CiXIV42a
author: Caldwell, Robert

g

il

Oie

2

G

3

0

)

i

U3

it

O

7

0

¥

B4,

Yt

i\}

%&

,gx

0

i

o

e

i)

.

3

0

%

Ny

o

§

1

v

2 i

33

it

i

s

i

)

:h

2,

¢

&’;

%

:

‘

2

o

A

£y

%\

i

,\.‘}g

W

.

)

s

&

i

8

Pr

&

)

8

3

|

5y

30

3t

¢

i},ﬁg

i

£

i

5

A

i

)

it

t

i

)

ai

b

S

i ﬁ‘

¢

¥

’i

i

/

&

&

N

it

¢

i)

A

At

ey

T

59

.

Vo

“&\

ty’

{

i

W

)

B

R

{ti

AS

Giss

;;L

i

s

s

o

i

|

¢

st

‘4

(4

i

18

i

\L"

0

.

i

I

P

!

$43

%

%

i

i

)

i

15

bed

o

i

&

i

P

(e

i

Gl

i

o

i

e

U

gtk

“A"E

Y

)

o

KA

A

A,

i

X

LA

o

:

i

s

B0

U

N1 2<52906575§ 021

S

QT

L;IbT(EBING EN l g&;

e

N

s

v

o

s

.

e

= i

DIAVIDIAN COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR.

vé‘ﬁe

£

e

e

B

INTRODUCTION

N

bsi‘

It is the object of the following work to examine and compare the

grammatical principles and forms of the various Dravidian languages

in the hope of contributing to a more thorough knowledge of their

primitive structure and distinctive character.

In puarsuing this obJect

it will be the writer’s endeavour to point out everything which appears

likely to throw any light on the question of 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 orammatical structure of each Dravidian lancuage 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 Tamil—a language which he has for thirty-three years

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

which is probably the earliest cultivated, and most highly developed

of the Dravidian languages—in many respects the representative lan-

guage of the family.

The idioms which are included in this word 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 Dekkan in which the Guja-

4thi and the Marithi are spoken, the whole of the peninsular portion

of India, from the Vindhya mountains and the river Nerbudda (Nar-

madd) to Cape Comorin, is peopled, and from 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 ¢ Dravidian’

is here applied ; and

seattered offshoots from the same stem may be traced still farther

a

LY

.

INTRODUGTION.

n&*th, as #8r_as the Réjméhﬁl hillé in Bengal, and even as far as the

mountain fastnesses of Beluchistan.

The Gujarathi, the Mardthi (with its offshoot the Konkani), and the

Oriya, the language of Odra-désa, or Orissa, idioms which are derived

in the main from the decomposition of the Sanskrit, form the verna-

cular speech of the Hindi population in the peninsular portion of

India within their respective limits: besides-which, and besides the

Dravidian languages, various idioms which cannot be termed indigen-

ous or vernacular are spoken or occasionally used by particular classes

resident in Peninsular India.

Sanskrit, though it is improbable that it ever was the vernacular

language of any district of country whether in the north or in the

south, is in every southern district read and to some extent understood

by the Brahmans—the descendants of those Brahmanical colonists of

early times to whom the Dravidians appear to have been indebted for

the higher arts of life and a' considerable: portion 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 Sanskrit, though the verna-

cular 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, Andhra Brahmans, Karndtaka Brahmans, &c. ; and

the Brahmans of the several language-districts have virtually become

distinct castes; but they are all undoubtedly descended from one and

the same stock, and Sanskrit, though now:regarded only as an accom-

plishment or as a professional acquirement, is propgrly the literary

dialect of their ancestral tongue.

e

Hindustani is the distinctive language of the Muhammedan portion

of the population in the Dekkan and the southern peninsula—the

descendants of those warlike Patans and other Muhammedans from

Northern India by whom the peninsula was overrun some centuries

ago. - It may almost 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 Muhammedans make as much

use of the language of the district in which they reside as of their

Hindustani was. never the ancestral

ancestral tongue, if not more.

language of the class of Southern Muhammedans generally called by

the English ¢ Lubbies,” but by natives on the eastern coast Chonagar

(Yaranas), and by those on the western coast Mapillas.

These are

descendants of Arab merchants and their native converts, and speak

Tamil or Malayalam,

&

%

§

SOUTH INDIAN VERNACULARS.

J

Hebrew is used by the small colony of ‘Jews resident in Cochin and-

the neighbourhood, in the same manner and for the same purposes as

Sanskrit is used by the Brahmans.

Gujardthi and Marathi are spoken

by the Gujarathi bankers and the PArsi shopkeepers 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 accus-

tomed 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, KAarikal, and Mahe,

which still belong to France.

Throughout the British territories in India, English is not only the

language of the governing race, and of its ¢ East-Indian’ Eurasian or

¢ Indo-British ’ offshoot, but is also used to a considerable and rapidly

increasing 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 has already won its way to the position which was

formerly occupied by Sanskrit as the vehicle of all higher learning.

Neither the English, however, nor any other foreign tongue, appears to

have the slightest chance of becoming the vernacular speech of any

portion of the inhabitants of Southern India.

The indigenous Dravi-

dian languages, which have maintained their ground for more than two

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

and venerated sacerdotal race, may be expected successfully to resist the

encroachments of every other tongue.®

* I admit with Sir Erskine Perry (see his paper in the Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Soctety, vol.

), that English, the language of the governing race, ought

to 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 adap

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

and pleasure ; and English schools and other facilities for the acquisition of Eng-

lish would multiply apace, as soon as it was found that the new rule could not be

evaded.

[I leave the above paragraph unaltered, as a memento of the time when it was

written (1855), though it would scarcely be necessary now to make any such

recommendation, in so far, at least, as the Presidency of Madras is concerned. In

1861 a General Test Examination was instituted for the examination in general

knowledge, including a knowledge of English, of all candidates for employment

in the public service in situations to which salaries of Rs. 25 per mensem and up-

wards were attached.

In 1867 the rule was made applicable to salaries of Rs. 20

per mensem and upwards.

This arrangement has been productive of much

advantage both to the public service and to the community, even in the rural

INTRODUCTION,

Use or tHE CoMMoN TERM ¢ DRAVIDIAN.

I have designated the languages now to be subjected to comparison

by a common term, because of the essential and distinctive grammatical

characteristics which they all possess in common, and in virtue of

which, joined to the possession in common of a large number of roots

of primary importance, they justly claim to be considered as springing

from a common origin, and as forming a distinct family of tongues.

This family was at one time styled by European writers ¢ Tamulian

S

or ‘ Tamulic ;” but though Tamil is probably the oldest and most highly

cultivated member of the family, and that which contains the largest

proportion of the family inheritance of forms and roots; yet as it is,

after all, but one dialect out of several, and does not claim to be the

original speech out of which the other dialects have been derived ; as

it is also desirable to reserve the terms ¢ Tamil’ and Tamilian’ (or as

they used sometimes to be erroneously written ¢ Tamul’ and ¢ Tamul-

ian’) to denote the Tamil language itself and the people by whom it is

spoken, I have preferred to designate this entire family by a term

|

which is capable of a wider application.

One of the earliest terms used in Sanskrit to designate the family

seems to have been that of AAndlcra-Dmvida-b/&ds/ui, ‘the Telugu-

Tamil language,’™ or rather, perhaps, ¢ the language of the Telugu and

e

7.

.

|

districts, and I doubt not that the Government will ere long give the rule a still

wider range of application.]

I do not think, however, that English is likely ever to become the vernacular

language of any class of the HindQis, or even that it is likely to be used to any

considerable extent as a lingua franca beyond the circle of Government employés

and the alummnt of the universities.

Before we can reasonably anticipate the

employment of English as a conventional language, like Latin in the middle ages,

or French in the more modern period in Europe, or like Hindustani in the greater

part of India since the period of Muhammedan supremacy, 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 to very nearly four

millions : the number of Englishmen (and Americans) resident in those two pro-

vinces is 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, a few planters and merchants, and the missionaries belonging

to three missionary societies !

Including women and children, the number is

considerably under two hundred, with which handful of English people we have

to contrast four millions of Hindts!

* See an interesting article in the Indian Antiquary for October 1872, by Dr

Burnell, M.C.S.

“Kumarila says, ‘It is now considered :—(as regards) words

which are not known to the inhabitants of Aryavarta (not Sanskrit), if they have

USE OF THE COMMON TERM DRAVIDIAN.

5

Tamil countries.’

This term is used by KumaArila-Bhatta, a controver-

sial Brahman writer of eminence, who is supposed to have lived at the

end of the seventh century A.n. This term, though vague, is not badly

chosen, Telugu and Tamil being the dialects spoken by the largest

number of people in Southern India.

Canarese was probably supposed

to be included in Telugu, and Malayalam in Tamil; and yet both

dialects, together with any sub-dialects that might be included in them,

were evidently regarded as forming but one bhdshd.

The word I have chosen is ¢ Dravidian,” from Dravida, the adjectival

form of Dravida.

This term, it is true, has often been used, and is

still sometimes used, in almost as restricted a sense as that of Tamil

itself, so that though on the whole it is the best term I can find, I

admit that it is not perfectly free from ambiguity.

It is a term, how-

ever, which has already been used more or less distinctively by Sans-

krit philologists, as a generic appellation for the South Indian peoples

and their languages, and it is the only single term they seem ever to

have used in this manner.

I have, therefore, no doubt of the pro-

priety of adopting it.

Manu says (x. 43, 44): “The following tribes of Kshatriyas have

gradually sunk into the state of Vrishalas (outcasts), from the extinc-

tion of sacred rites and from having no communication with Brah-

mans, viz.—Paundrakas, Odras, Dravidas, Kﬁrpbojas, Yavanas, Sakas,

a meaning known to the Mlechcha (the aboriginal tribes ?), is that to be accepted

or not?’ He suggests (but only to reject the notion) that by applications of

affixes, &c., it may be possible to convert them into Sanskrit words.

. . Of the

examples he gives, the first word chdr is the Tamil chdr-u, and means, as Kuma-

rila states, boiled rice; nader, way, is the Tamil nadaz.

So pdmp, snake, is per-

In Tamil it is

fectly correct.

(The text has pdp, but the MSS. have pdmp.

written pdmpu, but pronounced pdmbu.)

@l=person, and wair=vayiru, the

belly, are common Tamil words, and their meanings are correctly given. It must,

however, be remarked that the consonantal terminations of chér, pdmp, and vair,

bave now assumed a vowel ending, which is written u, but is pronounced in a

vague and indeterminate manner.”

Dr Burnell remarks, “ Kumarila's evident

acquaintance with this South Indian dialect (Tamil) is worth notice, as he is said

to have been a native of the south.” (Taranatha, ¢ History of Indian Buddhism.”)

The words Kumarila cites are mostly Tamil, not Telugu or Canarese.

nade is

The former

Telugu as well as Tamil, but chér-u and vayir-u are not in Telugu.

is not in Canarese, and the latter appears under the shape of basir-u.

pdmbu,

Tamil, is pdvu in Canarese, and pdmu in Telugu.

al

)

in Canarese and Tamil,

Kumérila, however, calls dl, strt-

means a person ; dl-u, in Telugu, a woman,

patryayam, a feminine affix (in grammar).

The affix of the third person singular

in Tamil, Malayalam, and Old Canarese is d/.. Telugu occasionally uses @l-u in a

similar manner, but generally it uses the neut. sing. affix for the fem. sing.

Kumarila cites the lengthened form @l instead of o], apparently because it is in

that shape that the affix appears in verbs—e.g., pon-dl, she went.

.

Q

INTRODUCTION.

Paradas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kirdtas, Davadas, and Khasas.”

Of the

tribes here mentioned the only tribe belonging to Southern India are

the Dravidas.

This name, therefore, appears to have been supposed

to denote the whole of the South Indian tribe

If any of those tribes

were not intended to be included, it would probably be the Andhrass

the Telugus of the interior, who had already been mentioned by name

in the Aifareya Brahmana, and classed with Pundras, Sabaras, and

Pulindas, as degraded descendants of VisvAnictra.

The same state-

ment is'made in the Moh4-bhArata ; and in the two lists of degraded

Kshatriyas there given, the Dravidas are the only South Indian tribe

mentioned. It must be concluded, therefore, that the term is generi-

il

cally used, seeing that the more specific names of Pandyas, Cholas, &c.,

had become well known in Northern India by that time.

Doubtless

it is in the same sense that Satyavrata, the Indian N oah, is called in

the Bhigavata Purana ¢the lord. of Dravida’ (Muir’s “ Sanskrit Texts,”

vol. i.) The more distinctively philological writers of a later period

used the term Dravida in what appears to be substantially the same

sense as that in which I propose that it should be used. The principal

Prakrits—that is, colloquial dialects—of ancient India were the Maha-

rashtri, the Sauraseni, and the Magadbi. Amongst minor or less

known Prékrit dialects the Dravidi, or language of the Dravidas, was

included. A Sanskrit philologist quoted by Muir (vol. ii, 46) speaks

of the language of Dravida as a wvibhdsha, or minor Prékrit ; and

another (p. 50) speaks of “the language proper to Dravidas” (in which

persons of that race should be represented as speaking in dramas) as

the Dravidi.

It is evident that we have here to understand not the

Tamil alone, or any other South Indian language alone, but the

Dravidian languages generally, supposed in a vague manner by North

Indian writers to constitute only one tongue,

This language of the

Dravidas was evidently included in what was called the Paischi

Prakrit, a name which appears to have been applied promiscuously

to a great number of provincial dialects, including dialects so widely

differing from one another as ‘the language of the Pandyas,” Tamil,

and ‘that of the Bhotas,” Tibet. The only property these languages

can have had in common must have been the contempt in which they

were held by Brahman philologists, in virtue of which it must have

been that they were styled also Paigachi, the language of piddchas, or

demons.

The more accurate term Dravidi has continued to be used

As late as

occasionally by Northern scholars up to our own time.

1854, the learned Hindfl philologist Babu R4jéndra Lal Mitra (quoted

by Muir, vol. ii. 127), speaks of the.¢Dravidi’ as one of the recog-

nised Prakrits, equally with the Saurasent, and as being, like it, the

7

USE OF THE COMMON TERM DRAV]DIAN,

parent of some of the- present vernacnlars of India.

It thus appears

that the word ¢ Dravida, from which the term ¢Dravidian’ has been

formed, though sometimes used in a restricted sense, as equivalent to

Tamil, is better fitted, notwithstanding, for use as a generic term, inas-

much as it not only has the advantage of being more remote from

ordinary usage, and somewhat more vague, but has also the further and

special advantage of having .already been occasionally used by native

philologists in a generic sense.

By the adoption of this term ¢ Dra-

vidian,” the word ¢ Tamilian’ has been left free to signify that which

is distinctively Tamil.

When the Babu referred to some .of the present vernaculars as

having originated in the so-called Dravidi Prakrit, the dialects to

which he referred were. doubtless- those which have sometimes been

styled by the North Indian Pandits ¢ the five Draviras.’

The colloguial

languages of modern India are divided by the Pandits into two classes,

each containing five dialects.

These are denominated respectively

‘the five Gauras’ and ‘the five Draviras.’

By the Gauda or Gaura

languages are meant the ‘bhashds,’ or popular dialects of Northern

At

India, at the head of which stands the Bangl, the GAura proper.

present the Bangali, the Oriya, the Hindi with its daughter the Hindf-

stini, the Panjabi, the Sindhi, the Gujardthi, and the Maréthi are the

languages which may be regarded as forming the ¢ Gaurian’ class; to

which I would add the Cashmirian and the language of Nipal, thus

reckoning in this class nine idioms instead of five.

The five Dravidas

or Draviras, according to the Pandits, are ‘the Telinga, the Karni-

taka, the Marathi, the Gtrjara, and the Dravira,’ or Tamil proper.

The Sabdakalpadruma (Salluva) gives the list thus: Dravida, Karnata,

Gujardta, Maharashta, and Telugu.

The Marathi and Gujarathi are

erroneously included in this enumeration.

It is true that the Maha-

rashtra or Mardthi contains a small admixture of Dravidian roots and

idioms, as might be expected from its local proximity to the Telugu

and the Canarese; and both it and the Giirjara, or Gujarithi, possess

certain features of resemblance to the languages of the South, which

are possibly derived from the same or a similar source ; but, notwith-

standing the existence of a few analogies of this nature, those two

languages differ from the Dravidian family so widely and radically,

and are so closely allied to the northern group, that there cannot be

any hesitation in transferring them to that class.

The three languages

that remain in the classification of Dravidian tongues contained in the

northern lists, viz., the Karnitaka or Canarese, the Telinga or Telugu,

and the Dravida proper or Tamil, are not ouly members, but are

;

8

INTRODUCTION.

§

certainly the principal members, of the ‘Southern or Dravidian family.

It will be observed that Malayilam and Tulu are not contained in the

Sanskrit enumeration.

The first was probably considered to be a

dialect of Tamil, and was included in the denomination of the Dravida

proper ; the second was probably unknown or was erroneously con-

sidered a dialect of Canarese.

The uncultivated dialects—the Tuda,

Kota, Gond, and Khond—appear to have been unknown to the

Pandits ; and even had they been known, probably would not have

been deemed worthy of notice.

No term belonging to the Dravidian languages themselves has ever

been used to designate all the members of this family, nor are the

native Tamil or Telugu grammarians, though deeply skilled in the

grammar of their own tongues, sufficiently acquainted with comparative

grammar to have arrived at the conclusion that all these idioms have a

common origin and require to be designated by a common term.

Some

European scholars, who have confined their attention to the study

of some one Dravidian idiom to the neglect of the others, have fallen

into the same error of supposing these languages independent one of

another.

The Sanskrit Pandits seem to have had a clearer perception

of grammatical affinities and differences than the Dravidian gram-

‘\

marians ; and, though their generalisation was not perfect'y correct,

it has furnished us with the only common terms we possess for denot-

ing the northern and southern famil

ies of the Indian languages respec-

tively.

It is not clear whether Vardha-mihira (4.D. 404) regarded the term

;

‘Dravida’ as generic or specific.

[See Keen’s translation of the

Heplaces the

Brihat-sanhita, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society].

Dravidas in the south-west, but mentions also an ¢eastern half of the

Dravidas.’

The western half may have been on the Malabar coast.

Pardsara places the Dravidas in the east.

This name seems to have

been less firmly attached to a particular people than the more purely

Varaha-mihira

local and dynastic names of Chola, Pandya, d&c.

mentions ‘the Pandya king,” ¢ the king of Kalinga,” &c., but mentions

‘the Dravida kings’ in the plural.

The local names he mentions are :

He mentions

Pandya, Chola, Kérala, Karnataka, Kalinga, Andhra.

Koénchi (Kénchi), Kollagiri (Quilon?), Lank4, the rivers Kavéri and

Tamnaparni, and the conch and pearl fisheries (in the Gulf of Manaar).

In the Maha-bharata the Dravidas are distinguished not only from

the Kalingas, &c., but even from the Chélas.

This is also the case

in the Véshna Purana.

In this sense the term must have been

jutended to denote the Pandyas alone.

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

The idioms which I designate as ¢ Dravidian’ are twelve in number,

exclusive of the Brahui.

They are as follows :—

1. CurrivaTED DIALECTS.

o

Tamil.

Canarese.

Malayalam.

g

Tulu.

Telugu.

p4

D]

UNCULTIVATED DIALECTS.

Coorg.

5. Khond.

2

Tuda.

6. Uraon.

Kdta.

7. R4jmahal.

4

Gond.

I. TaminL.—This language being probably 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 languages.

The Tamil language is spoken throughout the

vast plain of the Carnatic, or country below the Ghauts, from Pulicat

to Cape Comorin, 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 en 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 Tamil-

ians commenced 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 it seems likely that ere long the Tamilians will have

excluded the Singhalese from almost every profitable employment in

their own island.

The 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 Malaydlam couuntry, at

Bangalore in the Canarese country, at Bellary in the Telugu country,

and at Secunderabad, where Hind@istdni may be considered as the

vernacular, the language which most frequently meets the ear in the

bazaars 1s the Tamil.

.

10

INTRODUCTION.

{

The majority of the Klings (Kalingas), or Hindds, who are found in

)

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

Tamilians : a large proportion of the coolies who -have emigrated in

such numbers to the Mauritius and to the West Indian colonies are

,‘!‘)

Tamilians ; in 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

superstitious and the most enterprising and persevering race of Hindds.

Including Tamilians resident in military stations and distant colonies,

and the Tamilian inhabitants of South Travancore, and Northern

Ceylon, and excluding not only Muhammedans, &e., but also 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 estimated at about fourteen and a half

millions.

Madras, the chief c‘ity in the Tamil country, is also the chief city in

the South . Indian Presidency.

The name by which it is known

amongst natives everywhere is, not Madras, but Chennappa-pattanam,

abbreviated dnto Chennapattanam, a name which it derived from

N PN

Chennappa Nayak, father-in-law of the Néyak of Chinglepat, a petty

local chieftain, a:feundatory of the Chandragiri R4j4, from whom the

SC T

English obtained possession of a little fort on the coast which they

converted-into a fortified factory:

The origin of the name by which

it appears always to have been called by Europeans—Madras (officially

Madraspatam) has never been made out with certainty.

Perhaps the

most probable derivation is from the Telugu maduru (Tamil madil),

the surrounding wall of a fort, a rampart.

There is a neighbouring

town, Sadras, originally a Dutch settlement, the name of which closely

resembles Madras.

Sadras is an European corruption from Sadurei,

which is an abbreviation of Sadurangam( = Shr: Chaturanga), the four

constituents of an army.

I have not been able te discover any author-

ity for the statement sometimes made that Madras is derived from

Mandraj-pattanam.

The proper spelling of the name Tamil is Tamir, but through the

change of into / it is often pronounced Tamil ; and is often (though

O

Tamul is the mode of

erroneously) written Tamul by Europeans.

writing the name which appears to have been introduced by the

French ; but the name given to the language by the Portuguese, and

by which it was generally known amongst the earlier Europeans, was

‘the Malabar '—a name founded on a misapprehension.

The Portuguese arrived first on the western coast of India, and

naturally called the language they found spoken on that coast by the

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAG

3

name by which the coast itself had long been called by their Arab

predecessors—viz., Malabar

Sailing from Malabar on voyages of

exploration, they made their acquaintance with various places on the

eastern or Coromandel coast and also in Ceylon, and finding the lan-

guage spoken by the fishing and sea-faring classes on the eastern

coast similar to that spoken on the western, they came to the conclu-

sion that it was identical with it, and called it in consequence by the

same name—rviz., Malabar, a name which has survived to our own day

The better

amongst the poorer classes of Europeans and Eurasians

educated members of those classes have long learned to call the lan-

guage of the Malabar coast by its proper name Malayilam, and the

language of the eastern coast Tamil

Though the early Portuguese

did not distinguish Malayilam from Tamil (just as Sanskrit pan-

dits failed to do), they noticed that it was distinct from Telugu

4

U

h

language spoken by the ‘ Badages,” as they called them, the Vadugas,

Tam., or Badagas, Can., the northmen, the Telugu followers of the

Nayakas of Madura, who were then spreading themselves over the

Tamil country, and even making irruptions into South Travancore

A circumstance which naturally confirmed the Portuguese in their

notion of the identity of the people and language of the Coromandel

coast with those of Malabar was; that when they arrived at Cael

in Tinnevelly, on the Coromandel coast (properly Kéyal, see a. note

by me in Colonel Yule’s “ Marco Polo,” vol. ii.), they found the king

of Quilon (one of the most important places on the Mala,bar coast)

residing there.

The prince referred to would now be called kmg of

Travancore, and it is clear from inscriptions in my possession that the

kingdom of Travancore sometimes included a portion of Tinnevelly

The following was inserted as a note in the first edition of this work.

““ Professor Max Miiller supposed Malabar to be a different language

from Tamil :

nor did he confound it, as would have been natural

enough, with Malayélam, for he gave a distinct place to each of the

Dravidian dialects which actually exist, including Malay4lam, and

thereto he added Malabar, on the authority, I presume, of some

grammar of the last century, in which Tamil was called by that name

The above note was written in vain

Dr Hunter, in his “ Comparative

Dictionary of the non-Aryan Languages of India and High Asia,” has

given his readers a list of words which he designates as Malabar

He says, “ In two instances separate lists represent either the same

language or varieties so close as to seem scarcely deserving of separate

places

The first is the Toduva and Todu, the second. the Malabar

But after weighing Mr Caldwell’s statements in his ¢ Dravidian

Grammar

and the considerations which Dr Rost kindly urged in

£ 2

P

INTRODUCTION.

correspondence, 1 thought it better to give Malabar a distinet place,

as the vocabulary which passes under that name was collected at a

period sufficiently remote to allow of dialectic changes between it and

the language as now spoken. In this view, it is proper to add, Professor

Max Miiller coincided.”

I do not know which was the vocabulary

b IR s

-2

referred to, and therefore cannot tell the date of its compilation.

Its

date, however, is of very little consequence, seeing that no dialectic

changes whatever have taken place in Tamil since the arrival of

Europeans in India.

Every word contained in Dr Hunter's Malabar

The alter-

list is modern, colloquial Tamil of the most ordinary type.

native words are mostly Sanskrit, from which it may be concluded

that the compiler of the vocabulary, or the person who made selections

from it for Dr Hunter, did not care to confine himself to genuine

Dravidian words.™

Colebrooke, though writing in Northern India, was aware of the

identity of Malabar with Tamil.

He says (‘ Essay on the Sanskrit

and Prakrit Languages ”), “ The language of the province is the Tamel,

The identity,

to which Europeans have given the name of Malabar.”

however, of the two languages was known from the beginning to per-

sons who had the opportunity of acquiring local knowledge.

In the

IE

very first book ever printed in Tamil characters—at Ambalakédu, on

the Malabar coast, in 1577 or 9—the language of the book is styled

Malavar or Tamul.

The writer apparently regarded Tamil as the more

correct word.

See “ Sounds: Alphabet.”

The Sanskrit name corresponding to Tamil is Dravida, a word which

denotes both the country inhabited by the people called Dravidas and

the language spoken by them ; and I have come to the conclusion that

the words Zamir and Dravida, though they seem to differ a good deal,

are identical in origin.

Supposing them to be one and the same

word, it will be found much easier to derive Zamir from Dravida

than Dravida from Z'amar.

It might naturally seem improbable at

the outset that a Dravidian people residing in the extreme south should

call themselves and be called by their neighbours, not by a Dravidian,

—

* 1 notice two mistakes.

One is ‘one’ for ‘there,” which I cannot explain.

It must have crept in from some other list. The other is the word for ‘mosquito,’

which can be made out clearly enough.

It is the Tamil word for ¢ moustache.’

It is not so surprising after all that Malabar should have acquired a place of its

own in Indian philology side by side with Tamil, seeing that Malabar and Tamil,

whatever they mean, are evidently different names.

It is more surprising that

Todu and Toduva should have been honoured with separate lists, seeing that it

might have been concluded that they were only, like Tulu and Tuluva, different

modes of writing one and the same name.

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES,

but by a Sanskrit name ; but it is certain that Paindya, the name of

the southernmost portion of the Dravidians; is Sanskrit, and a similar

difficulty meets us with regard to almost all the names of the

South Indian peoples— Cholas, Kéralas, Andhras, Kalingas, &c.—

which, so far as is known at present, are Sanskrit, not Dravidian.

The name Kérndtaka alone appears to have a Dravidian origin.

If

the other names were originally Dravidian, as this seems to have been,

and as it might naturally be supposed they all must have been, their

original shape and root meaning have disappeared.

What adds to

the difficulty is, that though these words have a place in Sanskrit

dictionaries and are accepted as Sanskrit by the Dravidian people,

Sanskrit fails as completely as the Dravidian languages to furnish us

with a clue to their original meaning. When we have traced them

The name

back to Sanskrit we are obliged to leave them there.

Andhra appears, as has already been mentioned, in one of the Bréh-

manas, but, like most of the Vedic proper names, it is incapable of

explanation.

May it not be, indeed, that those proper names belonged

originally to some old North Indian vernacular—some prae-Aryan,

though not necessarily non-Aryan—speech, which had disappeared

If this were the

before the literary history of Sanskrit commenced.

case, it would be in vain to expect the derivation of such words as

Dravida to be cleared up now.

The compound dr is quite un-Dravi-

dian.

It would be tere in Tamil ; but even if we suppose some such

word as Tiravida or Tiramida to have been converted into Dravida by

the Sanskrit speaking people, we get no nearer an explanation of the

original meaning of the word.

The oldest form of Dravida—or, at least, the form which appears to

have been most widely in use—appears to have been Dramida; and

this is the first step towards identifying the two words, Dravida and

Tamir.

Both forms of the word are known in Tamil, but Dravida

(written Tiramida) is preferred by the classics, and is placed first in

ancient Tamil vocabularies. In Vardha-mihira’s Brihat-sanhita, accord-

ing to Dr Kern, some manuscripts giife Dramida, instead of Dravida.

Through the change of d into /, the Dravidas are called Dramilas in

Taranatha’s ‘ Tibetan History of the Propagation of Buddhism in

India” (a.p. 1573), and Dr Gundert informs me that this is the form

in which the word occurs again and again in the old Malay4lam versions

of the Purénas.

In the Pali of the Mahidwanso the form used is

Damils, the derivative of which is Damils; and as initial d becomes ¢

by rule in Tamil, we now reach the ordinary Tamil mode of writing

the word, Tamir or Tamil.

Each' of the changes that have taken

place is in accordance with a recognised Dravidian law of sound.

INTRODUCTIO

14

Initial dr is always softened in the Prakrits into d—e.g., dréha

becomes doho

Ill the same mauner §

becomes §, an example of

which we have in the word Sramana

Buddhist or Jaina ascetic

Sammana

which in Tamil has become Samana (in Pa

in the Greek

of Clemens Alexandrinus the plural is Samanasi and Semni).

The

change of v into »

01

of m 1into 2,

even in Sanskrit itself, is seen in

such words as dhmdnksha, Sans. a crow, instead of dhvdnksha

and

min and vin

especially in the affixes mat and waf, man and van

Perhaps the most considerable change is frem ¢ in Dravida to 7 in

Tamir

but this is quite in accordance with usage; as will appear in

the chapter on ¢ Sounds.”

Jompare ndde, Sans. a measure, with the

am.-Mal. ndre or ndle

A good illustration of this change is furnished

by the name of one of the nations included under the general name of

Tamil—viz., that of the Cholas

This name in the Sanskrit of Adoka’s

inseription is Chdéda, in ordinary Sanskrit Chola, in Tamil -Séra, in

Telugu Chola

In Telugu inscriptions it is often Chdda as in Adoka’s

The change of d to ¢ in the beginning of a word is’ unavoidable in

Tamil, but we have a reminiscence perhaps of the original sound in

the name given to the language by the first missionaries—viz., Lingua

Damulica

In the Indian segment of the very interesting set of Roman maps

called (from the name of the discoverer) the Pentinger Tables, probably

anterior, as it seems to me, to Ptolemy’s Geography, we find a con-

siderable portion of the country covered by two names—Andre India

and Damirice

We can scarcely err in identifying these names with

the Telugu and Tamil countries—the languages of which were called

as we have seen, by Kumaérila-bhatta, some centuries later, the lan-

guages of the Andhras and Dravidas

If so, the earliest appearance of

the name Tamil in any foreign document, will be found also to be

most perfectly in accordance with the native Tamil mode of spelling

the name

Damirice evidently means Damir-ice

Compare the Ariake

of Ptolemy and Vardha-mihira

In another place in the same map a

district is called Seytia Dymirice

and it appears to have been this

word which, by a mistake of A for A, Ptolemy wrote Lymirice.

The

D retains its place, however, in the cosmography of the anonymous

geographer of Ravenna, who repeatedly mentions Dimirica as one of

the three divisons of India and the one farthest to the east

He shows

also that the Tamil country was meant by the name, by mentioning

Modura as one of the cities it contained

There can be little doubt

hat the name Tamil may also be identified with the Tchi-mo-lo of

Hwen Thsang, a word which may also be read Dimala or even Dimara

It is remarkable that nativ

Tamil scholars, thouch generally willing

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

15

enough to trace every word to a Sanskrit origin, have failed to see in

Tamir—or Tamira, as it is also sometimes written

a tadbhava of

Dravida or Dramida, and have invented for the name of their language

(like their neighbours the Telugu people—though perhaps with less

reason), the meaning of ‘sweetness or fragrance ’—a meaning of the

word Tamir which has nothing to support or commend it but its

agreement with the estimate formed by the Tamilians of the euphoni-

ousnessof their native tongue. 'I accept their estimate of their language

as in the main correct, but cannot accept their derivation of the word.

A discussion of the origin of the word Tamil would not be complete

without some reference to the names of the three great subdivisions

into which the Tamil people were divided in ancient times—€héras,

Chblas, and Pandyas.

The arrangement of the names is élirhat'i'c‘, and

denotes that the Pandyas were supposed in those times-t6 have the

pre-eminence

a supposition which appears to be in aceordance with

the facts of the case.

Paxnpya.—The Singhalese traditions preserved in the MahAwamso

represent Vijaya, the first sovereign of Ceylon, as marrying a daughter

of the Pandya king, in consequence of which his son was called Pan-

duvamsadeva.

Arjuna also, one of the five Pandava brothers, is

related in the Maha-bharata to have married a daughter of the king of

the Pandyas in the course of his many wanderings. - There is no cer-

tainty in these traditions; but it is certain” that about the tithe of

Pliny and the Periplus a portion of the Malabar coast was riled over

by the Pérdyas, a proof that their power had considerably extended

itself from its original seats ; ‘and I regard it as nearly certain that the

Indian king”'who sent an embassy to Augustus was not Porus, but

Pandion—i.¢., the king of the Pandyas, called in Tamil Pandiyan.*®

* The statement generally made by the Greek and Latin historians who refer

to this embassy is that it was sent by the Indi, without further explanation as to

who those Indians were. ,Strabo says the embassy was from king Pandion, ‘‘or

according to others” (whose opinion apparently he did not endorse) *“from king

Porus.” One of those “ others” was Nicolaus Damasenus, quoted by Strabo

himself, who says he saw the ambassadors.

