languages has been established ; and, therefore, this use of

words may be passed by without further remark, as arising simply

from misapprehension

The Pariars (called in Telugu Malars) are not the only caste or

class of people in the Dréavidian parts of India, who are commonly

regarded as outcasts, nor are they the lowest or most degraded of those

classes ; but partly because they are the most numerous servile tribe

(their numbers amounting on an average to at least a tenth of the

scadsiel

entire population), and partly because they are more frequently brought

into contact with Europeans than any similar class, in consequence of

the majority of the domestic servants of Kuropeans throughout the

Madras Presidency being Pariars, they have come to be regarded by

some persons as the low-caste race of Southern India

Hence, besides

the above-mentioned errors in the application of the name ‘Hindu,

there are various popular errors afloat respecting the origin of the

Pariars and their position in the caste scale, which require to be noticed

before entering on the question now to be discussed, ‘are the Pariars

Dravidians ?

Europeans were generally led to suppose, on their arrival in India

several generations ago, that the Pariars were either the illegitimate

ARE Tm: PARIARS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS? 493

offspring of adulterous intercourse, or were persons who had been

f

excluded from caste for their crimes.

This notion was invented and

propagated by the Brahmans and the higher castes, and originated, in

part, in their wish to justify their exclusive, unsocial behaviour

:

towards the Pariars, on principles which they supposed that Euro-

peans would approve.

In part, also, it originated in an error arising

from the uncritical habit of the Hindu mind ; viz., the error of trans-

ferring to Southern India and to the Dravidian tribes, the fictions

§

which were devised in Northern India to account for the origin of the

i

Those northern

new castes or, so called, ‘mixed classes,” of the North.

Y

castes or classes came into being through the operation of two causes;

first, from the sub-division of the original castes of Vaisyas and servile

or Sudra Ary:ms, in accordance with the progressive sub-division of

labour ; and secondly, from the introduction of one tribe after another

within the pale of Aryan civilization, as the religion and civil polity

of the Sanscrit-speaking race spread throughout the country, and the

aborigines were transformed from Mléchchas into Stdras.

In Manu

b

and the Shastras, no mention is made of either of these causes; but the

new or mixed castes are attributed exclusively to fictitious mixtures of

i

the older castes. The more respectable of the new castes are attributed

f

to the legal intermarriage of persons belonging to different castes of

recognized respectability.

Another and inferior set of castes are

f

attributed to the adulterous intercourse of persons of equal respecta-

bility, but of different caste, or of high-caste men with low-caste

women ; whilst the lowest castes of all are represented to have sprung

from the adulterous intercourse of high-caste women with low-caste

I

men, and are said also to constitute the receptacle of persons who had

[

been socially excommunicated for offences against their caste.

Whatever amount of truth may be contained in this representation

[7

of the origin of the castes of Northern India (and I think it most

t

z

probably a fiction throughout), it may confidently be affirmed that the

f

Dravidian castes had no such origin.

The only ¢ mixed caste’ known

in Southern India, is that which consists of the children of the dancing

girls attached to the temples.

Of this class the female children are

]

brought up in the profession of their mothers, the males as temple

florists and musicians.

In all ordinary cases, when children are born

in adultery, if there is no great disparity in rank or caste between the

:(;

parents, the rule is that the caste of the child of adulterous intercourse

is that of the less honourable of the two castes to which its parents

belong. Where considerable disparity exists, and where the derelic-

tion of rank is on the woman’s side—as for example, where a high-

‘caste woman, or even a woman belonging to the middling castes, has

494

APPENDIX.

formed an intimacy with a Pariar man (and in the course of a residence

amongst the Hindu people for seventeen years, I have heard of several

such cases), neither the caste of the father nor any other caste has

any chance of being recruited or polluted by the addition of the

woman’s illegitimate offspring. The child never sees the light; the

l

mother either procures an abortion or commits suicide.

To suppose, therefore, as Europeans have sometimes been led to

suppose, that the entire caste of Pariars (including its subdivisions,

and the ‘left hand’ castes corresponding to it) bas come into existence

{

in the surreptitious manner described above, or that it is composed of

il

persons who have been excluded from caste for their crimes, is a base-

less dream, which is too preposterous for serious refutation.

Though

a

h

it is probable that it was from the statements of natives that the

{

Anglo-Indian community originally derived this notion, yet I never

met with any natives, learned or unlearned, by whom the notion

t

appeared to be entertained; and the Pariars themselves, who regard

their lowly caste with feelings of pride and affection, which are very

b

different from what might be expected of them, would resent this

80

representation of their origin, if they had ever heard of it, with

indignation.

.

P

Anglo-Indians who are not acquainted with the vernacular lan-

guages, often designate Pariars as outcasts’ as persons who are

tl

fo

“ without caste,” or as persons who have ‘no caste to lose.” It is true

that the Pariar servants of Europeans will sometimes vaunt that they

th

N

belong to ‘master’s caste; and many masters know to their cost that

f

their Pariar servants practise no scrupulous, superstitious distinctions

respecting meats and drinks.

Notwithstanding this, to suppose that

i

The

-

th

the Pariars have literally ‘no caste,’ is undoubtedly a mistake.

Pariars constitute a well defined, distinct, ancient caste, independent

ar

to

of every other; and the Pariar caste has subdivisions of its own, its

own peculiar usages, its own traditions, and its own jealousy of the

The

encroachments of the castes which are above it and below it.

il

T

Pariars, though, perhaps, the most numerous caste in the country,

belong to the lowest division of castes, and are not fabled to have

Te(

sprung from even the least noble part of Brahma ; nevertheless, they

are not the lowest of the castes which are comprised in this lowest

b

division. I am acquainted with ten castes in various parts of the

D

Tamil country, which are certainly lower than the Pariars in the

social scale ; and in this enumeration I do not include the Pallars, a

of

caste between whom and the Pariars there is an unsettled dispute

By

respecting precedence.

The treatment which the Pariars receive from

8n

the castes above them, is doubtless unjust and indefensible; but it is

Dy

ARE THE PARTARS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 495

06

not generally known by those Europeans who sympathize in the

l

;Z

wrongs of the Pariars, that, whenever they have an opportunity, the

4§

Pariars deal out the very same treatment to the members of castes

he

which are inferior to their own, e.g., the caste of shoemakers, and the

he

low-caste washermen; that they are, equally with the higher castes,

filled with that compound of pride of birth, exclusiveness, and Jjealousy

to

which is called caste feeling

)

P &

and that there is no contest for pre-

I,

cedence amongst the higher castes of longer standing, or of a more

eager character, than that which is carried on between the Pariars and

106

of

the Pallars.

In the insane dispute about pre-eminence, which is

se

always being carried on in Southern India, between the ‘right hand’

oh

and the ‘left hand’ castes, the Pariars range themselves on the right

the

hand, the Pallars on the left; and it is chiefly by these two castes that

the fighting part of the controversy is transacted.

yer

ion

Now that Europeans are better acquainted with Indian affairs, the

ad

;:

theory of the illegitimate origin of the Pariars is more rarely found to

24|

be entertained ; and, as the study of the native languages extends, the

his

supposition that they are ‘ outcasts,” or that they have ‘no caste,” will

soon disappear likewise.

ith

fz

The question which is really before us having been cleared of

popular errors and extraneous matter, we now come to the considera-

an

are

tion of that question itself.

¢ Are the Pariars Dravidians 7

Are the

rue

forest tribes, the lower castes, and the so-called ‘out casts,” that speak

the Dravidian languages, especially the Tamil Pariars and Telugu

hey

:;

hat

Malars (who may be taken as the representatives of the class), of the

same origin and of the same race as the Dravidians of the highei‘

008

hat

castes} Whilst both classes have a right to be called ‘Hindus,” are

4

the higher castes alone Dravidians, Tamilians, Malayalis, &ec.? and

The

are the Pariars and people of similar castes to be regarded as belonging

ent

to a different race ?

1t

On the whole I think it more probable that the Pariars are Dra-

the

The

vidians; nevertheless, the supposition that they belong to a different

try;

race, that they are descended from the true aborigines of the country

ave

!

—a, race older than the Dravidians themselves—and that they were

hey

reduced by the first Dravidians to servitude, is not destitute of plausi-

bility.

mest

the

It may be conceived that as the Aryans were preceded by the

Dravidians, so the Dravidians were preceded by an older, ruder race,

the

N 3‘

of whom the Déms and other ¢ Chandilas,” of Northern India, and the

Py

Pariars and other low tribes of the Peninsula, are the surviving repre-

;ute

sentatives. If this primitive race existed prior to the arrival of the

rom

Dravidians, it would naturally happen that some of them would take

f 38

496

APPENDIX

refuge from the intruders in mountain fastnesses and pestilential jungles

—like the Rajis or Déms of the Himalayas, the Weddas of Ceylon, and

the Mala-(y)-arasers of the Southern Ghauts; whilst others, probably

the majority of the race, would be reduced to perpetual servitude, like

the Pariars, Puliars, and Pallars.

The history of the subjection of the Pre- Aryan Stidras of Northern

India, would thus form the counterpart and supplement of the history

of the subjection of a much older race

Though, however, all this

may be conceived to be poss1ble, and though there may not be any

@ priori improbability in it, it is more to the purpose to state such

circumstances and considerations as appear to be adducible in its

support

(1.) The Pariars, the Pallars, the Puliars, and several other low

caste tribes, are slaves to the higher castes, and appear always to have

been in an enslaved condition ; and it is more natural to suppose that

they were reduced to a servile condition by conquest, than to suppose

that entire tribes were enslaved by the operation of ordinary social

causes

If then, the castes referred to were a subjugated people, they

must have settled in the country at any earlier period than their

conquerors, and probably belonged to a different race

(2.) The low-caste inhabitants of Southern India (whether they

be slaves like the Pariars; vagrants like the Korawas, or basket

makers; or freemen and proprietors of land, like the Shanars, or

palmyra cultivators), are distinguished from the entire circle of the

higher castes by clear, unmistakable marks of social helotry The

or

title of ¢Stdra, which has been assumed by the higher caste

which was conferred upon them by the Brahmans, is withheld from

1

the low-caste tribes; they are not allowed to enter within the precincts

of the temples of the Dii majorum gentium; and wherever old Hindu

usages survive unchecked, as in the native protected states of Travan-

t

core and Cochin, the women belonging to those castes are prohibited

1]

from wearing their ‘cloth

ver their shoulders, and obliged to leav

the entire bust uncovered, in token of servitude

It may be argued, that broadly marked class distinctions like the

!

above-mentioned, which separate the people of at least twenty different

18

castes or tribes from the rest of the population, are incompatible with

the supposition of an original identity of race

g

(8.) There are various traditions current amongst the Pariars to

the effect, that the position which their caste occupied in native society

it

at some former period was very different from what it is now, and

t

much more honourable

Wilks observes that there is a tradition that

the Canarese Pariars were once an independent people, with kings of

§

=

ARE THE PARIARS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS? 497

s

their own.