The name Porus was already well

known in Europe, through the ‘historians of Alexander’s career, and it was

natural that Greeks should fall into the mistake of supposing every Indian king

a successor of Porus, whereas the name Pandion was one which up to that time

had never been heard of in Europe, and therefore one which could not have been

invented.

This Indian embassy has a place in the Chronicon of Eusebius (320

A.D.), but neither in the ordinary (defective) Greek text of the Chronicon, nor in

the Armenian version is the name of the king from whom it proceeded men-

tioned. The name appears, however, in the Chronographia of George Syncellus

(800 A.p.) whose work has been used to restore or complete the Greek text of the

—

i

o

Ji

6

INTRODUCTI&)N,

lf this be admitted it is an interesting proof of the advanced social

position occupied by the Pﬁndyas—-(probabiy in consequence of the

foreign trade they carried on in connection with their settlements on

the Malabar coast)—that after the termination of the political relations

that subsisted between the successors of Alexander and the princes of

Northern India, the Pandyas were the only Indian princes who per-

ceived the advantages of a European alliance.

The Sanskrit Pandya is written in Tamil Pandiya, but the more

completely Tamilised form Pandi is still more commonly used all over

Southern India.

1 derive Pdndi, not from the Tamil and Malayalam

plndu, ancient, though that is a very tempting derivation, but—as

native scholars always derive the word—from the Sanskrit Pandu, the

name of the father of the Pandara brothers.

This very form Péandya,

in the sense of a descendant of Pandu, is mentioned, as I am informed

by Professor Max Miiller, by KatyAyana, the immediate successor of

Panini.

The second and most celebrated capital of the Pandyas—(the

first was Kolkei on the TAmraparni)—was Madurei—in English Ma-

dura—which is the Tamil mode of writing Mathurd (the Mattra of our

maps, and the Médogec of the Greeks) the name of the city which

remained in the possession of the Pandavas at the conclusion of the

The Madura of the Pandyas is appropriately called in the

great war.

Harivamsa, ‘the Southern Madura.’

There is another (Maturd) in

The

Ceylon, and a fourth (Madfra) in the Kastern Archipelago.

Singhalese annalists in the Mahawanso calls the king of the Pandyas

sometimes Pandyava, sometimes Pandu; and this shows that there

cannot be any doubt of the connection of the name of the Pandyas

with that of the heroes of the great war, though the origin and nature

of that connection cannot now be ascertained.

Pandya must at first

have been the name of the ruling family only.

Its extension to the

people followed the course which dynastic names have often taken in

all parts of the world.

Megasthenes speaks of a country in India

which was called ITavdain, after the name of the only daughter of the

I have no doubt that the

Indian Hercules—that is, of Krishna.

country referred to was that of the Pandyas.

A writer who had heard

l |

of the Andara and Calingze could not but have heard of the Pandyas

also.

He partly misapprehended the legends related to him ; but he

was right in deriving the name of the Pandya country from the name

of its rulers, and in connecting their name—in some fashion, however

The myth really

erroneous—with mythological heroes and heroines.

Chronicon, and who says, under the head of the 185 of the Olympiad, “ Pandion,

king of the Indians, sends an embassy to Augustus, requesting to become his

friend and ally.”

""“M

(1

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

17

current at that time—if we may suppose the substance of the Maha-

bharata in its present shape then in existence—was that Arjuna, one

of the Pandava brothers and Krishna’s chief friend, had in the course

of his wanderings in the south married a daughter of the king of the

Péndyas. Everything related by Megasthenes respecting this country,

especially the statement that it was there that pearls were procured,

serves to identify it with the Pandya country.

Pliny, apparently

following another passage of Megasthenes, enumerates amongst the

Indian nations a nation called Pande,

It is not clear where he sup-

posed their country was situated, but we cannot doubt that the

Pandyas of Madura, wherever he thought they were located, were the

people referred to.

His statement that the Panda alone amongst

Indian nations were ruled by women, though not correct (so far as is

now known), if supposed to relate to the Pandyas of Madura, may be

regarded as sufficiently applicablé to the peculiar social usages of the

Malabar coast, where almost every inheritance still runs in the female

line, and where, in Pliny’s own times at least, if not also in those of

Megasthenes, the Pandyas of Madura had colonies.

Pliny expressly

mentions that a portion of the western coast was then under the rule

of king Pandion, “far away from his Mediterranean emporium of

Madura ;” yet he remarks also that this name, with others in the same

neighbourhood, was new to him.

He evidently had no idea that the

subjects of king Pandion were identical with the Pandse he himself

had already referred to.

CHOLA, the Aname of the Tamil people placed second in the list, is a

word of unknown origin.

It appears as Choda in Asoka’s inscription,

and also in the Telugu inscriptions of the Chalukya dynasty. In

modern Telugu this word appears as Chola, in Tamil as Chora or Séra.

We have here doubtless the S&gas, &e., of Ptolemy.

It 1s difficult to

identify the country called Choliya Hwen Thsang with the country

inhabited by the Chélas, but it seems probable that the names are

identical ; and we know that the Northern Circars were ruled by an

offshoot of the Cholas in the eleventh century.

The original seat of

the Cholas seems to have been the extensive, fertile valley of the

Kévéri, including the Tanjore and Trichinopoly districts; but subse-

quently they ruled over the whole of the Tamil country north of the

Kéavérl. Their capital city in the earliest period was Urseyur (literally

the ¢ city of habitation’), called also Kéri, which appears to have been

nearly identical with the modern Trichinopoly (7riéirapaifs). In the

eleventh century the Cholas reached the zenith of their power, and

ruled—as is ascertained by inscriptions—over the whole Tamil country,

r 4

18

INTRODUCTION

~

including the country of the PAndyas, South Travancore, the northern

districts in Ceylon, and a portion of the Telugu country

CHERA, the name of the third Tamilian people, is a word which pre-

I3

sents itself to us in many shapes, as will be seen when we proceed to

consider the Malayalam language

The language of the Chélas never

differed from that of the

i a

124

ndyas ; and originally the language of the

Chéras also differed but little from that of the other two portions of

the Tamil people, as appears

from the Syrian and Jewish inscriptions

of the eighth century

By whatever local or dynastic names they may

have called themselves, they all—whether Chéras, Cholas, or Pandyas—

continued to be called Dravidas, and the language they spoke in

common was evervwhere called by the one name of Dravida or Tamil

This idea of the original identity of the Chéras, or people of Kerala,

with the Chdlas and Pandyas, is quite in accordance with native tradi-

tions

According to Tamil tradition, Chéran, Chéran, and Pdndiyan

were three royal brothers, who at first lived and ruled in common at

Kolkei, on the Tamraparni, a river in Tinnevelly renowned in ancient

song, on the banks of which the earliest civilisation in Southern Indla

seems to have been built up. Eventually. a :separation took place:

Chéran and Choéran went forth:to seek

Pandiyan remained at home

their fortunes, and founded kingdoms of their own -to the north and

west

We have a similar representation, perhaps merely an echo of

the Tamil tradition, in the Hari-vamsa and several Paranas (see Muir’s

¢ Sanskrit Texts

vols. i. and ii.), in which Pandya, Kérala, Kéla

and Chola are represented as the four sons of Akrida, or of Dushyanta

the adopted son of Turvasu, a prince of the lunar line of the Kshat-

riyas

‘Who the A élas of this list were is not clear

The term is sup-

b~

posed by some to have been intended to denote the Canarese people,

Karnita being given in this connection instead of Kola by several

Paranas

The Canarese people, however, are never called Kolas either

and 1t seems most

by themselves or by their Dravidian neighbours;

probable that the Kols

(Coles) were referred to, perhaps under the

impression (if so, a purely erroneous one) that they also were Dra—

vidians.

The Tamil language is called Aravam by the Mussulmans of the

What is the derivation of

Dekkan, the Telugus, and the Canarese

this term Aravam ?

Its origin appears to me very uncertain

Dr

Gundert suggested that as Tamil literature excelled other literatures in

ethics, it might have been perhaps from this circimstance that Tamil-

jans were called Aravas

Aravas on this supposition would signify

moralists, for. aam in Tamil means virtue, perhaps even Buddhists

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

I9

for Aravan, Tam. ‘ the virtuous one,’ is a 1\1ame of Buddha. It Woﬁla

not be a valid objection to this derivation that the # of the Telugu and

Canarese word 4ravam is the ordinary liquid or semi-vowel, whilst the

r of the Tamil aram is the hard rough », for the hard ¥ of Tamil gene-

rally changes into » in Telugu and Canarese; and ‘this very word

aram, Tam. virtue, is aravu in Canarese.

Another theory derives the

term from axive, the Tamil word for knowledge, the Tamil people

being supposed to be distinguished amongst the people of the south for

their intelligence,

Another derivation is from Aruvd, the name of an

unknown district somewhere in the Tamil country, which was reckoned

one of the twelve districts in which, according to the Tamil gram-

marians, bad Tamil was spoken.

A formidable, if not a fatal, objec-

tion to these derivations is, that they have all a Tamil origin, whereas

Aravam is absolutely unknown in Tamil itself as a name either of

the people or of their language.

It is by the Telugus, Canarese, and

Dekkanis that the name is used, and its derivation must, therefore, be

sought out of the Tamil country. The opinion of the best Telugu

pandits I have consulted is that arava is a Sanskrit, not a Dravidian,

word. It is to be divided as a—rava, destitute of sound ; and this

name has been given, they suppose, to the Tamil by the northern

neighbours of the Tamilians on account of its being destitute of

aspirates. Being the only language in India totally without aspirates,

it was despised for what was regarded by outsiders as a defect, and

was called in consequence 47ava, which may be rendered ¢ unsonorous.’

It was not likely, if this were the origin of the word, that the Tamil

people would apply it to their own tongue.

Aravam-u having come

to be used in Telugu as the name of the language, the Telugu people

went in time a step further, and called the people who spoke the lan-

guage Arava lu, Aravas.

The Telugu word Aravam-u, ‘the Tamil

language,’ is not to be confounded with the Tamil word aravam, sound.

It is a curious circumstance that the latter word means sound, whilst

the former means being without ‘sound.

The initial @ of the Tamil

word is not, as it might readily be supposed to be, the Sanskrit « pre-

vative, but is one of the devices employed in Tamil to render it possible

for Tamil organs to pronounce an initial 2

(Comp. aradan, king,

from Sanskrit rdjd.) It may also be noticed that whilst the Sanskrit

word rave means a loud sound, a voice, the Tamil form of the same

word, aravam, means a very slight noise.

Mr Narasimmiengar, of the Mysore Commission, was so kind as to

=

consult for me the best native Canarese scholars as to what they con-

sidered the origin of the term Aravam.

They rejected the theory of

gt

the Telugu pandits, according to which it was derived from the Sans-

INTRODUCTION.

20

krit a-rava, and stated that they considered it derived from the Cana-

rese word ardvu, ¢half’ or ¢ deficient’ (Can. root are, Tel. ara), a term

by which they supposed the Tamil language had been designated by

FS

their forefathers, on account of what appeared to them its deficiensies.

I am sorry to say the discussion of this point does not appear to me as

yet to have produced any very satisfactory result.

It is noteworthy,

perhaps, that the people who are represented by Ptolemy as occupying,

according to Colonel Yule, the portion of the Coromandel coast near

Nellore, are called by him the Arvarni.

‘Whence has arisen the name T%gajar or Tigular, ordinarily applied

to the Tamilians by the Canarese?

The Canarese, like the Telugus,

call the Tamil people 4ravas and Dravidas, but the name 7sgalar is

Mr Kittel informs me

given to the Tamilians by the Canarese alone.

that in the oldest Canarese MSS. in which he has found this word it

is written Tigular, and that he has little doubt its original form was

Tigurar.

This word appears at present in Canarese in the form of

tegala, and means blame, abuse. As applied to the Tamilians it would

mean the opprobrious people, which it is difficult to suppose would

No words

ever become current as the denomination of an entire race.

>

resembling this have the xheaning of blame or abuse in Tamil or Malay-

Alam.

In both languages figar means splendour ; tegil, tegal, fulness.

These meanings would doubtless be too complimentary for a name

given to any people by foreigners, and yet the meaning deducible from

the Canarese itself seems too uncivil. The Canarese pandits, consulted

by Mr Narasimmiengar, derived the name from tigadu or tigarw, and

This explanation accords substantially

explained it as meaning rude.

with Mr Kittel’s.

Mr Narasimmiengar adds, “ The word Tigalaru has

almost ceased to be one of reproach, and there are large communities,

some of them Brahmans, called by this name.”

II. Maravirnam,—This language claims to be placed next to Tamil

in the list of Dravidian tongues, on account of the peculiarly close

relationship to Tamil in which it stands.

Malayalam is spoken along

the Malabar coast, on the western side of the Ghauts, or:Malaya range

of mountains, from the vicinity of Chandragiri, near Mangalore, where

it supersedes Canarese and Tulu, to Trivandrum, where it begins to

be superseded by Tamil. The people by whom this language is spoken

in the native states of Travancore and Cochin, and in the British

Indian districts of Malabar and Canara, may be estimated at 3,750,000.

All along the Malabar coast Tamil intertwines itself with Malayalam.

Though that coast was for many ages more frequented by foreigners

than any other part of India; though Phcenicians, Greeks, Jews,

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

21

Syrian or Persian Christians, and Arabs, traded in succession to the

various ports along the coast; and though permanent settlements were

formed by the last three classes; yet the Malayilam people continue

to be of all Dravidians the most exclusive and superstitious, and

Hence ¢the

shrink most sensitively from contact with foreigners.

lines and centres of communication’ have been occupied, and a con-

siderable portion of the commerce and public business of the Malabar

States has been monopolised, especially in Travancore, by the less

scrupulous and more adroit Tamilians.

Malaydlam is also called Malaydrma, another form of which is

Malaydyma ; but both words are substantially the same.

The first

part of each word is not the Sanskrit Malaya, ‘a range of mountains’

(probably identical with the Western and Southern Ghauts), but the

Dravidian mala, ‘a mountain,’ from which doubtless the Sanskrit

malaya itself was derived.

The second part of the word, dlam or

drma, is an abstract neuter noun, between mala and which y is inserted

by rule to prevent hiatus.

d&lam is plainly a verbal derivative from

the root @/, ‘to possess,’ ‘to use,” ‘to rule’ (not to be confounded with

dram, ‘depth,’ from the root dr, ‘to be deep’).

It bears the same

relation to drma, originally d/ma (Tam. dnmer, euphonised from d@fmez),

that tanam (Mal.-Tam. ¢ quality ’) does to tanma, Mal. (Tam. tanmer),

that is, it is more commonly used, but is reckoned less elegant. drma

is softened from dlma, as in Tam. velldlan, a cultivator, is sometimes

softened into ve/ldran. More frequently 7 changes to , but the change

of to is also known.

This 7 is further softened in Malayalam to

¥, in consequence of which Malaydrma becomes Malaydyma. In

colloquial Tamil this softening process is sometimes carried so far that

the / disappears altogether and leaves no trace behind.

Thus, velldn-

met, Tam. cultivation, becomes in Malayalam velldyma, but in collo-

quial Tamil wvelldmei, naftdnmes, Tam. the headship of a village,

from nddu and dmmei, becomes in Malaydlam ndftdyma, but in collo-

quial Tamil ndftdme:.

ndttdnma is also found in Malayilam ; and

this supplies us with a clear proof of the descent of dyma, through

dnma, from dlma.

Perhaps the best rendering of the term Malayalam

i

or Malaydrma is the ¢ mountain region.’

If we had a word in English

for a mountain district ending in ¢ship’ like ‘ township,” it would

come still nearer.

When used as an abstract term in compounds

anmer means use or possession—e.g., villdpmei, the use of the bow,

from vil, bow.

The appellative noun connected with this word dnmer

is dlan or @li, each of which forms is in ordinary use both in Tamil

The

and Malayalam—e.g., villdlan = villali, Tam.-Mal. a bowman.

22

EINTRODUCTION.

appellative noun corresponding to Malaydlam or Malaydrma is Ma-

laydli, a man of Malayilam, a mountaineer.

The Malayalam language is not distinguished from Tamil by San-

skrit writers, the term Dravida, as used by them, including both

tongues ; but the Malayalam country has a name of its own in Sanskrit,

with special names for the various districts included in it, from Gokar-

nam to Cape Comorin. The general name of this entire region in Sanskrit

is Kérala, a term which appears in the Kapur Digiri version of Asvka’s

edict in the third century B.c., in which the king of the country is

called Kéralamputra.

Kéralam is found in all the Dravidian dialects

in one shape or another.

In Tamil, through the softening of % into ,

¢, or ch, this word sometimes becomes Séralam, more commonly still

Séram.

Where the initial % is retained unchanged, it is followed by

the Dravidian |—e.g., Kéralam—and this is the case also in Telugu

and Canarese. In Malayalam we find Keralam, Chéralam, and Chéram,

as in Tamil, and also Kéram.

A man of Kéralam is called sometimes

Kélan or Kélu, and though this is evidently a contraction of Keralan,

it must be one of great antiquity, for we find it in Pliny’s name of the

king of the country, Celobotras, a form of the word which is thus seen

to be as accurate as Ptolemy’s K#sf8i6gos. -

¥ 4

The Kerala of the ancients seems to have divided itself into two

portions, one of which, the district lying along the sea coast, has always

retained the Sanskritic name of Kérala, whilst it also called itself by

the Tamil name of Chera ; the other, an inland district, including

Coimbatore, Salem, and a portion of Mysore, seems to have dropped

the name of Kerala altogether, and called itself exclusively either Chera

or Kongu.

Tt is to the latter district that Dr Eggeling’s paper on the

Chera dynasty refers.

Though, however, the districts and dynasties

differed, I have no doubt that the mames Kerala and Chera were

originally one and the same, and it is certain that they are always

regarded as synonymous in native Tamil and Malayalam lists of syno-

nyms.

In the various lists of the boundaries of Chera given by

Tamil writers, the Malabar coast from Calicut southward—that is, the

whole of southern Kerala—is invariably included.

Probably Kéra

was the earliest form of the word, Kérala a Sanskritic derivative.

The word Kongu, one of the names of the Chera country, means, like

Kudagu (Coorg), crooked, curved, and is evidently a name derived

from the configuration of the country.

The meaning of Kéram is not

so certain.

One meaning of this word in Malayélam is ‘a cocoa-unut

palm.’

This would furnish us with a very natural origin for the name

of the country, but unfortunately it seems to be only a secondary

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES,

23

meaning,-the name of the country itself being probably the origin of

this name of its most characteristic tree.

No word allied to Malay-

alam, the native name of the language and the name most commonly

used now for the country, seems to have been known to the earlier

Greeks.

A portion of the name appears for the first time in the

“ Christian Topography ” of Cosmas Indicopleustes, about 545 A.p.,

who, writing specially about Ceylon, mentions amongst the adjacent

countries MaAé, whence the pepper comes.

This form of the word is

evidently identical with the Tamil males, a hill, - the hill country, a

word which would be in common use then, as now amongst the Tamil

settlers in Ceylon.

The distinctively Malayalam form of the same

word 18 mala.

Malayalam being, as I conceive, a very ancient offshoot of Tamil,

differing from it chiefly at present by its disuse of the personal termi-

nations of the verbs and the larger amount of Sanskrit derivatives it

has availed itself of, it might perhaps be regarded rather as an ancient

dialect of Tamil, than as a distinct member of the Dravidian family.

Though its separation from Tamil must have taken place at an early

period, yet it seems to have participated, as time went on, in the pro-

gressive cultivation and refinement of Tamil,—possibly through the

political influence the Tamilians acquired on the western coast in early

times, an illustration of which we have seen in the fact that the author

of the Periplus” represents Nekynda, one of the most important

emporia on the western coast, as belonging to the Pandya king of

Madura, the principal potentate in the Tamil country. The oldest

Malayalam poetry, as I learn from Dr Ctundert, imitated Tamil rather

than Sanskrit. It eschewed all letters not included in the thirty-two

adopted by Tamil, and the character employed was a character often

used in inscriptions in the Tamil country, particularly in the south,

and differing very widely from the Malayilam character now in use.

The “Rama Charita,” probably the oldest poem in the language,

though not, after all, of any very great antiquity, was composed before

the introduction of the Sanskrit alphabet, and exhibits substantially

the same phase of the language as the Jewish and Syrian Sisanas.

Bearing this in mind, it is remarkable that the Brahmanisation of the

language and literature should now have become so complete. This

process appears to have been carried on systematically only during the

last two or three centuries, yet one of the most marked characteristios

of the Malayilam language, as we now find it, is the quantity of Sans-

krit it contains

The proportion of Sanskrit words adopted by the

Dravidian languages is least in Tamil, greatest in Malayilam ; and the

modern Malaydlam character seems to have been derived in the main

INTRODUCTION.

24

from the Grantha, the character in which Sanskrit is written in the

Tamil country.

In consequence of these things, the difference between

Malayalam and Tamil, though originally slight, has progressivcly

increased, so that the claim of Malayilam, as it now stands, to be con-

A

sidered, not as a mere dialect of Tamil, but as a sister language, cannot

be called in question.

Originally, it is true, I consider it to have been

not a sister of Tamil, but a daughter.

It may best be described as a

much-altered offshoot.

The descent of Malayalam from Tamil may be illustrated by the

word it uses to denote east.

This is kirakku, meaning beneath,

downwards, a word which corresponds to that which is used to denote

west, viz., mélku, above, upwards ; both of which words necessarily

originated, not in the western coast, but in the Tamil country, or the

country on the eastern side of the Ghauts, where a lofty range of moun-

tains 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 Malayalam country,

as of the whole of the western coast, is directly the reverse of this, the

mountain range being to the eastward, and the sea to the westward.

Notwithstanding this, the Malayalam word for east is identical with

the Tamil word !

To what can this coincidence point but the original

The people by whom Malayalam

identity of Malayélam with Tamil ?

is spoken must originally have been a colony of Tamilians.

They

must have entered the Malayalam country by the Paulghaut or Coim-

batore gap, and from thence spread themselves along the coast, north-

ward to the Chandragire river, southward to the Neyyéru river near

Tnevandrum, at each of which points their further progress seems to

have been stopped by settlements of colonists of a kindred race, who

had already reached the western coast by different routes. Dr Gundert

(Introduction to Malayalam Dictionary”), whilst admitting Tamil

and Malayalam to be very nearly related, appears to be unwilling to

He argues (in a private

consider Malayalam as an offshoot of Tamil.

communication) that the words used in Malayalam for east and west

cannot safely be regarded as proving the immigration of the Malayalam

people from the east, and that if the analogous progress of the Aryans

to the south be considered, it will appear probable that the Dravidians,

like the Aryans, formed settlements on the western coast first, and

afterwards made their acquaintance with the eastern.

It is true, as he

observes, that padiifidru, properly padiifidyiru, meaning the setting

sun, is more commonly used in Malayalam than mélku, but paduiii-

dyiru is also a Tamil word, and Dr Gundert admits that both mélku

and kirakkw must have originated in the Tamil country. The argument

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

25

k%

from the analogy of the Aryan immigration appears to prove too much.

It would require us to regard the whole Tamil people as immigrants

r

from the western coast, and the

-

lamil language as an offshoot from

Malayalam, the geographical and philological difficulties in the way of

both which suppositions appear to me to be insuperable.

Origin of the terms ¢ Coromandel’ and ¢ Malabar.’—Before passing

on to the rest of the Dravidian languages, it may be desirable to inquire

into the origin of the names ¢ Coromandel coast’ and ¢ Malabar coast,’

by which the eastern and western coasts of the southern portion of the

Indian peninsula, in which the Tamil and Malayilam languages are

spoken, are usually designated.

1. Coromandel. —The best derivation of Coromandel is from the

Tamil Chéramandalam, the Chodla country, from Chéra, the Tamil

form of the name which is best known in its Sanskrit form of Chola,

and mandalam (a Sanskrit tadbhava), ¢ a district of country.” Undoubt-

edly Fra Paulino & St Bartolomeeo was wrong in supposing Chdla-

mandalam to have meant ¢ the millet country.” The first word, Chéram,

though often pronounced like Chdlam (¢ maize,” not ‘millet’), is always

written in Tamil Choram, and the compound Chéra-mandalam, ¢the

country of the Choras, like Pandya-mandalam, ‘the country of the

Péandiyas,” has been in common use for ages.

The first Portuguese, as

I learn from Dr Gundert, always called by the name of Choramandala

the fifth province of the Rayur’s empire (the empire of the so-called

Rayulu or Telugu kings of Vizayanagara), which they represented as

extending from the frontiers of Quilon (that is, from near Cape Como-

rin) to Orissa.

The Portuguese evidently adopted this name as the

equivalent of Ma'bar, the name by which the greater part of the Coro-

mandel coast had up to that time been generally called by the Muham-

medans and those Europeans who derived their information from

them. (See Ibn Batuta and Marco Polo.) This name Ma’bar, literally

a ford or passage, was used originally to denote the coast of Madura,

from which there was an easy passage by Rama’s bridge to Ceylon.

The application of the name was then indefinitely extended north-

wards.

The change from Choramandala to Coromandel is one which

would easily be made.

The middle point appears to be Choromondel,

the mode in which the name was written by the early Dutch.

In the first edition of this work, whilst assigning this origin to the

term ¢ Coromandel coast,” I suggested also that it was difficult to see

how the first mariners could have become acquainted with this correct,

classical word.

It seemed to me desirable, therefore, to seek for some

more trite and easy derivation of the word Coromandel—some deriva-

tive that would suit the circumstances of mariners and factors; and

»

26

INTRODUCTION.

this, I said, I think we find in Karu-manal (literally, black sand), the

name of a small village on the eastern coast near Pulicat (the first

Dutch settlement), which is invariably pronounced and written Coro-

mandel by the Europeans who are resident in Madras, some, of whom

annually take refuge in Karumanal or Coromandel during the hot land

winds.

Coromandel is often the first point which is sighted by ships

from Europe bound to Madras ; and the objects on which my own eyes

first rested on approaching the coast, in January 1838, were the cocoa-

nut trees of Coromandel and the distant Nagari hills, T fear, however,

this easy derivation must be given up, and the more ancient one which

carries us back to the first arrival of the Portuguese in India retained.

I find also from Mr C. P. Brown, that in a map of the Jaghire of

Madras in ¢ Kitchin’s Atlas” (about 1790), the name of the village in

question is written, not Coromandel, but Karri mannel, so that the

application of the name Coromandel to this village by the English.must

be’. of recent date.

One of the names given to the eastern coast is

Kharamandalam-w, from khara, Sans. hot ; but this name has never

been used so widely along the coast as to render it likely that it was

the origin of the name Coromandel.

Besides, this name was never

used, as Choramandala was, as a political designation.

T am indebted

{

to Colonel Yule, the learned editor of Marco Polo, for additional infor_

mation regarding the use-of the term Coromandel by the early Portu.

guese. . He says—* It certainly was a name in use when the Portuguese

arrived in India.

This appears from its use in the short narrative of

Hieronimo de Sto Stefano, dated in 1499, which is published at the

end of Major’s ‘India’ in the fifteenth century.

From Ceylon he

says, ‘departing thence after twelve days we reached another place

called Coromandel.’

The city of Choromandel appears in ¢ Vaithema’s

Travels’ (published in 1510); and in Barbosa, the most complete of

the early Portuguese accounts, we have the country of Charamandel

(in the Portuguese edition), Coromandel (in Ramusio’s Italian), Chol-

mendel and Cholmender in a Spanish MS. translated by Lord Stanley

of Alderley in the Hakluyt series,

I believe both Spanish and Portu-

guese pronounce the ¢k as we do, so I should think it probable that

the Italian Co was written (Co. This Cholmendel is remarkable, as

the MS. is supposed to date about 1510, too early for theories about

Chola-mandala.

I had given up the hope of finding proof of the use

of this name by the Muhammedans, but on turning to Rowlandson’s.

translation of the ‘Johfat al Majahidén, or History of the Muham-

medans in Malabar,” I have found (p. 153) that the Franks had built

fortresses ‘at Mielapoor and Nagapatam, and other seaports of Sol-

mondul,’ and the name occurs again in the next page.”

Colonel Yule,

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES

27

in mentioning this in the Bombay Antiquary for August 1874, adds—

“The occurrence of this name in this form and in a Muhammedan

writer upsets a variety of theories as to the origin of the name

The Coromandel coast is evidently the ITweurioc Swowrdv (or Swg-

y@v) of Ptolemy, and also the district vg idiws Aeyovpévne Tapatio

Twgiyydv (or Smgidyiy), in which the mouth of the xaBrgog, the

Kéavérl, was situated.

These seem remarkable anticipations of the

name by which the coast was known in later times.

Malabar.—The origin of the name Malabar has hitherto been

enveloped in greater obscurity than that of the corresponding name

Coromandel

The first part of the name (Mala) is evidently the

Malayalam word for mountain, as in the name Malayalam itself, and

we can scarcely err in councluding it to have been a perpetuation of the

Male of the later

Greeks

I learn from Colonel Yule that in the

relations of the Arabian navigators the name Malé held its place,

nearly as Cosmos has it, without any such suffix as 0dr, down to the

eleventh or twelfth century

In 851 A.D. it occurs, he says, as Malai

or Kulam-Malai, in 1150 as Malf and also Maliah

It is interesting

to find the name of Quilon (Kulam, prope

Kollam) as early as 851

associated with the name of the coast in the compound term Kulam-

Malai ;

but Colonel Yule has found Quilon mentioned by name prior

even to 660,* which tends to show, as he observes, that the Quilon

era (the first year of which corresponds to A.p. 824-5) did not, in reality

take its origin, as has been supposed, from the foundation of the city.

The first appearance of the affix bdr is in 1150, and from the time of

its appearance, the word to which it is affixed—the first part of the

new compound—ifrequently changes

Colonel Yule gives the follow-

ing Arabian forms : Malibar, Manibar, Mulibar, Manibar, Malibdr—and

the following as the forms used by early European travellers, &ec.—

From

Minibar, Milibar, Mellibar (Marco Polo), Minubar, Melibaria

the time of the arrival of the Portuguese in India it seems always to

have been called Malabar, as by ourselves, and in this form of the

It has been more difficult

word Mala, mountain, is correctly given

to ascertain the origin and meaning of the affix bdr

Lassen explained

it as identical with the Sanskrit vdra, in the sense of ‘a region

Malaya-vara = Malabar = the region of Malaya, the Western Ghauts

e

* A letter in Assemani’s Bibliotheca, from the Patriarch Jesajabus (died A.D

660) to Simon, Metropolitan of Persia, blames his neglect of duty, saying that im

consequence, not only is India, “ which extends from the coast of the kingdom

of Persia to CoLoN, a distance of 1200 parasangs, deprived of a regular ministry,

but Persia itself is lying in darkness.”—Colonel Yule

28

INTRODUCTION.

The difficulty in the way of accepting this is that Malaya-vara is a

factitious word not really found in Sanskrit, and never actually used

by the people of the Malabar coast.

The same difficulty stands

'

in the way of Mula-vAram, Tam.-Mal. the foot of the mountains,

These derivations might

and Malappadu, the mountain district.

be regarded at first sight as admissible

but they are Indian ver-

nacular words, and if the name Malabar had been derived from

them, we should expect to find them in use in India itself, whereas

there is no trace of either of them having ever actually been used by

any Indian people.

Dr Gundert suggested to me the possibility of the

derivation of bdr from the Arabic barr, continent, as he considered it

probable that the name of Malabar had first been brought into use by

the Arabian navigators.

Colonel Yule arrived independently at a

gimilar conclusion.

He preferred, however, the Persian bdr to the

Arabic barr, and has given illustrations of the use of this Persian affix

by the Arabs which appear to me to carry conviction.

He says (in

one of the private communications with which he has favoured me),

¢« This affix bdr seems to have been much used by navigators.”

We

have Zanzi-bdr (the country of the blacks), Kala-bar (see the “ Arabic

Relations,” by Reinaud, I., 17, where it is explained that “ the word bdr

signifies either a coast or a kingdom ”) ; and even according to John-

son’s ¢ Persian Arabic Dictionary,” Hindq-bAr.

Burton says (Journal

of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. xxix. p. 30) that at Zanzibar,

in distinguishing the mainland from the island, they call the former

Bar-el-Moli, or ‘continued.’

And in a note he adds, “ The word

Moli, commonly used in the corrupt Arabic of Zanzibar, will vainly be

sought in the dictionaries.”

Question if this word Moli for continent

may not have shaped some of the forms of the name of Malabar that

we have above.

I suppose bdr itself is rather Persian than Arabic,

““ and may be radically the same affix that we have in so many Indian

names of countries, Marwar, Rajwar, &c.”

This Persian derivation

seems to me so satisfactory that it may safely be accepted.

bar

country, may have been added to Male to distinguish the mainland

from the adjacent islands, the Maldives and the Laccadives.

The

Maldives may have been the diwes or islands of Male, whilst Malabdr

was the continent or mainland of Male.

Colonel Yule informs. me

that Pyrard de la Val and Moresby agree in calling the principal

island Male ; the first vowel of this name may be either long or short.

In Singhalese the islands are called the Maldives, but in Tamil they

are called Mdldives ; and this Tamil mdl differs considerably from

Mala, the name of the Malabar coast, whilst it agrees perfectly with

the name given to the islands by John Batuta, who calls them Dhibat-

»

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

29

almahal, from the name of the ‘atoll’ where the sultan of the islands

lived—viz., Al mahal.

Mahal is always corrupted into md@l in Tamil

The Persian bdr, one of the meanings of which is ‘a country,’ is

regarded by Vuller (‘‘ Lexicon Persian-Latin”) as identical in origin

with the Sanskrit w»dra, a noun of multitude.

It does not follow,

however, that it is identical with the affix vd» which we find in so

many Indian names of countries, as Marwar, Dharwar, Kattywar, &e.

The apparent resemblance between this wdr and the Persian bdr and

especially the Sanskrit vdra disappears on investigation.

This wdr is

written vdd ; and Dr Trumpp assures me that its lineal descent from

the Sanskrit edta (vdta, vdd, vdr) is capable of proof.

vdta, Sans.

means not only ¢an enclosure,” but also ¢a district’'—e.g., Prdchya-

vlta, the eastern district.

Dr Eggeling informs me that he has found

Dbarwar written Dharad-varsha in an inscription of the seventh cen-

tury.

According to Dr Trumpp, however, the wdr of the modern

Dharwar must have had a different origin, as varsha becomes in the

Prakrit, not vdr, but varisé or varakki.

III. TeLueu.—In respect of antiquity of culture and glossarial

copiousness, Telugu is generally considered as ranking next to Tamil in

the list of Dravidian idioms, while in point of euphonic sweetness it

justly claims to occupy the first place.

This language was sometimes

called by the Europeans of the last generation the ¢ Gentoo,” from the

Portuguese word for heathens or ‘ gentiles,” a term which was used at

first to denote all Hindlis or ‘natives,” but which came in time to

mean the Telugus alone.

The use of the term Gentoo for Telugu, like

that of Malabar for Tamil, has now nearly disappeared.

Telugu is

spoken all along the eastern coast of the Peninsula, from the neigh-

bourhood 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 Mahritha country and Mysore, including

within its range the ¢ Ceded districts’ and Kurnool, a considerable part

of the territories of the Nizam, or the Hyderabad country, and a por-

The district thus des-

tion of the N agpore country and Gondwana.

cribed was called Telinginad by the Muhammedans.

The Telugu

people, though not at present the most enterprising or migratory, are

In-

undoubtedly the most numerous branch of the Dravidian race.

cluding the Nayudus (Tam. NAyakkas=Sans. Nayakas), Reddis, and

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

descendants of those soldiers of fortune by whom the Pandya and

|

]

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

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

30

INTRODUCTIO

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 fifteen million and a half

The

chief, if not the only, element of doubt in this calculation relates to

the proportion of Telugu speaking people in the Nizam’s territory.

Thoueh the Telugu

eople cannot at pre

nt be deseribed as the

most migratory portion of the Dravidians t11e1e was a time, when

they appear to have exhibited this quality more conspicuously than

any other branch of the race

Most of the Klings, or Hindds, found

in the eastern archipelago in our times, are, it is true, Tamilians

but the Tamilians

in trading and forming settlements in the East

have entered on a field formerly occupied by the Telugus, and not

only so, but have actually inherited the name by which their Telugu

predecessors were known

‘Kling’ stood for ¢ Kalinga,” and Kalinga

meant the seaboard of the Telugu country

The Hindas, who in the

early centuries of the Christian era formed settlements, built temples

and exercised dominion in Sumatra and Java were Telucus, not Tamil-

1ans

and whilst the Tamil country was overrun by the Telugus in the

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, no settlement of Tamilians in the

Telugu country to any considerable extent seems to have followed the

establishment in that country (or at least in the portion of it specially

called Kalinga) of a dynasty of Chola kings in the eleventh or twelfth

centuries.

Telugu is cailed Andhra by Sanskrit writers—that is, the language

of the Andhras one of the two nations into which the Telugu people

seems from the earliest times to have been divided

The other nation

was the Kalingas

The Andhras seem to have been better known than

the Kalingas to the early Aryans

They are mentioned so early as in

he ¢ Aitoreya Brihmana of the Rig-veda,” though represented as an

uncivilised race; and in Puranic times a dynasty of Andhra kings is

represented to have reigned in Northern India

The Andarse are

represented by Pliny (after Megasthenes) as a powerful people, and the

Andre Indi have a place in the ¢ Pentinger Tables” (north of the

Ganges !) amongst the few Indian nations of which the author of those

tables had heard. The first.reference to their language I find made by

any foreigner is in the memoirs of Hwen Thsang, the Chinese pilgrim,

about the middle of the seventh century a.p., who states that the lan-

guage of the Andhras differed from that of Oentral India, whilst the

forms of the written characters were for the most part the same

It

is clear from this that Telugu culture had already made considerable

progress, especially amongst the Andhra branch of the nation

Hence

it naturally happened that the name of the Andhras, instead of that of

=

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

31

the Kalingas, - who inhabited the more remote seaboard, and were per-

haps less cultured, was given. by Sanskrit writers to the language which

both branches of the nation spoke in commion.

It occupies the first

place—not Kélinga or Trilinga

in the compound term, Andhra-

Drévida-bashé, by which Kumérila-bhatta, shortly after Hwen Thsang’s

date, designated what he appears to have supposed to be the one lan-

guage spoken by the Dravidians.

Telugu is the name by which the language is called by the Telugu

people themselves, other forms of which name are Telungu, Telinga,

Tailinga, Tenugu, and Tenungu.

The name has been corrupted still

further in various directions by Muhammedans and other foreigners.

Oue of the above-mentioned forms, Tenugu or Tenungu, is sometimes

represented by Telugu pandits as the original form of the word, and

This derivation seems

the meaning they attribute to it is sweetness.

to have been an afterthought suggested by the resemblance of the word

to ¢éne, honey ; but there is more reason for it—both on account of the

resemblance between the two words, and also on account of the exceed-

ingly mellifluous character of the Telugu language, than for the corre-

sponding afterthought of the Tamil pandits respecting the meaning

of the word Tamir.

The favourite derivation of Telugu pandits for Telugu or Telungu,

the ordinary name of their language, is from Trilinga, ¢ the language

of the three lingas ;’ that is, as they suppose, of the country of which

This deri-

three celebrated linga temples constituted the boundaries.

vation was accepted by Mr A. D. Campbell, but is rejected by Mr C.

P. Brown, who affirms it to be an invention of modern poets, and

regards the name Telugu as devoid of any known root.

Probably so

much of the theory as is built- on the connection of the name with

certain temples may be unceremoniously discarded ; but the derivation

of the name itself from ¢rilenga (without committing ourselves to the

determination of the sense in which the word lenge is used) may per-

haps be found to be deserving of a better fate.

If the derivation of

Telugu from Trilinga be an invention, it must be admitted to have at

least the merit of being an ingenious invention ; for though it is quite

true, as Mr Brown observes, that Trilinga, as a name of a country, is

not found in any of the lists of Indian countries contained in the

Puranas, yet the existence of such a name seems capable of being

established by reliable evidence derived from other sources. Téranatha,

the Tibetan author already referred to, who derived his information,

not from modern Telugu poets or pandits, but from Indian Buddhis-

tical narratives (which, having been written before Buddhism dis-

appeared from India, must have been of considerable zm'tiquit}”}'»

4

2

32

INTRODUCTION.

'j:{é‘:;repeated].y designates the Telugu country Trilinga, and describes

Kalinga as a portion of Trilinga, and Kalingapura as its capital.

The

nan}e of T;'ﬂinga had reached Ptolemy himself at a time anterior

probably to the date of the Purnas.

It is true his ToiyAvmrrov (Tgffy-

Avpov ) roxou Teihyyoy Buoirsiov is placed by him to the east of the

Ganges; but the names of places mentioned by Ptolemy seem generally

much more reliable than the positions he assigns to them ; and it is

conceivable that the marinhers or merchants from whom he derived his

information spoke of the place merely as beyond the Ganges, without

being certain whether it was east or south.

We have seen that in

like manner the ¢ Pentinger Tables” place the Andre Indi—about

whose identity with the Telugu people there can be no doubt—beyond

The foreign name Trilingam must have been the name

the Ganges.

by which the place was called by the natives of the place, whilst Trig-

lypton or Triglyphon must have been a translation of the name which

had come into use amongst the Greeks. Hence the antiquity of Trilinga,

as the name of a state, or of the capital city of a state, situated some-

where in India in Ptolemy’s time, must be admitted to be established.

The word lenga forms the second portion of the name of several Indian

nations mentioned by Pliny (after Megasthenes), as the Bolingee, and

-~

the Macco-calingze, a various reading of which is Maccolingse. Another

name mentioned by Pliny, Modogalingam, involves some difficulty.

He says—‘Insula in Gange est magna magnitudinis gentem continens

unam, Modogalingam nomine.”

Mr A. D. Campbell, in the Introduc-

tion to his ¢ Telugu Grammar,” represented the modoga of this name

as the ancient Telugu word for three, and hence argued that Modoga-

lingam was identical with Trilingam.

If this identification were

admitted, not only would the antiquity of Trilingam be firmly estab-

lished, but also the opinion of the pandits that the original name of

their language was Trilinga, and that this Trilinga became gradually

The

Telinga, Telungu, Telugu, and Tenugu, would be confirmed.

Telugu word for ¢ three,” however, is not modoga, but midu.

mAdugu

might be used ; but it is a poetical form, the use of which would be

pedantic.

Mr C. P. Brown prefers to write the name of the nation

referred to by Pliny (after a MS. in Sillig’s edition) “modo Galingam,”

and considers this Galingam equivalent to Calingam.

This change of

¢ (k) into g in such a connection would be quite in accordance with

Telugu laws of sound, provided modo, as well as Calingam, were a

Telugu word ; and if it were Telugu it would more naturally represent

maldu, three, than anything else. On this supposition, modo-Galingam

would mean, not indeed ¢the three lingas,” but ¢ the three Kalingas ;’

and it is remarkable that the corresponding expression Tﬁ-kalinga has

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

33

been found in actual use in India.

General Cunningham, in his

““ Ancient Geography of India,” mentions an inscription in which a

line of kings assumed the title of ‘lords of Tri-kalinga.

Dr Kern

also, in his translation of VarAha-mihira’s ¢ Brihat-samhit4,” mentions

that the name Tri-kalinga is found in one of the Purfnas; and the

same name has recently been found in an inscription on a copperplate,

referred to in the proceedings of the Bengal Asiatic Society for 1872,

e E7

General Cunningham thinks it probable that there is a refer-

ence to these three Kalingas in the circumstance that Pliny mentions

the Macco-Calingse and the Glangarides-Calingw as separate nations

from the Calingz ; and that the Maha-bharata mentions the Kalingas

three times, and each time in connection with different neighbours.

The circumstance that Modogalingam is represented as an *island in

the Ganges’ presents no insuperable obstacle to its identification with

Tri-kalinga or Teling4na.

The term island has often been used very

vaguely. Tarandtha calls the Tamil country an island ; and Kalinga

was supposed to be a Gangetic country by Sanskrit writers themselves,

who generally agreed in representing it as the last of the districts visited

by the Ganges.

It is also to be remembered that the GodAivari is

often supposed by natives to be somehow identical with the Ganges,

General Cunningham thinks Telinga derived, not from Trilinga, but

from Tri-kalinga, but this derivation of the word needs to be historic-

ally confirmed. Kalinga and linga may probably in some way be con-

nected, but the nature and history of the connection have not as yet

been made out.

One of the names by which the Telugu language is known in the

Tamil country is Vadugu, and a Telugu man, especially if a member

of the Nayakka caste, is called a Vadugan.

The root of this is vada,

north, the Telugu country lying to the north of the Tamil.

This word

explains the name ‘ Badages,” by which certain marauding hordes were

designated by the early Portuguese, and in the letters of St Francis

Xavier. Mr C. P. Brown informs me that the early French missionaries

in the Guntur country wrote a vocabulary “ de la langue Talenga, dite

vulgairement le Badega.”

IV.—CANARESE.—The next place is occupied by Canarese, properly

the Kannada, or Karnitaka, which is spoken throughout the plateau

of Mysore, in the southern Mahratta country, and in some of the

western districts of the Nizam’s territory, as far north as Beder.

It is spoken’also (together with Malayalam, Tulu, and Konkani, but

more extensively than any of them) in the district of Canara, pro-

was sub-

perly Kangédiyam, on the Malabar coast, a district which

v

P

34

INTRODUGTION.

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

the name by which it is at present known. The speech of the Badagas

(“ people from the north’), commonly called by the English Burghers,

the most numerous class of people inhabiting the Neilgherry hills, is

[ 4

undoubtedly an ancient Canarese dialect.

The Canarese, properly so

called, includes, like the Tamil, two dialects—classical, commonly

called Ancient Canarese, and the colloquial or modern ; of which the

former differs from the latter, not—as classical Telugu and Malayilam

differ from the colloquial dialects of those languages—Dby containing a

larger infusion of Sanskrit derivatives, but by the use of different

inflexional terminations.

The dialect called Ancient Canarese is not

to be confounded with the character denoted by that name, which is

found in many 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 Sanskrit, not Canarese.

The people that speak the Canarese language may be estimated at

nine millions and a quarter ; but, in the case of both Canarese and

Telugu, the absence of a trustworthy census of the inhabitants of the

Nizam’s territory, requires such estimates to be considered as mere

approximations.

In that territory four languages—Canarese, Marathi,

Telugu, and Hindfstadni—are spoken by different classes in different

districts ; but it is difficult to ascertain the proportionate prevalence

of each with any degree of certainty.

The term Karnita or Karndtaka is said to have been a generic term,

including both the Telugu and Canarese peoples and their languages,

though it is admitted that it usually denoted the latter alone, and

though it is to the latter that the abbreviated form Kannadam has

been appropriated. Karpdtaka (that which belongs to Karndta) is

regarded as a Sanskrit word by native pandits, but I agree with Dr

Gundert in preferring to derive it from the Dravidian words kar, black,

ndd-u (the adjectival form of which in Telugu is nd¢-i), country—that

SO S

is, the black country—a term very suitable to designate the ¢ black,

cotton soil,” as it is called, of the plateau of the Southern Dekhan. The

use of the term is of considerable antiquity, as we find it in Variha-

mihira at the beginning of the fifth century o.p. TAranitha also men-

tions Karnita.

The word Karnita or Karnitaka, though at first a

generic term, became in process of time the appellation of the Canarese

people and of their language alone, to the entire exclusion of the

Telugu.

Karnataka has now got into the hands of foreigners, who

have given it a new and entirely erroneous application.:

When the

Muhammedans arrived in Southern India, they found that part of it

with which they first became acquainted—the country above the

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

3%

Ghauts, including Mysore and part of TelingAna—called the Kar-

nitaka country. In course of time, by a misapplication of terms,

they applied the same name, the Karnatak, or Carnatic, to designate

the country below the Ghauts, 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 never had any 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’ is exclusively the country

below the Ghauts, on the Coromandel coast, including the whole of

the Tamil country, and the district of Nellore only in the Telugu

country. The word Karnitaka was further corrupted by the Canarese

people themselves into Kannada or Kannara, from which the language

is styled by the English ¢ Canarese.’

V. Turu.—Next in the list of cultivated Dravidian languages

stands Tulu or Tuluva.

The claim of this peculiar and very interest-

ing language to be ranked amongst the cultivated members of the

family may perhaps be regarded as open to question, seeing that it is

l)

destitute of a literature in the proper sense of the term, and never had

I

a character of its own. The Canarese character having been used by the

Basle missionaries in the Tulu books printed by them at Mangalore—

the only books ever printed in Tulu—that character has now become

inseparably associated with the language.

Notwithstanding its want

)

of a literature, Tulu is one of the most highly developed languages of

the Dravidian family. It looks as if it had been cultivated for its own

ll]'

15

sake, and it is well worthy of careful study. This language is spoken

S

in a very limited district and by a very small number of people. The

Chandragiri and Kalyanapuri rivers, in the district of Canara, are

regarded as its ancient boundaries, and it does not appear ever to have

extended much beyond them.

The number of the Tulu-speaking

people has been found not to exceed 300,000, and their country is

J)

0

broken in upon to such a degree by other languages that Tulu might

be expected soon to disappear.

All Tulu Christians are taught Canar-

1

ese as well as Tulu. Tulu, however, shows, it is said, no signs of

&

disappearing, and the people have the reputation of being the most

i

conservative portion of the Dravidian race.

The name Tulu means,

0

according to Mr DBrigel, mild, meek, humble, and is to be regarded

therefore as properly denoting the people, not their language.

0

6

Tulu was supposed by Mr Ellis to be merely a dialect of Malayilam ;

but although Malayilam characters were and still are, ordinarily

it

0

employed by Tulu Brahmans in writing Sanskrit, in consequence of

INTRODUCTION,

36

the prevalence of MalayAlam in the vicinity, the supposition that Tulu

was a dialect of MalayAlam can no longer be entertained. The publi-

cation of Mr Brigel’s ¢ Tulu Grammar” has thrown much new light

on this peculiarly interesting language. It differs far more widely from

Malay&lam than Malayilam does from Tamil. It differs widely, but not

so widely, from Canarese ; still less so from Coorg. The dialect from

which it differs most widely is Tamil. There is a tradition mentioned by

Mr Ellis, in his treatise on Mirasi right, to the effect that the ancient

Kurumbars or nomadic shepherds, in the neighbourhood of Madras,

were expelled and their lands given to Velldlas from Tuluva ; and this

tradition is confirmed by the fact that certain Vellala families in that

neighbourhood call themselves, and are called by others, Tuluva

Vellalas.

Probably, however, the number of Tuluva immigrants was

not very considerable, for there is no trace of any infusion of the pecu-

liarities of Tulu into the colloquial Tamil of Madras, which, if it differs

in any degree from the Tamil spoken in the rest of the Tamil country,

differs, not in a Tulu, but in a Telugu direction.

VI. Kupacu or Coorc.—Last in the list of cultivated Dravidian

languages is the language of Coorg; but though I have thought it best

to give this language a place amongst the cultivated members of the

family, the propriety of doing so seems to me still more doubtful

Coorg is a small but inter-

than that of placing Tulu in this list.

esting district, formerly an independent principality, beautifully

situated amongst the ridges of the Western Ghauts, between Mysore

on the east and North Malabar and South Canara on the west.

The native spelling of Coorg is usually Kodagu, properly Kudagu,

from kuda, west, a meaning of the word which is usual in Ancient

Tamil.

In the first edition of this work this language had not

assigned to it a place of its own, but was included under the head of

(Clanarese.

Tt had been generally considered rather as an uncultivated

dialect of Clanarese, modified by Tulu, than as a distinct language.

I

mentioned then, however, that Dr Mogling, a German missionary, who

had resided for some time amongst the Coorgs, was of opinion that

their language was more closely allied to Tamil and Malayalam than

to Canarese.

It is not quite clear to me yet to which of the Dravidian

dialects it is most closely allied.

On the whole, however, it seems

safest to regard it as standing about midway between Old Canarese and

Tulu.

Like Tulu it has the reputation of puzzling strangers by the

peculiarities of its pronunciation.

A grammar of the Coorg language

has been published by Major Cole, Superintendent of Coorg, and some

specimens of Coorg songs, with an epitome of the grammar by the

37

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

Rev. B. Griter of Mangalore.

“ Like the similar dialects spoken by

the tribes of the Nilagiris, there can be no doubt that this language has

preserved its form comparatively free from change owing to the retired

position of the people who speak it.

That the inhabitants of Coorg

early settled on the Western Ghauts is shown by the primitive Dravi-

dian custom of polyandria which they still follow. They are as yet far

from being Brahmanised, and they have no literature in the proper

sense of the word,”

Burnell’s ¢ Specimens of South Indian Dialects,”

No. 3.

The six languages which follow differ from those that have been

mentioned in that they are entirely uncultivated, destitute of written

characters, and comparatively little known.

VII. Tupa.—Toda, properly Tuda, is the language of the Tudas

or Tudavars, a primitive and peculiarly interesting tribe inhabiting

the Neilgherry (Nilagiri) hills.

It is now regarded as certain that the

Tudas were not the original inhabitants of those hills, though it is

still far from certain who the original inhabitants were.

Their

numbers could not at any time have exceeded a few thousands, and

at present, probably through opium-eating and polyardria, and through

the prevalence amongst them at a former period of female infanticide,

they do not, it has been ascertained, number more than about 700

souls.

I have to thank the Rev. F. Metz, the veteran missionary

among the Neilgherry tribes, for much information respecting the

Tudas and their language; and an interesting book has lately been

written by Colonel Marshall, entitled “A Phrenologist among the

Todas,” in which everything that is known of this people is fully

described. The same book contains a valuable epitome of the gram-

mar of their language by the Rev. Dr Pope.

Dr Pope connects the

name of the Todas with the Tamil word ¢ora, a herd ; but the d of

Tuda is not the lingual d, but the dental, which has no relationship

to r or [

The derivation of the name may be regarded as at present

unknown.

See Appendix.

VIII. Kora.—The language of the Kotas, a small tribe of helot

craftsmen inhabiting the Neilgherry hills, and numbering about eleven

hundred souls.

This language may be considered as a very old and

very rude dialect of the Canarese, which was carried thither by a per-

secuted low-caste tribe at some very remote period.

Besides the

languages of the Todas and Kétas, two other languages are vernacular

on the Neilgherry hills—viz., the dialect spoken by the Burghers or

Badagars (the northern people), an ancient but organised dialect of

38

INTRODUCTION.

the Canarese; and the rude Tamil spoken by the Irulars (f people

of the darkness’) and Kuruburs (Can. Kuwrubaru, Tam. Kurumbar,

shepherds), who are occasionally stumbled upon by adventurous

sportsmen in the denser, deeper jungles, and the smoke of whose

fires may occasionally be seen rising from the lower gorges of the hills.

b4

See Appendix.

IX. G6xD.—The language of the indigenous inhabitants of the

extensive hilly and jungly tracts in Central India, formerly called

Gondwana.

“ Tn most old maps of India the territorial name Gond-

wana is printed across the greater portion of the territory now known

as the Central Provinces.

(Odndwana extended from the Vindhya

mountains to the Godavari, and embraced the Satpurd range.

Of

the districts now under the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, it included

Korea, Sirgfija, and Udaiptir; but Goénd colonies are found as far

east as the Katak Tributary MahAls, where they blend with the Kandhs

and the Sauras, or Savaras, and they extend to Khandesh and Malwa

A considerable proportion

in the west, where they touch the Bhils.

of the population of this tract (the core of India) are Gonds, and they

are by far the most numerous of the aboriginal people still found

there.”—Colonel Dalton’s ¢ Ethnology of Bengal.”

According to the recent census the various tribes included under the

s

general name of Génds number 1,634,578 souls.

The MArids are

regarded as the purest, and are certainly the wildest, tribe of Gonds.

They sometimes call themselves Kohitr, a name which is evidently

identical with Koitdr, the name by which four out of the twelve tribes

of Gonds call themselves.

Tt has been asserted indeed that all the

Génds, when speaking of themselves in their own language, prefer to

call themselves Koitors.

This word is a plural appellative regularly

formed from Koi

Much valuable information concerning the Gonds

is contained in Colonel Dalton’s ¢ Ethnology of Bengal;” in the papers

left in MS. by the late Rev. S. Hislop, edited by Sir R. Temple ; and

A grammar and vocabu-

in the Gazetiecer of the Central Provinces.

lary of the Génd language were published by the Rev. J. G. Driberg,

at Bishop’s College, Calcutta, in 1849.

A translation of the Gospels

of St Matthew and St Mark into Gdond by the Rev. J. Dawson,

published at Allahabad in 1872—73, furnishes us with a still more

Mr Dawson

valuable contribution to the knowledge of the language.

has also recently published a brief grammar and vocabulary of the

language in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society. See Appendix.

X. KHoND ; more properly Ku.

This is the language of the people

who have hitherto been commonly called Khonds.

By their neigh-

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

89

bours in Orissa their name is said to be pronounced Kandhs;

but by themselves they are called, it is said, Kus.

They are a

primitive race supposed to be allied to the Gonds, and inhabit the

eastern parts of Gondwana, Gimsur, and the hilly ranges of Orissa,

which constitute the Tributary MahAls.

Colonel Dalton says they are

not found further north than the’ 22nd degree of latitude, and that

they extend south as far as Bastar, whence their position as the

aboriginal people is taken up by the Savaras or Sauras. They acquired

a bad notoriety for a long time, through their horrid practice of steal-

ing the children of their neighbours of the plains, and offering them

up in sacrifice—a practice now entirely suppressed. The meaning of

the name of this people is involved in obscurity. Some consider

Khond a kindred word with GOnd, and derive both names from the

Tamil word kundrw, a hill, literally a small hill, the Telugu form of

which is Zonda. This would be a very natural derivation for the name

of a hill people; but, unfortunately, their nearest neighbours, the

Telugus, call them, not Konds or Gdnds, but Gonds, also Kods ; and as

they call themselves Kus, according to Mr Latchmaji, the author of

the grammar of their language, the existence of any connection between

their name and kundrw or kopda, a hill, seems very doubtful.

The

term Ku is evidently allied to Ko6i, the name by which the Génds

call themselves, and which they are fond of lengthening into Koitor.

The Khonds, according to the late census, number nearly 270,000

souls.

See Appendix.

XI. The MALER, commonly called thé RéjmahAal, the language of

the Pahirias, or hill people, who seem to have been the original in-

habitants of the R4jmahal hills in Bengal.

The brief vocabulary of

the language of this tribe contained in the ¢ Asiatic Researches,” vol.

v., and the somewhat fuller lists of words belonging to the same lan-

guage contained in Mr Hodgson’s and Sir George Campbell’s collections

and in Colonel Dalton’s ¢ Ethnology of Bengal,” lead to the supposi-

tion that the R&jmahal idiom is in its basis Dravidian.

This lan-

guage 1s not to be confounded with the speech of the Santals, a

branch of the extensive Kol family inhabiting at present the skirts of

the Rajmahal hills (but said to be mostly emigrants from the Hazi-

ribagh district), who belong to a stock totally different from that of

the MAlers.

Unfortunately very little is known of the grammatical

structure of this language.

The numbers of the people by whom it is

spoken have been ascertained to amount to 41,000. See Appendix.

XIIL OrAoN.—The Oréons of Chitid Nagpfir and the neighbouring

40

INTRODUCTION.

districts are estimated to amount to 263,000.

A higher estimate bas

been made by Colonel Dalton, who has given a very full and interest-

::

ing account of this tribe in his “ Ethnology of Bengal.”

They have

preserved, like the Mélers, the rudiments of a language substantially

Dravidian, as appears from the lists of words collected by Mr Hodgson

and Colonel Dalton, and especially from an epitome of the grammar of

4

1

their language prepared by the Rev. F. Batsch.

Their traditions are said to connect them with the Konkan, from

which it is supposed they derive the mame Khuriik, by which they

They assert that for many generations

invariably call themselves.

they were settled on the Rohtds and adjoining hills in the Patna

district, and that when driven out from thence, one party emigrated

to the R4jmahal hills, the other went south-eastward till they arrived

in the highlands of Chatid Nagpfr.

This tradition of the original

identity of the MéAlers and the Orfons is borne out by the evident

affinity of their languages, and, as Colonel Dalton mentions, by the

similarity of their customs.

According to their traditions, the Ordons

arrived in Chfitia Nagptr later than the Mandas and other Kolarians.

Tuda, Kota, Gond, and Ku, though rude and uncultivated, are

undoubtedly to be regarded as essentially Dravidian dialects, equally

I feel some hesitation

with the Tamil, the Canarese, and the Telugu.

in placing in the same category the Ré&jmahil and the Ordon, seeing

that they appear to contain so large an admixture of roots and forms

belonging to some other family of tongues, probably the Kolarian.

I venture, however, to classify them as in the main Dravidian, because

the Dravidian roots they contain are roots of primary importance,

including the pronouns and the first four numerals, from which it may

fairly be inferred that these dialects belonged originally to the Dra-

vidian family.

The Oridon was considered by Mr Hodgson as a con-

necting link between the Kol dialects and the Maler; the Méler as

a connecting link between the Kol and the distinctively Tamilian

families.

The MAler seems to me, on the whole, less distinctively

Dravidian than the Oréon, perhaps because the Mélers, or hill men of

R4jmahal, are locally more remote than the Ordons from the present

seats of the Dravidian race.

Sir George Campbell’s lists of words

belonging to the Maler and Oraon dialects appear to contain a larger

proportion of words that can be recognised as distinctively Dravidian

than any previous lists.

sud

See Appendix.

The existence of a distinctively Dravidian element in two at least

of these aboriginal dialects of the Central Provinces and Bengal being

establishéd, the Dravidian race can now be traced as far north as the

wl

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

41

confines of Bengal, if not also to the banks of the Ganges; and the

supposition that this race was diffused at an early period through

the greater part of India is thereby confirmed.

Colonel Dalton carries the Dravidian element still further than I

bave ventured to do.

He says (“Ethnology of Bengal,” p. 243),

“The Dravidian element enters more largely into the composition of

the population of Bengal than is generally supposed.

I believe that

a large majority of the tribes described as Hinduised aborigines might

with propriety have been included in this group. The people called

Bhtiyas, diffused through most of the Bengal districts, and massed in

the jungle and tributary estates of Chiitid Nagplr and Orissa, certainly

belong to it; and if I am right in my conjecture regarding the Kocch

nation, they are of the same stock.

I roughly estimate the Bhtiyas

at two and a half millions, and the Kocch at a million and a half, so

that we have in these two peoples about one-tenth of the Bengal popu-

lation, who in all probability should be classed as Dravidian.” I hesitate

for the present to endorse this supposition, in the absence of lingual

affinities of any kind and of physical characteristics—if there are any

such even amongst the Dravidians themselves—that can be regarded as

distinctively Dravidian.

Leaving these doubtful races out of account, I here exhibit the

numbers, as far as can be ascertained by the census of 1871, of the

various peoples and tribes by whom distinctively Dravidian lan-

guages are spoken.

I have added together the census results obtained

in each of the Indian Presidencies, and have also included the Dra-

vidian inhabitants of Ceylon, and the Dravidian immigrants in Burma,

the eastern archipelago, Mauritius, Demerara, &c.

The only serious

doubt I have is with regard to the numbers of the Telugu people, and

this doubt is owing to the difficulty I have met with in endeavouring

to estimate the proportion of the Telugu-speaking people inhabiting

I have estimated them at three millions.

63

the Nizam’s territory.

the number should turn out to be higher or lower than this, a corre-

sponding change will have to be made in the accompanying list.

The numbers of the several races by whom the languages and dialects

mentioned above are spoken, appear to be as follows —

Tamil,

14,500,000

Telugu,

15,500,000

Canarese,

9,250,000

Malayéalam,

3,750,000

Tuluy,

300,000

S OUH QO N =

Kudagu or Coorg

150,000

Carry forward,

43,450,000

INTRODUCTION

42

Brought forward,

43,450,000

752

Tuda,

:

Kota,

1,112

Gond,

1,634,578

10

Khond or Ku,

269,501

11

Réjmahal,

41,089

12

Oréon,

963,000

45,660,032

According to this estimate the Dravidian-speaking peoples amount

to nearly forty-six millions of souls.

In this enumeration of the Dravidian languages I have not included

the idioms of the Ramfsis, the Lambédis, and various other wander-

ing, predatory, or forest tribes.

The Lambéadis, the gipsies of the

Peninsula, speak a dialect of Hindfstani; the Ramfsis a patois of

Telugu ; the tribes inhabiting the hills and forests, corrupted dialects

None of these dialects is

of the languages of the contiguous plains,

found to differ essentially from the speech of the more cultivated

classes residing in the same neighbourhood. The Male-aradas, ¢ hill-

kings’ (in Malayalam, Mala-arayas), the hill tribe inhabiting the

Southern Ghauts, speak corrupt Malayalam in the northern part of the

range, where Malayalam is the prevailing language, and corrupt Tamil,

with a tinge of Malayalam, in the southern, in the vicinity of Tamil-

speaking districts.

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

Ho, the Manda, or any of the rest of the languages of the Kbls, the

Savaras, and other rude tribes of Central India and of Bengal, called

‘ Kolarian’ by Sir George Campbell, and included by Mr Hodgson

under the general term Tamulian,

These languages might naturally

be supposed to be allied to Génd or Ku, to Orfon or R4jmahél, and

consequently to be of Dravidian origin ; but though a few Dravidian

words may perhaps be detected in some of them, their gramma-

tical structure shows that they belong to a totally different family

of languages. Without the evidence of similarity in grammatical struc-

1

ture, the discovery of a small number of similar words seems to

prove 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

vthe north-eastern frontier

of India, which are spoken by the Bo6dos, Dhiméals, and other tribes

inhabiting the mountains and forests between Kumaon and Assam.

These were styled Tamulian by Mr Hodgson, on the supposition that

all the aborigines of India, as distinguished from the Aryans, or San-

ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

43

skrit-speaking race and its offshoots, belonged to one and the same

stock ; and that of this aboriginal race, the Tamilians of Southern

India were to be considered the best representatives.

But as the

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

Dravidian family, is unsupported by the evidence either of similarity in

grammatical structure or of a similar vocabulary, and is founded only

on such general grammatical analogies as are common to the whole

range of the Scythian group of languages, it seems to me almost as

improper to designate those dialects Tamilian or Dravidian, as it would

be to designate them Turkish or Tungusian.

Possibly they may form

a link of connection between the Indo-Chinese or Tibetan family of

tongues, and the Kolarian ; but even this is at present little better

than an assumption. Professor Max Miiller proposed to call all the non-

Aryan languages of India, including the Sub-Himélayan, the Kol, and

the Tamilian families, NishAda-languages, the ancient aborigines being

often termed NishAdas in the Purnas. Philologically, I think, the use

of this common term is to be deprecated, inasmuch as the Dravidian

languages differ so widely from the others, that they possess very few

features in common.

For the present, I have no doubt that the safest

common appellation is the negative one, non-Aryan, or non-Sanskritic.