The Tamil Pariars sometimes boast that at an ancient

nd

period, theirs was the most distinguished caste in the country. They

ly

2

say that they were reduced to their present position, as a punishment

\1\9

for the haughty behaviour of their ancestors to some ancient king; on

which occasion the Vellalars, or caste of cultivators, who are now

gl

called ¢ Tamirar,” or Tamilians, par excellence, were raised to the place

0Ly

s e g

which had previously been occupied by themselves. There is a similar

s

but more distinct tradition that the Korawas, or gipsy basket makers,

iy

were once ‘ kings’ of the hill country in the extreme south.

uch

T

"

(4.) In various parts of the country Pariars enjoy peculiar pri-

1t8

vileges, especially at religious festivals. Thus, at the annual festival

i s

of ¢ Egattal, the only mother—a form of Cali, and the tutelary goddess

low

of the ¢Blacktown’ of Madras,—when a ¢tali, or bridal necklace

ave

(answering to our wedding ring), was tied round the neck of the idol

hat

B

in the name of the entire community, a Pariar was chosen to represent

)05

the people as the goddess’s bridegroom. Similar privileges are claimed

cial

by Pariars in other parts of the country, especially at the worship of

divinities of the inferior class, such as the village ‘ammas,’ or mothers,

hey

heir

and the guardians of boundaries; and these peculiar rights which are

conceded to them by the higher castes, may be supposed to amcunt to

hey

an acknowledgment of their Pre-Dravidian existence, or at least to

sket

an acknowledgment of their ancient importance; like the privileges

claimed at the coronation of Rajput princes by the Bhills, a northern

, O

the

race of aborigines.

The

It has always been the policy of Hindu rulers, to confer a few

or

empty privileges upon injured races as a cheap compensation for

from

injuries; and it has generally been found, where an inquiry has been

1nc

ts

made, that such privileges possess a historical signification.

indu

(5.) The strongest arcument which can be adduced in support of

val

the Pre-Dravidian origin of the Pariars and other low-castes, consists

\ited

in the circumstance that the national name of ¢ Tamilians, ¢ Malayalis,’

¢ Kannadis,” &ec., is withheld from them by the wusus loquend: of the

Jeave

Dravidian languages, and conferred exclusively upon the higher castes.

s the

When a person is called a ‘ Tamiran,” or ‘Tamilian,” it is meant that he

is neither a Brahman, nor a member of any of the inferior castes, but

erellt

a Dravidian Stdra.

The name is understood to denote, not the lan-

with

guage which is spoken by the person referred to, but the nation to

I8 {0

which he belongs; and as the lower castes are never denoted by this

national name, it would seem to be implied, that they do not belong to

sciety

and

the nation, though they speak its language, but belong, like the Tamil-

) that

speaking Brahmans and Mahommedans, to a different race.

T may here mention an argument which is occasionally urged in

08 Uf

2 x

i

—

———

498

APPENDIX.

support of the same view of the case, which is founded upon a mistake.

It has been said that the name Pariar, or Pariah, is synonymous with

that of the ¢ Paharias,’ a race of mountaineers near Calcutta; and

hence it is argued that the Pariahs may be considered, like the

Paharias, as a race of Un—Aryan, Un-Dravidian aborigines. It is a

mistake, however, to suppose that there is any connection whatever

between those two names.

The word ¢ Pariar,’ properly ¢ Pareiyar,” is

the Tamil plural of pareiyan’ (¢ parei-(y)-an’), which denotes not

mountaineer, but a drummer, a word which is regularly derived from

The name

‘parei,” a drum, especially the great dirwm used at funerals.

¢Pariar’ is, in fact, the name of a hereditary occupation, the Pariars

being the class of people who are generally employed at festivals, and

It is true that their numbers are

especially at funerals, as drummers.

now so great, that many of them are never so employed, and that the

only employment of the great majority is that of agricultural slaves;

but whenever and wherever the din of the ‘parei’ happens to be

heard, we may be assured that a ‘Pareiyan’ is the person who is

engaged in beating it.

As the whole caste, though the most numerous

in the circle of the low-castes, is denominated by this name, it appears

é

probable that originally drumimning was their only employment.

If so,

f

they must have been much less numerous at a former period than they

are now.

The origin of the epithet ¢ Malar, which is applied to the

[3)

Telugu Pariars, is unknown,

8

Though the circumstances and arguments that have now been

fi

alleged in favour of the Un-Dravidian origin of the lower castes,

he

possess a considerable degree of strength, I proceed to show that they

th

are not perfectly conclusive, and that they are to some extent counter-

al

balanced by considerations which are adducible on the other side.

he

(1.) The argument which is drawn from the servile condition of

the Pariars fails to establish the conclusion; because it is certain that

Py

there are many slaves in various parts of the world who do not differ

The Russian

1

from their masters in race, though they do in status.

po

serfs are Slavonians, and the Magyar serfs Magyars, equally with

‘their masters.

Illustrations of the inconclusiveness of the argument

oy

may be drawn also from Dravidian life.

the

The Shénars, the highest section of the lowest division of castes,

tioy

are generally proprietors of the land which they cultivate, and many

i |

fl‘ek

of them are almost on a level with the Dravidian Stdras.

The more

beﬂ

wealthy of the Shanérs have slaves in their employment, some of

whom, called ¢ Kalla Shéanars,” belong to a subdivision of the Shéanpér

ing)

caste.

These servile Shanars appear to have been slaves from a very

S0}

early period; and yet they are admitted even by their masters to

ddm

T

ARE THE PARIARS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS? 499

belong to the same race as themselves.

There are also servile sub-

divisions of some of the higher or unquestionably Dravidian castes.

Thus, a portion of the Maravas of the southern provinces, are slaves

to the Poligars, or Marava chieftains; and even of the ¢ Velldlas, or

Tamilian cultivators, there are not a few families who are slaves to

the temples.

Various circumstances might contribute to the reduction of the

Pariars, &ec., to servitude, irrespective of difference or identity of race.

In the wars of barbarous nations, it often happens that both conquerors

6

and conquered belong to the same race, and even to the same tribe.

bl

In a civilized age, the conquerors may be content with governing and

taxing the conquered ; but in a ruder age, and especially in a tropical

{7

16

climate, where labour is distasteful, the vanquished are ordinarily

reduced to the condition of slaves.

In such cases we shall meet with

%)

a phenomenon exactly parallel to that of the Pariars, viz., a servile

be

tribe speaking the language and exhibiting the physiological pecu-

18

liarities of their masters, and yet separated from them by an impassable

L1}

barrier.

Other causes, however, in addition to that of war, may have

I8

been in operation, such as poverty, or a state of society resembling the

80,

feudal system, or even a trade in slaves like that which in Africa sets

£y

not only nation against nation, but village against village.

At all

he

events, taking into account the probability that these and similar

social evils may have existed, it does not seem more difficult to account

pen

for the enslaved condition of the Pariars, without supposing them to

have been a different race from their masters, than it is to account for

68,

ey

the serfdlom of the Russian peasantry, or the existence of slavery

for

amongst nearly all the primitive Indo-European races, without the

help of any such supposition.

1 of

It is worthy of notice also, that whilst the Pariars, Pallars, and

hat

Puliars are slaves, a much larger number of the castes that are included

\ffer

in the lower division—including some of the very lowest—are com-

‘sian

posed of freemen.

wiﬂl

(2.) The traditions that have been mentioned respecting the

pent

honourable position formerly occupied by the Pariars, do not establish

the point in hand.

Supposing them to rest upon a historical founda-

tion, they prove, not an original difference of race, but only the ancient

bitesf

jany

freedom of the Pariars, and the respectability of their social rank,

more

before their reduction to slavery.

i6 of

(8.) The circumstance that the entire circle of the lower castes,

ndt

including the Pariars, are separated from the higher by badges of

social distinction, and denied the national name, is one which must be

very

r 0

admitted to possess great weight:

Though the argument which may

2K 2

500

- APPENDIX.

be deduced from this circumstance is a very strong one, it does not

appear, however, to be absolutely conclusive, for it is in accordance

with the genius of Hindu legislation, to punish poverty by civil and

social disabilities; and high-caste pride might naturally take the shape

of an exclusive appropriation even of the national name.

We find a parallel use of words in the Sanscrit Shastras, in which

nations that are admitted to be of Kshatriya origin (e.g., the Yavanas

and Chinas), ave termed Mléchchas, not in consequence of difference of

race, but solely in consequence of their disuse of Brahmanical rites.’

There is a still closer parallel in the law of Manu, that Brahmans who

took up their abode in the Dravida country—in Manu’s time an un-

cleared forest—should be regarded as MIléchchas.

(4.) There is nothing in the physiology of the Pariars, in their

features, or in the colour of their skin, which warrants us to suppose

that they belong to a different race from their high-caste neighbours.

The comparative blackness of their complexion has led some persons

to suppose them to be descended from an imaginary race of Negro

aborigines; but this hypothesis is unnecessary, as well as gratuitous.

The swarthiness of the complexion not only of the Pariars, but also of

the Puliars of the Malayala country—a still blacker caste,—is ade-

;

quately accounted for by their continual employment for many ages in

the open air, exposed to the full force of the vertical sun. If the

Fellahs, or labourers, and Bedouins, or wandering shepherds, of Egypt,

are admitted to be Arabs of pure blood, notwithstanding the deep

brown of their complexion, it is unnecessary to suppose the Pariars,

who labour in a hotter sun than that of Egypt, to be of a different race

from the rest of the Dravidians, in order to account for their com-

plexions being a shade darker.

Such of the Pariars as bave had the good fortune to be placed in

more favourable circumstances, are found to be as fair as the high-

castes.

When Pariars have risen to a position of competence and

comfort, and Sfdras have become impoverished, and been obliged to

work hard in the sun all day, their mutual difference of complexion is

reversed, as well as their social position; and in the second, or at least

in the third generation the Stidra becomes dark, the Pariar fuir.

§

v

1

admit that the features of the Pariars differ from those of the

1]

high-caste ¢cultivators,” as the features of every caste in India differ

f

from those of every other caste; yet there is no difference between the

¢ cultivator’ and the Pariar in the shape of their heads.