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

in Beluchistan, contains not only some Dravidian words, but a consi-

derable infusion of distinctively Dravidian forms and idioms ; in conse-

quence of which this language has a better claim to be regarded as

Dravidian or Tamilian than any of the languages of the Nepal and

Bhiitdn frontier, which had been styled ¢ Tamulian’ by Mr Hodgson.

I have not included, however, the Brahui in the list of Dravidian

languages which are to be subjected to systematic comparison (though I

shall give some account of it in the Appendix, and shall refer to it occa-

sionally for illustration), because the Dravidian element contained in it

bears but a small proportion to the rest of its component elements.

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

seem altogether unconnected with Dravidian roots; but it will be

evident from the analogies in structure, as well as in the vocabulary,

which will be exhibited in the Appendix, that this language contains

many grammatical forms essentially and distinetly Dravidian, together

with a small proportion of important Dravidian words.

The Brahuis

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

tradition could be regarded as a credible one, it would apply to the

secondary or conquering race, apparently of Indo-European origin, not

to their Dravidian predecessors.

The previous existence of the latter

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

44

INTRODUCTION.

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

been discovered in the language of their conquerors.

The Brahul 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, seems to be derived from the same source as the

Panjabi and Sindhf, but it evidently contains a Dravidian element ; and

the discovery of this Dravidian element in a language spoken beyond

the Indus tends to show that the Dravidians, like the Aryans, the

Greeco-Scythians, and the Turco-Mongolians, must have entered India

by the north-western route..

See Appendix.

TaE DRAVIDIAN IDIOMS NOT MERELY PROVINCIAL DIALECTS OF THE

SAME LANGUAGE.

Though I have described the twelve vernacular idioms mentioned in

the foregoing list as dialects or varieties of one and the same original

Dravidian 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 idioms no two are so nearly related

to each other that persons who speak them can be mutually understood.

The most nearly related are Tamil and Malayilam ; and yet it is only

the simplest and most direct sentences in the one language that are

Involved sentences in

intelligible to those who speak only the other.

either language, abounding in verbal and nominal inflexions, or con-

taining conditions and reasons, will be found by those who speak only

Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu,

the other language, to be unintelligible.

and Canarese, have each a distinct and independent literary culture ;

and each of the three former

Tamil, Malayalam, and Telugu—has a

system of written characters peculiar to itself.

The modern Canarese

character has been borrowed from that of the Telugu, and differs but

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

from Telugu than it does from Tamil; and the Ancient Canarese char-

acter is exceedingly unlike the character of the Telugu.

Of the six cultivated Dravidian dialects mentioned above—Tamil,

Telugu, Canarese, Malayilam, Tulu, Kuduga—the farthest removed

from each other are Tamil and Telugu. The great majority of the roots

in both languages are, it is true, identical ; but they are often so dis-

guised 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 wvarious Dravidian

idioms, though sprung from a common origin, are therefore to be con-

sidered not as mere provincial dialects of the same speech, but as dis-

g

DRAVIDIAN IDIOMS NOT MERELY PROVINCIAL DIALECTS.

45

tinct though affiliated languages. - They are as distinct one from the

other as Spanish from Italian, Hebrew from Aramaic, Sindhi from Ben-

gali.

If the cultivated Dravidian idioms differ so materially from each

other, it will naturally be supposed that the uncultivated idioms—-

Tuda, Kota, Gond, Khond, and the Ordon—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 observable amongst these rude dialects,

that it has seemed to me to be necessary to prove, not that they differ,

but that they belong, notwithstanding their differences, to the same

stock as the more cultivated tongues, and that they have an equal right

to be termed Dravidian.

Evidence that Tuda, Kéta, Génd, Khond, and Ordon, are Dravidian

tongues, and also evidence of the existence of a Dravidian element in

Brahui, has been transferred from the Introduction, in which it was

included in the first edition, to the Appendix.

THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES INDEPENDENT OF SANSKRIT.

It was supposed by the Sanskrit Pandits (by whom everything with

which they were acquainted was referred to a Brahmanical origin), and

too hastily taken for granted by the earlier European scholars, that

the Dravidian languages, though differing in many particulars from

the North Indian idioms, were equally with them derived from the

Sanskrit.

They could not but see that each of the Dravidian lan-

guages to which their attention had been drawn contained a certain

proportion of Sanskrit words, some of which were quite unchanged,

though some were so much altered as to be recognised with diffi-

culty ; and though they observed clearly enough that each language

contained also many non-Sanskrit words and forms, they did not

observe that those words and forms constituted the bulk of the

language, or that it was in them that the living spirit of the language

resided,

Consequently they contented themselves with ascribing the

non-Sanskrit portion of these languages to an admixture of a foreign

element of unknown origin,

According to this view there was no

essential difference between the ¢ Draviras’ and the ¢Gauras;’ for

the Bengdli and other languages of the Gaurian group appear to con-

/]

tain also a small proportion of non-Sanskritic words and forms, whilst

in the main they are corruptions of Sanskrit.

This representation fell

far short of the real state of the case, and the supposition of the deriva-

tion of the Dravidian languages from Sanskrit, though entertained in

the past generation by a Colebrooke, a Carey, and a Wilkins, is now

INTRODUCTION.

46

known to be entirely destitute of foundation.

The orientalists referred

to, though deeply learned in Sanskrit, and well acquainted with the

idioms of Northern India, were unacquainted, or but very slightly

acquainted, with the Dravidian languages. No person who has any

R

acquaintance with the principles of comparative philology, and who

has carefully studied the grammars and vocabularies of the Dravidian

languages, and compared them with those of Sanskrit, can suppose the

grammatical structure and inflexional forms of those languages and

the greater number of their more important roots capable of being

derived from Sanskrit by’any process of development or corruption

whatsoever.

The hypothesis of the existence of a remote original affinity between

the Dravidian languages and Sanskrit, or rather between those lan-

guages and the Indo-European family of tongues, inclusive of Sanskrit,

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 hypo-

the direct derivation of those languages from Sanskrit.

thesis of a remote original affinity is favoured by some interesting

analogies both in the grammar and in the vocabulary, which will be

noticed in their place. Some of those analogies are best accounted

for by the supposition of the retention by the Dravidian family, as by

Finnish and Turkish, of a certain number of roots and forms belonging

to the pree-Aryan period, the period which preceded the final separa-

tion of the Indo-European group of tongues from the Scythian.

I

think I shall also be able to prove, with respect to one portion at least

of the analogies referred to, that instead of the Dravidian languages

having borrowed them from Sanskrit, or both having derived them

from a common source, Sanskrit has not disdained to borrow them

from its Dravidian neighbours.

Whatever probabilities may be in

favour of the hypothesis now mentioned, the older supposition of the

direct derivation of the Dravidian languages from Sanskrit, in the

same manner as Hindi, Bengéli, and the other Gaurian dialects are

directly derived from it, was certainly erroneous.

(1.) It overlooked

the circumstance that the non-Sanskritic portion of the Dravidian lan-

guages was very greatly in excess of the Sanskrit.

(2.) It overlooked

the still more material circumstance that the pronouns and numerals

of the Dravidian languages, their verbal and nominal inflexions, and

the syntactic arrangement of their words—everything, in short, which

SN

constitutes the living spirit of a language—were originally and radi-

cally different from Sanskrit.

(3.) The orientalists who held the

opinion of the derivation of the Dravidian languages from Sanskrit,

relied mainly on the circumstance that all dictionaries of Dravidian

USE OF THE COMMON TERM DRAVIDIAN

47

languages contained a large number of Sanskrit words scarcely at all

altered, and a still larger number which, though much altered, were

evidently Sanskrit derivatives.

They were not, however, aware that

such words are never regarded by native scholars as of Dravidian

origin, but are known and acknowledged to be derived from Sanskrit,

and that they are arranged in classes, according to the degree in which

they have been corrupted, or with reference to the medium through

which they have been derived.

They were also unaware that true

Dravidian words, which form the great majority of the words in the

southern vocabularies, are placed by native grammarians in a different

class from the above-mentioned derivatives from Sanskrit and honoured

with the epithets ‘national words

and ¢ pure words.’

The Telugu

grammarians, according to Mr A. D. Campbell, specify even the time

when Sanskrit derivatives were first introduced into Teluou : by which

we are doubtless to understand the time when the Brhimans estab-

lished themselves in the Telugu country. They say, ¢ The adherents

of king Andhra- -raya, who then resided on the banks of the Godavari,

spoke Sanskrit derivatives, many of which words in course of time

became corrupted. The other class of words consistine of nouns

verbals, and verbs, which were created by the god BrahmA before the

The date of the

time of this king, are called ¢ pure (Telugu) words.’

reign of this Andhra- -rdya, or king of the Andhras or Andhras who is

now worshipped at Chicacole as a deity, is unknown.

Mr C. P. Brown

ays, “The name Andhra RAya occurs in none of the inscriptions

recorded in my “Cyeclic Tables

Nor have I found it in any poem

It was perhaps a title assumed by some rdj4 of whom nothing is

recorded.” An Andha-bhritya dynasty of kings commenced to reign

in Magadha, according to Wilson (Vishpu Puréna) in 18 B.c.

Pos-

sibly, however, the Telugu king Andhra- -TAya was merely a creation of

the poets.

In general no difficulty is felt in distinguishing Sanskrit derivatives

from the ancient Dravidian roots

There are a few cases only in which

it may be doubtful whether particular words are Sanskrit or Dravidian

—e.g., nir, water, and min, fish, are claimed as component parts of

both languages, though I believe that both are of Dravidian oricin

::

I

/h

48

INTRODUCTION,

1

COMPARATIVE LIST or Sixtry WorDS OF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE

(NOT INCLUDING PRONOUNS AND NUMERALS) IN SANSKRIT

AND TamrrL,

SANSKRIT.

TaMIL,

SANSKRIT.

TaMIL.

|

!

father,

pure,

| appa

().

dog,

$van,

ndy.

mother,

matre,

nddla,

plinet.

dyr.

cat,

son,

stnu,

maga(mn)

tiger,

vydghra,

kadu-vdy.

mdn.

daughter, | dulatri,

maga(l).

deer,

Mriga,

head,

§iras,

taler.

monkey,

kapz,

kurang-u.

we

aksha,

kan.

bear,

| $riksha,

karade.

ear,

karna,

Sevi,

| $itkara,

pandit.

hog,

iig

mouth,

mukha,

vdy.

snake,

sarpa,

pdmbu.

tooth,

danta,

pal.

bird,

vayas,

parave:.

hair,

késa,

MAYr.

black,

kdla,

kar-w.

hasta,

ket

white,

Sukla,

vel.

hand,

{

kara,t

red,

rakta,

se.

|

foot,

pad,

kdl.

great,

mahat,

per-u.

sir-u.

sun,

sirya,

Adyer-u.

small,

alpa,

moon,

chandra,

tingal.

sweet,

madhura,

1.

sky,

dw,

| vdn.

somr,

amla,

pult.

day,

dwasa,

salt,

lavana,

uUppL.

| ndl.

night,

nak,

| ravu.

eat,

bhaksh,

tn,

| 6.

kude

fire,

|

agna,

drink,

t,

water,

ap, ntra,”

nir.

come,

2

vd

L e

fish,

matsya, |

(202

go,

gam,

PO

{

mina,* |

stha,

nel

s!:and,

hill,

parvata,

maler.

sit,

das,

vr-

druma,

manram

tree,

walk,

char,

eq-u

stone,

asman,

kal.

run,

dru,

d-u

el.

house,

| ve$man,

sleep,

svop,

ui‘ang—u.

village,

| grdma,

ur,

hear,

Sru,

kél.

elephant, | hastin,

dnex.

tell,

vad,

$ol.

horse,

asva,

kud irei.

laugh,

has,

nager.

cow,

| 90,

a

weep,

rud,

ar-u.

erumer.

kol.

buffalo,

| mahisha,

Iil),

han,

(4.) The Orientalists who supposed the Dravidian languages to be

derived from Sanskrit were not aware of the existence of uncultivated

languages of the Dravidian family, in which Sanskrit words are not at

all, or but very rarely, employed ; and they were also not aware that

* See Glossarial Affinities, I.

T See Glossarial Affinities, II.

g,

1

DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSKRIT.

49

COMPARATIVE LIST or Sixty WoRDS oF PRIMARY IMPORTANCE

(NOT INCLUDING PRQNOUNS AND NUMERALS) IN SANSKRIT

AND TamrL.

SANSKRIT.

TAMIL.

SANSKRIT

TaMmIL.

father,

pitr,

appa(n).

dog,

$van,

ndy.

mother,

mdtyre,

ammer.

cat,

viddla,

pilnet.

son,

sinu,

maga(n)

tiger,

vydghra,

kadu-vdy

daughter,

dulvitrs,

maga(l)

deer,

mriga,

mdan.

head,

§iras,

taler.

monkey,

kaps,

kurang-u

eye,

akshi,

kan.

bear,

$riksha,

karade.

ear,

karnpa,

Sevs.

hog,

$dkara,

pandri.

mouth,

mukha,

vdy.

snale,

sarpa,

pdAmbu.

tooth,

danta,

pal.

bird,

vayas,

parave:.

hair,

kdla,

kar-u.

késa,

MaAYr.

black,

hasta,

ker

white

)

Sukla,

vel.

hand,

kara,t

}

red,

rakta,

de.

foot,

pad,

kdl.

great,

mahat,

per-u.

sun,

sdrya,

fidyir-u.

small,

alpa,

six-u.

(4

7

(2

moon,

chandra,

teigal.

sweet,

madhura,

sky,

dww,

vdn.

sour,

amla,

pult.

day,

dwasa,

ndl.

salt,

lavana,

uppu.

night,

nak,

ravu.

eat,

bhaksh,

tn,

fire,

agns,

£.

drink,

kude

2t

water,

ap, ntra,*

nir.

come,

€,

o4

mazsya,

g9,

gam,

PO

fish

min

nl

mina,*

}

stand,

sthd,

hill,

parvata,

maler.

sit,

ds,

Ur-~

tree,

druma,

maram.

walk,

char,

nad-a

stone,

asman,

kal.

run,

dru,

od-

house,

vesman,

el.

sleep,

svap,

urang-u.

wr.

village,

grdma,

hear,

$ru,

7él.

elephant,

hastin,

danez.

tell,

vad,

$ol.

horse,

adva,

kudarer.

laugh,

has,

nages.

cow,

g0,

@

weep,

rud,

ar-u.

buffalo,

mahisha,

erumer.

kill,

han,

kol.

(4.) The

Orientalists who supposed the Dravidian languages to be

derived from Sanskrit were not aware of the existence of uncultivated

be

languages of the Dravidian family, in which Sanskrit words are not at

!

A

all, or but very rarely, employed ; and they were also not aware that

i1

* See Glossarial Affinities, I

+ See Glossarial Affinities, II.

=N

50

- INTRODUCTION.

some of the Dravidian languages which make use of Sanskrit deri-

vatives, are able to dispense with those derivatives altogether, such

derivatives being considered rather as luxuries or articles of finery than

as necessaries.

It is true it would now be difficult for Telugu to dis-

pense with its Sanskrit : more so for Canarese ; and most of all for

Malayalam : —those languages having borrowed from Sanskrit so

largely, and being so habituated to look up to it for help, that it

would be scarcely possible for them now to assert their independence.

Tamil, however, the most highly cultivated @b intra of all Dravidian

idioms, can dispense with its Sanskrit altogether, if need be, and not

only stand alone but flourish without its aid.

The ancient or classical dialect of the Tamil languages, called Shen-

Tamil (Sen-Damir) or correct Tamil, in which nearly all the literature

has been written, contains exceedingly little Sanskrit ; and differs from

the colloquial dialect, or thelanguage of prose, chiefly in the sedulous

and jealous care with which it has rejected the use of Sanskrit deriva-

tives and characters, and restricted itself to pure Ancient Dravidian

sounds, forms, and roots. So completely has this jéalousy of Sanskrit

pervaded the minds of the educated classes amongst the Tamilians, that

a Tamil poetical composition is regarded as in accordance with good

taste and worthy of being called classical, not in proportion to the

amount of Sanskrit it contains, as would be the case in some other

dialects, but in proportion to its freedom from Sanskrit !

The speech

of the very lowest classes of the people in the retired country districts

accords to a considerable extent with the classical dialect in dispensing

with Sanskrit derivatives.

In every country it is in the poetry and in

the speech of the peasantry that the ancient condition of the language is

best studied. It is in studied Tamil prose compositions, and in the or-

dinary speech of the Brahmans and the more learned Tamilians, that the

largest infusion of Sanskrit is contained ; and the woids that have been

borrowed from Sanskrit are chiefly those which express abstract, ideas

of philosophy, science, and religion, together with the technical tefms of

the more elegant arts.

Even in prose compositions on religious sub-

jects, in which a larger amount of Sanskrit is employed than in any

other department of literature, the proportion of Sanskrit which has

found its way into Tamil is not greater than the amount of Latin con-

tained in corresponding compositions in English. Let us, for example,

compare the amount of Sanskrit contained in the Tamil translation

of the Ten Commandments with the amount of Latin which is con-

tained in the English version of the same formula, and which has

found its way into it, either directly from ecclesiastical Latin, or

indirectly, through the medium of Norman-French. Qf forty-three

DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT- OF SANSKRIT.

51

nouns and adjectives in the English version t\\"enty-nine; are Anglo-

Saxon, fourteen Latin : of fifty-three nouns and adjectives in Tamil (the

i

difference in idiom causes this difference in the number) thirty-two are

1l

Dravidian, twenty-one Sanskrit.

Of twenty verbs in English, thirteen

S

are Anglo-Saxon, seven Latin : of thirty-four verbs in Tamil, twenty-

I

seven are Dravidian, and only seven Sanskrit,

Of the five numerals

0

it

which are found in English, either in their cardinal or their ordinal

shape, all are Anglo-Saxon: of the six numerals found in Tamil, five

are Dravidian, one (‘ thousand ’) is Sanskrit.

Putting all these num-

bers together for the purpose of ascertaining the percentage, I find that

I

in the department of nouns, numerals, and verbs, the amount of the

foreign element is in both instances the same—viz., as nearly as

possible forty-five per cent.

In both instances, also, all the pronouns,

prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions, and all the inflexional forms

and connecting particles are the property of the native tongue.

Archbishop Trench’s expressions respecting the character of the con-

tributions which our mother-English has received from Anglo-Saxon

and from Latin respectively, are exactly applicable to the relation and

i

proportion which the native Dravidian element bears to the Sanskrit

o

contained in Tamil.

“ All its joints, its whole articulation, its sinews

od

and its ligaments, the great body of articles, pronouns; conjunctions,

he

prepositions, numerals, auxiliary verbs, all smaller words which serve

ef

to knit together, and bind the larger into sentences, these, not to speak

ch

of the grammatical structure of the language, are exclusively Anglo-

f

Saxon (Dravidian).

The Latin (Sanskrit) may contribute its tale of

)

bricks, yea, of goodly and polished hewn stones, to the spiritual build-

1

ing, but the mortar, with all that holds and binds these together, and

1§

constitutes them into a house, is Anglo-Saxon (Dravidian) throughout.”

I

Though the proportion of Sanskrit which we find to be contained in

16

the Tamil version of the Ten Commandments happens to correspond

)i

so exaetly to the proportion of Latin contained in the English version,

&

it would be an error to conclude that the Tamil language is as deeply

of

indebted to Sanskrit as English is to Latin.

Tamil can readily dis-

b

pense with the greater part or the whole of its Sanskrit, and by dis-

Iy

pensing with it rises-to a purer and more refined style ; whereas English

35

cannot abandon -its Latin without abandoning perspicuity.

Anglo-

)i

Saxon hds no synonyms of its own for many of the words it has

le,

borrowed from Latin ; so that if it were obliged to dispense with them,

ol

it would, in most cases, be under the necessity of using a very awkward

periphrasis instead of a single word.

Tamil, on the other hand, is

peculiarly rich in synonyms; and generally it is not through any real

Or

necessity, but from choice and the fashion of the age, that it makes

4

52

INTRODUCTION.

use of Sanskrit.

If the Ten Commandments were expressed in the

speech of the lower classes of the Tamil people, the proportion of

Sanskrit would be very greatly diminished ; and if we wished to raise

the style of the translation to a refined and classical pitch, Sanskrit

would almost entirely disappear.

Of the entire number of words con-

tained in this formula there is only one which could not be expressed

with faultless propriety and poetic elegance in equivalents of pure

Dravidian origin.

That word.is ¢ image !’

Both word and thing are

foreign to primitive Tamil usages and habits of thought, and were

introduced into the Tamil country by the Brahmans, with the Puranic

system of religion and the worship of idols. Through the predominant

influence of the religion of the Brahmans, the majority of the words

expressive of religious ideas in actual use in modern Tamil are of San=

skrit origin, and though there are equivalent Dravidian words which

are equally appropriate, and in some instances more so, such words

have gradually become obsolete, and are now confined to the poetical

dialect ; so that the use of them in prose compositions would sound

affected and pedantic.

This is the real and only reason why Sanskrit

derivatives are so generally used in Tamil religious compositions.

In the other Dravidian languages, whatever be the nature of the

composition or subject-matter treated of, the amount of Sanskrit

employed is considerably larger than in Tamil ; and the use of it has

acquired more of the character of a necessity.

This is in consequence

of the literature of those languages having chiefly been cultivated by

B Ahmans:

Even in Telugu the principal grammatical writers and the

most celebrated poets have been Brahmans,

There is only one work

of note in that language which was not composed by a member of the

sacred caste ; and indeed the Telugu Stdras, who constitute par excel-

lence, the Telugu people, seem almost entirely to have abandoned to

the Brdhmans the culture of their own language, with every other

branch of literature and science.

In Tamil, on the contrary, few

Brahmans have written anything worthy of preservation.

The lan-

guage has been cultivated and developed with immense zeal and

success by native Tamilians ; and the highest rank in Tamil literature

which has been reached by a Brahman is that of a commentator.

The

commentary of Parimélaragar on the Kural of Tiruvalluvar (supposed

to have been a Pariar, yet the acknowledged and deified prince of

Tamil authors) is the most classical production written in Tamil by a

Brahman.

Professor Wilson observes that the spoken languages of the South

were cultivated in imitation and rivalry of Sanskrit, and but par-

tially aspired to an independent literature ; that the principal compo-

DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSKRIT

>3

sitions in Tamil, Telugu, Canarese, and MalayAlam, are translations or

paraphrases from Sanskrit works, and that they largely borrow the

phraseology of their originals

This representation is not perfectly

correct, in so far as Tamil is concerned

for the compositions that

are universally admitted to be the finest in the language, viz

the

Kural and the Chintdmani, are perfectly independent of Sanskrit, and

original in design as well as in execution ; and thouch it is true that

Tamil writers have imitated—1I cannot say translated—the Ramayana,

the Mah4-bhéarata, and similar works, they boast that the Tamil RAma-

yana of their own Kamban is greatly superior to the Sanskrit original

of Valmiki

(5.) Of all evidences of identity or diversity of languages the most

conclusive are those which are furnished by a comparison of their

grammatical structure ; and by such a comparison the independence of

the Dravidian languages of Sanskrit will satisfactorily and conclu-

sively be established. By the same comparison (at the risk of antici-

pating a question which will be discussed more fully in the body of

the work), the propriety of placing these languages, if not in the

Scythian group, yet in a position nearer that group than the Indo-

European, will be indicated

The most prominent and essential differences in point of grammati-

cal structure between the Dravidian lanouages and Sanskrit. are as

follows : —

(i) In the Dravidian languages all nouns denoting inanimate sub-

stances and irrational beings are of the neuter gender

The dis-

tinction of male and female appears only in the pronouns of the third

person; in the adjectives (properly appellative nouns) which denote

rational beings, and are formed by suffixing the pronominal termina-

tions; and in the third person of the verb, which, being formed by

suﬂ‘ixmu the same pronominal terminations, has three forms in the

singular and two in the plural, to distinguish the several genders, in

accordance with the pronouns of the third person

In all other cases

where it is required to mark the distinction of gender, separate words

signifying ‘ 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 denotes it does not cease to be considered neuter, and

neuter forms of the pronoun and verb are required to be conjoined with

it. This rule presents a marked contrast to the rules respecting gender

which we find in the vivid and highly imaginative Sanskrit, and in

the other Indo-European languages, but it accords with the usage of

the languages of the Scythian group

(ii.) Dravidian nouns are inflected, not by means of case-termina-

#

34

INTRODUCTION

tions; but by means of suffixed’ post-positions and separable particles

The only difference between 'the declension of the plural and that of

the singular, is that the inflexional signs are annexed in the singular

to the base, in the plur:l to the sign of plurality, exactly as in the

Scythian languages

After the pluralising particle has been added to

the base, all’ nouns, irrespective of number and gender, are declined

in the same manner as in the singular

(iii). Dravidian neuter nouns are rarely pluralised

neuter plurals

are still more rare in the inflexions of the verb

(iv.) The Dravidian dative %w, %k, or ge, bears no analogy to any

dative case-termination which is found in the Sanskrit or in any of

the Indo-F

European languages ;

but it corresponds to the dative of the

Oriental Turkish, to that of the langnage of the Scythian tablets of

Behistun, and to that of several of the languages of the Finnish family

(v.) In those connections in which prepositions are used in the Indo-

with

those of the

European languages, the Dravidian languages

Scythian group, use post-positions instead,—which post-positions do

not constitute a separate part of speech, but are simply nouns of

relation or quality, adopted as auxiliaries.

All adverbs are either

nouns or the gerunds or infinitives of verbs, and mvarwbly precede

the verbs they qualify.

(v1) In Sanskrit and the Indo-European tongues, adjectives are

declined like substantives, and agree with the substantives to which

they are conjoined in gender, number, and case

In the Dravidian

languages, as in the Scythian, adjectives are incapable of declension

When used separately as abstract nouns of quality, which is the

original and natural character of Dravidian adjectives, they are subject

to all the affections of substantives;

but when they are used adjec-

tivally

, to qualify other substantwes—they do not admit of any

lnﬂemolml change, but are simply prefixed to the nouns whl(,h they

qualify.

(vu

) It is also a characteristic of these languages, as of the Mongo-

Han

the Manchu, and several other Scythian languages, in contra-

distinction to the languages of the Indo-European family, that, wher-

ever 1t 1s practicable, they use as adjectives the relative paiticiples

of verbs, in preference to nouns of quality, or adjectives properly so

called

and that in consequence of this tendency, when nouns of

quality are used, thé formative termination of the relative participle

is generally suffixed to them,

through which suffix they partake of the

character both of nouns and of verbs

viii.) The existence of two pronouns of the first person plural, one

of which includes, the other excludes, the party addressed, is a peculi-

DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSKRIT.

55

arity of the Dravidian dialects, as of many of the Scythian languages ;

but is unknown to the Sanskrit and the languages of the Indo-European

family. The only thing at all resembling it in these languages is their

use of the dual.

(ix.) The Dravidian languages have no passive voice.. The passive

is expressed by auxiliary verbs signifying ‘to suffer,” &c.

(x.) The Dravidian languages like the Scythian,. but unlike the

Indo-European, prefer the use of continuative participles to conjunc-

tions.

(xi.) The existence of a negative as well as an affirmative voice in

the verbal system of these languages, constitutes another essential point

of difference between them and Sanskrit : it equally constitutes a point

of agreement between them and the Scythian tbngues.

(xii.) It is a marked peculiarity of these languages, as of the Mon-

golian and the Manchu, and in a modified degree of many other

Scythian languages, that they make use of relative participles instead

of relative pronouns.

There is. no trace of the existence of a relative

pronoun in any Dravidian language except the Gond alone, which

f

seems to have lost its relative participle, and uses instead the relative

pronoun of the Hindi.

The place of such pronouns is supplied, as in

the Scythian tongues mentioned above, by relative participles, which

are formed from the present, preterite, and future participles of the

verb by the addition of a formative suffix; which suffix is in’ general

identical with the sign of the possessive case.

Thus, ‘the person who

came,’ is in. Tamil vand-a df, literally ¢ the who-came person ;’ vand-u,

the preterite verbal participle signifying ‘having come,” being con-

verted into a relative participle, equivalent to ¢the-who-came,” by the

addition of the old possessive and adjectival suffix a.

(xiil.) The situation of the governing word is characteristic of each

of these families of languages.

In the Indo-European family it usually

precedes the word governed : in the Dravidian andsin all the Scythian

languages, it is invariably placed after it ; in consequence of which the

nominative always occupies the first place in the sentence, and the one

finite verb the last. The adjective precedes the substantive: the

adverb precedes the verb : the substantive which is governed by a 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

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

a post-position in virtue of its governing a case : and finally the sentence

In each of these

18 concluded by the one, all-governing, finite verb.

INTRODUCTION.

56

important and highly characteristic peculiarities of syntax, the Dra-

vidian languages and the Scythian are thoroughly agreed.*

Many other differences in grammatical structure, and many differ-

ences also in regard to tle system of sounds, will be pointed out here-

after, in the course of the analysis; but in the important particulars

which are mentioned above, the Dravidian languages evidently differ

s0 considerably from the languages of the Indo-European family, and

in particular from Sanskrit (notwithstanding the predominance for so

many ages of the social and religious influence of the Sanskrit-speaking

race), that it can scarcely be doubted that they belong to a totally

different family of tongues.

They are neither derived from Sanskrit,

nor are capable of being affiliated with it : and it cannot have escaped

the notice of the student, that in every one of those particulars in

which the grammatical structure of the Dravidian languages differs

from Sanskrit, it agrees with the structure of the Scythian langunages,

or the languages of Central and Northern Asia.

In some particulars—as might be expected from the contact into

which the Sanskrit-speaking race was brought with the aboriginal races

of India—Sanskrit appears to differ less widely than the other Indo-

European tongues from the languages of the Scythian group. One of

these particulars—the appearance in Sanskrit of consonants of the

cerebral series—will be discussed further on in connection with the

Dravidian system of sounds. - Mr Edkins, in his “ China’s Place in

Philology,” has opened up a new line of inquiry in regard to the exist-

ence of Turanian influences in the grammatical structure of Sanskrit.

He regards the inflexion of nouns by means of case-endings alone,

without prepositions in addition, as the adoption by ‘Sanskrit of a

* The only exception to the rule respecting the position of the governing word

in the Dravidian languages is found in poetical compositions, in which, occasion-

ally, for the sake of effect, the orgder of words required by rule is transposed.

I cannot forbear quoting here a sentence from “ Aston’s Grammar of the

Japanese Written Languages” (London, 1872), a language which claims relation-

ship not to the Chinese, but to the Scythian, or, as they are there called, the

Altaic, family of tongues.

It might have been supposed that the writer intended

to describe the structure of the Dravidian languages.

“As is the case in all

languages of the Altaic family, every word in Japanese which serves to define

another word invariably precedes it.

Thus the adjective precedes the noun, the

adverb the verb, the genitive the word which governs it, the objective case the

verb, and the word governed by a preposition the preposition. The nominative

case stands at the beginning of a sentence, and the verb at the end.

“Nouns have, properly speaking, no declension. Number and case are rarely

expressed ; but when they are, they are indicated by means of certain particles

placed after the words which themselves suffer no change. Instead of a passive

voice, verbs have derivative verbs with a conjugation resembling that of active

verbs. Mood and tense are indicated by suffixes.”

NON-SANSKRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS.

5%

Turanian rule.

He thinks also the position of the words in a Sanskrit

prose sentence is Turanian rather than Aryan.

It’is an invariable law

I

of the distinctively Turanian tongues that related sentences precede

It is another invariable law that the

those to which they are related.

[$

finite verb is placed at the end of the sentence.

In both these parti-

7y

culars Mr Edkins thinks that Sanskrit has yielded to Turanian influ-

d

ences.

This certainly seems to be the case with regard to the verna-

30

culars which have been developed out of the old colloquial Sanskrit ;

5

but in so far as the Sanskrit of literature is concerned, the Turanian

rule is far from being universally followed.

Mr Edkins himself gives

Z

an illustration from a Sanskrit prose story (p. 315), which shows that

a relative clause sometimes succeeds, instead of preceding, the indica-

tive clause, and that the position of the finite verb is not always at the

end of the sentence.

Perhaps all that can be said with certainty is

that in Sanskrit prose and in prosaic verse related sentences generally

precede, and the finite verb generally comes last.

Up to this point,

therefore, it may perhaps fairly be held that Turanian influences have

)

made themselves felt even in Sanskrit.

We are safer, however, in

dealing with facts than with causes; for on this theory it might be

of

nccessary to hold that Latin syntax is more Turanian than Greek, and

(4

German more Turanian than English.

16

Is THERE A DRAVIDIAN ELEMENT IN THE VERN‘ACU\LAR LANGUAGES

f

oF NORTHERN INDIA !

I

The hypothesis of the direct derivation of the Dravidian tongues

G

from Sanskrit, with the admixture of a proportion of words and forms

from an unknown source, having been found untenable, some Oriental

scholars adopted an opposite hypothesis, and attributed to the influence

of the Dravidian languages that corruption of Sanskrit out of which

the vernaculars of Northern India have arisen.

It was supposed by

the Rev. Dr Stevenson, of Bombay,* Mr Hodgsoun, of Nipil,* and

i

some other Orientalists, (1) that the North-Indian vernaculars had

d

been derived from Sanskrit, not so much by the natural process of cor-

i

ruption and disintegration, as through the overmastering, remoulding

17

[4

power of the non-Sanskritic element contained in them ; and (2) that

¢

this non-Sanskritic element was identical with the Dravidian speech,

which they supposed to have been the speech of the ancient Nishadas,

and other aborigives of India.

/

* Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay.

+ Journal of the dAstatic Society of Bengal; also ¢ Aborigines of India,” Cal-

g

cutta, 1849.

58

INTRODUCTION.