Not only

from their peculiarities of feature and dress, but even from the shape

V]

of their heads, we are generally able to distinguish Tamilians or

il

Telugus from the Turco-Tartar Mahommedans of India. But looking

*H

I

ARE THE PARIARS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS? 501

at the shape of their heads alone, and leaving complexion and features

out of account, it is impossible to distinguish a Tamilian, or high-caste

Dravidian, from a Pariar or any other member of the low-castes

Difference in feature is of little or no account in this inquiry, for it is

notorious that castes which proceed from the same origin differ from

one another both in features and in mental characteristics, as widely

as if they inhabited different and distant countries

t

The robber castes of Kallars and Maravars, differ as much from

the higher castes in their features as the Pariars, and in habit of mind

0

they differ still more

Nevertheless, they claim to be considered as

Stdras

The caste title of the Maravars, ‘Déva,’ is the same as that of

the old kings of the Pandiya and Chola dynasties

Chieftains of their

i

race still possess the principalities of Shevagunga and Ramnad, which

are called ‘the tw

Maravas;’ and the latter, the prince of Ramnad

\\e

has claimed from an ancient period to be considered as Sétupati, or

[§

JIE

hereditary ¢ guardian of Rama’s bridge.’

The other predatory tribe, the Kallars, have a king of their own,

10

s

the Tondiman Rajah, or Rajah of Poodoocottah; they claim a relation-

ship to the ancient kings of the Chéla country ; and they are regarded

of

by the Tamilian Vellalars, or

cultivators

as next in rank to them-

de

selves

10

It is possible, and even probable, that these robber castes settled

the

in the Tamil country subsequently to the settlement of the mass of the

S Pt)

eep

population ; but it does not follow that they belonged to an Un-Dra-

vidian race

For the course which I have supposed the Kullars and

lﬂrDY

Maravas to have followed, is precisely that which was followed on the

106

decline of the power of the Pandiyas, by various Telugu and Canarese

il

castes that are unquestionably Dravidians

J

4 1n

(5.) The essential unity of all the Dravidian dialects argues the

unity of the race, inclusive of the lower castes

igh

The mixed origin of the Hindus of the Gaura provinces may be

and

conjectured, not only from historical notices, but from an examination

ed to

of the component elements of the northern vernaculars

In those

on 18

vernaculars we can trace the existence of two lingual currents, the

Jeast

Sanscrit and the Scythian, the one running counter to the other; but

in no dialect of the Dravidian languages are such traces discoverable

f the

of any extraneous idiom which appears to have differed in character

differ

from that of the mass of the language

o the

All the grammatical forms of primary importance in all the Dra-

L Oﬂly

vidian dialects cohere together and form one harmonious system

If

hape

the Pariars and the other servile castes are supposed to be a diffe-

s O

rent race from the Dravidians, and the only surviving descendants of

i

502

APPENDIX.

the true aborigines, it will be necessary to regard the isolated moun-

tain tribes, the Tudas, Go6nds, &ec., as rempants of the same aboriginal

race; and if this theory were correct, the languages of those long

isolated tribes, should be found to differ essentially from the Telugu

and the Tamil,

On the contrary, no essential difference in gramma-

tical structure, or in the more important names of things, has been

discovered in them; but the Gond and the Ku, the Tuda and the Koéta

dialects, belong demonstrably to the same family as the more cultivated

Drévidian tongues.

It is also worthy of notice, that though the Pariars and the other

servile classes in the plains live in hamlets by themselves, removed to

a considerable distance from the villages in which their high-caste

masters reside, there is no trace amongst them of any difference in

idiom, of peculiar words, or of peculiar forms of speech.

The only

difference which is apparent, consists in their mispronunciation of

Sanscrit derivatives, arising from their general want of education; and

in many instances, even this difference is not found to exist.

1

On the whole, therefore, the supposition that the lower castes in

the Dravidian provinces belong to a different race from the higher,

LRSS R

appears to me to be untenable.

It seems safer to hold, that all the

indigenous tribes who were found by the Aryans in Southern India,

b

belonged to one and the same race.

It is probable enough that the

Dravidians were broken up into hostile tribes before the Aryan immi-

gration, and that the distinctions, not only of richer and poorer, but

t

also of master and slave, had already come into existence amongst

them.

Dl

Those distinctions may have formed the foundation of the

th

caste system, which their Brahmanical civilizers introduced, and which

e

was moulded by degrees into an exact counterpart of the caste system

al

of Northern India.

/i

pe

1§

Py

COl

tig

i

Jag

hut

h (]

[ |

the;

11

Are the Nilgherry Tudas Dravidians ?

Tue Tudas, or aboriginal inhabitants of the Nilgherry Hills, are

commonly supposed to belong to a different race from the Dravidians

of the plains,

The reasons that have been adduced in support of this

supposition appear to me inconclusive.

Unfortunately, so much

exaggeration and error are included in those reasons arising from the

sentimental interest with which everything connected with the Tudas

has been invested by tourists, that there is not much satisfaction in

dealing with the question.

(1.) The difference of the religion of the Tudas from what is called

Hinduism, or the Brahmanical religion, is alleged to prove that they

belong to a different race to their low country neighbours,

It is quite true that the Tuda religion differs greatly from the

Brahmanical ; but it will be shown in another portion of this Appendix

that the original religion of the majority of the Dravidians of the

plains differed from Brahmanism as widely, and that the religion of

the Gonds and Kus, who are as certainly Dravidians as the Tamil

;

people themselves, is very different from the religion of the Brahmaus,

I

and not unlike that of the Tudas,

i

(2.) The mannersand customs of the Tudas are said to be altogether

sut generis, and such as to indicate an origin different from that of the

people of the plains.

Many of the customs of this tribe are certainly remarkable, but it

i

is a mistake to regard them as peculiar to the Tudas, and sui generis.

Polyandria is practised by the Tudas, but it is practised also by the

Coorgs, whose Drévidianism cannot be questioned ; and female infan-

g

ticide is not confined to the Tudas, but is unfortunately too well known

in various parts of India.

The Tudas are not the only Indian people who live a wandering,

|

pastoral life ; who subsist entirely upon milk and grain; who dwell in

huts formed of twisted bamboos ; who wear no covering upon their

s

heads ; who let their hair grow to its full length ; or who never wash

their clothes or bodies from their birth to their death.

|

%

o

504

APPENDIX.

Each of those customs is practised by various other Indian tribes,

though not all of them, perhaps, by any tribe but the Tudas: and

though the Tudas may observe some customs of minor importance

which are quite peculiar to themselves—(e.g., the Tuda men do not, like

other long-haired Dravidians, tie their long hairin a knot like women,

but allow it to cluster round the head in natural curls.

The bamboo

huts, also, in which they dwell are built on the plan of a perfect equi-

lateral arch),—yet the observance of a few peculiar customs by a

caste which is so isolated as the Tudas, cannot be regarded as a proof

of difference of race ; for every caste in India, whether :A\ryan or Dra-

vidian, whether high or low, has some custom or another which is

entirely peculiar to itself,—-generally some peculiarity in dress, in the

ornaments worn by the women, or in the manner in which their houses

are built.

(8.) The Tudas are said to be a fine manly race, with European

features, Roman noses, hazel eyes, and great physical strength ; and

hence it is concluded that they differ from the Tamilians and other

Dravidians in origin, as well as in appearance.

It is certain that the Tudas are an athletic, hardy, fine-looking race,

as might be expected from their simple mode of life and the bracing

mountain air which they breathe ; but it isalso certain that many of the

statements that are commonly made, both in conversation and in books,

respecting their physical characteristics are mere romance. As regards

size and strength of body they will not bear a comparison with the

natives of the north-western provinces, or even with the Telugu

palanquin bearers.

The supporters of the Celtic or Indo-European

origin of the Tudas are wont to rest the chief weight of their theory

in the Roman noses of their protégés ; but aquiline noses are not un-

frequently met with amongst the people of the plains, though they

have not had the good fortune to attract so much of the notice of

tourists : and after all, the nose which is most commonly seen on the

Tuda face is not an aquiline nose, but simply a large nose.

Even if it

were universally aquiline, it would reveal nothing respecting the origin

of the Tudas ; for physiology makes little account of noses, but much

of heads, and the shape of the heads of the Tudas does not differ

Even their

SR e aaieid

materially from that of the low country Dravidians.

features do not differ from those of the people of the plains to a greater

degree than their isolated situation for many ages would lead us to

expect.

It is true that the Tudas have hazel eyes and naturally

curling hair ; and this alone would give them a different appearance

from the black-eyed, straight-haired people of the plains.

The colour

A s

of their eyes may be, and probably is, the result of their long residence

ST

ARE THE NILGHERRY TUDAS DRAVIDIANS?

505

in the temperate climate of the hills ; but this circumstance, when con-

sidered as an argument for difference of race, is neutralized by the

dark colour of their hair, approaching to black, and especially by the

darkness of the colour of their skin. Tt has not becn noticed by writers

on the Nilgherries, but it is nevertheless a fact, that, notwithstanding

the long residence of the Tudas on a cold, cloudy, mountain region, the

P

colour of their skin is considerably darker than that of the more

modern hill race, the Badagars, a race of people who immigrated from

the Canarese country not many centuries ago, and is many shades

darker than that of the majority of the natives of the Malabar coast.

The darkness of the complexion of the Tudas appears to prove that

they came originally from the eastern or sun-burnt side of the range

of Ghauts ; and that long before they took up their abode on the hills

they had formed a constituent portion of the low country population.

It should be observed also, that this inference exactly accords with the

results that were deduced from the examination of the Tuda language

which is contained in the Introduction.

It was there shown that the

language of the Tudas was essentially Dravidian, and that it is, on

the whole, more nearly allied to the Tamil, the language which is

spoken in the plains on the eastern side, than to any other dialect.

%

After weighing the various considerations that have now been

)

adduced, we may, I think, safely adopt the conclusion that the Tudas

5

belong to the same race and stock as the mass of the Dravidians, though

long separated from the rest of the race, and isolated from its civiliza-

tion.

It may, at least, be confidently asserted that the evidence of

the Dravidian origin of the Tudas greatly preponderates over that of

every other supposition.

;:11,

]

n

h

er

)

(78

{0

Iy

06

ur

08

111

Dravidian i’hysical Type.

My object in making a few remarks on the physical type of the

Dravidian race is merely that of guarding the reader against certain

commonly received errors.

Lingual comparison is, I believe, the only

guide to a knowledge of the pre-historic relationship of the Dravidian

family on which any reliance can safely be placed ; and though I admit

that, in some instances, physiology has contributed much to the dis-

covery of the affiliation of races, it seems to me, in so far as the study

hags hitherto been pursued, that it is at fault in this instance.

I must here premise that my remarks relate exclusively to the Dra-

vidian race properly so called, not to the aboriginal or Nishada races

of India generally. Many of the physical characteristics which

Mz

Hodgson attributes to the ¢ Tamulians,” may undoubtedly be

observed in the Bhutin and Sub-Himalayan tribes, and in a smaller

degree in the Santals and other Koles ; but the inexpediency of using,

as a general appellation so definite a term as ¢ Tamulian,” appears

from the error into which some recent writers have fallen of attributing

the same or similar physical characteristics to the Dravidians or

Tamulians of Southern India, who differ as much from the Himalayan

tribes as do the Brahmans themselves.

Mr. Hodgson thus distinguishes the ¢ Arians’ from the ¢ Tamu-

lians ¥

¢ A practised eye will distinguish at a glance between the Arian

and Tamulian style of features and form—a practised pen will readily

make the distinction felt—but to perceive and to make others perceive,

by pen or pencil, the physical traits that separate each group or people

of Arian or of Tamulian extraction from each other group, would be

a task indeed !

In the Arian form their is height, symmetry, light-

ness and flexibility : in the Arian face an oval contour with ample

forehead and moderate jaws and mouth ; a round chin, perpendicular

with the forehead, a regular set of distinct and fine features; a well

raised and unexpanded nose, with elliptic nares ; a well-sized and

freely opened eye, running directly across the face ; no want of eye-

e e e A s s il

DRAVIDIAN

PHYSICAL

TYPE.

507

brows, eye-lash, or beard ; and lastl y a clear brunet complexion ; often

not darker than that of the most southern Kuropeans.

In the Tamulian form, on the contrary, there is less height, less

symmetry, more dumpiness and flesh : in the Tamulian face, a some-

what lozenge contour caused by the large cheek bones, less perpendi-

cularity in the features to the front, occasioned not so much by defect

of forehead or chin, as by excess of jaws and mouth ; a larger propor-

tion of face to head, and less roundness in the latter; a broader, flatter

face, with features less symmetrical, but perhaps more expression, at

least of individuality ; a shorter, wider nose, often clubbed at the end

and furnished with round nostrils ; eyes less, and less fully opened,

and less evenly crossing the face by their line of aperture ; ears larger,

lips thicker ; beard deficient ; colour brunet, as in the last, but darker

on the whole, and, as in it, various. Such is the general description of

the Indian Arians and Turanians.’

Mr. Hodgson states also in several places that a Mongolian stamp

is impressed on all the aborigines of India.

“Look steadfastly,” he

says, ‘on any man of an aboriginal race, and say if a Mongol origin

1s not palbably inscribed on his face.’

R R R S A

Probably there was little if any reference to the Tamulians, pro-

perly so called, in this striking and accurate description of the Brah-

?

mans of Northern India and of the forest tribes of the Himalayas

and

the Vindhyas ; but through the vague use of the appellation ¢ Tamu-

|

lian,” it is evident that Prof. Max Muller has been led to suppose the

same description applicable to the Dravidians proper, or aboriginal in-

habitants of the south. Founding his theory on this description, which

he quotes and eulogizes (in his Zuranian Lesearches, included in Bun-

sen’s Outlines of Universal History),—he says: ‘ From the most

ancient times to the period of the Puranas, we meet everywhere with

indications, more or less distinet, of two races brought into contact in

the Indian peninsula and again, ¢ The traveller in India to the pre-

sent day, though he would look in vain for the distinctive features of

a Brahman (?), a Kshattriya, or a Vaisya, feels the conviction irre-

sistibly growing upon him, as he passes along the streets of cities, or

¢l

the roads of villages, whether north or south of the Vindhyas, that every-

where he is brought in contact with at least two races of man, distinet

[

in mind as well as in hody.’

It is evident also from a quotation from

a paper of Dr. Stevenson’s, which he subjoins, that by those ¢ two races

o

i

of man’ he understood ‘the higher and lower orders of natives’—

I

x]l

“the Brahmans and other castes allied to them, and the lower or non-

:;i

Arya,n castes of the Hindu population.’

We thus arrive at the con-

d

clusion that Mr. Hodgson’s description of the physical peculiarities

4

sz

%

APPENDIX.

508

which he calls ¢ Tamulian,’—that is, as he understands the term

Turanian or Mongolian—has come to be accepted as a faithful pour-

traiture of the Un-Brahmanical Hindus generally, including the Un-

Brahmanical classes south of the Vindhyas, ¢.c., the entire mass of the

Drévidian people.

The Professor quotes also those notices from the

Puranas in which the type of the Nishada features is given.—He is

‘a being, they say, ‘of the complexion of a charred stake, with

flattened features, and of dwarfish stature.’

¢ The inhabitants of the

Vindhya mountains are called his descendants. According to the Mat-

syapurana, they were as black as collyrium. According to the Bhaga-

rata-purdna, they had short arms and legs, were black as a crow, with

projecting chin, broad and flat nose, red eyes and tawny hair. The

Padma-purina adds a wide mouth, large ears, and a protuberant belly,

and particularises their descendants as Kiratas, Bhillas, Bahanakas,

In the next chapter the Professor states

Bhramaras, and Pulindas.’

that he ‘accepts for his starting point this general distinction between

Arya,s and Nishadas, which, whether suggested by physical features or

proved by the evidence of grammar, may be considered as an undis-

puted fact ; and he then proceeds to inquire ¢ whether they can be

subdivided into distinct groups.’

Finally he distinguishes, yet on lingual evidence alone, between

two classes of Nishadas, the Tamulic, in the narrower sense of the

word, and the Bhotiya or Sub-Himalayan.’

Another recent writer, Dr. Logan, treating of the Dravidians ex-

clusively, thinks that there is a strong Melanesian or Indo-African

element in the Tamil physiology ; and accounts for it by the supposi-

tion that a negro race overspread India and Ultra India, not only before

the arrival of the Aryans, but even before the arrival of the Scythians.

He sces an evidence of this in the colour of the Dravidians, and in the

exceeding variety of physical type and features which he observes

amongst them.

Yet even in his opinion, and in this point at least I

think he is quite correct, the Tamilians are ¢intellectually more

Europeanised than any other Tartaro-Iranian race.’

The tide evidently runs so strongly against my Dravidian friends,

that it seems almost fool-hardy to attempt to resist it; and yet I am

persuaded that it has arisen in the main from misapprehension. I am

persuaded that the physical type of the Dravidians is not Mongolian,

is not tinged with negro peculiarities, is not essentially different from

that type which is called Caucasian or Indo-Germanic ; and that

%’

whilst the distinct, indubitable evidence of their language requires

that the Dravidians should be affiliated with the Scythian race, physio-

logical considerations throw, in this instance, so little light upon the

o

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE.

509

=

subject that they would admit of our affiliating them, if it seemed

necessary, with the Indo-Europeans.

Leaving out of account, for the present, the question of colour, it

does not appear to me that there is any essential difference between

the heads or features of the Dravidians and those of the Brahmans.

There is, it is true, a great variety of feature, as well as of colour,

apparent amongst the Dravidians; but though the varieties of feature,

or rather of physiognomy, which one observes are numerous, they are

generally so minute and unimportant that in the absence of any class-

difference in the shape of the head, they are consistent with the sup-

position of oneness of blood, and may safely be referred to local, social,

and individual causes of difference.

The long continued operation of

the caste-law of the Hindus appears to me to be quite sufficient to account

for the differences of feature, colour, and expression that are observed

M

to exist.

Like oil and water in the same vessel, or ingredients which may be

I

;

mixed mechanically, but will not combine chymically, the various

castes into which the Dravidians were arranged by their Brahman

preceptors have lived side by side for ages, probably in some instances

éi

for twenty-five centuries, without commingling. For ages there has

10

been no intermarriage, no social intercourse, no common bond of sym-

pathy. Rank has become hereditary, as well as caste ; and not only

rank, but even intellect, temperament, character, and physical charac-

teristics.

In consequence of the separation of caste from caste for so

i

many ages through the prohibition of intermarriage, unmistakeable

1

points of difference both in features and in mental temperament have

e

been developed.

1

It would be surprising indeed if under such circumstances ¢varieties

he

of man’ did not make their appearance, and if ethnologists, looking

{2

at the question from a distance, did not sometimes doubt whether they

1

could all be referred to a single race of pure blood.

‘Some,’ says

)16

Dr. Logan, speaking of the Tamilians in particular, ‘are exceedingly

Iranian, more are Semitico-Iranian, some are Semitic, others Australian,

ds,

some remind us of Egyptians, while others again have Malayo-Poly-

A

nesian, and even Simang and Papuan features.’

am

In no country in the world are features and complexion so variable

ally

as in India ; but caste, as it exists in India, and especially as it affects

il

the condition of the lower classes, is unknown in every other country in

the world.

hat

768

Separate for ever from the society of their fellow countrymen a

si0-

class of agricultural labonrers or slaves: prohibit all intermarriage

the

with families in more easy circumstances: require them to live by

510

APPENDIX

themselves in wretched wigwams, removed to a cousiderable distance

from the village which is inhabited by the respectable householders

compel them to work hard the whole year round in the open air in an

inter-tropical climate—in a country where the sun comes twice in the

year right over head

let all possibility of their rising to a higher

condition of life, or obtaining a more sedentary, shady employment be

pay them no wages

feed

for ever precluded : prohibit education

them scantily and clothe them still more scantily : encourage drunken-

ness and the eating of carrion

prohibit the women from dressing

themselves with ordinary regard for decency :—treat them, in short

for twenty centuries as the Brahmans and high-caste Dravidians have

treated the Pariars and other low-castes, and it will be quite unneces-

sary to have recourse to Dr. Logan’s theory of their intermixture with

a primitive race of Africans or Negritoes in order to account for the

coarseness of their features, their dwarfishness, or the blackness of

their skin

Notwithstanding all this, though the Pariars, as a class

are darker than any other class in the Carnatic, we find amongst them

as great a variety of colour as amongst other classes of Hindus ; and

occasionally we may notice complexions that are as clear as those of

]

the higher castes, together with considerable regularity of features

The question, however, which is before us now 1

not ‘are the

Pariars of the same race as the high-caste Dravidians ¥ but ‘to what

race do the DrAvidians themselves belong ¥ — ¢ Do those who are

admitted to be Dravidians of pure blood resemble most the Aryans or

the Mongohans ¥ this is the question really at issue.

In comparing the physical type of the Dréavidians with that of

Mongolians and Aryans, it is unfair to restrict the comparison to the

lower classes of Dravidians; for the South-Indian Stdras, or high

caste Dravidians, claim to be regarded as the purest replesentatwes of

their race

Their institutions and manners have been Aryamsed but

it is pure Dravidian blood which flows in their veins

There may

possibly be some doubt whether the lower castes were not intermixed

with an anterior race: but the higher castes call themselves Tamilians

Telugus, Malayéalis, &c. par excellence ; and their special right to those

national appellations is always admitted, in terms at least, by the lower

tes themselves

When we compare the physical type of cultivated, high caste Dra-

vidians with that of the Brahmans, no essential difference whatever

and very little difference of any kind, can be observed

In many instances the features of the high-caste Dravidian women

are more delicately formed and more regular than those of Brahman

women themselves, whilst their complexions are at least equally fair

e

DRAVIDIAN

PHYSICAL

TYPE.