The first part of this hypothesis appears to rest upon a better founda-

tion than the second

but even the first part appears to me to be too

strongly expressed, and to require considerable modification ; for in

some ‘important particulars the corruption of Sanskrit into Hindi,

Bengili, &e., has been shown to have arisen from that natural process

of change which we see exemplified in Europe, in the corruption of the

Latin into Italian and French.

Nevertheless, on comparing the gram-

matical structure and essential character of Sanskrit with those of the

vernaculars of Northern India, I feel persuaded—though here I am off

my own ground, and must express myself with diffidence—that the

direction in which those vernaculars have been differentiated from the

Sanskrit has to a considerable extent been nen-Aryan, and that this

must have been owing, in what way soever it may have begn brought

about, to the operation of non-Aryan influences.

The modifications which the grammar of the North Indian languages

have received, being generally of o_né, and the same chgracter, and in

one and the same direction, it may be concluded that there must have

been a common modifying cause ; and as the non-Sanskrit portion of

those languages, which Professor Wilson styles ¢ a portionflof a primi-

tive, unpolished, and scanty speech, the relics of a period prior to

civilisation,” has been calculated to amount to one-tenth of the whole,

and in Marithi to a fifth, it seems reasonable to infer that it was, in

part at least, from that extraneous element that the modifying influ-

ences proceeded.

It is admitted that before the arrival of the Aryans, or Sanskrit-

speaking colony of Bréahmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, the greater

part of Northern India was peopled by rude aboriginal tribes, called

by Sanskrit writers Dasyus, Nishadas, Mléchchas, &c. ; and it is the

received opinion that those aboriginal tribes were of Scythian, or at

least of non-Aryan origin.

On the irruption of the Aryans, it would

naturally happen that the copious and expressive Sanskrit of the con-

quering race would almost overwhelm the vocabulary of the rude

Scythian tongues spoken by the aboriginal tribes. Nevertheless, as

the grammatical structure of the Scythian tongues possesses peculiar

stability and persistency, and as the Pree-Aryan tribes, who were pro-

bably more numerous than the Aryans, were not annihilated, but only

reduced to a dependent position, and eventually, in most instances,

incorporated in the Aryan community, it would seem almost neces-

sarily to follow that they would modify, whilst they adopted, the

language of their conquerors, and that this modification would consist,

also in the introduction

partly in the addition of new words, and partly

of a new spirit and tendency.

NON-SANSKRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS

59

0

This hypotliesis seems to have the merit of according better than

any other with existing phenomena

Seeing that the northern verna-

I

culars possess, with the words of the Sanskrit, a grammatical structure

:

which 'in the main appears to be Sevthian, 1t scems more correct to

]

represent those ianguages as having a Scythian basis, with a large and

almost overwhelminge Sanskrit addition, than as having a Sanskrit basis

The existence of a

with a small admixture of a Scythian element

¢ Tartarean or Chaldee,’ that 1

of a Scythian, elemeunt in the colloquial

dialects of Northern India was first asserted by Sir W. Jones (“ Asiatic

It

Researches,” vol. i.), and till of late bhas been generally admitted

has recently been called in question in the Zndian Antiguary (April

1872), in a paper by Mr Growse, B.C.S. His observations are confined

to Hindi, and deal, not with its grammatical principles, but with the

vocabulary only ; but they prove the necessity of more extended research

before the existence of any considerable amount of non-Sanskritic ele-

ments 1n that dialect can be regarded as certain

The second part of the hypothesis of Dr Stevenson, viz., the identity

i

of the non-Sanskritic element contained in those languages—supposing

the existence of such an element established

with the languages of

the Dravidian family, rests on a different foundation, and appears to

me to be less defensible

According to the supposition in question

I

the Scythian or Dravidian element is substantially one and the same

in all the vernacular languages of India, whether Northern or Southern

but is smallest in amount in those districts of Northern India which

were first conquered by the Aryans

greater in the remoter districts

[

of the Dekhan, Telingana, and Mysore

and greatest of all in the

Tamil country, at the southern extremity of the peninsula, to which

the aggressions of the Brahmanical race had scarcely extended in the

age of Manu and the Ramm ana.

This hypothesis cert‘nnly appears at first sight to accord with the

current of events in the ancient history of India

but whatever

relationship, in point of blood and race, may originally have subsisted

between the Northern aborigines and the Southern

whatever ethno-

logical evidences of their identity may be supposed to exist,—when we

view the question philologically, and with reference to the evidence

furnished by their languages alone, th

hypothesis of their identity

does not appear to me to have been established

It may be true that

various analogies in point of grammatical structure appear to connect

the non-Sanskrit element contained in the North-Indian idioms with

the Scythian tongues

This connection, however (if it really exists),

amounts only to a general relationship to the entire group of Scythian

languages ; and scarcely any special relationship to the Dravidian lan-

60

INTRODUCTION.

t

guages, 1 contra-distinction to those of the Turkish, the Finnish, or

any other Scythian family, has yet been shown to exist.

Indeed I

conceive that the non-Aryan substratum of the North-Indian idioms

presents as large a number of points of agreement with the Oriental

Turkish, or with that Scythian tongue or family of tongues by which

the New DPersian has been modified, as with any of the Dravidian

languages.

The principal particulars in which the grammar of the North-Indian

%

idioms accords with that of the Dravidian languages are as follows :—

§

(1), the inflexion of nouns by means of separate post-fixed particles

f

added to the oblique form of the noun ; (2), the inflexion of the plural

by annexing to the unvarying sign of plurality the same suffixes of

case as those by which the singular is inflected ; (3), the use in several

of the northern idioms of two pronouns of the first person plural, the

one including, the other excluding, the party addressed ; (4), the use

of post-positions, instead of prepositions; (5), the formation of verbal

tenses by means of participles ; (6), the situation of the relative sentence

before the indicative ; (7), the situation of the governing word after the

word governed.

In the particulars above-mentioned, the grammar of

the North-Indian idioms undoubtedly resembles that of the Dravidian

family : but the argument founded upon this general agreement is to

a considerable extent neutralised by the circumstance that those idioms

accord in the same particulars, and to the same extent, with several

other families of the Scythian group.

None of those particulars in

which the Dravidian languages differ from the Turkish or the Mon-

golian (and there are many such points of difference) has as yet been

For

discovered, so far as I am aware, in the North-Indian idioms.

instance, those idioms contain no trace of the relative participle which

is used in all the Dravidian tongues, except the Gond, instead of a

relative pronoun ; they are destitute of the regularly inflected negative

verb of the Dravidian languages; and they contain not one of the

Dravidian pronouns or numerals—not even those which we find in

the Medo-Scythic tablets of Behistun, and which still survive even

in the languages of the Ostiaks, the Chinese, and the Lapps.

If the

non-Sanskritic element contained in the northern vernaculars had been

Dravidian, we might also expect to find in their vocabularies a few

primary Dravidian roots—such as the words for ¢ head,’ ¢ foot,” ‘eye,’

‘ear,” &c. ; but I have not been able to discover any reliable analog

in words belonging to this class.

The only resemblances which have

been pointed out are those which Dr Stevenson traced in a few words

e - A M

remote from ordinary use, and on which, in the absence of analogy in

primary roots ;uui especially in grammatical structure, it is impossible

NON-SANSKRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS.

61

to place any dependence.* The wideness of the. difference between the

h, or

Dravidian vocabulary and that of the languages of Northern India

ed [

with respect to primary roots, together with the essential agreement

0ms

of all the Dravidian vocabularies one with another, will appear from

ntal

the following comparative view of the pronouns of the first and second

hich

persons singular,

It sometimes happens that where one form of the

dian

pronoun is used in the nominative, another survives in the oblique

cases, and a third in the verbal inflexions: it also sometimes happens

lian

Where

that the ancient form of the pronoun differs from the modern.

such is the case I have given all extant forms a place in the list, for

cles

the purpose of facilitating comparison.

ral

ProNoUN oF THE FIrsT PERSON SINGULAR.

of

GAURIAN IDIOMS.

ral

DravipIAN IDIOMS.

(Sanskrit primary form, aham ;

Tamil,

ndn, ydn, én, en.

ho

secondary forms, ma,

me,

m

Canarese,

dn, ydn, nd, ndnu, en, éne.

§€

Turkish primary form, man.)

Tulu,

ydn, yen, e.

ol

Malayélam,

fdn, én, en, ena, ent, ind.

106

Hindi,

maon.

Telugu,

nénu, né, énuy é, nd, nu, ni.

the

Bengili,

mdi

Tuda,

an, en, ent, inz.

mA.

r o

Marathi,

Kota,

dne, en, e.

Gujarathi,

hun.

G6nd,

annd, nd, dn, na.

oD

Sindhi,

man.

Ku,

dnu, nd, in, e

f0

[%

7

(]

ljajaméhal,

S

Oraon,

enan.

PrRONOUN oF THE SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

er.al

10

GauriaN Iprous.

DrAvipIAN IDIOMS.

on

(Sanskrit primary forms, tvam,

Tarmil,

nt, nin, nun, e, 1, dy, 6y.

el

tav, te: secondary form, sz, 8;

Canarese,

nin, ninu, nt, nin, ay, e, fye,

Tor

Turkish primary form, sen.)

Tulu,

%, min, na.

ch

Hindi,

tu, tun, te.

Malayéalam, nf, nin.

Bengalt,

ti, to.

Telugu,

nitvu, wu, ni, nin, vu, ve.

\(4

Maréthi,

tdn, tu, fto.

Tuda,

nt, min, 1

Gujarathi,

tdn, ta.

Kota,

nt, NN, °.

he

Sindhi,

tun, to.

Gond,

mma, nt, %

il

Ku,

tnu, i, @

el

61‘3,01’1.

nfen.

Réjamahal, nin.

e

Brahui,

nt, nd.

ol

Scythic of the Behistun tablets, nf.

oW

6

* In many instances Dr Stevenson’s. lexical analogies are illusory, and dis-

]

appear altogether on a little investigation.

Thus, he supposes the North Indian

76

ped, ‘ the belly, the womb,” to be allied to the first word in the Tamil compound

petta, pilles, own child. That word should have been written pettra in English,

15

I

to accord with the pronunciation of the Tamil word : the Tam'il-spelling of it,

16

62

INTRODUCTION

From the striking dissimilarity existing between the Gaurian pro-

nouns and the Dravidian, it is obvious that, whatever may have been

the nature and oricin of the influences by which they were modified,

those influences do not appear to have been distinctively Dravidian

In the pronouns of almost all the North-Indian languages we may

notice the Scythic termination—the obscure 7, which forms the final

We cannot fail also to notice the entire dis-

of most of the pronouns

appearance of the nominative of the Sanskrit pronoun of the first person

sinoular. and the substitution for it of the Turkish-like mazn or man

but in no connection, in no number or case, in no compound or verbal

inflexion, do we see any trace of the peculiar personal pronouns of the

Dravidian family. Possibly further research may disclose the existence

in the northern vernaculars of distinctively Dravidian forms and roots

but their existence does not appear to me as yet to be proved, for most

of Dr Stevenson’s analogies take too wide a range, and where they are

supposed to be distinctively Dravidian they disappear on examination.

I conclude, therefore, that the non-Sanskritic portion of the northern

languages cannot safely be placed in the same category with the southern,

except perhaps in the sense of both being Scythian rather than Aryan.

Since then

Thus far I had written in the first edition of this work

the subject has been much discussed, especially in Muir’s ¢ Sanskrit

Tests

vol. ii., and in Beames

¢ Comparative Grammar of the Modern

Aryan Languages of India

The general result appears to be that 1t

remains as certain as ever—it could scarcely become more certain—that

few, if any, traces of distinctively Dravidian elements are discernible in

the North-Indian vernaculars.

On the one hcmd Dr Gundert argues

strongly—not indeed for the existence of Dmv1d1an elements in those

vernaculars, as distinguished from their existence in Sanskrit—but for

See his remarks on

the existence of such elements in Sanskrit itself.

this subject (from the Journal of the German Oriental Society for 1669),

in the section on Glossarial Affinities

On the other hand, Mr Growse*

thus concludes a ‘discussion of the question of the existence of traces

of a non-Aryan element in the northern vernaculars—* The foregoing

considerations demonstrate the soundness of the proposition laid dow

in the outset, viz., that the proportion of words in the Hind1 vocabu-

however, is perra.

It is the preterite relative participle of per-u, ‘to obtain,

signifying that was obtained.’

Pex-u, “‘to obtain,” has no connection w1th any

word which signifies ‘the womb,’ and its derivative noun pér-u, means ‘a thing

obtained, a birth, a favour.’,

The relationships of this root will be 1nqu1red into

in the Glossarial Affinities.

* In an article “On the Non- Aryan Element in Hmdl Speech by F. S.

Growse, Esq., M.A., B.C.S., in the Indian Antiquary for April 1872.

NON-SANSKRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN ‘\VERNAC(ULARS.

63

pro-

lary not connected with Sanskrit forms is exceedingly inconsiderable ;

been

ified:

such fact"’é‘mﬁpearing——ﬁrst, from the silence of the early grammarians

dian.

as to the existence of any such non-Sanskritic element ; secondly, from

N4y

the discovery that many of the words hastily set down as barbarous

are in reality traceable to a classic source ; and, thirdly, from the

final

unconscious adherence of the modern vernacular to the same laws of

(-

formation as influenced it in an admittedly S'zm‘Skr'itic‘stage of deve-

eISon

lgpment.”

i

The following more extended remarks in confirmation of the same

arhal

view of the subject are from Mr Beames’s ¢ Comparative Grammar ”

the

(Introduction, pp. 9-10,* § 3):—* Next comes the class of words

enee

described as neither Sanskritic nor Aryan, but x.

It is known that, on

0t

entering India the Aryans found that country occupied by races of a

1080

different family from their own. With these races they waged a long

are

and chequered warfare, gradually pushing on after each fresh victory,

0D

till at the end of many centuries they obtained possession of the greater

et

part of the territories they now enjoy.

Through these long ages,

eIl

periods of peace alternated witlthose of war, and the contest between

fa I3

thep

the two races may have been as often friendly as hostile. The Aryans

exercised a powerful influence upon their opponents, and we cannot

kot

doubt but that they themselves were also, but in a less degree, subject

ydem

to some influence from them. There are consequently to be found even

b it

in Sgnskrit some words which have a very non-Aryan look, and the

_that

number of such words is much greater still in the modern languages,

Jein

and there exists, therefore,a temptation to attribute to non-Aryan sources

I'NUPD

any words whose origin it is difficult to trace from Aryan beginnings.

those

“I may be as well here to point out certain simple and almost

{ for

obvious limitations to the application of the theory that the Aryans

g 00

borrowed from their alien predecessors. Verbal resemblance is, unless

69)

%

supported by other‘.arguments'_; ﬁhg}”ﬁibst unsafe of all grounds on which

736

to base an induction in philology. Too many writers, in other respects

[a0Es

meritorious, seem to proceed on Fluellen’s process, ‘ There is a river in

0§

Macedon, and there is also moreover a river in Monmouth, and there is

{ov2

salmon in both.’ A’ certain Tamil word contains a P, so does a certain

able

Sanskrit word, and ergo, the latter is derived from the former! Now,

I would urge, that, in the first place, the Aryans were superior morally

»tai“»’

as well as physically to the aborigines, and probably therefore imparted

) a0

to them more than they received from them.

Moreover, the Aryans

thiog

were in possession of a copious language before they came into India ;

i mtﬂ

* ¢ A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Non-Aryan Languages of India,”

A, 8

&c., by John Beames, Esq., B.C.S. London, 1872.

INTRODUCTION.

64

they would tlierefofe not be likely to borrow words of an ordinary,

usual description, such as names for their clothing, weapons, and uten-

sils, or for their cattle and tools, or for the parts of their bodies, or for

the various relations in which they stood to each other.

The words

they would be likely to borrow would be names for the new plants,

animals, and natural objects which they had not seen in their former

abodes, and even this necessity would be reduced by the tendency

inherent in all races to invent descriptive names for new objects.

A

third limitation is afforded by geographical considerations.

Which

were the tribes that the Aryans mixed with, either as friends or foes?

Could the bulk of them have come into frequent and close contact with

the Dravidians ; and if so, when and how? These are questions which

it is almost impossible to answer in the present state of our knowledge,

but they are too important to be altogether set aside; and it may be

therefore pointed out, merely as a contribution to the subject, that the

tribes driven out of the valley of the Ganges by the Aryans were almost

certainly Kols to the south, and semi-Tibetans to the north. It is fair

to look with suspicion on an etymology which takes us from Sanskrit

to Tamil, without exhibiting a connecting series of links through the

intervening Kol tribes.

If the above limitations are rigidly applied,

they will narrow very much the area within which non-Aryan forms

are possible in Sanskrit and its descendants, and will force us to have

recourse to a far more extensive and careful research within the domain

of Sanskrit itself than has hitherto been made, with a view to finding

in that language the origin of modern words.”

I coincide generally in the above remarks, especially in so far as they

bear on the question of the influence of the Dravidian languages, pro-

perly so called, on the North Indian or Aryan vernaculars.” That

It is a

influence, as I have always held, must have been but slight.

different question whether the influences by which the Aryan verna-

culars have been moulded into their present shape may not have been

Dravidian, Scythian,

in some degree Scythian or at least non-Aryan.

and non-Aryan are not convertible terms.

Mr Beames himself says, in

his chapter on ¢ Vowel Changes,” p. 128, “I am not in a position to

point out how far, or in what direction, Aryan vocalism has been influ-

enced by these alien races (on the northern and eastern frontier, in

Central India, and on the south) ; but that some sort of influence has

In treating of ‘the break-

been at work is almost beyond a doubt.”

ing down of @ and @ into ¢’ in the northern vernaculars, he says,

“ this seems to be one of those points where non-Aryan influences have

been at work.”—(P. 140.) In treating also of the cerebral /, he says,

« This curious heavy / is very widely employed in the Dravidian group

N

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES

65

¥

kY

1t to designate that group of tongues which comprises the mesh the

Il

Turkish, the Mongolian, and the' Tungusian families.

All these lan-

0

guages are formed on one and the same grammatical system, and in

Is

accordance with the same general laws.

They all express grammatical

D)

relation by the simple agglutination of auxiliary words ; whilst in the

eI

Semitic languages grammatical relation is expressed by variations in

the internal vowels of the roots, and in the Chinese and other isolative,

Y

mo

labic languacres by the position of words in the sentence dlone

ch

The Indo- European languages appear to have been equally with the

Scythlan agglutinative in origin ;

but they have come to require to be

a

h

formed into

A

class by themselve through their allowing their agglu-

tinated auxiliary words to sink into the position of mere sions of

inflexion

The Scythian languages have been termed by some the

6

Téatar family of tongues, by others the Finnish, the Altaic, the Mon-

golian, or the Turanian; but as these terms have often been appro-

priated to designate one or two families, to the exclusion of the rest

1l

they seem too narrow to be safely employed as common designations

11t

of the entire group

The term ‘ Scythian’ having already been used

by the classical writers in a vague, undefined sense, to denote generally

he

the barbarous tribes of unknown origin that inhabited the northern

o

yilb}

parts of Asia and Europe, it seemed to me to be the most appropriate

and convenient word which was available

v

Professor Rask, who was the first to suggest that the Dravidian lan-

ol

i

guages were probably Scythian, did

ittle

more than suggest this

relationship. The evidence of it ‘was left both by him and by the

majority of succeeding writers in a very defective state

General

hey

statements of the Scythian relationship of the Dravidian languages

pFO

i

with a few grammatical illustrations, occupy a place in Prichard’

¢ Researches

and have been repeated in several more recent works

58

il

Prichard himself wished to see the problem, not merely stated, but

a

solved ; but I believe it can never be definitely solved without pre-

viously ascertainin

by a careful intercomparison of dialects, what

Jal

were the most ancient grammatical forms and the most essential char-

g 1

acteristics of the Dravidian languages and of the various families of

180

languages included in the Scythian group respectively

It was not till

i

1

after I had commenced to carry the first edition of this work through

the press that I became acquainted with Professor Max Miiller’s

3

treatise “ On the Present State of our Knowledee of the Turanian

e

Languages,” included in Bunsen’s ¢ Outlines of the Philosophy of

lj'si

Universal History.

Notwithstanding the great excellence of that

e

treatise, I did not find my own work forestalled by the Professor’s.

75

“His was a general survey of the whole field.

It was my object to

o)

A

e

66

INTRODUCTION.

endeavour to cultivate more thoroughly one portién of the field, or wt’

least to prepare it ‘for thorough cultivation.

Whilst® the principal

features of the Dravidian tongues are strongly marked, and whilst their

grammatical principles and syntactic arrangement are of too peculiar a

nature to be easily mistaken, there is much in the phonic system of

their languages, in their dialectic interchanges and displacements, and

in their declensional and conjugational forlﬁéSﬁvhiah cannot be under-

stood without especial study.

In the course of the gram”*r”r;a%tical

analysis and comparison of the Dravidian langnages on which we are

about to enter, I hope to help forward the solution of the problem of

their ulterior relationship.

It is a problem which has often up to a

certain point been ingeniously elucidated, -but which has never yet

been thoroughly investigated.

I am very far from regarding anything

contained in the following work as a thorough investigation of this

problem.

The chief object I have:in view is to contribute to a better

However interest-

knowledge of the Dravidian languages themselves.

ing the question of affiliation may be, I regard that question as quite

subsidiary to the object of the work in hand. Besides, I believe it will

be found necessary for the satisfactory solution of the question, that

the intercomparison of the various languages and families of languages

of which the Scythian group is composed, should be carried much further

than it has been carried as yet.

An excellent beginning has been made

in Boller’s treatises : ¢ Die Finnischen Sprachen ” and ¢ Die Conjuga-

tion in den Finnischen Sprachen,” Schott’s treatise ¢ Uber das Finnish-

Tatarische Sprachengeschlecht,” and Castrén’s “ De Affixis Personalibus

Linguarum Altaicarum ;” in addition:to which we have now Professor

Haufalvy’s paper “ On the Study of the Turanian Languages,” in which

he carefully compares the Hungarian, Vogul, Ostiak, and Finnish, and

proves that the vocabularies of those four languages are of a common

origin, and that their grammars are-closely related: 'Till, however, the

comparative study of the whole of these languages has -been carried

still further, one term of ‘the comparison will ‘always be liable to be

misapprehended.

My knowledge of the Scythian languages is only at

second hand, and I am fully conscious of the truth of Bohtlink’s

dictum, that It is dangerous to write on languages of which we do

not possess the most accurate knowledge.”

I trust, therefore, it will

be remembered that if I advocate any particular theory on this ques-

tion of affiliation, I do so with considerable diffidence.

Professors Pott and Friedrich Miiller, followed by an increasing

number of philologists, are unwilling to admit that the various lan-

guages of the so-called Scythian or Turanian class or group have had

a common origin. They admit them to be morphologically or physiolo-

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN I,,ANGUA:GES.

67

gically related, but do not concede to them any génealogical relationship.

Dr Black also (Journal of the Anthropological Society, 1871) thinks

it “ not impossible that some or all of the Turanian languages exhibit

only certain stages of development in one particular direction, taken

either by members of different families, or by different branches of the

b

same family.’

On the whole, however, the resemblances apparent

amongst these languages, both in structure and vocabulary, as pointed

out by Castrén and the other writers referred to, seem to me too

numerous and essential to admit of any other conclusion than that of

)

their original oneness.

“ These languages,’

appear to me, to use Pro-

fessor Max Miiller’s words, to share elements in common which they

must have borrowed from the same source, and their formal coincid-

ences, though of a different character from those of the Aryan and

Semitic families, are such that it would be impossible to ascribe them

to mere accident ” (‘“ Lecture I,” 301).

“The only coincidences we

are likely to find,” he says, “in agglutinative languages long separated,

are such as refer to ‘ the radical materials of language, or to those parts

of speech which it is most difficult to reproduce —pronouns, numerals,

and prepositions. It is astonishing rather that any words of a conven-

tional meaning should have been discovered as the common property

I

of the Turanian languages than that most of their words and forms

should be peculiar to each.’””

The various particulars which I adduced

in the preceding section to prove that the Dravidian languages are

essentially different from, and independent of, Sanskrit (each of

S

which will be considered more fully under its own appropriate head)

may also be regarded as contributing to show, both that the various

languages of the Scythian group have sprung from a common origin,

and also that the Dravidian languages—if not actually to be included

I

in the Scythian group—stand to that group in some sort of relation-

ship.

In some important particulars ‘the Dravidian languages have

undoubtedly approximated to the Indo-European, especially in this,

that instead of continuing to be purely agglutinative they have become

partly inflexional.

Several of the words of relation used as auxiliaries

3

in declension and conjugation have ceased to be capable of being used

as independent words.

Still, it would be unnecessary on this account

alone to disconnect these languages wholly from the Scythian group,

for those auxiliary words, though they have now in some instances

shrunk into the condition of fossilised relics, are always separable from

the roots to which they are appended.

They have never so far co-

b

alesced with the roots—as such words have generally done in the

Indo-European languages—as to form with the roots only one integral

3

word, in which it is almost impossible to determine which is the root

’l

68

INTRODUCTION.

and which is the modificatory element. it is also to be remembered

that the Turkish, Finnish, Hungarian, and Japanese languages, though

distinctively Turanian, have become still more inflexional than the

Dravidian.

Mr Edkins, in his ¢ China’s Place in Philology,” has

warmly supported both the positions I have advocated—viz,, the

original unity of all the Scythian languages and the affiliation of the

Dravidian languages on the whole to the Scythian group. A consid-

erable number of the minute coincidences on which he relies will

probably disappear on further investigation ; but the more this branch

of philology is studied the more I think it will be evident that the

main lines of his argument—especially with regard to the resemblances

between the Dravidian languages and the Mongolian—are correct.

1

cannot say that I think the resemblances of the Dravidian languages

Mr Edkins holds the original unity,

to the Chinese very numerous.

not only of the Scythian languages, but of all the languages of Europe

and Asia, and argues that ‘“ what are called families of languages are

only dialects of an earlier speech.”

This general principle seems to me

to be in accordance, on the whole, with such facts as are. known re-

specting the history of human speech, but it will probably be

a considerable time before it is scientifically established.

I may

add that, to my own mind, the light which is thrown on the

structure of the Dravidian languages by the study of the languages of

the Scythian group has always seemed a strong confirmation of the

theory of the existence in them of a Scythian element.

The relative

participle is one of the most distinguishing features of the Dravidian

verb, but T never clearly understood the principle of the formation of

that participle, till I saw how it was formed in the Mongolian and

Manchu ; and no person, however reluctant to see a Scythian element

in the Dravidian languages, has ever, so far as I am aware, objected to

the explanation of the origin of the relative participle given in the first

edition of this work, or suggested another.

(See “The Relative Par-

ticiple,” in Part V, on ¢ The Verb.”)

A remarkable confirmation, on the whole,v of the Scythian theory

has been furnished by the translation of the Behistun tablets.

The

inscriptions discovered at Behistun or Baghistan, in western Media,

record the political autobiography of Darius Hystaspes in the Old Per-

sian, in the Babylonian, and also in the language of the Scythians of

the Medo-Persian empire ; and the translation of the Scythian portion

of those inscriptions has thrown a new light on the connection of the

Dravidian languages with the Scythian group.

The language of the

second series of tablets was shown in Mr Norris’s paper (in the Journal

of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv.) to be distinctively Scythian.

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

69

Professor Oppert holds that the people by whom this language was

spoken were Medians, but agrees with Mr Norris in considering the

language Scythian—that is, Turanian. We are now enabled, therefore,

to compare the Dravidian idioms with a fully developed language of

the Scythian family, as spoken in the fifth century, B.c.: and whilst

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

particular family included in that group—the Ugro-Finnish—a family

which the Dravidian dialects have long appeared to me to resemble.

The principal points of resemblance between the Dravidian dialects and

the language of the tablets are as follows :—

(1.) The language of the tablets appears to accord with the Dravi-

dian tongues in the use of consonants of the cerebral class, ¢, 4, and ».

These sounds exist also in Sanskrit, but I have long suspected that

Sanskrit borrowed them from the indigenous Dravidian languages (vide

the section on “ Sounds ”); and I find that Mr Norris has expressed

the same opinion.

(2.) The language of the tablets agrees with Tamil in regarding the

same counsonant as a surd in the beginning of a word, and as a sonant

in the middle, and in pronouncing the same consonant as a sonant when

i

single, and as a surd when doubled.

(See in the section on ““ Sounds ”

illustrations of the Tamil rule.)

(3.) The genitive case of the language of the tablets is formed by

suffixing the syllables na, nina, or inna.

The analogous forms of the

I}

Dravidian languages are nf in the Tglugu, nd or @ in Gond or Brahui,

f

and o in Tamil,

(4.) The dative of the tablets is tkki or vkka.

There are analogies

1

to this both in the Tatar-Turkish and in the Ugrian families; but the

form which is most perfectly in accordance with it is that of the Dra-

vidian dative suffix ku, ki, ka, &c., preceded as the suffix generally is

in Tamil and Malaydlam, by an euphonic » or 7 and a consequent

doubling of the £.

Compare min-ikka, to thee, in the language of the

tablets, with the corresponding Telugu #ni-ku, and the Malayalam

mn-a-kkw.

(5.) The pronouns of the language of the tablets form their accusa.

tive by suffixing un, in, or ».

Compare the Telugu accusative inflexion

nu or ne, and the Canarese am, ann-u, &c.

(6.) The only numeral written in letters in the Scythian tablets is

Kir, one, with which appears to be connected the numeral adjective, or

indefinite article, ra, or #rra.

In Telugu, ‘ one’ is oka, and in Tamil

o7

The Ku numeral adjective ‘one’ is ra, corresponding to the Tamil

oru, but more closely to the ra or urra of the tablets.

70

INTRODUCTION,

In the language of the tablets all ordinal numbers end in vm, in

Tamil in dm, in Samofede in .

(7.) The pronoun of the second person is exactly the same in the

language of the inscriptions as in the Dravidian languages : in all it is

ni, oblique form, which is also the accusative, nin.

Unfortunately the

plural of this pronoun is not contained in the tablets—the singular

having been used instead of the plural in addressing inferiors.

(8.) The language of the tablets, like the Dravidian languages,

makes use of a'relative participle. A relative pronoun is used in addi-

tion to the relative participle; but Mr Norris supposes the use of this

The

pronoun to be owing to the imitation of the Persian original.

particular particle which is used in the tablets in forming the relative

participle differs from that which is generally used in the Dravidian

languages ; but the position and'force of this particle, and the manner

in which the participle formed by it is employed, are in perfect har-

mony with Dravidian usage. Perhaps the use of this relative participle

is the most remarkable and distinctive characteristic of the gramnmar of

every unaltered dialect of the Scythian family.

(9.) The negative imperative, or prohibitive, particle of the tablets is

wmni, in Gond minni.

The conjugational system of the language of the tablets accords with

that of the Hungarian, the Mordvin, and other languages of the Ugrian

family, but differs considerably from the Dravidian languages, which

form their tenses in a simpler manner, by the addition of particles of

time to the root, and which form the persons of their verbs by the

addition of the ordinary pronominal terminations to the particles of

time.

Notwithstanding this discrepancy in the inflexions of the verbs,

the resemblances shown to subsist between the language of the tablets

and the Dravidian idioms, most of whieh are in particulars of primary

Importance, seem to establish the existence of a radical, though very

remote, connection.

From the discovery of these analogies, we are led

to conclude that the Dravidian race, though resident in India from a

period long prior to the commencement of history, originated in the

central tracts of Asia—the seed-plot of nations ; and that from thence,

after parting company with the Aryans and the Ugro-Turanians, and

leaving a colony in Beluchistan, they entered India by way of the

Indus.

Whilst T regard the grammatical structure and prevailing character-

istics of the Dravidian idioms as in the main Scythian, I claim for them

a position in the Scythian group independent of its other members, as

a distinct family or genus of tongues.

I claim for them also, and have

always claimed, as will be seen further on, the possession of certain

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

{

71

1n

remarkable affinities to the Indo-European family. ng's;) far as they

may be regarded as Scythian, they belong not to the Turkish family,

he

or to the Ugrian, or to the Mongolian, or to the Tungusian (each of

18

which families differs materially from the others, notwithstanding

e

generic points of resemblance), but to the group or class in which all

ar

these families are comprised.

The Scythian family to which, on the

whole, the Dravidian languages may be regarded as most nearly allied,

5

is the Finnish or Ugrian, with some special affinities, as it appears, to

i

the Ostiak branch of that family ; and this supposition, which I had

18

been led to entertain from the comparison of grammars and vocabu-

laries alone, derives some confirmation from the fact brought to light

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

Medo-Persians, belonged not to the Turkish, or to the Mongolian, but

to the Ugrian stock.:

If we can venture to take for granted, at pre-

sent, the conclusiveness of the evidence on which this hypothesis rests,

the result at which we arrive is one of the most remarkable that the

study of comparative philology has yet realised.

How remarkable that

distinct affinities to the speech of the Dravidians of inter-tropical India

should be discoverable in the language of the Finns of Northern

Europe, and of the Ostiaks and other Ugrians of Siberia ; and, conse-

!

quently, that the prae-Aryan inhabitants of the Dekhan should appear,

from the evidence furnished 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 have overspread Europe before the arrival of the

Teutons and the Hellenes, and even before the arrival of the Celts ! ¥

What a confirmation of the statement that ¢ God hath made of one

blood all nations of men, to dwell upon the face of the whole earth!”