511

and if any difference appears, it consists not in Mongolian breadth of

face, but in greater elongation and narrowness.

The Dravidian type

of head will even bear to be directly compared with the European.

Compare, for instance, the heads of the Tamil or Telugu Munshis,

translators, and Pandits in any Zillah court with that of the presiding

English judge ; and it is evident that the Dravidian heads differ from

the English only in being smaller and narrower,—with a preponderance

in the former of the signs of subtilty and suppleness, in the latter of

4

straightforward moral and mental energy.

&

It is especially deserving of consideration, that the Nilgherry

Tudas, who of all Dravidian tribes have been most thoroughly guarded

by their secluded position from Bhramanical influences, instead of

E

being more Mongol-like or Negro-like than the AryaniSed Dravidians,

are so distinctively Caucasian in the opinion of many persons, that

{

they have been regarded as Celts, Romans, Jews, &c., and the chief

difficulty that exists is that of inducing people to be content with the

1l

statement, that the Tudas are proved by their language to be identical

in origin with the Dravidians of the plains.

it

Amongst the lower class of the Dravidians, I have occasionally

observed a type of head which is somewhat inclined to be what is

16

called Mongolian, that is, it exhibits unusual breadth across the cheek

it

bones, a pyramidal forehead, a somewhat oblique position of the eyes,

and a pyramidal nose with a broad base.

{7

Or

On the other hand, Mongolian smoothness of skin, seantiness of

hair, flatness of face, and the peculiar monotonous olive hue of the

Mongolian complexion are never met with ; and it should be observed

of

he

that the other elements of the Mongolian type which one does occa-

oh

sionally notice, though it is chiefly, if not solely, amongst the lower

of

classes that they are seen, yet they do not constitute the class-type of

t

any caste whatever; nor are they ordinarily or frequently met with,

0y

but are exceptional instances, which scarcely at all affect the general

ed

rale; and I have no doubt that similar exceptional instances could

0

easily be pointed out amongst the lower classes of our own race.

The physical type of a race should be determined by the shape of

)58

jer

the head and the more permanent peculiarities of feature alone, irre-

spective of the complexion or colour of the skin; for every one who

has lived in India must have learned to regard colour as a most

T

()

deceptive evidence of relationship and race.

It is true that the

Brahmans as a class are much fairer than the Pariars as a class ; but

e

the conviction is forced upon the mind of every observer, by the

hundreds of instances which he meets with in daily life, that the

a1

colour of the features of the Hindus is purely a result of the external

it

D

S

512

APPENDIX.

circumstances in which they are placed, with respect to climate, occu-

pation, and mode of life. They are dark-complexioned in proportion

as they are exposed to the sun in out-door labour, and fair in propor-

tion as they live a sedentary life; and consequently colour, if an

evidence of anything specific, is an evidence only of the social status

of the individual and his family.

It is vain, therefore, to expect from

considerations of colour and complexion any real help towards deter-

mining the race to which the Dravidians belong.

The influence of climate alone, in darkening or blanching the

colour of the skin is greater than is commonly supposed; and India

One of the best of

furnishes innumerable instances of this influeuce.

Indian instances of the influence of climate in modifying colour with

which I am acquainted, is furnished by the extreme fairness of the

complexion of th

e greater proportion of the natives of the Malabar

coast, compared with the very dark hue of a like proportion of the

natives of the coast of Coromandel, who belong to the same or similar

castes, and who follow similar occupations. The natives of the Coro-

mandel coast are exposed for ten months in the year to a very high

degree of dry heat, in a level country, bare of wood.* The natives

of the Malabar coast are exposed to a similar degree of heat for not

more than two months out of the twelve, and a similar degree of

drought is on that coast unknown: their sky is almost always laden

with moisture ; the quantity of rain that falls is always double, gene-

rally treble, the quantity that falls on the eastern coast in the same

latitude. The country is everywhere well wooded, and the houses of

the people are generally nestled in deep, cool groves; and, in conse-

quence,

in the same degree of latitude, and with a difference in

longitude of only a degree or half a degree, the skin of the people on

the western side of the Ghauts (or central mountain range of Southern

India) is as much fairer than that of the people on the eastern side,

as the complexion of the Brahmans of any province is fairer than that

of the labouring classes in the same province. Notwithstanding this

difference in complexion, there is no difference in race, for the Malay-

alis are demonstrably descended from an early colony of Tamilians;

and an equally remarkable difference in complexion is apparent

amongst the members of those Tamil castes, of whom a portion have

settled in Malayalam.

1 never knew the thermometer

* In my own n

eighbourhood in Tinnevelly,

fall lower at any p

eriod of the year, day or night, than 7 6°. For about eight

months in the year it ave

raged 84°, and for about two months rose above 90°.

j

The maximum, which it rarely

reached in the shade, was 96°.

The average fall of rain in

the same neighbourhood, during the six years in

which I registered it, was only 25 inches!

|

e —

R——

DRAVIDIAN

PHYSICAL TYPE.

513

Towards the southern extremity of the Peninsula, the breadth of

the central mountain range is greatly diminished, and there is easy

access from the Tamil country into Travancore by the Aramboly pass.

By this pass, and by similar breaks and gaps still farther south, the

Tamilians of the old Pandiya kingdom forced their way into Malay-

alam, and possessed themselves of the province of South Travancore.

The government of this province has again reverted to the Travan-

corians, in whose hands it has been for several centuries; but the bulk

4

of the population continue to be Tamilians, as far as the vicinity of

Trivandrum, the Travancore capital.

Up to that limit the majority

|

of the people on the Travancore side of the mountain barrier belong

to the same castes as in the East India Company’s district of Tinne-

velly, on the eastern side ; they speak the same language, and follow

the same occupations; they occasionally intermarry, and their features

are perfectly similar; yet, notwithstanding all this, they differ so

%

materially with respect to colour, that a stranger would naturally

suppose them to belong to different races.

A remarkable instance of

difference of colour under these circumstances is furnished by the

3

Shéanérs, or palmyra cultivators, who are found in considerable numbers

it

on each side of the Ghauts, up to the very foot of the mountains.

In

of

the vicinity of Neyattangkarei, a Travancore village, the Shanars on

the western side of the mountain range, are separated from their fellow

1

caste-men on the eastern side, by a space of only about fifteen miles

16

as the crow flies; and the only difference in their circumstances, is the

of

difference in the climate, which is caused by the precipitation of the

moisture of the south-western monsoon on the western side of the

Ghauts, and its interception from the eastern side.

In consequence of

1n

)}

this difference in the climate alone, the Shénars who reside on the

eastern side of the Ghauts, are amongst the blackest of the Tamilians,

1

while on the Travancore side, the same class of people, engaged in the

e

same occupations, are as fair as the Brahmans of the Carnatic, and in

ab

some Instances even fairer.

This fact, which is patent to the observa-

11§

J

tion of every one in the neighbourhood, is perhaps the most remarkable

proof in existence, of the immense influence of climate in modifying

15

nb

the colour of the skin.

Another and better known evidence, is furnished by the circum-

Vo

stance that many of the descendants of the Portuguese who settled in

India several centuries ago, are now blacker than the Hindus them-

fer

selves.

The class of people referred to are a mixed race, descended

ght

)0

from European fathers and native mothers, yet instead of being the

fairer for their admixture with European blood, many of them are of a

B

darker colour than the natives from whom, on the maternal side, they

2.1

o

514

APPENDIX.

are descended. Even amongst the Brahmans, though a perfectly pure,

unmixed race, differences of colour are frequently observed.

It is

supposed to be unlucky to meet ‘a black Brahman,” or ‘a fair Pariar,

the first thing in the morning. The Brahmans of Northern India are

generally fairer than those of the south, with the exception of the

Nambiris, or high-caste Brahmans of the Malabar coast, who appear

to be the fairest of their race.

Professor Max Miiller (in his valuable paper on the Bengali in the

Reports of the British Association), thinks he finds in the Gonds, and

other Un-Aryanised Dravidians, evidences of the existence of a race

‘ closely resembling the Negro; and says that, ¢the existence of the

On

same dark race in the South of India, is authenticated by Strabo.’

the contrary, Strabo’s statement, when not merely alluded to, but

translated, will be found to corroborate the view which I have taken.

He says, ‘the Southern Indians resemble the Althiopians in colowr:

but in features and in hair, they resemble the rest of the Indians (for

on account of the moisture of the climate the hair does not become

woolly) ; but the Northern Indians resemble the Egyptians.’

This statement of Strabo throws light on a passage in Herodotus,

in which a black race, apparently Hindus, are said to have been

brigaded with the fairer Indians in the army of Xerxes. He says,

¢ Athiopians from the eastward—from the sun-rising—from Asia—

marched with Indians, but differed not from other Athiopians except

in their language and their hair; for the Libyan Aithiopians have the

woolliest hair of all men, but those people are straight-haired.’

Hero-

dotus supplies us with a fact, Strabo with the right explanation of that

fact.

Herodotus is silent with respect to the features of the Eastern

Athiopians; Strabo asserts that their features resembled those of the

rest of the Indians.

Though there is little or nothing of a distinctively Mongolian

character in the features and heads of the Dravidians, considered

generally ; and though consequently physiology does not furnish any

reliable evidence in support of their Mongolian or Scythian origin, it is

unsafe to draw any conclusion from this circumstance.

The danger of

arguing from negative evidence respecting matters which are so fleeting

and changeable as features and complexion, is illustrated by the change

which has passed over the features of the Mahommedans of India.

The Mahommedans of India are partly descended from the Affghan,

and partly from the Mogol invaders; but the great majority are

descendants of the Tartar-Turkish soldiers and camp-followers, who

accompanied both the Affghans and the Mogols.

Probably most of

the Affchan invaders of India were Seljukian Turks; the Mogols

i R a a S i

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL

TYPE.

51

(%)

4

were, as their name imports, Mongolians; and the hordes that followed

the fortunes of both classes of invaders, were a mixed race —a ‘collu-

vies gentium ’—comprising various tribes and races of Mongolian and

Tartar-Turkish origin, called by the Hindus Turushkas, in Tamil

Turukkar, or more commonly Tulukkar, 7.e., Turks.

The proportion of Persians and other races of Indo-European origin,

who accompanied the Affghans and Mongols in their expeditions, was

exceedingly small; and thongh the Mahommedans have occasionally

made proselytes amongst the Hindus, by force or the prospect of

secular advantages, and have -occasionally robbed Hindus of their

wives and daughters, the disturbing influence of these accessions to

their ranks has been so small, that it may be left altogether out of

account,

Hence, the Mahommedans of India may be regarded as a

Tartar-Mongolian people; and we might naturally expect to observe

in them those physiological peculiarities of the High Asian races

which must have characterised the majority of their ancestors on their

first arrival in India, and which are still apparent in all their distine-

tiveness, not only in the Mongolians, but in the Siberian Turks.

Notwithstanding this, we generally search in vain amongst the Indian

Mahommedans for signs of their Tartar origin.

With the exception

of a somewhat greater breadth of face and head, and a more olive

complexion, they do not now differ from the Hindus, properly so

called, in any essential point.

They exhibit, it is true, special pecu-

liarities of physiognomy and expression; but every Hindu tribe or

caste has, in like manner, a peculiar physiognomy of its own, by

which it differs from every other tribe.

A change appears to have

st e

passed over the physiology of the Mahommedans of India similar to

that which the Magyars and the Osmanli Turks have experienced

since they settled in Europe, and which has transformed them from

Tartars into Europeans.

As, therefore, there cannot be any doubt of

the original Mongolianism of the majority of Indian Mahommedans, or

of the absence from them now of almost every thing that is Mongolian,

8o, though little or nothing that is distinctively Mongolian is now

apparent in the features or physiology of the mass of the Drividians,

they may, notwithstanding this, be descended from as purely a Scythian

or Mongolian ancestry as the Mahommedans are known to be; or at

least, we may conclude that there is nothing in the physiological view

of the question which is opposed to the argument derived from lingnal

comparison.

Perhaps, however, on the whole, the safest conclusion is, that the

mass of the Dravidians, though as truly Seythians as the Mongolians

themselves, were, even at the time of their entrance into India, free

272

J

V-3

16

APPENDIX.

from those peculiarities of feature that are called Mongolian

We

cannot safely conclude that the Mongolian type of features was from

the beginning the inheritance of the whole of the Scythian tribes

It

appears more probable that that type was developed in the course of

time in the steppes of High Asia; and it is certain that the tribes

amongst whom it has acquired a peculiar degree of permanence, are

the Tibetans and the Mongolian nomades, who still inhabit the original

seats of their race

It is remarkable that the only Indian tribes which are now dis-

tinetly characterized by Mongolian peculiarities, are those which

entered India by the north-east, and which are probably of Tibetan

origin

The Garos and other forest tribes on the Bhutan frontier, as

described by Mr. Hodgson, seem to be decidedly Mongolian ; and the

Koles and Santals are probably descended from the same or a similar

stock. The existence at an early period in the vicinity of Orissa, of

barbarous tribes differing in appearance from the rest of the Hindus,

and exhibiting a Mongolian or foreign type, is attested by the follow

ing passage in the Periplus Maris Erythrae:

After referring to the

region watered by the Godavery and Kistna, the author says: ¢ After

this, keeping the sea on the right hand and sailing northwards, we

come upon certain barbarous tribes, as the ¢ kippadac’ (Sans. ¢ Kiratus’),

a race of people with flattened noses (evidently Mongolians), also the

horse-faces and the long-faces, all of whom are said to be cannibals

Then sailing eastwards, and having a certain sea on the right, we come

to the Ganges.’

The distinct statement of Strabo wh]ch has already been quoted,

joined to the negative evidence of this passage, proves that at the

Christian era, the civilized, cultivated Dravidians (the Pandiyas

Calingas, Andhras, &c.), did not materially differ in physiognomy or

personal appearance from the northern Hindus; and that certain bar-

barous inhabitants of the jungles, who are barbarians still, were the

The Gondali

only tribes that appeared to be distinctively Mongolian

of Ptolemy, probably the Gonds, who are classed among ¢ the Bitti,” and

distinguished from ¢ the Phyllitae’ (probably the Bhills), are not said to

have differed in appearance from the more cultivated Dravidians

Some writers, I think erroneously, speak of the ‘jet blackness’ of

the Gonds; and the Rajmahal people are said to be black. Notwith-

standing this, according to the account of that accurate observer,

Dr. Buchanan Hamilton, the features of the Males or Rajmahal hill

people, do not essentially differ from the Aryan type.

‘Their lips are

full, but not at all like those of the Negro.

Their faces are oval, not

shaped like a lozenge as those of the Chinese are

Their eyes, instead

DRAVIDIAN

PHYSICAL

TYPE.

517

of being hid in fat and placed obliquely like those of the Chinese, are

exactly like those of Europeans.’

We have seen that some of the Vindhya Nishadas are described in

the Purinas to be ‘as black as crows; but without debating the

accuracy of the amiable portrait of those primitive tribes, which the

Puranas have drawn, and which waits to be tested by Mr. Hodgson’s

pencil, it will suffice for the present to remind the reader that those

very Purina writers entertained so different an impression respecting

the true Dréavidians of the south, that they fell into the opposite error

of Aryanising them, and supposed the Calingas, Pandiyas, Kéralas,

and other Dravidians to be descended from colonies of Aryans from

Oude.

N

1V

Ancient Religion of the Dravidians.

ReL1crous usages are sometimes found to throw light on the origin

or relationship of races.

Similarity in the religiousideas and practises

of any two primitive tribes strengthens the evidence of their relation-

ship derived from similarity of language.

Let us see whether any

light can be thrown on the ¢uestion of the relationship of the Dravi-

dians by an inquiry into their religious usages.

A priori, this inquiry

seems likely to lead to some definite result, inasmuch as the religions

of the ancient Indo-European nations and the old Scythian religions of

Upper Asia present many essential points of difference.

In the earliest times we find amongst the nations of the Indo-Euro-

pean family the universal prevalence of certain tenets and usages, which

each of those nations appears to have inherited from the common pro-

The docirine which was most characteristic of

genitors of the race.

the whole family was that of the Metempsychosis ; their objects of

worship were either the elements of nature personified, or a Pantheon

of heroes and heroines ; and the most characteristic of their religious

usages was the maintenance of a distinet order of priests, generally

hereditary, who were venerated as the depositaries of all ancient tradi-

tions and spiritual power.

In whatever race these religious peculiarities appear to have pre-

vailed, we shall probably find on inquiry that there are weighty

reasons for attributing to that race an Indo-European origin or rela-

tionship : and in like manner a family likeness (exceedingly dissimilar

from the particulars now mentioned) will be found to characterize the

religious practises of the nations of the Scythian group.

In endeavouring to ascertain the characteristics of the primitive Dra-

vidian religion, we are met by a serious but not insurmountable difficulty.

The Brahmans, by whom the Aryan civilization was grafted on the

ruder Dravidian stock, laboured assiduously to extirpate the old Dra-

|

vidian religion, and to establish their own in its room ; and they are

generally supposed to have succeeded in accomplishing this object.

Notwithstanding their success however, it is still possible in some

S—

——

——

—

S—

I EE——

ANCIENT RELIGION

OF

THE DRAVIDIANS.

519

degree to discriminate bet\;reen the doctrines and practices which were in-

troduced by the Brahmans and the older religion of the Dravidian people.

If, for instance, any usages are found to prevail extensively in Southern

India, and especially amongst the ruder and less Aryanised tribes,

which are derived neither from the Védas nor from the Puranas, neither

from Buddhism nor from Jainism, such usages may be concluded to be

relics of the religious system of the Drividian aborigines. Many such

usages do actually exist.

Several religious systems widely differing

from the Brahmanical are discoverable amongst the Dravidian nations,

and are especially prevalent amongst the rude inhabitants of the

jungles.

Hence, we are not quite destitute of the means of comparing

the characteristics of the ancient Dravidian religion, prior to the intro-

duction of Brahmanism (or what is commonly called Hinduism}), with

the religious usages that prevailed amongst the Scythian races.

The system which prevails in the forests and mountain-fastnesses

throughout the Dravidian territories, and also in the extreme south of

the Peninsula amongst the low caste tribes, and which appears to have

been still more widely prevalent at an early period, is a system of

demonolatry, or the worship of evil spirits by means of bloody sacrifices

st v e

and frantic dances.

This system was introduced within the historical

period from the Tamil country into Ceylon, where it is now mixed up

with Buddhism.

On comparing this Dravidian system of demonolatry

and sorcery with ¢Shamanism "*—the superstition which prevails

amongst the Ugrian races of Siberia and the hill-tribes on the South-

Western frontier of China, which is still mixed up with the Buddhism

of the Mongols, and which was the old religion of the whole Tartar

race before Buddhism and Mohammedanism were disseminated amongst

them—we cannot avoid the conclusion that those two superstitions,

though practised by races so widely separated, are not only similar but

identical.

I shall here point out the principal features of resemblance between

the Shamanism of High Asia and the demonolatry of the Dravidians,+

as still practised in many districts in Southern India.

* This word Shamanism is formed from Shaman, the name of the magician-

priest of the North Asian demonolaters.

‘Shaman,” though a name appropriated

by demonolaters, is of Buddhist origin, and was adopted from the Mongolians. It

is identical with ‘Samana,” the Tamil name for a Buddhist, and is derived from

the Sanserit word ‘¢ Srimana.’

The use of this word Shaman in Siberia, must be

of comparatively modern origin; but the system of religion into which it has

been adopted and incorporated is one of the oldest superstitions in the world.

+ I beg to refer the reader for a full account of the peculiarities of the Drévi-

dian demonolatry, to a small work of mine called 7he Shdndrs of Tinnevelly,

I think I have

published by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.

proved in that work that the demonolatry of the Shanars (the palmyra cultivators

5

92

-

0

APPENDIX.

(1.) The Shamanites are destitute of a régular priesthood. Ordi-

narily the father of the family is the priest and magician ; but the

office may be undertaken by any one who pleases, and at any time laid

aside.

Precisely similar is the practice existing amongst the Shanars and

other rude tribes of Southern India.

Ordinarily it is the head of the

family, or the head-man of the hamlet or community, who performs

the priestly office ; but any worshipper, male or female, who feels so

disposed, may volunteer to officiate, and becomes for the time being

the representative and interpreter of the demon.

(2.) The Shamanites acknowledge the existence of a supreme God;

but they do not offer him any worship.

The same acknowledgment of

God’s existence and the same neglect of his worship characterize the

religion of the Dravidian demonolaters.

(8.) Neither amongst the Shamanites nor amongst the primitive,

un-brahmanized demonolaters of India is there any trace of belief in

the metempsychosis.

(4.) The objects of Shamanite worship are not gods or heroes, but

demons, which are supposed to be cruel, revengeful, and capricious,

The offi-

and are worshipped by bloody sacrifices and wild daneces.

clating magician or priest excites himself to frenzy, and then pretends,

or supposes himself, to be possessed by the demon to which worship is

being offered ; and after the rites are over he communicates, to those

who consult him, the information he has received.

The demonolatry practised in India by the more primitive Dravi-

dian tribes is not only similar to this, but the same.

Every word used

in the foregoing description of the Shamanite worship would apply

equally well to the Dréividian demonolatry ; and in depicting the cere-

monies of the one race we depict those of the other also.

;

of Southern India) did not originate with the Brahmans, or in any local develop-

ment of the religion of the Brahmans; but that on the contrary, the element of

demonology which is contained in the later Puranic system, was borrowed from

this old Drévidian superstition.