In weighing the reasons which may be adduced for affiliating the

Dravidian languages in the main to the Scythian group, it should be

borne in mind that whilst the generic characteristics of the Scythian

languages are very strongly marked and incapable of being mistaken,

in a vast variety of minor particulars, and especially in their vocbu-

laries, the languages comprised. in this family differ from one another

more widely than the various idioms of the Indo-European family

mutually differ,

The Ugrian and the Turkish families can be proved

to be cognate almost as certainly as Gothic and Sanskrit ; y‘et, apart

2

o TARE

* Professor Hunfalvy does not admit that the Finno-Ugrian race preceded the

I

Celts, Teutons, and Slavonians, or that their language is.related to the Bask.

adhere, however, to the ordinary belief prevailing amongst ethnologists, which

appears to me in the main well-grounded,

The late arrival of the Magyars in

Hungary is of course admitted.

e

INTRODUCTION.

from the evidence of structure and vital spirit, and looking only at the

vocabulary, and the grammatical materid/, 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 agreement of Sanskrit and Celtic,—the longest

separated and most widely differing members of the Indo-European

family. Thus, whilst in nearly all the Indo-European languages the

numerals are not only similar, but the same—(the Sanskrit word for

one being the only real exception to the rule of general identity)—not

only do the numerals of every Scythian family differ so widely from

those of every other as to present few points of resemblance, but even

the numerals of any two languages of the same family are found to

differ very widely. So great, indeed, is the diversity existing amongst

the Scythian tongues, that, whilst the Indo-European idioms form but

one family, the Scythian tongues are not so much a family as a group

of families—a group held together not by the bond of identity in

details, but only by the bond of certain general characteristics which

they all have in common.

The Indo-European languages may be

regarded as forming but a single genus, of which each language—(San-

skrit, Zend, Old Persian, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Lithuanian, Slavonic,

Celtic)—forms a species ; whilst the languages of the Scythian group,

more prolific in differences, comprise at least five or six authénticated

genera, each of which includes as many species as are contained in the

solitary Indo-European genus, besides twenty or thirty isolated lan-

guages, which have up to this time resisted every effort to classify

them. This remarkable difference between the Indo-European languages

and those of the Scythian stock seems to have arisen partly from the

higher mental gifts and higher capacity for civilisation, with which the

Indo-European tribes appear to have been endowed from the begin-

ning, and still more from the earlier literary culture of their languages,

and the better preservation, in consequence, of their forms and roots.

It seems also to have arisen in part from their more settled habits, in

comparison with the wandering, nomadic life led by most of the Scy-

¢

thian tribes, But, fromjwhatever cause this difference may have arisen,

it is obvious that in weighing evidences of relationship this circumstance

must be taken into account ; and that so minute an agreement of long-

separated sister dialects of the Scythian stock is not to be expected as

in parallel cases amongst the Indo-European dialects. Professor Max

Miiller, in his “ Lectures on the Science of Language,” adduces many

instances of the rapidity and extent of the divergence which takes

place between uncultivated dialects of the same language. Bishop

Patteson says,

“In most cases the languages of two neighbouring

islands may

show their common derivation in their structure (the safest

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

73

proof of all, T imagine), but nearly all the words will be different.”—

(““ Letter from Bishop Patteson to Professor Max Miiller.”

Appendix

to Life.)

The relationship of the Dravidian languages to the languages of the

Scythian group,-—whether the relation of lineal descent, or the relation

of sisterhood, or the wider relationship for which I plead,——has not

From

been universally admitted by students of Dravidian philology.

the brief remarks bearing on this question contained in Dr Pope’s

various publications, it is evident that that eminent Dravidian scholar

In

considers the Dravidian langnages in the main Indo-European.

the introduction to his “ Tamil Hand-Book” (Madras, 1859), he says :

“The more deeply they (the South Indian languages) are studied, the

more close will their affinity to Sanskrit be seen to be, and the more

evident it will appear that they possess a primitive and very near

relationship to the languages of the Indo-European group. Yet they

I have

are. certainly not mere Prakrits, or corruptions of Sanskrit.

always supposed that their place was among the members of the last

mentioned family, and that they were probably disjecta membra of a

language coeval with Sanskrit, and having the same origin with it.

They certainly contain many traces of a close connection with the

Greek, the Gothic, the Persian, and the other languages of the same

In the

family, in points even where Sanskrit presents no parallel.”

introduction to his “Sermon on the Mount,” in four Dravidian lan-

guages, with comparative vocabulary and inflexional tables (Madras,

1860), he says: “The writer would direct the attention of philologists

to the deep-seated, radical affinities between these languages and the

Celtic and Teutonic languages.

Had leisure and space permitted, he

In a next

was prepared to have exhibited in detail these analogies.

edition, or in some future work, he yet cherishes the hope of doing so.

The subject of the affiliation of these languages is one which requires

that further elucidation which nothing but a complete comparative

lexicon could afford.”

The last reference he makes to the subject is

in a prefatory notice to his “Outlines of the Grammar of the Tuda

Language” (Bangalore, 1872), in which he says: « While agreeing in

the main with Dr Caldwell, I yet think that the remarkable analogies

between the Celtic and the Dravidian languages merit a more thorough

investigation.”

I trust Dr Pope will ere long have time to favour

philologers with the thorough investigation which this question un-

doubtedly merits.

I may remark here, however, that in everything

b

and

he says respecting the existence of ‘analogies, and °affinities,

‘traces of a close connection’ between the Dravidian languages and

various members of the Indo-Kuropean family, I not only perfectly

74

NTRODUCTION

coincide with him, but myself pointed out many of those particulars

of agreement or resemblance (yet without

deducing from them pre-

cisely the same conclusion) in every section

of the first edition of this

work,

The theory I advocate, indeed, takes account of both sets of

relationships—the Scythian and the Indo- Luropmn—th<)\10h it regards

the former as, on the whole,- closer and more essential

With regard

to Celtic affinities in particular, it is to be remembered that of all the

members of the Indo-European family the Celtic is that which appears

to have most in. common with t

the Scythian group, and especially with

the languages of .the Finnish family—languages which may possibly

have been widely spoken in Europe previously to the arrival of the

Celts

It will be necessary, therefore, in each case to inquire whether

the Celtic affinity may not also be a Scythian affinity,

I refer the reader to Appendix IL for some remarks on the philo-

logical portion of Mr Gover's “Folk-Songs of Southern India

and

also for a fuller explanation of the real nature of the theory respecting

the relationship of the Dravidian languages to the languages of the

Scythian group advocated in the first edition of this work

At the very outset of my own inquiries, I thought I observed in the

Dravidian languages the Indo-European analogies to whiech I have

referred ; and, rejecting affinities which are unreal and which disappear

on investigation (such as the connection of the Tamil numerals ondru

or onnw, one

anju

fiv

)

ettu

eieht

with wn-us, panch-an, and

asht-an,—a- connection .which looks very plausible, but appears to me

to be illusory (see section on ““Numerals”),—1I think it highly probable

that a small number of the grammatical forms of the Dravidian lan-

gunages and

C

«

v more considerable number of their roots. are to be

regarded as of cognate origin with corresponding forms and roots in

the Indo-European languages

Notwithstanding the existence of

few analogies of this character

the most . essential features o

the

grammar

of the Dravidian idioms seem to me to be undoeubtedly

Scythian

and therefore I think the propriety of placing those idioms

in the Scythian group is indicated

Though many Hebrew roots hav

been shown to be allied to Sanskrit yet the Hebrew language does not

cease to be regarded as Semitic rather than Indo- Europeaun ; so, not-

withstanding many interesting analogies with Sanskrit Greek, Gothic

Celtic, and Persian, which m: vy be d

iscovered on a careful examination of

the Dravidian tongues, and which will be pointed out in their order in

each of the succeeding sections, the- essential characteristics of those

tongues are such as seem

to me to require us to regard them as in the

maln Scythian

Dr Gustave Schleee

Lo

in his “ Sinico-Aryaca

(Batavia

1

72), a treatise on Chinese and

A5

ryan affinities, endeavours to establish

«

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LAEGUAGES

£3

the existence of an ultimate relationship between the Chinese roots

It}

and those of the Aryan languages. Supposing this point established, it

IN

would not follow that Chinese is an Aryan tongue.

It would only

follow that it had succeeded in preserving certain exceedingly primitive

0f

forms of speech which had also been preserved in the languages of the

U

Aryan family.

Not Chinese only, but Sanskrit and Hebrew, are now

1d

e

known to have been originally monosyllabic; and the monosyllabic

character of most Dravidian roots, if not of all, will appear in every

I}

section of this work.

Dr Bleek (in a paper in the Journal of the

th

Anthropological Society for 1871) has thrown out the idea that the

Wi

Aryan family of languages may possibly have been exposed at an early

16

period to Dravidian influences.

He says:

“The Aryan are dis-

e

tinguished from the other séx-denoting languages by the possession

of a neuter gender.

The Dravidian Janguages possess a neuter gender,

which has as wide a'range as in English, the most logically arranged

of the Aryan languages.

The distinctive marks of the neuter gender,

\¢

in the Dravidian languages, even agree with those of our own lan-

he

guages to so great an extent that it does not appear probable that these

two circles of languages (which are the only ones known to possess

e

this threefold gender—i.e., masculine, feminine, and neuter) should

Al

have developed the neuter gender quite independently of each other.

Al

The Dravidian langtages have not as yet been proved to belong to

W

our own sex-denoting family of langnages; and although it is not

i

impossible that they may be shown ultimately to be a member of this

e

L

family, yet it may also be that at the time of the formation of the

0if

Aryan languages a Dravidian influence was exerted upon them, to

i

which this, among other similarities, is due.”

The Dravidian lan-

1

guages had a neuter pronoun of the third person at the earliest period

i

to which their forms can be traced ; but I suspect it was at a later

3

period of their history that gender made its appearance in the verb.

jil

When the Dravidians entered India their verb must, I think, have

ly

been without personal terminations, and therefore witliout gender.

It

I

will be seen hereafter that gender is more fully and systematically

Al

developed in the verb of the Dravidian literary dialects than in any

J0F

other language in the world.

This could not have been owing to the

0

influence of Sanskrit, but must have been «b intra.

10

In stating that the Dravidian languages contain certain roots and

(I

forms allied to Sanskrit, and to the Indo-European languages gene-

1

rally, it is necessary to preclude misapprehension.

During the long

56

period of the residence of the Dravidian aud Aryan races in the same

e

country, the Dravidian vocabularies have borrowed largely from Sans-

’iﬂy

krit, It is necessary therefore to remind the reader that the analogies

3

76

INTRODUCTION.

to which I refer are not founded on the existence in the i)ravidian

tongues of Sanskrit derivatives, but are such as are discoverable in the

original structure and primitive vocabulary of those languages. Whilst

the Dravidian languages have confessedly borrowed much from their

more wealthy neighbours, Sanskrit, in some instances, has not disdained

to borrow from the Dravidian

but in general there is no difficulty in

dvistinguishing what the one language has borrowed from the other;

and the statement I have now made relates not to derivatives, or words

which may be supposed to be derivatives, but to radical, deep-seated

analogies which it is difficult to explain on any supposition but that

of a partial or distant relationship.

In most instances the words and

forms in which analogies are discoverable are allied not to Sanskrit

alone, but to the entire Indo-European family : in not a few instances

analogies are discoverable in Greek and Latin, which are not found in

Sanskrit ; and in many of those instances in which Sanskrit appears

to exhibit the closest analogy, it is not the euphonised, systematised

Sanskrit (Samskrita) of written compositions, but the crude, original

Sanskrit, which is discoverable by analysis and comparison,—the Prz-

Sanskrit of W. von Humboldt.

I subjoin here a few illustrations of what I mean by primitive, un-

derived Indo-Europeanisms discoverable in the Dravidian languages.

(L.) The use of n, as in Greek, to prevent hiatus.

(2.) The existence of gender in the pronouns of the third person and

in verbs, and in particular the existence of a neuter gender.

(3.) The use of d or ¢ as the sign of the neuter singular of demon-

strative pronouns or pronouns of the third person.

(4.) The existence of a neuter plural, as in Latin, in short .

(5.) The formation of the remote demonstrative from a base in a, the

proximate from a base in 7.

(6.) The formation of most preterites, as in Persian, by the addition

of d.

(7.) The formation of some preterites by the reduplication of a por-

tion of the root.

(8.) The formation of a considerable number of verbal nouns by

lengthening the vowel of the verbal root.

See also ‘¢ Glossarial Affi-

nities.”

The illustrations given above form only a small portion of the

analogous forms which will be adduced in the grammatical analysis

and in the glossarial affinities

they will, however, suffice to render it

probable that Indo-European analogies are really discoverable in the

Dravidian languages.

They also serve to illustrate the statement, that,

though Sanskrit has long been the nearest neighbour of the Dravidian

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

77

llan

tongues, there are not a few Dravidian roots which seem more nearly

the

allied to the western Indo-European idioms than to the Sanskritic or

eastern.

If therefore the Dravidian family of languages may be

ilst

heir

classified, as I am still inclined to classify them, as essentially and in

ned

the main Scythian, I must add that I consider them as of all Scythian

tongues those which present the most numerous, ancient, and interest-

jin

ing analogies to the Indo-European languages.

The position which

8l

ids

this family occupies, if not mid-way between the two groups, seems to

me to lie on that side of the Scythian group on which the Indo.

ted

European appears to have been severed from it, and on which the most

hat

nd

distinet traces of the original identity of the families still remain.

If

i

this view be correct (as I think it will be shown to be), the Indo-

Europeanisms discoverable in the Dravidian languages carry us back to

Ces

m

a period beyond all history, beyond all mythology, not only prior to the

A8

separation of the western branches of the Indo-European race from the

eastern, but prior also to the separation of the yet undivided Indo-

ol

European race from that portion of the common stock which was after-

;'mal

wards styled Seythian.

I

It is a curious circumstance that in the vocabulary of the Dravidian

languages, especially in that of Tamil, a few Semitic analogies may also

un

be discovered.

In some instances the analogous roots are found in the

Indo-European family, as well as in Hebrew, though the Hebrew form

of the root is more closely analogous.

For example, though we find in

ad

Latin awve-o, to desire, and in Sanskrit av, of which ¢ to desire’is a

.

subordinate meaning

)

yet the corresponding Tamil words awd, desire,

10l

and dval (signifying also desire, a verbal noun from a lost verb dv-u,

to desire) seems still more directly allied to the Hebrew dvah, to desire,

and the verbal noun awvdh, desire.

In addition, however, to such

the

general analogies as pervade several families of tongues, including the

Dravidian, there are a few roots discoverable, I think, both in the

jon

Dravidian languages and in Hebrew, to which I am not aware of the

existence of any resemblance in any language of the Indo-European

)OI

family.

Tllustrations of these special analogies will be found under

the head of “ Glossarial Affinities, Semitic.”

The Semitic analogies observable in Tamil are neither so numerous

nor so important as the Indo-European, nor do they carry with them

such convincing evidence; but taking them in connection with that

the

more numerous and important class of analogous roots which are found

o

in the Indo-European languages, as well as in Hebrew, but of which

it

the Hebrew form is more closely allied to the Dravidian (see the “Glos-

the

sarial Affinities ”) ; these analogies, such as they are, constitute an addi-

il

tional element of interest in the problem of the origin and pree-historic

)

INTRODUCTION.

78

connections of the Dravidian race.

I do not adduce these analogies

for the purpose of endeavouring to prove the existence of any relation-

Aware of the

ship between the Dravidian language and Hebrew.

danger of proving nothing by attempting to prove too much, I content

myself with merely stating those analogies, without attempting to

deduce any inference from them,

The Indo-European analogies are so

intimately connected with the individuality and vital essence of the

Dravidian languages, that it seems difficult to suppose them to be

merely the result of early association, however intimate.

It is only on

the supposition of the existence of a remote or partial relationship that

they appear to be capable of being fully explained.

In the case of the

Semitic analogies, the supposition of a relationship between the two

families of tongues does not appear to be necessary.

The analogies

that appear to exist may be only accidental, or they ean be accounted

for on the hypothesis—a very easy and natural one-—that the primitive

Dravidian nomads were at some early period before their arrival in

India associated with a people speaking a Semitic language

It seems proper here to notice the remarkable general resemblance

which exists between the Dravidian pronouns and those of the aborigi-

nal tribes of southern and western Australia.

In whatever way it may

be explained, the existence of a general resemblance seems to be un-

questionable ; but it has not hitherto been observed that the Australian

pronouns of the first person are more nearly allied to the Tibetan than

to the Dravidian.

This will appear from the following comparative

view of the pronoun of the first person singular.

DRravVIDIAN.

AUSTRALTAN.

TIBE;X‘AN.

CHINESE.

I

ndn, ydn, nd,

nga, nga, ngatsa,

ngo.

nga, nge, 7'zgea’ )

en,

nganya,

Whilst the .ba,se, of this pronoun seems to be closely allied to the

corresponding pronoun in Tibetan, .and in the Inde-Chinese family

generally, the manner in which it is pluralised in the Australian dialects

bears a marked resemblance to the Dravidian, and especially to the

Telugu.

The Telugu forms its plurals by suffixing {u to the singular ;

the Australian dialects by a similar addition of lu, Iz, dlu, dli, &e.

In

this particular some of the dialects of the north-eastern frontier of

India exhibit also an agreement with the Telugu—e.g., compare

In the Australian dialects I find

Dhimal 7d, thou, with nyel, you.

the following plurals and duals of the pronoun of the first person—we,

or we two, ngalu, ngadlu, ngadli, ngalata, &e.

Compare this with the

manner in which the Telugu forms its plural

e.g., vdd'u, he, vddlu,

AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

79

logies

they ;

and even with the Tamil ¢ plural exclusive’ of the pronopn of

IS

the first person—e.g.; ndn, I, ndnggal, we.

f the

The-resemblance between the Australian pronouns of the second

nfel

i

person, both singular and plural, and those of the Dravidian languages

12 0

is more distinet and special, and is apparent, not ‘only in the suffixes,

e §0

but in the pronominal base itself. The normal forms of these pronouns

f the

in the Dravidian languages are—singular, n#n, plural, nim.

The per-

0b

sonality resides in the crude root n%, thou, which is the same in both

ly il

numbers, with the addition of a singular formative n (nén, thou), and

In some cases the

> th(lf.

a pluralising formative m (ni-m, thous, or you).

f the

pluralising particle m has been displaced, and », which I regard as pro-

two

perly the sign of the epicene plural of the third person, has been sub-

stituted for it—e.g., n4r, you (in Telugu mir-u.)

This abnormal form

gies

nir is most used as a nominative, the older and more regular nim

nted

tive

retains its place in the compounds.

Whilst ¢ is the vowel which is

B

almost invariably found in the singular of the pronoun of the second

person, 1t is-found that in the plural 7 often gives place to %, as in the

ance

classical Tamil numa, your, and the Brahui num, you. It 1s to be

noticed also that the modern Canarese has softened nim into nfvu or

origh

nfww, in the nominative.

ey

It is singular, in whatever way it may be

Willk

accounted for, that in each of the particulars now mentioned the Aus-

tralian dialects resemble the Dravidian.

)

jal

See the following comparative

view.

fhan

ji

Under the Australian head I class the dual together with the

plural, as being substantially the same.

ative

DRAVIDIAN.

A USTRALIAN,

thou,

nin, nin,

ninna, nginne, ngentoa, ningte.

NESE:

you

nim, num, nir, num, niwu,

nimedoo, wura, nia, ngurle.

gO

Compare also the dccusative of the first person singular in Tamil,

enner, me, with the Australian accusative emmo.

| the

The grammatioal structure of the Australian dialects exhibits a gene-

ral agreement with the languages of the Scythian group. In the use

il

of postpositions instead of prepositions ; in the use of two forms of the

Llel?ts

first person plural, one inclusive of the party addressed, the other

{h

exclusive ; in the formation of inceptive, causative, and reflective verbs

lat

il

by the addition of certain particles to the root ; and, generally, in the

fOf

agglutinative structure of words and in the position of words in a

sentence, the dialects of Australia resemble the Dravidian—as also the

palt"

Turkish, the Mongolian, and other Scythian languages ; and in the

fad

same particulars, with one or two exceptions, they differ essentially

e

from the dialects which are called Polynesian.

The vocabularies of the

il

Australian dialects which have been compiled do not appear to furnish

fl

Wiy

il

80

INTRODUCTION,

additional confirination to the resemblances pointed out above ; but it

is difficult to suppose these resembiuti es to be unreal or merely acei-

dental, and it is obvious that the Australian dialects demand (and pro-

bably will reward) further examination.®

It is singular also, and almost difficult to be accounted for, that some

resemblances may be traced between the Dravidian languages and the

Bornu, or rather the Kanuri, one of the languages spoken in the Bornu

country, in Central Africa.

Most of the resemblances are, it is true, of

a general nature—e.g., the Kanuri is agglutinative in structure, it uses

postpositions instead of prepositions, it adds to nouns and sentences

syllables expressive of doubt, interrogation, and emphasis, in a pecu-

liarly Dravidian manner, and its verb has a negative voice.

It has an

objective verb, as well as a subjective, like the Hungarian, &c,

The

most distinctive resemblance to the Dravidian languages I notice is in

the pronoun of the second person, which is n¢, as in each of the Dra-

vidian dialects.

Even this, however, as has been shown, is common

to the Dravidian with Brahui, Chinese, the language of the second

Behistun tablets, and the Australian dialects.

The Kanuri language

differs so remarkably from the rest of the African tongues, that it is

very desirable that its relationship should be fully investigated.

See

Koelle’s “ Grammar of Bornu.”

WHicHE LANGUAGE OR DIALECT BEST REPRESENTS THE PRIMITIVE

CoNDITION OF THE DRAVIDIAN ‘TONGUES ?

li

Before entering upon the grammatical comparison of the Dravidian

dialects, it seems desirable to ascertain where we should look for their

earliest characteristics.

Some persons have been of opinion that what

is called Shen-Tamil (Sen-Tami?', classical), or the dialect of the Tamil

language, is to be regarded as the best representative of the primitive

Dravidian speech. Without underestimating the great value of the

Shen-Tamil, I am convinced that no one dialect can be implicitly

accepted as a mirror of Dravidian antiquity. A comparison of all the

dialects that exist will be found our best and safest guide to a know.

ledge of the primitive speech from which the various existing dialects

have diverged ; and not only the Shen-Tamil, but 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 second person cannot

be understood without a knowledge of Ancient or Classical Canarese ;

* See a paper “ On the position of the Australian languages,” by W. H. J.

Bleek, Esq., Ph.D., read at a meeting of thg Anthropological Society. London,

1871.

3

(5§

'-»t",bfi

0t it

THE REPRESENTATIVE DIALECT.

81

a0l

[ pro

and ‘the Khond or Ku, one of the rudest dialects, the gramlmar of which

was reduced to writing only a few years ago, is the only dialect which

some

throws light on the masculine and feminine terminations of the Dravi-

d the

dian pronouns of the third person.

Still it is unquestionable that the

Jormu

largest amount of assistance towards ascertaining the primitive condi-

tion of the Dravidian languages will be afforded by Tamil, and in par-

ne, of

b 1St8

ticular by Shen-Tamil; and this naturally follows from the circum-

eNees

stance that of all the Dravidian idioms Tamil appears to have been the

earliest cultivated.

peCll'

a3 dl

The

1. Laterary, Classical Dialects of the Dravidian Languages: To what

jgin

extent may they be regarded as representing the primitive condition

Dra-

of those Languages ?

mo

It is a remarkable peculiarity of the Indian languages that, as soon

oond

as they begin to be cultivated, the literary style evinces a tendency to

puagt

become a literary dialect distinct from the dialect of common life, with

b1t 1

N

a grammar and vocabulary of its own.

This is equally characteristic

A

i

of the speech of the Aryans of the north and of that of the Dravidians

of the south.

The relation in which Sanskrit stands to the Prakrits

and the modern vernaculars is not identical with the relation in which

IVE

the dead languages of Europe stand to the living languages descended

from them, The so-called dead languages of Europe were at one time

living tongues, spoken nearly as they were written, as, e.g., the speeches

idiat

of Demosthenes and Clicero testify.

When we call those languages

j their

dead, we merely mean to describe them as the speech of the dead past,

what

not that of the living present.

Sanskrit cannot properly be called a

Tamil

dead language in this sense.

Probably it was never the actual, every-

jfive

day speech of any portion of the Aryans of India at any period of their

f the

history, however remote.

Its name Samskrita, the elaborated or deve-

oy

loped speech, illustrates its origin.

It was the language not of any

] the

race or district, but of a class—the class of bards and priests, the lite-

cnof-

rary men of the first ages ; or rather it was the language of literature ;

glets

and as literary culture made progress, the language of literature became

ialecf,

ever more copious, euphonious, and refined.

If life means growth,

wa;ds

and if growth means change, Sanskrit must be regarded as having for

ot

a long period been, not a dead, but a living tongue ; though it must be

1656

admitted that it changed slowly, like everything else in India

more

The Sanskrit of the

slowly, doubtless, than the colloquial dialects.

g

Purénas differed from the Sanskrit of the Vedas; and in the Vedas

pdo

themselves the style of the later hymns differed from that of the ear-

lier. The earliest Sanskrit extant is evidently the result of a process

7

82

INTRODUCTION.

of refinement, originating in the literary activity of a still earlier period,

of which no records survive.

A composition is not necessarily ancient

because written in Sanskrit ; for all through the ages, down to very

recent times, all the literati of Northern and Western India, with the

exception of the Buddhists, together with a considerable proportion of

the literati of the South, have been accustomed to regard Sanskrit as

¢

or

the most orthodox vehicle

the expression of every variety of ortho-

dox thought.

“The great reformer Duddha, in the sixth century before Christ,

adopted the popular speech as the vehicle of his teachings ; his suc-

4

cessors were infected with an unbounded cacqthes scribenti, and have

V&

-—

left behind a literature of enormous extent.

Here again, however, the

fatal mistake common to all Indian writers was conlrxli‘pted'. No sooner

had Prakrit become the language of the Buddhists’ scriptures, than it

was at once regarded as sacred, and carefully preserved from change or

development.

It took with regard-to the popular speech the same

position that Sanskrit had-taken in the. earlier centuries. This seems

to be the fate of all Indian languages : when once committed to writing

they assume a literary type, and have a tendency to draw away from

In the present day we see the

the vulgar living tongue of the people.

Few Bengali writers, save those

same process going on in Bengal

whose minds have been to some extent moulded on English models of

o are content to write

thought and feelin

o)

as they speak.

They must

have something more elaborate and refined when they take pen in

hand, and fill their pages with pompous and artificial Sanskrit words,

’n

which they readily admit are not ¢ understanded of the people.

This state of things is not peculiar to Northern India.

We find

precisely the same tendencies, with the same results, in the South.

Each of the four cultivated Dravidian languages has split up into two

dialects more or less distinct—a literary, classical dialect; and a

popular, colloquial dialect.

Classical Canarese is usually called ¢ Old

Canarese ;’ but it may more properly be regarded neither as new nor

as old, but simply as the language of Canarese literature, seeing that

it is the language in which literary compositions seem always to have

been written, at least from the twelfth century, when Kédava’s grammar

was composed, down to the present day.

¢ Old Malayalam’ seems to

have a better title than Old Canarese to be called ¢old,’ inasmuch as

\

it contains a considerable number of obsolete forms.

Moreover, whilst

modern Malay&lam literature is intensely Sanskritic, the older literature

‘;

was pervaded with the characteristics of the older or classical Tamil.

The language of Telugu poetry differs considerably from that of every-

day life, but it is not regarded as a different dialect, or designated by

E

=

THE REPRESENTATIVE DIALECT.

8

griod,

cient

any special name.

It is regarded by native Telugu scholars as differ-

) VeI

ing from ordinary Telugu only in being purer and more elevated. The

th

most appropriate name for any of the literary dialects, as it appears to

fon of

me, is that by which the higher dialect of Tamil is designated.

It is

kit 88

called Sen-Tamil—that is, classical or correct Tamil, literally ‘straight

QIO

Tamil,” by which name it is meant to be distinguished not merely from

the colloquial Tamil of the masses, but still more from certain rude

(st

local dialects, said to be twelve in number, mentioned by the gramma-

1§ §1e

rians by name, and included under the generic designation of Kodun-

| 17

have

Tamir—that is literally, ¢ crooked Tamil.’

The name ordinarily given

e

by Europeans to the literary dialect of Tamil is ¢ High Tamil;’ and

T, f

oner

this appears to me to be a more accurate term, on the whole, than that

ordinarily given to the literary dialect of Canarese; for though there

an i

is a sense in which each of these literary dialects may be described as

noe Of

| baﬂ]ﬁ

‘old,” their most essential characteristic is the extraordinary amount of

sgells

polish and refinement they have received. Classical Tamil bears nearly

pifing

the same relation to the actual speech of the people that Sanskrit (that

is, classical Indo-Aryan) did to the ancient Prakrits, and now does to

[ from

the modern Gaurian'vernaculars.

Rl

Even at the time the oldest extant

High Tamil compositions were written, there was probably almost as

those

wide a difference between the language of the vulgar and that affected

»del‘

by the literati as there is at present.

It is inconceivable that so

¢ st

elaborately refined and euphonised a style of language as that of the

pep il

e

)r(l»;

classical poems and grammars, can ever have been the actual every-day

speech of any class of the people. It contains, it is true, many ancient

forms ; but forms that had come to be regarded as vulgar by the time

eﬁﬂ1

that literary culture commenced (no matter how great their antiquity),

N0l

fh

seem to have been systematically rejected.

The speech of the masses

ko £10

may therefore contain forms and words as old as, or even older than,

and &

the corresponding forms and words of the literature ; and yet there is

Xl

an important difference between the two to be borne in mind.

No

o

o 1

argument in favour of the antiquity of a word or form can be founded

g t

merely on the fact of its existence in the colloquial dialect ; whereas

the existence of a word or form in the classical dialect, especially in

an]}ﬂﬂr

the grammars and vocabularies of that dialect, proves at least that it

,ms tO

was in existence when that dialect was fixed, which certainly cannot

ueh &

have been less than a thousand years ago. There is an additional

W hllﬁt

presumption in favour of its antiquity in the circumstance that all

o[t

e

poets, even the earliest, have been accustomed to regard expressions

il

that were considered more or less archaic in their own time, as pecu-

1T

e

liarly suitable to poetical compositions.

ol by

34

INTRODUCTION.

(2). High Antiquity of the Laterary Cultivation of Tamil.

The relatively high antiquity of the literary cultivation of Tamil

being a matter of interest considered in itself, irrespective of its bear-

ings on the question of Dravidian comparative grammar, I shall here

adduce a few of the evidences on which this conclusion rests.

(1). Classical Tamil, which not only contains all the refinements

which the Tamil has received, but also exhibits to some extent the

primitive condition of the language, differs more from the colloquial

Tamil than the classical dialect of any other Dravidian idiom differs

from its ordinary dialect.

It differs from colloquial Tamil so con-

siderably that it might almost be considered as a distinct language :

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

prose compositions written in the classical dialect might be read for

hours in the hearing of a person acquainted only with the collogquial

idiom, without his understanding a single sentence.

Notwithstanding

this, classical Tamil contains less Sanskrit, not more, than the col-

loquial dialect.

It affects purism and national independence ; and its

refinements are all ab wntra.

As the words and forms of classical

Tamil cannot have been invented all at once by the poets, but must

have come into use slowly and gradually, the degree in which colloquial

Tamil has diverged from the poetical dialect, notwithstanding the

slowness with which language, like everything else, changes in the

East, seems to me a proof of the high antiguity of the literary cultiva-

tion of Tamail.

(2.) Another evidence consists in the extraordinary copiousness of

the Tamil vocabulary, and the number and variety of the grammatical

forms of Shen-Tamil.

The Shen-Tamil grammar is a crowded museum

Many of

of obsolete forms, cast-off inflexions, and curious anomalies.

these will be pointed out from time to time in the body of this work.

I may here refer especially to the extreme and almost naked simplicity

of some of the conjugational forms of the oldest Tamil, particularly to

the existence of an uninflected form of the verb, and of another form

in which only the first rudimentary traces of inflection are seen. These

particulars, as will be shown in the part on the verb, seem to me to

point to the arrest of the development of the Tamil verb at a very

early period by the invention of writing, as in the still more remark-

able instance of Chinese.

The extraordinary copiousness of the Tamil

vocabulary is shown by the fact that a school lexicon of the Tamil

language, published by the American missionaries at Jaffna, contains

no less tha? 58,590 words ; notwithstanding which, it would be neces-

ANTIQUITY OF THE TAMIL,

85

sary to add several thousands of technical terms, besides provincialisms,

and thousands upon thousands of auathorised compounds, in order to

amli

render the list complete.

Nothing strikes a Tamil scholar more, on

examining the dictionaries of the other Dravidian dialects, than the

ear

paucity of their lists of synonyms in comparison with those of Tamil.

here

The Tamil vocabulary contains not only those words which may be

1611

regarded as appropriate to the language, inasmuch as they are used by

the

Tamil alone, but also those which may be considered as the property

(G

Al

of Telugu, Canarese, &c.

Thus, the word used for ‘house’ in ordinary

(ju

Tamil is »idu ; but the vocabulary contains also, and occasionally uses,

iffr

the word appropriate to Telugu, ¢/ (Tel. ¢/lu), and the distinctive Can-

(ol

arese word, maner (Can. mana); besides another synonym, kuds,

%6

which it has in common with Sanskrit and the whole of the Finnish

med

languages.

The grammar and vocabulary of Tamil are thus to a con-

gven

siderable extent the common repository of Dravidian forms and roots.

d for

We may conclude, therefore, that the literary cultivation of the Tamil

al

\qu'

I t

dates from a period prior to that of the other idioms, and not long

Nt

subsequent to the final breaking up of the language of the ancient

¢ Clﬂ

Dravidians into dialects.

g 18

3. Another evidence of the antiquity and purity of Tamil consists

19

104

in the agreement of the ancient Canarese, the ancient Malayilam, the

it

Tulu, and also the Tuda, Gond, and Ku, with the Tamil, in many of

qum

the particulars in which modern Canarese and modern Telugu differ

g the

from it.