;

It is admitted to be a fact that the Buddhists of Ceylon borrowed their demo-

nolatry from the DrAvidians of the Old Péindiya Kingdom: if so, it cannot be

unreasonable to suppose that it was from the same or a similar source that the

Brahmans borrowed the demoniacal element which is contained in the later

Puranas.

I apprehend that we have a mythical record of the adoption of the

aboriginal demonolatry into the later Brahmanical system, and of the object in

view in this alliance, in the Puranic story of the sacrifice of Daksha.

According

to that story, Siva (7.e., Vedantic Brahmanism) found himself unable to subdue the

old elementary divinities, and to secure to himself the exclusive homage at which

he aimed, till he called in the aid of the demons (the demonolatry of the abo-

rigines), and put himself at their head in the person of his (‘ pro-re-nata’) son,

Vira-Bhadra; a demi-god, whose wife, emanation, or representative, Bhadra-Cali,

is regarded by the Shanirs as their patroness and mother.

AR

e

ANCIENT

RELIGION

OoF

THE DRAVIDIANS,

521

Compare the following accounts of the demonolatrous rites of

the Shamanites of Siberia and those of the demonolaters of India.

The description of the Shamanite worship is formed from a series

of arranged quotations from Prichard’s account of the deseriptions

which various Russian travellers and ecclesiastics have given of the

superstitions of the Ostiaks, the Samoiedes, the Siberian Turks, and

The account of the Dra-

other Pagans inhabitants of Northern Asia.

vidian superstitions is taken from my paper on ‘the Tinnevelly

Shanars,” a paper which was written before I was aware of the identity

of the demonolatry of Siberia with that of Tinnevelly.

SoHAMANITE DEMONOLATROUS RirteEs.—¢ When the Shaman, of

magician, performs his superstitious rites he puts on a garment trimmed

with bits of iron, rattles, and bells : he cries horribly, beats a sort of

drum, agitates himself, and shakes the metallic appendages of his robe ;

and at the same time the bystanders increase the din by striking with

their fists upon iron kettles.

When the Shaman, by his horrible con-

tortions and yells, by cutting himself with knives, whirling and

swooning, has succeeded in assuming the appearance of something pre-

e o e e

ternatural and portentous, the assembled multitude are impressed with

the belief that the demon they are worshipping has taken possession

of the priest, and regard him accordingly with wonder and dread.

When he is quite exhausted with his exertions, and can no longer hold

out, he makes a sign that the spirit has left him, and then imparts to

the people fche intimations he has received.’

SuiniAr DemoNornaTrROUS RITEs.—¢ When it is determined to offer

a sacrifice to a devil, a person is specially appointed to act the part of

priest ; for devil-worship is not, like the worship of the deities, appro-

priated to a particular order of men, but may be performed by any one

who chooses.

The officiating priest is styled a ‘devil-dancer.” Usually

the ‘head man,” or one of the principal men of the village officiates ;

but sometimes the duty is voluntarily undertaken by some devotee,

male or female, who wishes to gain notoriety, or in whom the sight of

the preparations has awakened a sudden zeal.

‘The officiating priest is dressed up for the occasion in the vestments

and ornaments which are appropriated to the particular devil that is

worshipped. The object in view in donning the demon’s insignia is to

strike terror into the imagination of the beholders ; but the party-

coloured dress and grotesque ornaments, the cap and trident and jingling

bells, of the performer, bear so close a resemblance to the usual adjuncts

of a pantomime that an European would find it difficult to look grave.

r

J

22

APPENDIX.

‘The musical instruments, or rather the instruments of noise, which

are chiefly used in the devil-dance are the tom-tom, or ordinary

Indian drum, and the horn; with occasionally the addition of a

clarionet when the parties can aflordit. But the favourite instrument,

because the noisiest, is that which is called ‘the bow.” A series of bells

of various sizes is fastened to the frame of a gigantic bow ; the strings

are tightened so as to emit a musical note when struck ; and the bow

rests on a large empty brazen pot.

The instrument is played on by a

plectrum, and several musicians join in the performance.

‘One

strikes the strings of the bow with the plectrum, another produces the

bass by striking the brazen pot with his hand, and a third beats time

and improves the harmony by a pair of cymbals.

‘When the preparations are completed, and the devil-dance is about

to commence, the music is at first comparatively slow, and the dancer

seems impassive and sullen ; and either he stands still or moves about

in gloomy silence.

Gradually, as the music becomes quicker and

louder, his excitement begins to rise.

Sometimes to help him to work

himself up into a frenzy he uses medicated draughts; cuts and lace-

rates his flesh till the blood flows ; lashes himself with a huge whip ;

presses a burning torch to his breast ; drinks the blood which flows

from his own wounds ; or drinks the blood of the sacrifice, putting the

throat of the decapitated goat to his mouth.

Then, as if he had

acquired new life, he begins to brandish his staff of bells, and dance

with a quick, but wild, unsteady step. Suddenly the aflatus descends.

There is no mistaking that glare, or those frantic leaps.

He snorts,

he stares, he gyrates.

The demon has now taken bodily possession of

him ; and though he retains the power of utterance and of motion,

both are under the demon’s control, and his separate consciousness is

in abeyance.

The bystanders signalize the event by raising a long

shout attended with a peculiar vibratory noise.

‘The devil-dancer is now worshipped as a present deity ; and every

bystander consults him respecting his disease, his wants, the welfare of

his absent relations, and the offerings which are to be made for the

accomplishment of his wishes.

¢ As the devil dancer acts to admiration the part of a maniac, it

|

requires some experience to enable a person to interpret his dubious or

unmeaning replies, his muttered voices and uncouth gestures ; but the

wishes of the parties who consult him help them greatly to interpret

his meaning.’

It seems to me unnecessary to say anything more in proof of the

substantial identity of the demonolatry of the Dravidians of India

with the Shamanism of Northern Asia.

It may be alleged that simi-

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

523

larity in mental characteristics and social circumstances alone might

give rise to this similarity in religious ideas and practises, but it

geems far more probable that both the superstitions which bave now

been described have sprung from a common origin: and I may add

that the conformity which has been traced between the old religion of

the Dravidians and that which was once the religion of all the Scy-

thian nations corroborates the supposition of the Seythian relationship

of the Dravidian race.

Whilst the demonolatrous rites which I have now described appear

to have constituted the prevailing superstition of the ancient Dravi-

dians, we meet also with traces of the existence of systems that

correspond in part to those which prevailed amongst the Indo-European

races.

The religion of the Kunds or Kus, though it contains a demonola-

trous element, may be described as in the main a worship of gods of

rivers and mountains, of gods of the earth and the sky, and of the

gods of elements and genii loc.

It is in part an elementary wor-

ship, which may be allied in principle to that of the Aryans, but &hich

differs widely from it in spirit and form, and appears to be quite inde-

pendent of it in origin.

This remark especially applies to that section

of the Kus which practises human sacrifices, and delights in cruelty

and gloom.

A worship of gods of rivers and mountains similar to

that of the Kus is found amongst the Koles, and also amongst the

Sub-Himalayan and Bhutén tribes described by Mr. Hodgson ; and it

seems not imprqbable that it was from those tribes that the Ku religion

was derived.

Amongst the Dravidians of the plains no trace of the worship of

the elements has ever been discovered.

Indeed there is reason to

believe that the old Védic or elementary worship of the Brahmans had

already merged into the mythological and mystical system of the

Puranas, before the Brahmans effected a settlement in the South.

So far as appears, every Drividian usage which is not of Brahma-

nical origin is either identical with Shamanism or allied to it.

The religion of the Tudas of the Nilgherry hills exhibits some

peculiarities which are analogous to the earliest Brahmanical religion,

or the religion of the Védas, together with some which are regarded as

Seytho-Druidical.

The peculiar veneration with which the Tudas worship the manes

of ancestors ; their sacrifices to secure the peace of the dead ; their

worship of genii loci by means of offerings of milk and clarified butter;

their freedom from the worship of idols ; the religious veneration with

which they appear to regard a sacred bell, which is hung up in- their

524

APPENDIX

temples, or dairies; their abstinence from flesh, and living entirely on

grain and milk ; their exclusion of women from all share in the rites

of worship, and even from the precincts of their temples ; their prac-

tice of polyandria and female infanticide ;—these and analogous pecu-

liarities of the religious system and social life of the Tudas accord to

a certain extent with usages which prevailed in the earliest ages

amongst most of the tribes of the Indo-European race.

There is no trace amongst the Tudas of hero-worship or of Aryan

mythology, of the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, or of the

existence of a priestly caste,—all of which are distinctive portions of

the Indo-European system.

Nevertheless the peculiarities of the reli-

gion of the Tudas theh have been mentioned above may be suspected

to have had an Aryan origin, or at least to have been shaped and

Our ignorance of the history of the

X T R e

tinged by Aryan influences

Tudas (an ignorance which has not been dispelled by the speculations

of Captain Congreve), and of the circumstances which compelled them

to take refuge in the Nilgherry hills, renders it exceedingly difficult

if not impossible, to determine whether their religion sprang from the

same Scythian origin as the Dravidian demonolatry, or whether

it is to be placed to the account of their early association with

We must look to further and more accu-

some Indo-European race

rate research for the solution of this problem

The religion of the Tudas has sometimes been regarded as

¢ Druidical

¢ Celto-Druidical

identical with the religion of the

ancient Celts ;' but, with the exception of the performance of some of

their rites in the deep gloom of sacred groves, a practice which was not

ey

peculiar to the Celts alone, but which prevailed amongst various ancient

naticns, it does not appear that there is anything dlstmctlvely or

certainly Druidical in the existing system of the Tudas.

The supposition of the Druidical character of the Tuda religion

has arisen from the error of attributing to the Tudas various remains

and usages which were peculiar to an earlier and probably extinct

race

Those remains consist of cairns or burrows, eromlechs, kistvaens,

and circles of upright, loose stones, which are nearly identical in form

with those that are found in Europe in the ancient seats of the Celts

and whatever mystery may hang over the origin of those remains and

g8

over the race of which they are the only surviving relics, there

seems no reason for hesitating to style them, in a general sense,

Druidical

In the cairns or barrows referred to, vases, cinerary urns, and other

vessels of glazed pottery are often found, which sometimes contain

SRR e I R

ANCIENT RELIGION

OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

525

human bones, more or less charred, and mixed with ashes, sometimes

a little animal charcoal alone.

Most of these vessels have a peculiar

glaze of a rich red colour, with a zig-zag ornamentation : some have a

black glaze.

Brass and iron implements of agriculture and of war

have often been discovered in them : in several instances a bell has

been found, as in some of the Celtic barrows in England ; and occa-

sionally gold ornaments have come to light.

Though these remains

seem to be undoubtedly Druidical, they can hardly lay claim to an

antiquity equal to that of many Druidical remains found in Europe.

The rich glaze of the pottery ; the elegance of the shape of some

of the vessels (compared with the rude cinerary urns discovered in the

British barrows); the presence of implements of iron ; the representa-

tions of processions with musieal instruments and led horses, which are

rudely sculptured on the sides of some of the cromlechs ; the presence of

gold ornaments ;

all these circumstances denote a superior civilization

to that of the primitive Celts, and therefore a later origin of the relics.

If it be true, as it is confidently asserted (though I have been unable

to ascertain the truth of the statement), that a Roman aureus was dis-

covered in one of the barrows, the race by which those Druidical rites

e e

were practised must have survived for several centuries after the

Christian era.

At first it was supposed that cairns and other Druidical remains

were discoverable only on the Nilgherry hills; and hence it was

natural that these remains should at first be attributed to the Tudas,

the aborigines of the Nilgherries, and who are as peculiar in their cus-

toms as in their language.

On further research it was found that the

people to whom those remains belonged had practised agriculture and

made use of horses; whereas the Tudas were ignorant of agriculture,

appeared to have always lived a pastoral, wandering life, and were

ignorant even of the existence of the horse.

It was subsequently dis-

covered that the Tudas neither claimed the cairns and cromlechs as

B i l©n lH\ih» it b i°™

belonging to themselves or their ancestors, nor regarded them with

reverence ; that their rites of sepulture are altogether different from

those of the ancient people who used those cairns; and that they

ascribed them to a people still more ancient than themselves, by whom

they assert that the plateau of the Nilgherries was inhabited prior to

their arrival,

Sometimes they designated the cairns as burial places

of the ¢Curbs,’ i.e., of the Curubas or Curumbars, a race of nomade

shepherds who once overspread a considerable part of the Tamil

country (probably the ‘nomadic Soras’ of Ptolemy), and of whom a

few scattered relics still inhabit the slopes of the Nilgherries.

It

appeared, however, on making inquiry of the Curubas, that they

526

APPENDIX.

neither practised Druidical rites themselves, nor supposed the barrows

to be the work of their ancestors; so that the problem still remained

unsolved.

It was at length ascertained that similar cairns or barrows,

containing a great variety of similar remains, but of a more advanced

order and in a better condition, existed in immense numbers on the

Ana-mala hills,—a réJnge of hills on the south side of the great Coim-

batoor gap, which form the commencement and the northern face of the

Southern Ghauts ; and further investigation proved their existence, not

only in mountain ranges, but in almost every part of the Dekhan and

Peninsular India, from Nagpore to Madura, and also in various districts

in the presidency of Bombay.

Similar remains are found also in Circassia and Russia ; and circles

of stones surrounding ancient graves are found both on the Southern

Arabian coast and in the Somali country in Africa.

This discovery has had the effect of disconnecting the cairns, and

other Druidical remains of the Nilgherries from the Tudas, almost as

completely as from any other Dravidian race or tribe that now exists ;

and the question of the origin of the relics which have been discovered

in such numbers not only in the Nilgherries, but in many other parts

of India, and in the plains as well as on the mountains, and also the

ulterior question of the relationship and history of the people of whom

these relics are the only monuments that remain, have now become

problems of a more general and of a deeply interesting character.

Captain Meadows T aylor has discovered and examined a large number

of these remains at Rajan Koloor, in Sorapoor, and also at Siwarji, near

Ferozabad, on the Bhima; and has devoted much attention to the

comparison of them with similar remains found in England. He calls

them ¢Scytho-Celtic, or ‘Scytho-Druidical.’

It is probably correct to regard them as Druidical; but they are

not on this account necessarily Celtic, for the practice of rites of a

Druidical character and the use of cairns and barrows were not con-

fined to the Celts, but appear to have prevailed also amongst the Finns,

the Euraskians, and the other Scythians by whom Europe was inha-

bited prior to the arrival of the Celtic race ; and traces of the same

system of religion and sepulture have been discovered in various parts

of Northern and Central Asia.

The other term, ¢ Scytho-Druidical,’

seems an unobjectionable one.

It is a remarkable circumstance that no class of Hindus know any-

thing of the race to which these Druidical remains belonged, and that

neither in Sanscrit literature nor in that of the Dravidian languages

3

is there any tradition on the subject.

The Tamil people generally call

the cairns by the name of ‘pandu-kuris.” ‘kuri’ meaus a pit or grave,

%

S

i

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

527

and ‘ pandu’* denotes anything connected with the Pandus,’ or Pandava

brothers, to whom, all over India, ancient mysterious structures are

generally attributed.

To call anything ‘a work of the Pandus’ is

equivalent to terming it ¢ Cyclopean’ in Greece, ‘a work of the Picts’

in Scotland, or ‘a work of Nimrod’ in Asiatic Turkey ; and it means

only that the structure to which the name is applied was erected in

some remote age, by a people of whom nothing is now known. When

the Tamil people are asked ‘by whom were these pandu-kuris built

and used ¥ they sometimes reply, by the people who lived here long

ago ;' but they are unable to tell whether those people were their own

ancestors or a foreign race, and also when and why those ¢kuris’

ceased to be used.

The answer which is sometimes given is that the

people who built the cairns were ‘a raceof dwarfs who lived long

ago,

and who were only a span or a cubit high, but were possessed of the

strength of giants.’

The supposition that the builders of the cairns had settled in India

earlier than the Dravidians, and were expelled by the Dravidians from

the plains and forced to take refuge in the hills and jungles, where

they gradually died out, would accord with some of the circumstances

now mentioned ; but it is inconsistent with the proofs which we meet

with of the civilization of the race, and in particular with their acquaint-

ance with the art of glazing pottery, an art which is unknown to the

modern Hindoos themselves.

If we should suppose, on the other

hand, that they were a race of nomadic ¢ Scytho-Druidical * shepherds,

who wandered into India, affer it was peopled and settled (perhaps

about the Christian era), and then wandered out again, the circum-

stance that the Druidical remains are found most plentifully in remote

mountainous regions renders this supposition an improbable one. The

improbability of the supposition would, however, be diminished, if we

were to suppose that this shepherd people, instead of retracing their

steps and wandering out of India, formed alliances with the Dravidians,

and gradually merged in the mass of the Dravidian race.

Whether the people to whom these Scytho-Druidical remains

belonged were or were not Dravidians (a point which cannot be settled

till we know something more of them), it cannot be regarded as pro-

* This word ‘Pandu’ is not to be confou

nded (as Captain Congreve has

confounded it) with ‘Pandi’

or ‘Pindiya,’ the name of the ancient dynasty of

Madura.

Possibly both words may be "derived from the same etymon; but his-

Pamil scholars derive ¢ P4

torically they are unconnected and independent. It may be added also that some

g

ndi,” the title of the Madura dynasty, not from the

Sanserit ¢ Pandu,

but from ‘P¥ndu,’

a Tamil word, signifying ancient, from the

ultimate root par-a,” old.

e e

}?(-y

528

APPENDIX.

bable that their religious usages _and rights of sepulture had their

origin in India.

The resemblance of the barrows and t

heir conten’gs (with the crom-

lechs, &c.) to the Druidical remains which are discovered in the ancient

seats of the Celtic race in Europe, is too exact and remarkable to be

accounted for on any other supposition than that of their derivation

from the same origin.

Hence the people by whom Druidical rites were

introduced into India must have brought them with them from Central

Asia ; and this favours the conclusion that they must have entered

India at a very early period—a period perhaps as early as the intro-

duction of Druidical rites into Europe.

On this supposition it is

necessary to suppose that they kept themselves separate from the

various races that entered India subsequently, and that they imitated

the civilization of the newer immigrants without abandoning their own

peculiarities.

Tt remains, however, as great a mystery as ever that those people

have everywhere disappeared, and that not even a tradition of their

existence survives.

On a review of the various particulars which have been mentioned

above respecting the religious usages of the Un-f&rya»nised Dréavidians,

including the Kus and the Tudas, and also the unknown race that

practised Druidical rites, it seems unquestionable that the majority of

the ancient Dravidian inhabitants of India were demonolaters or Sha-

manites, like the majority of the ancient Scythian tribes of Upper

Asia, whilst it also seems probable that there existed amongst some

Dravidian tribes a strong under-current of Indo-European, and possibly

of Druidical tendencies.’

This result exactly accords with the supposition which has already

been deduced from lingual comparison respecting the relationship or

affiliation of the Dravidian race, viz., that in basis and origin it is dis-

tinctively Scythian, with a small but very ancient admixture of an

Indo-European element.

PRINTED BY HARRISO-N AND SONS, ST, MA#TIN’S LANE,

PR N S

m

-

R

i s

—

g

e

~

—

e

o

,,r

=

e

S

—

aww

| 1

4

'3

3

%

.

..n

.

i

&

5

Sy

"

4

o

s

s

-

o

VA i

24

o

e

i

%

gy

i

A

L

S

a3 e

'

-

o

5

s

e

P

i

o

”

/3]

g

%

e

N

//

e

/ff

o

{

%

S A

Al

Wr

LS

e

..wuf

.

&:MW

Mooy,

oy

e

he s

Pk

i,

o)

S

g{t

Biiin e

XN

M

i

i

v

Z:vaff.

i

g P

A

e

(T3

R

=

et

R,

i

S

el (Ul

%

Friow

wffsr

£

55,

b

G

bl

faty

i,

)

e

Z

~

S

g

e g s Gt

o

)

F‘g

é}g

gqm

Sk

m

b

).}!rxr

=

i

i

a2

>

Yo

Ve

i

e

Vo e

gyl

a.pas.,ﬂ..k?r

Sy,

e

P

S

ey

%

S

o

g

st

v

g{

g

g,

?

R

i

5% g

S

e

fimse

i

Do

o1

f

o Gt

|

S

ot

o

g

o

i

ot AN

o

S

i}»ﬁ

b

v

b

oy

o,

o B

iy

Gl S

¥

St

-

e

.‘

b

.!@m”&

o

.

o

i o

bias gy T8

S

e

e

lgff

ghe

e

e

oy

R ey

=

3

it

erinny

i

b

Wi

e

o

?M

S

i

o)

i

%

o

s

o ¥

Sk

S

& &

i

e

i

ey

I'10

TR

i

]

]

‘AN

N

Focus

(0]

A n

Balance

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

11

12

13

i

Y

y4

VierFarbSelector Standard * - Euroskala Offset

‘;‘ Copyright 4/1999 YxyMaster GmbH www.yxymaster.com‘

=3

[

=)

Y

=

P

D

THE

;

IELLY, SOUTHERN INDIA

%

LDWELL, BA,

PALL M A I

E GRAMMAR

FATION OF THE GOSPEL IN FOREIGN PARTS, AT

ILY OF LANGUAGES.