{ne

4. The fact that in many instances the forms of the Telugu roots and

1

174

inflexions have evidently been softened down from the forms of the Tamil,

is a strong confirmation of the higher antiquity of the Tamilian forms.

95 0!

Instances of this will be given in the section on the phonetic system of

fical

these languages,

It will suffice now to adduce, as an illustration of

56l

what is meant, the transposition of vowels in the Telugu demonstra-

1y i

tive pronouns.

The true Dravidian demonstrative bases are a, remote,

ok

and ¢, proximate ; to which are suffixed the formatives of the genders,

)

100

with » euphonic, to prevent hiatus.

The Tamil demonstratives are

\ 1‘ f0

avan, ille, and wan, hic,

The Telugu masculine formative answering

for

to the Tamil anm, is du, or adu; and hence the demonstratives in

The:e

Telugu, answering to the Tamil avan, twan, might be expected to be

e 10

avadw and twadu, instead of which we find vddu, ille, and »idu, hie.

Here the demonstrative bases @ and ¢ have shifted from their natural

vy

x[llaTL

position at the beginning of the word to the middle, whilst by coales-

Tamll

cing with the vowel of the formative, or as a compensation for its loss,

Tanhl

their quantity has been increased.

The altered, abnormal form of the

ﬂf?vlﬂ

Telugu is evidently the later one ; but as even the high dialect of the

il

86

INTRODUCTION.

Telugu contains no other form, the period when the Telugu grammar

was rendered permanent by written rules and the aid of written com-

positions, must have been subsequent to the origin of the corruption

in question, and therefore subsequent to the literary cultivation of the

Tamil.

5. Another evidence of antiquity consists in the great corruption of

many of the Sanskrit tadbhavas or derivatives found in Tamil.

The Sanskrit contained in Tamil may be divided into three portions

of different dates.

(1.) The most recent portion was introduced by the three religious

schools which divide amongst them the allegiance of the mass of the

Tamil people.

These are the school of the Saiva-Siddhéanta, or that of

the philosophy of the Ayamas, the most popular system amongst the

Tamil Stidras, the school of Sankara Acharya, the apostle of Adviata,

and the chief rival of both, the school of Sti Vaishnava, founded by

Rémanuja Acharya.

The period of the greatest activity and influence

of those sects seems to have extended from about the eleventh.century,

A.D., to the sixteenth ; # and the Sanskrit derivatives introduced by

the adherents of these systems (with the exception of a few points

wherein change was unavoidable) are pure, unchanged Sanskrit.

(2.) The school of writers, partly preceding the above and partly

contemporaneous with them, by which the largest portion of the San-

skrit derivatives found in Tamil were introduced, was that of the

Jainas, which flourished from about the ninth or tenth century, A.D.

3

to the thirteenth.

The period of the predominance of the Jainas (a

predominance in intellect and learning—rarely a . predominance in

political power) was the Augustan age of Tamil literature, the period

when the Madura College, a celebrated literary association, appears to

have flourished, and when the Kural, the Chintdmani, and the classical

The Sanskrit derivatives

vocabularies and grammars were written.

found in the writings of this period are very considerably altered, so as

to accord with Tamil euphonic rules. - Thus /6ka, Sans. the world, is

changed into wlagw ; 744, a king, into arasu.

* It appears probable that it was during this period that the great temples of

the Carnatic were erected.

Those temples, the most stupendous works of the

kind in the East, seem to have owed their existence to the enthusiasm aud zeal

of the adherents of the Saiva-Siddhanta system.

I have not yet been able to

ascertain the exact date when any of the more celebrated temples was erected ;

but from inscriptions in my possession recording donations and endowments

made to them, I am able to state that the greater number of the Saiva temples

were in existence in the twelfth century, many in the eleventh.

I have not

ascertained the existence of any Vaishnava temple in the South before the twelfth

century.

ANTIQUITY OF THE TAMIL.

87

“Nearly the whole of the Sanskrit derivatives found in Telugu, Ca-

Al

narese, and Malayalam belong to the periods now mentioned, or at

Il

least they accord on the whole with the derivatives found in the Tamil

an

of those two periods, especially the former or more recent.

he

They are

divided, according to the degree of permutation or corruption to which

they have been subjected, into the two classes of tat-sama, the same

of

with it—z.e.,

words which are identical with Sanskrit—and tad-bhava,

of the same

nature with it =derived from it—z.e., words which are

I

derived from

a Sanskrit origin, but have been more or less corrupted

or changed by local influences.

The former class, or tatsama words,

OUS

are scarcely at all altered, and generally look like words which have

the

been used only by Brahmans, or which had been introduced into the

of

vernaculars at a period when the Sanskrit alphabetical and phonetic

he

systems had become naturalised, through the predominance of the later

th,

forms of Hindtism.

Sanskrit derivatives of the second class which

Iy

have been altered more considerably, or tadbliava words, do not appear

\UC

to have been borrowed directly from Sauskrit, but are represented by

Ty

Telugu and Canarese grammarians themselves as words that have been

by

borrowed from the Prakrits, or colloquial dialects of the Sanskrit,

)i )t

spoken in ancient times in the contiguous Gaura provinees.

(3.) In addition to the Sanskrit tatsama and tadbhava ch.*ris@tives of

tly

the two periods now mentioned—the modern Vedantic, Saiva, and

Sl

Vaishnava periods, and the Jaina period—Tamil contains many deriva-

the

tives belonging to the very earliest period of the literary culture of the

A0

language—derivatives which are probably of an earlier date than the

(J.

introduction of Sanskrit into the other dialects.

The derivatives of

o 10

this class were not borrowed from the northern Prakrits (though much

riod

more corrupted than even the derivatives borrowed from those Prakrits

s 10

by Canarese and Telugu), but appear to have been derived from oral

gl

intercourse with the first Brahmanical priests, scholars, and astrologers,

{ves

and probably remained unwritten for a considerable time.

The San-

50 88

skrit of this period is not only greatly more corrupted than that of the

8

period of the Jainas, but its corruptions are of a different character.

The Jainas altered the Sanskrit which they borrowed in order to

bring it into accordance with Tamil euphonic rules ; whereas in the

s

Sanskrit of the period now under consideration— the earliest period

j the

—the changes that have been introduced seem to be in utter

1 Zc‘l

defiance of rule.

o 0

The following are instances of derivatives of this

class :

fctfd

yett

(a.) The Saus. §ri, sacred, was altered into tirw, whilst a more

recent alteration of the Sanskrit word is into sir?, sird, and si.

o 10/

b

(b.) The Sans: karmam, a work, is in thev'l‘n.mil of the more modern

INTRODUCTION.

88

periods altered into karumam and kanmam,; but in the older Tamil

it was corrupted into kam.

(c.) Several of the names of the Tamil months supply us with illu-

The Tamil months, though

strations of early corruptions of Sanskrit.

now solar-siderial, are named from the old lunar asterisms, the names

of which asterisms, and still more the names of the months borrowed

from them, are greatly corrupted. Z.g., the asterism pdrova-dshddam,

is changed into pdrddam : ashddam, also, is changed into ddam, from

which is formed Ads, the Tamil name of the month July—August.

The name of the asterism aswini has been corrupted into eippase,

which is the Tamil name of the month October—November.

The

change of pdrva bhadra-pada, the Sanskrit name of one of the asterisms,

into puragtd$i is still more extraordinary.

Pirva-bhadra-pada was

first changed into pdrattddi, the name of the corresponding asterism

in Tamil ; and this, again, by the shortening of the first syllable and

the change of d¢ into si, became purat{dsi, the Tamil month September

—Qctober.

The corresponding names of the asterisms and months in

Telugu, Canarese, &c., are pure, unchanged Sanskrit ; and hence the

greater antiquity of the introduction of those words into Tamil, or at

least the greater antiquity of their use in Tamil written compositions,

may safely be concluded.

6. The higher antiquity of the literary cultivation of Tamil may also

In Karnataka and Telingina,

be inferred from Tamil inscriptions.

every inscription of an early date and the majority even of modern

inscriptions are written in Sanskrit.

Even when the characters

employed are those of the ancient Canarese or the Telugu (characters

which have been arranged to express the peculiar sounds of Sanskrit),

Sanskrit is the language in which the inscription is found to be written,

if it is one of any antiquity.

In the Tamil country, on the contrary,

all inscriptions belonging to an early period are written in Tamil ; and

T have not met with, or heard of, a single Sanskrit inscription in the

Tamil country which appears to be older than the fourteenth century,

A.D., though I have obtained fac-similes of all the inscriptions I could

hear of in South Tinnevelly and South Travancore—integral portions

of the ancient Pandyan kingdom.

The number of inscriptions I have

obtained is about a hundred and fifty.

They were found on the walls

and floors of temples, and on rocks and pillars,

The latest are written

in Grantha, or the character in which Sanskrit is written by the Dré-

vida Brahmans ; those of an earlier age either in an old torm of the

existing Tamil character,™ or in a still older character, which appears to

* 1 have long hoped at some period to make public the items of information

ANTIQUITY OF THE TAMIL,

89

have been common to the Tamil and the ancient Malayilam countries,

and 1s the character in which the ancient édsanas or documentary tablets

in the possession of the Jews at Cochin and of the Syrian Christians

in Travancore are written. This character is still used with some varia-

tions by the Muhammedan colonists in North Malayalam.

It presents

some points of resemblance to the modern Telugu-Canarese character,

and also to the character in which some undeciphered inscriptions in

Ceylon and the Eastern Islands are written.*

The language of all the

more ancient of these inscriptions is Tamil, and the style in which they

are written is that of the classical dialect, without any of those double

)y

6

plurals (e.g., ninggal, yous, instead of nfr, you), and other unauthorised

]

novelties by which modern Tamil is disfigured ; but it is free also from

the affected brevity and involutions of the poetical style.

As no

I

inscription of any antiquity in Telingdna or Karnataka is found to be

written in the Canarese or the Telugu language, whatever be the

character employed, the priority of Tamil literary culture, as well as

o

its national independence to a considerable extent, may fairly be

concluded.

I

o

[ may here remark that the Cochin and Travancore $dsanas or tablets

I}

which are referred to above, and which have been translated by Dr

Gundert, prove amongst other things the substantial identity of ancient

Malayalam with ancient Tamil.

The date of these documents is pro-

ko

bably not later than the ninth century, a.p., nor earlier than the

I

seventh ; for the technical terms of solar-siderial chronology (derived

!

o8

contained in those inscriptions, not one of which is included in the inseriptions

(g

belonging to the Mackenzie collection of MSS.

I may, however, mention here

the following results I have arrived at :—1. The generally fictitious character of

t)

the long lists of kings of Madura, each with a high-sounding Sanskrit name, which

el

are contalned in the local Purdnas and other legends, and which have been pub-

1y,

lished by Professor Wilson in his ¢“ Historical Sketch of the Pandiyan Kingdom,"’

and by Mr Taylor in his ‘‘ Oriental Historical MSS.”

2. The veracity and accu-

d

the

racy of most of the references to the PaAdya and Chéla dynasties contained in

thegMahéd-wanso and other historical records and compilations of the Singhalese

i

Buddhists. 8. The fag) or proof of the fact, of the subjection of the whole of the

;uld

Panlya country, including South Travancore, to the Chélas in the eleventh and

twelfth centuries. 4. The probable identification of Sundara Pandi, by whom

o

the Jainas (sometimes erroneously termed Buddhists) were finally expelled from

ove

Madura, and whom Professor Wilson has placed in the eighth or ninth century

ol

A.D., with the ‘ Sender Bandi,” who is said by Marco Polo to have been reigning

el

in the southern part of the peninsula during his visit to India in the end of the

thirteenth century.

The same Sundara Pandi is placed by native Hind autho-

i

rities some thousands of years before the Christian era. See “ Relative Antiquity

the

of Dravidian Literature.”

5 t0

* Jouwrnal of the Madras Literary Society, vol. xiii.

I here allow the language of the first edition to stand, my conjecture having

tid

been found to be very near the mark. See Section on Dravidian Alphabets.

INTRODUCTION.,

90

from the Stirya-Siddhénta of Arya-bhat@a) which are employed in these

inscriptions were not introduced till the seventh century.

The $dsanas

were written at a time when the Kérala dynasty was still predominant

on the Malabar coast ;* but though words and forms which are pecu-

liar to Malayalam may be detected in them, the general style of the

language in which they are written is Tamil, the inflexions of the

nouns and verbs are Tamil,

and the idiom is mostly Tamil ; and we are

therefore led to iufer that

at that period Tamil was the language at

least of the court and of

the -educated classes in the Malaydlam

country, and that what 1is

now called Malayadlam, if it then existed

at all, was probably nothing more than a patois current amongst

the inhabitants of the hills and jungles in the interior.

The fact that

the $§dsanas which were given by the ancient Malaydlam kings to the

Jews and Syrian Christians are in the Tamil language, instead of what

is now called Malayalam, eannot be accounted for by the supposition

of the subjection at that time of.any part of the Malayalam country to

the ancient kings of Madura; for the kings in question were Kérala,

not Pandya kings, with Kérala names, titles, and insignia; and it is

evident from the Greek geographers themselves, from whom alone we

know anything of an ancient Pindya conquest, that it was only a few

isolated places, on or near the Malabar coast, that were really under

the rule of the Pandyas.

The only part of the Malayalam country

which at that period could have belonged bond fide to the Pandyas,

was the southern part of the country of the Aii or Paralia, 7.e., South

Travancore, a district which has always been inhabited chiefly by

Pandyas, and where to the present day the language of the entire people

is Tamil, not Malayalam.

From the various particulars mentioned above, it appears clear that

the Tamil language was of all the Dravidian idioms the earliest culti-

e,

2L

Ll

* One of them is dated ‘‘in the thirty-sixth year of King Rava Varma, opposite

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

years from the building of Quilon,” a calculation according§to which the present

year, 1875, would be the fiftieth of the third cycle; but the same expression is

exceedingly common in ancient Tamil inscriptions (e.g., I have found * the

seventh year of King Kulasékhara opposite the fifteenth year”); and it denotes,

I conceive, the year of “the cycle of sixty” (which seems to have been at one

time the prevailing calculation all over India), to which the year of the king’s

reign stands “ opposite,” or answers.

Dr Burnell supposes the one year to be

that of the king’s age, and the other year that of his reigu, to which it corre-

sponds; but this supposition would bardly suit those cases where both numbera

are under ten. I admit, however, that the year of the cycle of sixty, in all the

authentic instances I am acquainted with, is cited, not by its number, but by

its name.

e

EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAG

oI

vated

it also appears highly probable that in the endeavour to ascer-

tain the characteristics of the primitive Dravidian speech, from which

the various existing dialects have divaricated, most assistance will be

The amount and value of this assistance will

furnished by Tamil

appear in almost every portion of the grammatical comparison on which

we ‘are about to enter.

It must, however, be borne .in mind, as has

already been intimated, that neither

Tamil nor any other single dialect,

ancient or modern, can be vmplicitly adopted as a faithful representative

of the primitive Dravidian tongue

A careful comparison of the pecu-

liarities of all the dialects will carry us up still further, probably up to

E

the period of their mutual divergence, a period long anterior to that of

grammars and vocabularies ; and it is upon the result of such a com-

parison that most dependence is to be placed

EARLIEST EXTANT WRITTEN RELICS OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES

h

The Dravidian words which are contained in the Ramdyana, the

8

Maha-bharata, and other Sanskrit poems of undoubted antiquity, are

[4

8o few that they throw no light whatever upon the ancient condition

i

of the Dravidian languages prior to the ninth or tenth centuries A. D

25

the earliest date to which any extant Tamil compositions can safely be

i

attributed

0y

The oldest Dravidian word found in any written record in the world

h

appears to be the word for ¢

peacock’ in the Hebrew text of the Books

)y

of Kings and Chronicles, in the list of the articles of nlerchandl%

16

brought from Tarshish or Ophir in Solomon’s ships, about- 1000 B.¢

This word is tuk: in Kings, td/k: in Chronicles

The ordinary name

1

ab present for the peacock on the Malabar coast and in Tamil is magysil

(Sans. mayira)

1t 1s also sometimes called siki (Sans. sikhi), a name

given to 1t on account of its crest; but the ancient, poetical, purely

13

Tamil-Malayalam name of the peacock is ¢0kes, the bird with the

fr

(splendid) tail

Sikhe = avis cristata

toker = avis candata

The verbal

il

root of the word #bkei is tok’ or ¢k, tuk or tdk’, to hang : hence ‘a

it

scarf’

a skirt border,

18 called #6/kker.

The vowel of the root librates

between % and o

half the derivatives have the one vowel, half the

o

other

fy

Hence there is no reason to suppose the Pheenicians in error

i

when they represented ¢tuk as the radical part of the word

That the

d]

vowel is short in Kings and long in Chronicles is also quite in accord-

be

ance with the fact that in

m

lamil

)

il-Malayélam the vowel is sometimes

short, sometimes long

18

he

Though ¢6kei, as a verbal noun, is a derivative from ¢6% or tdk yet

f

the ultimate root appears to have been fo or tu. Judging from analogy,

92

INTRODUCTION.

the final % or ku must have been a formative.

A primary root with

this addition is converted into a verbal noun, and in the next stage of

the language this verbal noun becomes in its turn a new, secondary

verbal root.

It is interesting to be able to trace the use of this Tamil-

Malayilam formative & or ku so early as the time of the Phcenician

trade with India.

Max Miiller, speaking of this etymology (Lect.

p. 209), remarks : “If this etymology be right, it would be an import-

ant confirmation of the antiquity of the Tamulic languages spoken in

India before the advent of the Aryan tribes.”

I have no doubt that

this etymology is right, and that the inference deduced from it is well

founded.

It may here be added that from the Dravidian toke:, pro-

nounced foget, would naturally be derived the Arabic zawas, the Greek

radwe, and ultimately the Latin pavo and our own pea-fowl.

Minayeff

has discovered in the Buddhistical writings a reference to voyages made

by ancient Indian merchants to Babylon (called ¢ Baver’ = Old Cunei-

form Persian ‘ Babiru’), in the second. of which voyages they took

thither the first peacock for sale. {(See paper by Professor Weber in the

Indian Antiguary for May 1873).

Of the names of the other articles of merchandise mentioned in

Kings and Chronicles, %47, an ape, has generally been identified with

the Sanskrit kapi; and the Greek #%wog, x¢ frog, has been supposed to

have the same origin.

It seems more probable, however, that the word

has been derived from the old Egyptian £df, an ape, a word which Mr

Le Page Renouf informs me is in very common use in Egyptian in-

scriptions, and which he says is to all appearance as ancient as the

language itself.

Algum may perhaps be the Sanskrit valguka, sandal

wood, another meaning of which is ¢ beautiful,” a word which seems to

be identical with or derived from the Tamil-Malayilam anugu or

alugu, beauty.

The origin of the word used for ‘ivory’ (shen habbim,

the tooth of the Aabs) still seems to me somewhat doubtful.

On the

whole, the most probable derivation seems to be from the old Egyptian

The

ab, ivory.

If so, alguwm will be more correct than almug.

fragrant wood called ‘aloes’ in Proverbs vii. 17, &c., was the Aquil-

aria Agallocha, the Hebrew word for which, akalim or ahaloth, is

evidently derived rather from the Tamil-MalayAlam form of the

word aghsl, than from the Sanskrit agaru, though both are ultimately

identical.

The Greek word é¢v€a, rice, must be one of considerable antiquity.

It dates from the period, whenever that was, when rice was first intro-

duced from India into Europe ; and it cannot be doubted that we have

here the Tamil word areéz, rice deprived of the husk, this being the

EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

93

h

of

condition in which rice was then, as now, brought up in India for

exportation to Europe. The distinctively Malayalam form of the word,

art, seems a corruption.

iV

The earliest Tamil word in Greek of which we know the date is

all

xdgmiov, Ctesias’s name for cinnamon.

Herodotus describes cinnamon

it

“as the zdpgsa (dry sticks), which we, after the Pheenicians, call

It

AIVACLUWULOY.

Liddell and Scott say, wn loc. zdeos, plural xegpea,

il

‘“this word bears a curious resemblance to the Arabic words kerfat,

af

kirfah.”

This resemblance, however, must, I think, be accidental,

3l

seeing that Herodotus considered ‘cinnamon’ alone as a foreign word,

[0

The word

and that zeppog is naturally derived from =depu, to wither.

0K

mentioned by Ctesias seems to have a real resemblance to the Arabic

eff

word, and also to a Dravidian one.

Ctesias, the author of the earliest

|16

Greek treatise on India, describes an odorous oil produced from an

¢}

Indian tree having flowers like the laurel, which the Greeks called wugo

lol\

g60e, but which in India was called xdpmio,

From Ctesias’s descrip-

e

tion (making allowance for its exaggerations) it is evident that cinna-

mon oil was meant, and in this opinion Wahl agrees.

Uranius, a

1l

writer quoted by Stephen of Byzantium, mentions xéprafor as one of

i

the productions of the Abaséni, the Arabian Abyssinians, by which

0

we are doubtless to understand not so much the products of their

ot

country as the articles in which they traded.

From the connection in

Mr

which it is found, #éprador would appear to be cinnamon, and we can

10

scarcely err in identifying with it kerfat, or, more properly, kirfah,

the

one of the names which cinnamon has received in Arabic,

Some

dal

Arabic scholars derive kirfah from karafa, ‘decor tavit;’ but Mr

0

Hassour does not admit this derivation, and considers Zirfah a foreign

0r

word. We are thus brought back to Ctesias’s xdgmiov, or the Indian

1

word which zdgmiov represented.

As this is a word of which we know

he

the antiquity, the supposition that the Greeks or Indians borrowed it

il

from the Arabs is quite inadmissible.

What then is the Indian word

I

Ctesias referred to? Not, as has been supposed, eurundhu, the Sin-

ghalese name for cinnamon, derived from the Sanskrit kurunta ; but

15

the Tamil-Malayilam word Zaruppu or kdrppu—e.g., karappa-tailam,

he

Mal. oil of cinnamon.

Other forms of this word are karappu, karuva,

el

and karwvd, the last of which is the most common form in modern

Tamil. Rheede refers to this form of the word when he says that “in

his time in Malabar oils in high medical estimation were made from

ity

both the root and the leaves of the karus or wild cinnamon of that

10

coast.”

70

the

There are two meanings of karw in Tamil-Malayilam ; or rather,

probably, there are two different roots, one of which means ‘ black,’

INTRODUCTION.

94

the other ‘pungent,” and the latter doubtless supplies us with the

explanation of karuppu, ‘ cinnamon.’

A word with a related meaning

to this is karukku, ¢ a medicinal preparation.’” This name may have been

given to cinnamon from what has been described as ¢ the sweet bu?'nf'mg

taste’ of the bark, and especially of the oil.

Wild cinnamon grows

freely in Malabar, in the very region in which Ctesias’s name for it,

and.the name adopted by the Arabians, is still in use

The cinnamon

now grown in Ceylon is, it is true, of a much finer quality, but it is

doubtful whether the cultivation of it had been introduced into Ceylon

at that early period, and even if it had, it should be remembered that

Ctesias, who derived all his information about India from Persian and

I

Babylonian merchants, seems to have known nothing of Ceylon.

have little doubt that the Sanskrit karpiira, ¢ camphor,’ is substantially

the same as the Tamil-MalayAlam karuppu and Ctesias’s xctgmior, seeing

that it'does not seem to have any root in Sanskrit, and that camphor

and cinnamon are nearly related.

The camphor of commerce is from

a cinnamon tree, the camphora officinarum.

If the identity of Ctesias’s

word with the Tamil-Malayalam karuppa be admitted, it follows that

we have here the earliest Dravidian word quoted by the Greeks, and

that at that early time Tamil roots were sometimes converted into

verbal nouns by the addition of the formative pu, as they are at present,

just as we have seen in the Hebrew #ki, the alternative formative ku

or ker, used, as at present, for the same purpose.

It is a remarkable circumstance that the largest stock of primitive

Dravidian words contained in any written documents of ancient times

—the earliest authentic extant traces of the existence of the Dravidian

languages, as distinguished from the Sanskrit—are those which are

found in the notices of the Greek geographers Ptolemy and the author

of the ¢Periplus Maris Erythraei;” including also the ‘‘Natural

History ” of Pliny.

Many of the names, and places, and tribes re-

corded by those geographers, not long after the commencement of the

Christian era, are identical, letter for letter, with the names now in

use.

Several of those names have become obsolete, or cannot now be

identified ; but the signification of the compound words of which they

consist is generally apparent, and in several of them we can detect the

operation of some interesting dialectic peculiarity or euphonic rule

which is still characteristic of these languages.

I subjoin a few

examples of Dravidian words of this class recorded by the Greeks,

beginning with the names of Dravidian peoples and princes.

(1.) 6 Mavdiwy—7n Xwoa wavdibvay (Kavdigrwy is evidently an error)—

This name is, as we have seen, of San-

the Pandya king and people.

skrit origin, and Pande, the form which Pliny, after Megasthenes,

-

—

5

X

LARL

i

EST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

95

o

<]

ives in his list of Indian nations, comes very near the Sanskrit.

The

16

more recent local information of Pliny himself, as well as the notices of

g

Ptolemy and the Periplus, supply us with the” Dravidian form of the

1l

word.

The Tamil sign of the masculine singular is an, and Tamil

‘9

inserts ¢ euphonically after 7d, consequently ITavdfwy, and still better,

i

the plural form of the word Iavdiives faithfully represents the Tamil

masculine singular Péndiyan.

Ptolemy is quite correct in giving -the

)il

same name to the people and their prince.

The people were Pandyas,

1§

the prince the Pandya, or the Pandya-déva.

The form of the mas-

1l

culine singular in ancient Canarese, corresponding to the Tamil an, is

\t

am ; in Telugu it is udu, so that Pandiyudu in Telugw answers to

(4

Pindiyan in Tamil.

Consequently we learn, that “as early .as ‘the

Christian era, Tamil differed dialectically from the other Dravidian

J

idioms, and in particular that its mode of forming the masculine sin-

gular was then the same as it is now.

)

We also learn from the expres-

or

sion Médovger Bao/hgiov Tavdidwig that the Pindyas had transferred their

)

capital from Kolkei on the TA4mraparni to Madura on the Veigei, or

98

Véghavati, before the Christian era.

Mddovpe itself (in Pliny Modura)

10

is the Sanskrit Mathura, pronounced in the Tamil manner,

The cor-

nd

responding city in Northern India, Muttra, 1is written by the Greeks

110

Mcédogce.

(2.) 6 Kngo Bobgos.

The prince called by this name by Ptolemy is

I

The insertion of

called 6 Ks7go Bérgog by the author of the Periplus.

7 18 clearly an error, but more likely to be an error of a copyist than

1\

that of the author, who himself had visited the territories of the prince

Il

in question.

He is called Czlobothras in Pliny’s text, but one of the

jan

MSS. gives it more correctly as Celobotras.

The name in Sanskrit,

16

and in full, is Keralaputra (see p.

), but both Kéra and Kéla are

0

Dravidian -abbreviations of Kérala.

They are Malayalam, however,

nl

not Tamil abbreviations; and the~district over which Keralaputra

ruled is that in which the Malayalam language is now spoken.

It

(3.) Sdpas vouades—' Agnardy Bacireiy Shgo—" Opbovge Boroinersy Swe

i

10

vayos—Ilagohin Swensay (or Swerydv) ; also Haga?u’r/: Twgryyay (which

be

should evidently have been that of the S&dgiyyos, seeing that it included

16}

the mouth of the river X«37g0¢). Without entering here on any minute

the

topographical discussions with regard to details, it seems evident to

e

me that the word 2dge, which we meet alone and in various combina-

tions in these notices, represents the name of the northern portion of

oW

the Tamilian nation. This name is C&dla in Sanskrit, C%éla in Telugu;

A

but in Tamil Séra or Chéra. Ptolemy’s accuracy, or rather perhaps

that of his informants, with regard to the name of this people is re-

)/

markable ; for in Tamil they appear not only as Séras, but also as

Al

165y

Tk

96

INTRODUCTION,

Séragas and Sériyas, and even as Séringas:; their country also is called

The of the Tamil word Séra is a peculiar sound, not

Séragamn.

contained in Telugu, in which it is generally represented by d, nor in

Sanskrit and Pali, in which it is represented by d or /.

The translitera-

tion of this letter by the Greeks as ¢ seems to show that then, as now,

the use of this peculiar 7 was a dialectic peculiarity of Tamil.

The

Indian equivalent of the name of the king Sornax has not survived (as

those of 0 ITavdiwy and o KﬂgoBd(Jgo; have), and it is fruitless to guess

what it may have been ; but as we know from native poems that the

name of the ancient capital of the Soras was Ureiylir (pronounced

OreiyQr), we may safely identify this name with Ptolemy’s " Oglevga,

the capital of the IMagarioa Swpzray.

(4.) " Aenarod Baciieoy Sihze " Agnoros is here represented, not as a

As General

country, people, or city, but as the name of a prince.

Cunningham has pointed out, Ségx is represented as the name of a

city, where a king called * Apxarog reigned. Though this was evidently

Ptolemy’s meaning, yet one is strongly tempted to suppose that here

the names given by the natives of the country to his informants had

got transposed.

The name Eo‘igm is identical with that of the people of

the district, whom Ptolemy himself calls Swgos vouades, and ' Apxorog

answers exceedingly well, in situation as well as in sound, to Arcot,

the capital of the Carnatic in Muhammedan times.

There is a distinct

tradition that the inhabitants of that part of the Chéla or Séra country

which lies between Madras and the Ghauts, including Arcot as its

centre, were Kurumbars or wandering shepherds—nomads—for several

centuries after the Christian era.

General Cunningham objects to this

identification that Arcot is quite a modern name; but it must, as

Colonel Yule has pointed out, be at least as old as 1340, A.D., for it is

The- name is properly dr’-kdd’, Tam. the

mentioned by Ibn Batuta.

six forests, and the Hindds of the place regard it as an ancient city,

though not mentioned by name in the Puranas, and point out the ‘six

L8

forests’ in which six of the rishis of the ancient period had their her-

mitages.

If this identification be admitted, we have here another

instance of the antiquity of the dialectic peculiarities of Tamil, for the

oblique form of the word kdd’ is kdt¢’, and the word ordinarily used

in Telugu for forest is not kdd’, but adavi or adar.

Karlir is mentioned in

Tamil

(5.) Kagovpa Boginesoy K#208¢0g0v.

traditions as the ancient capital of the Chéra, Kera, or Kérala kings,

and is generally identified with Carlr, an important town in the Coim-

batore district, originally included in the Chera kingdom.

Karir

means the black town, and I consider it ideutical with Keragam and

Kaddram, names of places which I have frequently found in insecrip-

e

_emmme

“

1

E;\RLIEST TRACES Of‘ THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES,

97

tiox‘ls in the Tamil country, and” which are evidently the poetical

equivalents of Kardr.

The meaning of each of the names is the

t

same.

Ptolemy’s word Kagougx represents the Tamil name of the

place with perfect accuracy ; kar means black, and @r (sometimes pro-

I

nounced #r-u), a town.

Neither of these words seems to have altered

in the least in sound or signification for 1800 years.

v!

(6.) Modogalingam nomine, Pliny.

I have already, in p.

, dis-

cussed the meaning of this name.

I add here that if modo be regarded

N

as a Telugu word, meaning three, we have here an interesting illustra-

tion of the antiquity of Dravidian dialectic peculiarities ; for three is

4

in Telugu maddu, in Tamil mindru, in Canarese malru, in Tulu madye.

(7.) Damirice, and also Scytia Dymirice, Peutinger Tables ; Dims-

rtea, in the Ravenna Cosmography, see p.

The Dymir of Dymi-

ly

rice was supposed by Dr Burnell to represent the word Tamir, and if

&

s0, the Damir of Damirice will come still nearer thereto.

The portion

of the Malabar coast immediately to the north of Dymirice is called, by

Ptolemy and the author of the “ Periplus,” A’graxn, and it seems pro-

Iy

bable that this was the district to which the name of Aryaka was given

by Vardha-mihira several centuries afterwards (Journal of the Royal

16

lﬂd

4 svatic Socvety, vol. v.) It appears probable, therefore, that the difference

(U8

between the Aryans and the Dravidians can be traced in the names

given by the Greeks to those portions of the Malabar coast which we

06

0

know from other sources of information have always been inhabited by

et

Aryans and Dravidians respectively.

(8.) I content myself with simply noting the following names of

1ih}

places on the Malabar coast.

Mou&igic appears to be the Muyiri of

1l

ot

Muyiri-cotta ; Tovdig is Tundi; and the Kynda of Nelkynda (or as

bis

Ptolemy has it MéA Kuida, ¢.e., western Kufda) seems to be Kaunettri,

the southern boundary of Kérala proper.

One MS. of Pliny writes the

)

18

second part of this word not cyndon, but canidon.

The first of these

places was identified by Dr Gundert; for the remaining two we are

e

indebted to Dr Burnell.

i,

¢

o/

(9.) Cottfngra, Pliny ; Kormovagix?i, Perip.; the district where the

best pepper was produced.

It is singular that this district was not

16l

mentioned by Ptolemy.

Cottonara was evidently the name of the

i

fhe

district ; zorrovaginv, the name of the pepper for which the district was

famous.

[\Ed

Dr Buchanan identifies Cottonara with Kodattanidu, the

name of a district in the Calicut country celebrated for its pepper,

Dr Burnell identifies it with Kolattanddu, the district about Telli-

\Illﬂ

cherry, which he says is the pepper district.

ﬂgsr

kadatta, in Malayilam,

means transport, conveyance.

il

(10.) Zeivyasa.

The author of the ‘ Periplus” calls by this name

il

g

aﬂd

11

Q

90

INTRODUCTION.

the camoes formed out of single trees, in which pepper was brought

from Cottonara to Burace.

The Malayalam name of these boats is

changddam, Tulu jangdla.

Compare Sanskrit samghddam, a raft.

I

have never been able to explain xoAavdidpwire, the name of the large

vessels that sailed from the western coast to Ceylon and the Ganges.

This is the name of a place in the country of the

(11.) Korridgo,

Aior of Ptolemy, in the ITepanio of the author of the ¢ Periplus,” iden-

tical in part with South Travancore.

Apparently it is the -Cottora of

Pliny, and I have no doubt that it is the Cottara of the Peutinger

Tables.

It is not to be confounded with Cottonara, the place men-

tioned above.

It is called by Ptolemy Korrictpee Myroémorss, and must

have been a place of considerable importance. The town referred to is

probably Kéttar-u, or as it is ordinarily written by Europeans, Kotaur,

the principal town in South Travancore, and now, as in the time of the

Greeks, distinguished for its commerce.

The name of the place is

derived from Zkéd-w, Tam.-Mal. a fort, and dr-u, a river.

It is a rule

both in Tamil and in Malayalam that when a word like 264’ is the first

member of a compound, the final ¢ must be doubled for the purpose of

giving the word the force of an adjective: it is another rule that son-

ants when doubled become surds.

Consequently the compound kdd-u

— dr-u becomes by rule Kott-dr-u.

If the identification of the place

be correct, as it appears to me to be, we find here an interesting proof

that in the time of the Greeks the same phonetic rules were in opera.

tion as now.

Cape Comorin

(12.) Kopcigio cngov, Ptol. ; Komcy, Kowagel, Perip.

has derived its name from the Sanskrit kumdri, a virgin, one of the

names of the goddess Durgd, the presiding divinity of the place; but

the shape this word has taken, especially in-Kouag, is distinctively

Tamilian.

In the vulgar dialect of the people residing in the neigh-

bourhood of the Cape, a virgin is not kumdré or kumdri, but kdmdr,

It is remarkable that this vulgar corruption of

pronounced - kdmdr.

the Sanskrit is identical with the name given to the place by the author

of the “ Periplus.’

‘He says, “ After this there is another place called

[

Koudg, where there is a (grdgrov (probably Peovgior, a fort, iegov is less

likely), and a harbour, where also people come to bathe and purify

themselves,

.. for it is related that a goddess was once accustomed

to bathe there monthly.”

This monthly bathing in honour of the

goddess Durgi is still continued at Cape Comorin, but is not practised

l

to the same extent as in ancient times.

Kumari formerly ranked as

one of the five renowned sacred bathing places, a representation which

accords with the statement of the author of the ¢ Periplus.”

Through

Pl e Bt pmem

the continued encroachments of the sea, the harbour the Greek mari-

—

EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LAN GUA(;LE\

99

2

K

)

ners found at Cape Comorin, and the fort (if that were meant) have

1§

completely disappeared ; but a fresh-water well remains in the centre

of a rock a little way out at sea.

It is singular that Cape Comorin

does not appear in any shape in the Peutinger Tables.

(13.) Tagaria,

There are three Paralias mentioned by the Greeks,

0e

two by Ptolemy (the Paralia of the Soneti, and the Paralia properly so

Il

called, that of the Toringi), one by the author of the ¢ Periplus.” The

ol

Paralia mentioned by the latter corresponded to Ptolemy’s country of

Jer

the 'Alos and that of the Kagéo, that is, to South Travancore and South

!

Tinnevelly.

It commenced at the Red Cliffs, south of Guilon, and

N

included not only Cape Comorin, but also Kéryor, where the pearl fish-

18

ing was carried on, and which belonged to King Pandion.

Dr Burnell

Ii¥

ith Purali, which he states is an old name for Tra-

ihentifies Hagarso

he

vancore, but I am not quite able to adopt this view.

It is true that,

18

if the Greeks found any part of the Travancore coast called Purali, they

le

would naturally proceed to convert that name into a word of their own,

s

bearing an intelligible and appropriate meaning ; but, on the other

(1

hand, it is not clear that any part of the coast was ever called by that

S0l

name.

Purale is said by Dr Gundert (¢ Malayilam Dictionary” in

i

loc.) to be the name of a fort belonging to the old kings of Kétaya-

Jace

gattu in the interior.

Hence Puralisan, lord of Purali, was one of the

titles of those kings.

proof

This title is now poetically applied to the kings

pem.

of Travancore; but it seems probable that it was adopted by them at

a comparatively late period, on their gaining possession of the territory

ot

to which it belonged, in the same manner as they adopted the title of

f the

Vanji-bhaipati, lord of Vanji, a name of Karfir, the ancient Chera or

; but

Kerala capital.

It is also to be remembered that the Paralia of the

vely

““ Periplus ” included not ouly the coast of South Travancore, but also

eig

the coast of Tinnevelly as far as Kolkei.

It appears to me, therefore,

imdﬁ

that Magarie is to be taken as a Greek word, though possibly it may

i Of

have corresponded in meaning, if not in sound, to some native word

uthor

meaning coast.

This will appear probable from the next item.

caﬂed

(14.) 6 fegéor. The Carei of Ptolemy inhabited the southern por-

s IS

tion of Tinnevelly, between Cape Comorin and Kolkei ; consequently

pul‘ify

their country constituted the eastern portion of the Paralia of the

tOmEd

“Periplus.” Kares is the Tamil word for coast or shore, from the verbal

i e

theme %aret, to be melted down, to be washed away, and is obviously

tctised

identical in meaning with the Greek Iagaria. Up to the present time

several portions of the Tinnevelly coast (including that part where I

ol B

Which

have myself lived and laboured for more than thirty years) are called

Karei, the coast, or Karei-chchuttru, the coast circuit, and a caste of

urOug‘h

There can-

mﬂll

fishermen further north are called kareiydr, coast-people.

100

INTRODUCTION.

not be any doubt that the last portion of two names of places men-

tioned by Ptolemy represents the Tamil kare:, coast, viz., aroirogiog

and Hegzyxage”:.

If the latter word had been written IToguyxopge s, it

would have been perfectly accurate Tamil, letter for letter. The mean-

ing is great shore ; and perwm, great, becomes perung before k }oy rule.

perum itself, instead of peru, is a distinctively classical form.

(15.) # Swrsv. The TAmraparni, the chief river in Tinnevelly, must

be the river intended to be denoted by Ptolemy by this name, for it is

the only river mentioned by him between Cape Comorin and the Kaverti,

and it entered the sea south of Kolchoi, the emporium of the pearl

trade, which was certainly at the mouth of the Tamraparni.

It is diffi-

This word

cult, however, to explain how it came to be called Zwazy.

means a shell-fish, a mussel, in Greek ; and it seems uncertain whether

the Crecks called the river by this name, because the native name

of it somewhat resembled this, or because of the fishing for chanks, as

well as pearls, carried on at its mouth.

The name by which the river

seems always to have been called is TAmraparni, a name which bears no

resemblance whatever to Solen.

In Tamil poetry it is often called the

Porunei, which is merely a Tamilisation of the second portion of its

Sanskrit name.

Témraparni. Sans., would naturally mean the tree

with red or copper leaves ; applied to a river, it would seem to mean

the river which resembles a red leaf.

It is called by this name in the

Mah4-bharata, though whether the passage in which it is mentioned is

The name Tamra-

older than Ptolemy may be regarded as uncertain.

parnt being identical with the oldest name of Ceylon—TAambapanni in.

Pali, TawpiBavy in Greek—it might have been supposed, if the river

had been called by this name in the time of the Greeks, that they

would have called it the Taprobane, the name by which they called

Ceylon.

Solen cannot have any connection with Sylan, erroneously

represented in Lassen as the name of the principal tributary of the

Tamraparnl. This tributary is called the Chittra-nade, commonly the

Chittar, the small river, and it is physically impossible that it ever can

have been, as Lassen conjectured, the principal stream, the mountain

district it drains being very much smaller.

(16.) Barriyw.

This, according to Ptolemy, was the name of the

mountain range in which the Solen—the Tamraparni—took its rise,

in addition to two rivers on the western coast, the Baris and Pseudos-

tomos. The mountain range meant is evidently that of the Southern

Ghauts—that is, the range of hills stretching from the Coimbatore

)

gap to Cape Comorin.

The TAmraparni rises in a beautiful conical

(

mountain included in this range, visible from the mouth of the river,

and visible also from Kolhei, the emporium frequented by the Greeks.

{

It

EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

I0I

4

When the Greeks asked where the river took its rise, they would

1t

naturally be directed to this conspicuous mountain, and on learning

its name would naturally give the same name to the whole range.

3

This mountain is commonly called by the English Agastier—that is,

the rishe Agastya’s hill—Agastya being supposed to have finally retired

156

thither from the world after civilising the Dravidians; but the true

1§

Tamil name of the mountain is Podigei, pronounced Pothiger (the

T,

Podvyam of the poets) or Peria Podiger, in contradistinction to a

:arl

smaller mountain in the same neighbourhood. The root meaning of

il

pode being ‘to cover,” ‘to conceal,’ podiger may have meant ‘a place

d

of concealment;’ but, whatever may have been its meaning, it seems

her

to come as near the Greek Brrriyw as could be expected.

Il

(17.) Kényor éumdgion.

This place is mentioned both by Ptolemy

and by the author of the ¢ Periplus,” both of whom agree in represent-

(28

ing it as the headquarters of the pearlfishery, and as belonging to King

ne

Pandion.

It was the first place east of Cape Comorin frequented by

the

the Greeks, and was situated to the north of the river Solen.

It 1s

1fs

one of the few places in India mentioned in the “ Peutinger Tables,”

where it is called ¢ Colcis Indorum.’

From the name of this place the

1ee

oAl

Gulf of Manaar was called by the Greeks the Colchic Gulf.

The

It is

Tamil name of the place is almost identical with the Greek.

th'e

Kolkei; and though this is now euphonically pronounced Korker,

)dlﬂ

through the change of / before % into r by rule, yet it is still pronounced

e

il

Kolkei in Malayilam, and I have found it written Kolkes in an old

Tamil inscription in the temple at Trichendoor.

Doubtless it was so

178!

pronounced in the time of the Greeks, when euphonic refinements could

they

Jled

not have advanced far.

Korkei is well known in Tamil traditions as

the place where the germs of civil government made their first appear-

psly

ance amongst the Tamilians—the government set up in common by

the

the

the three mythical patriarchal brothers, Séran, Séran, and Pdndiyan.

Vira-Rama, the poet-king, one of the later Pandyas, in a little poem

o

called “Vettri-vérkei,” styles himself Korkei(y)dli-—that is, ‘ruler of

jfall

Korkei.’

This place is now about three miles inland, but there are

abundant traces of its having once stood on the coast, and the tradition

fhe

that it was once the seat of the pearl-fishery still survives amongst its

1186

inhabitants.

After the sea had retired from Kolchoi, in consequence

4o

of the silt deposited by the river, a new emporium arose on the coast,

herd

which was much celebrated during the middle ages.

This was Kayal

ptore

(meaning in Tamil ‘the lagoon’), the Cael of Marco Polo.

(See

gt

Colonel Yule’s “Marco Polo,” vol. ii.) Kayal in turn became in time

17y

too far from the sea for the convenience of trade, and Tuticorin was

\eeksl

raised instead by the Portuguese from the position of a fishing village

L2

INTRODUCTION.

to that of an important port. The pearl-oyster has nearly disappeared

no\w,‘I am sorry to say, from the coast, and the staple trade of Tuti-

corin has long been, not pearls, but cotton.

The identification of

Kiryor with Kolkei is one of much importance.

Being perfectly

certain, it helps forward other identifications.

Kol in Tamil means

“to slay ;* kes, is ‘hand.’ The meaning of Kolkei, therefore, is ‘the

hand of slaughter,’ Wh'i'ch is an old poetical term in Tamil for ‘an

army,” ‘a camp,’ a natural instrument of government in a rude age.

In so far as the two words included in this name are co‘nce'r_ned, the

Tamil language does not seem to have altered in the siightest from

that day to this.

The junction of the words has been euphonised, but

the words themselves remain the same.

(18.) Kaigu.

Ptolemy describes Kagu as an island in the Argaric

Gulf, or Palk’s Straits.

Elsewhere he describes it as a promontory,

and correctly, for it was both—if it is to be identified, as I have no

doubt it is, with RAmé$waram, a long narrow island terminating in a

long spit of land.

The bay between Point Calymere and the island

of Rdmé¢waram is called ¢ Rama’s bow,” and each end is called Dhanu

koti, ‘the tip of the bow, or simply £6¢i (in Tamil 7c6di>, ‘the end’

or ‘corner.’” The most celebrated of the two kddes was that at Ramés-

waram, and this word kéde would naturally take the form of kore or

koru.

The ease with which this change might take place is shown by

the fact that it is this very word kdéf¢ which is' meant when we speak

of the high number called by the English a orore.

It is remarkable

that the Portuguese, without knowing anything about the Kagv of the

Greeks, called the same spit of land Cape Ramacoru.

(1 9.) Ka?\)\/fym(]v.

According to Ptolemy, Kapv, the Riméswaram

spit of land, was also called KaAyixdy, but it seems probable that he

was mistaken in this identification, and that we are to understand by

Karnymiv the promontory called Calingon by Pliny, by which it

The circumstance that

appears to me that Point Calymere was meant.

there were two places called K&gu—that is, two ends of the bow-—one

of which was at Point Calymere, seems to show how Ptolemy’s infor-

mants may have come to speak of Kapgv as also called Kaaryixds. The

Tamil name of Point Calymere is Kalli-médu,—that is, ¢ the euphorbia

eminence, —and it seems probable that the Greek xaaxri and the Tamil

kalle are identical.

(20.) Kiine,

In the various Greek and Roman geographers prior

to the time of Ptolemy, the name Kang occupies an important place.

It appears first (in the shape of an appellative) in Strabo, who speaks

of Ceylon as seven days’ sail from the southernmost part of India, the

|

inhabitants of which he calls Kvasaxoi ; but it is probable that Strabo

10

EARLIEST T LAQ‘ES OF THE DRAVII’DI{&N LA‘NGUAGES.

d

herein follows fOnes:iavri.trus, a writer three centuries older, who repre-

sented: Ceylon (Taprobare) as twenty. days’ sail from the same place.

i

Pomponius Melo calls it Colis.

Pliny, who reduces the number of

days’ sail from Ceylon to four, calls the place Coliacum, and describes

it as the.promontory of India which was nearest Ceylon, between which

i}

and it there was a shallow coral sea,

Dionysius Perigetes, who brings

4

Kdng into greater prominence than any other writer, transfers to it

(by a poetical licence) the description of Aormis near the Indus, given

by the writers of Alexander’s period, and gives to Ceylon itself a name

16

which seems to be derived from Kaiig—viz., Karag - In Ptolemy

1t

Kang disappears, and Kagv, a name previously unknown, comes up

instead.

I have no doubt that the words Kaiig and Kdagu are iden-

tical, and that the places denoted by these names were one and the

¢

same—viz,, the island-promontory of Ramé$waram, the point of land

)

from which there was always the nearest access from Southern India

to Ceylon.

The geographical knowledge of the present time might

naturally wish to identify Kaxg with Cape Comorin, as the southern-

d

most point of India; but in the times preceding Ptolemy (e.g., in the

[

“ Peutinger Tables ”) what we now call Cape Comorin was not known

d

to be a cape; and the Cape Comorin of the period (that is, what was

;

supposed to be the southernmost point of the Indian continent) was

O

Kogi, or Raméswaram, the point from which the passage to Ceylon

0y

(Rama’s or Adam’s bridge, the Ma’abar of the Arabians) was most

g8

On the

easily made.

I do not consider Kaasg a corruption of Kagu.

e

contrary, I regard both names as equally representing the same word.

fhe

Koy, ‘the end of the bow,” ‘the angle,”—that is, the angle or corner

of the bay (the Argaric Gulf) lying between Point Calymere and the

rall

island of RAméswaram.

Pomponius Mela regarded it as an ‘angulus,’

f e

not of that bay merely, but of India, viewed as a whole.

He supposed

| by

it to be the termination towards the east of the southern coast, which

h 1t

extended thus far in a straight line nearly due east and west from the

Indus !

that

Kédig seems to me somewhat nearer the Indian original

Il

Koti or Kédi, than Kédgv; and the change of the Sanskrit d-into the

Tamilian 7 or /, we have already seen exemplified in the change of the

for

The

d of Dravid into the 7 or { of Z'amar or Taml.

\rblﬂ

(21.) Malli, quorum Mons Maleus,; Pliny.

This mountain seems

il

to have been to the north of the country of the Calingas, and General

i1t 1S

Cunningham ‘identifies it with Mahéndra Male in Ganjam.

ot

difficult to determine the situation of the places in India mentioned

in Pliny ; but it seems certain that, wherever the Mons Maleus may

a6

have been, its name embodied the well-known Dravidian word (which

ook

we see also in the Sanskrit Malaya) malei, ‘a mountain.’

The name

fhe

‘mbo

INTRODUCTION.

104

of the people was probably derived from the same word, and signified,

like the Tamil maleiyar and the Rajmahal Maler, ¢ mountaineers.’

(22.) It may be noticed th:t the rendering of the Sanskrit Buddha

by Clemens Alexandrinus as Bovrra, and his rendering of the Sanskrit

$ramana (Buddhistic ascetics) by Sswwoi, accord better with the Tamil

forms of these words (Buttu and Samana) than with the Sanskrit

originals.

(23.) It is remarkable how many names of places in Southern India

mentioned by Ptolemy end in ovg or ovge, ‘town.” There are twenty-

three such places in all. The following are exalnpies :—3Saroip, Kogé-

ovger, Iodowégovgs, Tlahovgw, *AgeufBoby, Mayole, Mayrirrolp, Kogndisg.

In addition to these there is Kagodgo mentioned already. It is scarcely

possible to doubt that ITodowégoupe -means pudu-per-ir, ‘new great-

town ;

or IMaAovga, pdl-dr, ‘milk-town.’

Probably a letter or two

in the rest may have been changed, so that we cannot be certain what

they meant, except the places should be identified, which has not yet

been done ; but they sound wonderfully Tamil-like.

The conjunctions

of consonants (nt, nd, mb, ) are exactly such as Tamil loves.

Some of the names of places mentioned by Ptolemy prove that the

Brahmans had by that time established themselves at various points

in the Carnatic, and given names to some of the principal localities.

Médovger, Madura, is a Sanskrit word ; so also is TTavdiws, the king’s

name,

XoBngog, ¢ the yellow river,” the Kavéri, is claimed by Sanskrit,

though possibly Dravidian.

There is no doubt that Koudsa, Cape

Comorin, is Sanskrit ; and probably Kdgu is Sanskrit also.

Ptolemy

says that Brahmans (Bgayudioas Mdyio) dwelt in the country under the

mountain Bxrriyd, and as far as the country of the Bdror—éwic it

70¢, Beolyun.

Can this be Brahmadisam, an ancient town on the

Tamraparni, not far from the foot of the Podigei mountain, which I

have found referred to in several ancient inscriptions ?

At a later period than that of Ptolemy by several centuries, when

the Indian trade had passed from the hands of the Greeks to those of

the Persians, Cosmas Indico Pleustes, in his ¢ Christian Topography,”

furnishes some interesting particulars respecting Ceylon and the Malabar

coast, included in which he preserves for us a few Tamil words.

I

have already mentioned his name for the Malabar coast—Ma, ‘the

mountain region.’

He gives also the names of five places on the

Malabar coast from which pepper was exported, three of which end in

Tarave, ‘town,” a word which, though found in Sanskrit, is, I think,

of Dravidian origin; and of these, one (ITovdomdrave) gives us the

distinetively Tamil word pudu, new.

There is still on the same coast

a town called by this name, which, like many other ¢ Newtons,” must

==

108

;EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.,

be a town of considerable antiquity, seeing that it has long been

regarded by native authorities as the northern boundary of Kérala

proper and of true Kérala usages.

This wovdo of Cosmas is slightly

more correct than the @edo of Ptolemy’s wodorégovgc.

Colonel Yule

(Bombay Antiguary for August 1874) identifies the place with the

t

‘ Bodfattan’ of Ibn Batuta, and the ¢ Pendefitanta’ of Nicol] Conto.

Though the Greek geographers have not given us any information

t

respecting the languages of India, beyond what is furnished by the

names of places contained in their works, the information derived from

The earliest extant traces of the

those lists is exceedingly interesting.

12

Dravidian languages which possess reliable authority, are those with

y

which we have been furnished by the ancient Greeks; and from an

examination of the words which they have recorded, we seem to be

Justified in drawing the conclusion, not only that the Dravidian lan-

guages have remained almost unaltered for the last two thousand years,

h

‘but probably also that the principal dialects that now prevail had a

8

separate existence at the commencement of the Christian era, and pre-

vailed at that period in the very same districts of country in which we

‘now find them.

1o

The art of writing had probably been introduced, the

1

‘grammar of the Dravidian languages had been fixed, and some progress

Al

made in the art of composition before the arrival of the Greek mer-

chants ;* and the extraordinary fixity with which those languages

/8

t,

appear to have been characterised ever since that period is in accord-

ance with the history of all other Asiatic languages, from the date of

pe

1y

the commencement of their literary cultivation.

he

I§

* 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

16

coins found in India are those of the reign of Augustus. A large number of

Roman imperial aurei were found some years ago on the Malabar coast ; upwards

of thirty types of which, commencing with the earlier coins of Augustus, and

el

including many of Nero, were described by me in a paper published at Trivand-

rum in 1851 by the Rajah of Travancore, to whom the coins belonged.

of

It may be desirable to mention here the approximate dates of the Greek and

)

Roman geographical writers referred to above.

al

B.C.—Herodotus 420 ; Ctesias 400 ; Onesicritus 325 ; Megasthenes 300.

A.D.—Strabo 20 ; Pomponius Mela 50; Pliny 77 ; Periplus Maris Erythreei

80 ; Dionysius Periegetes 86 ; Ptolemy 130 ; Arrian 150 ; Clemens Alexandrinus

he

200 ; Eusebius 320; Festus Avienus 380 ; Marcian 420 ; Cosmas Indicopleustes

e

535; Stephen of Byzantium 560 ; Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia, 7th

n

century ; Georgius Syncellus 800 ; Fustathius, the commentator on Dion

Per

» 12th century ; Uranius, a writer quoted by Stephen of Byzantium, date

IL’

unknown.

The date of the Peutinger Tables is unknown, but an examination of

he

the Asian segment of those tables convinces me that the author could not have

had any acquaintance with Ptolemny, and therefore probably lived at an earlier

st

period,

36

106

INTRODUCTION.

If the Dravidian family of languages is allied, as I think it may be

believed to be in the main, to the Scythian families, it may justly

claim to be considered as one of the oldest congeners of the group.

With the exception of the language of the Behistun tablets, no words

belonging to any distinctively Scythian language can be traeed. 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 language.”

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 compared in point of antiquity with that of the Dravidian.

Amongst the earliest records of the Scythian tongues that have been

discovered, is a brief list of words 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, pro-

bably three, certainly two, are Dravidian.

Those words as given by

the Chinese are :—

MopERN TURKISH.

TAMIL.

IJRhISFOF THE ALTAI.

black,

koro,

quard,

karu.

old,

kort,

qgort,

kvra.

kén, or ko.

chieftain,

kén,

khdn,

I am strongly inclined to consider the last Tamil word, &én or k4, to

be identical with the kdn, khdn, or khdgan of the Turko-Mongolian

languages.

The Ostiak, an Ugrian dialect, has k%kon ; and the word

signifying king, which is found in the Scythic version of the Behistun

tablets, and which certainly commences with % or kh, is conjecturally

In the old Tamil inscriptions I have invari-

written by Mr Norris %o.

ably found k6 or kén instead of the Sanskrit £djd ; but the word has

become obsolete in modern Tamil, except in compounds, and in the

honorific caste title kon, assumed by shepherds.

This conjunction of

meanings (king and shepherd) is very interesting, and reminds oue of

the Homeric description of kings as wonuéves Aoy,

The Tamil literature now extant enables us to aseend ill studying

the history of the language only to the ninth or tenth century, A.D.:

the Dravidian words handed down to us by the Greeks carry us up, as

we have seen, to the Christian era.

3eyond that period, the compari-

son of existing dialects is our only available guide to a knowledge of

RELATION OF DRAVIDIANS TO NORTH INDIANS.

10

»

/

the primitive condition of the Dravidian language. The civilisation of

the Tamil people, together with the literary cultivation of their lan-

guage, may have commenced about the sixth or seventh century, B.C.,

but the separation of the primitive Dravidian speech into dialects

must have taken place shortly after the arrival of the Dravidians in

the districts they at present inhabit—an event of unknown, but cer-

tainly of very great antiquity.

The Irish and the Welsh dialects of

the Celtic, the Old High and the Old Low dialects of the Teutonic,

and the I'innish and Magyar dialects of the Ugrian, had probably

become separate and distinct idioms before the tribes by which those

dialects are spoken settled in their present habitations ; but the various

Dravidian dialects which are now spoken appear to have acquired a

separate existence subsequently to the settlement of the Dravidians in

the localities in which we now find them.

Supposing their final settle-

ment in their present abodes in Southern India to have taken place

shortly after the Aryan irruption (though I think-it’ probable that it

took place before), every grammatical form and root which the various

_dialects possess in common, may be regarded as at least coeval with

the century subsequent to the arrival of the Aryans. Every form and

root which the Brahui possesses in common with the Dravidian tongues

may be regarded as many centuries older still.

The Brahui analogies

enable 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

i

condition of the Dravidian languages before the Dravidians had finally

abandoned- their original abodes in the central tracts of Asia.

10

jan

Poriricar AND Soctan RELATION OF TRE PRIMITIVE DRAVIDIANS TO

[)[’d

THE ARYAN AND PRZ-ARYAN INHABITANTS OF NORTHERN INDIA.

Ul

all

The arrival of the Dravidians in India “must have been anterior to

ol

the arrival of the Aryaus, but there is some difficulty in determining

Jias

whether the Dravidians were identical with the aborigines whom the

e

Aryans found in possession of the northern provinces, and to whom the

y 0

vernacular languages of Northern India are supposed to be indebted

e(}i

for the non-Sanskritic elements they contain, or whether they were a

distinct and more ancient race.

The question may be put thus :—Were

jing

the Dravidians identical with the Dasyus, by whom the progress of the

1D

Aryans was disputed, and who were finally subdued and incorporated

lp: a.s

with the Aryan race as their serfs and dependents ? or were they a race

lpﬁﬂ'

unknown to the Aryans of the first age, which had already been

I ol

expelled from Northern India, and driven southwards towards the

108

INTRODUCTION.

extremity of the peninsula before the Aryans arrived? This question

of the relation of the Dravidians to the Aryanised aborigines of Nor-

thern Tndia 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 Sanskrit, the Prakrits,

and the northern vernaculars.

We may, indeed, with tolerable safety

regard the Dravidians as the earliest inhabitants of India, or at least

as the earliest race that entered from the North-West ; but it is not so

easy to determine whether they were the people whom the Aryans

found in possession and conquered, or whether they had already, before

the arrival of the Aryans, moved on southwards out of the northern

provinces, or been expelled from those provinces by the pree-historic

irruption of another race.

Some inquirers have held the identity of

the Dravidians with the primitive Sfidras ; and something may be said

in support of this hypothesis.

] am not competent to promounce a

decided opinion on a point which lies so far beyond my owu province,

but the differences which appear to exist, and which I have already

pointed out, between the Dravidian languages and the non-Sanskritic

under-stratum of the northern vernaculars induce me to incline to the

supposition that the Dravidian idioms belong to an older period of

speech.

If this supposition is correct, it seems to follow that the pro-

genitors of the Scythian or non-Aryan portion of the Stidras and mixed

classes now inhabiting the northern provinces must have made their

way into India subsequently to the Dravidians, and also that the Dra-

vidians must have retired before them from the greater part of Northern

India, ere they were in their turn subdued by a new race of invaders.

By whomsoever the Dravidians were expelled from Northern India—if

they ever were really expelled

and through what causes soever they

were induced to migrate southward, I feel persuaded that they were

Neither the subjugation of the Cholas,

never expelled by the Aryans.

Pandyas, and other Dravidians by the Aryans, nor the expulsion from

Northern India by the Aryans of the races who afterwards became

celebrated in the South, as Pindyas, Cholas, Kéralas, Kalingas, Andh-

ras, &c., is recognised by any Sanskrit authority, or any Dravidian

tradition.

Looking at the question from a purely Dravidian point of

view, I feel convinced that the Dravidians never had any relations

with the primitive Aryans but those of a peaceable and friendly char-

acter ; and that if they were expelled from Northern India, and forced

to take refuge in Gondwana and Dandakiranya—the great Dravidian

forest—prior to the dawn of their civilisation, the tribes that subdued

and thrust them southwards must have been prae-Aryans.

Those pra-Aryan Scythians, by whom I have been supposing the

RELATION OF DRAVIDIANS TO NORTH INDIANS.

109

Dravidians to have been expelled from the northern provinces, are not

to be confounded with the Kols, Santals, Bhils, Doms, and other abori-

ginal tribes of the North.

Possibly these tribes had fled into the for-

ests from the Dravidians prior to the pree-Aryan 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, we

cannot suppose that it was through an irruption of those forest tribes

Il

that the Dravidians were driven southwards; nor does the non-San-

skritic element supposed to be contained in the northern vernaculars

appear to accord distinctively with the peculiar structure of.the Kola-

1;

rian languages.

The tribes of Northern India whom the Aryans gra-

&

dually incorporated in their community, as Stdras, whoever they were,

must have been an organised and formidable race.

They may have

J

iy

been identical with the ¢ Athiopians from the East,” who, according to

fie

Herodotus, were brigaded with other Indians in the army of Xerxes,

and who differed from other Althiopians in being ¢ straight-haired.’

he

of

I admit that there is a difficulty in supposing that the Dravidians,

10

who have proved themselves superior to the Aryanised Stdras of Nor-

thern India in mental power, independence, and patriotic feeling,

el

should have been expelled from their original possessions by an irrup-

el

i

tion of the ancestors of those very Stdras.

It is to be remembered,

however, that the lapse of time may have effected a great change in

1610

the warlike, hungry, Scythian hordes that rushed down upon the first

ors

i

Dravidian settlements. It is also to be remembered that the dependent

and almost servile position to which this secondary race of Scythians

hey

was early reduced by the Aryans, whilst the more distant Dravidians

ere

}1355

were enjoying freedom and independence, may have materially altered

their original character.

It is not therefore so improbable as it might

1o

at first sight appear, that after the Dravidians had been driven across

I

the Vindhyas into the Dekhan by a newer race of Scythians, this new

il

race, conquered in its turn by the Aryans and reduced to a dependent

don

position, soon sank beneath the level of the tribes which it had ex-

f ol

pelled ; whilst the Dravidians, retaining their independence in the

j0n8

southern forest into which they were driven, and submitting eventually

/har

to the Aryans, not as conquerors, but as colonists and instructors, gra-

el

dually rose in the social scale, and formed communities and states in

o

the extreme South, rivalling those of the Aryans in the North.*

nﬁwd

* Dekhan is a corruption of the Sanékrit dakshija, the south, literally, the

, e

110

INTRO l)UC'JA‘ION,'

Mr Curzon (Jowrnal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xvi.) attempted

to meet the difficulty I have stated by supposing that the Tamilians

were never in possession of Aryé-vartta, or Northern India, at all ; but

that they were connected with the Malay race, and came to Southern

India by sea, from the opposite coast of the Bay of Bengal, or from

Ceylon.

This theory seems, however, perfectly gratuitous ; for it has

been proved that the languages of the Gonds and Kus are Dravidian

equally with Tamil itself ; that the Ordon and the Rajmahal are also

substantially "Dravidian ; and that Brahui partakes so largely of the

same character (not to speak of the language of the Scythic tabllets of

Behistun), as to establish a connection between the Dravidians and the

ancient races west of the Indus.

It has also been shown 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 Tiyars (properly

T'tvdrs, islanders) and the Iravars, Singhalese (from /ram, Ceylon, a word

which has been corrupted from the Sanskrit Sz'm]zchmn,‘or rather from the

Pali Sthalam, by the omission of the initial ), both of them Travancore

castes, are certainly immigrants from Ceylon ; but these and similar im-

migrants are not to be considered as Singhalese, in the proper sense of the

term, but as offshoots from the Tamilian population of the northern part of

the island. They were the partial reflux of the tide which peopled the nor-

thern and western parts of Ceylon with Tamilians.

Bands of maraud-

ing Tamilians (Solis, Pdndus, and other Damilos—i.e., Cholas, Pandyas,

and other Tamilians) frequently invaded Ceylon, as we are informed by

the Mah4d-wanso, both before and subsequently to the Christian era.

On several occasions .they acquired supreme power, and at length per-

right (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 pdérva, the opposite region, when whatever lay to the southward was

necessarily to the right. The South was to the primitive Dravidian what the

East was to the Brahman. - He called- it ten, of which the meaning in Tamil is

¢ opposite ; * whilst the North was vada (the north-wind vdder), which is probably

connected with vdd-u, to wither—the north wind being regarded by Tamilians

with as much dread as the south wind (mythologlically the car of Kama, the

Indian Cupid) was associated with the idea of everything that was agreeable.

Referring to the physical configuration of the Carnatic, the Dravidians called the

East ¢ downward ;’Jthe West, the region of the Ghauts, ‘ upward.’

The cocoa-

:

nut, tennei, Tam.

eems to mean ‘the southern tree,” this tree having been

brought, according to tradition, from Ceylon.

Mr C. P. Brown derives tenkdya,

cocoa-nut, from tenks, covert, shell, and kdya (Tam. kdy), fruit.

RELATION OF DRAVIDIANS TO NORTH INDIANS.

EY )t

manently occupied the northern provinces of the island.

There is no

direct affinity, however, between the Singhalese language—the language

11

of the Singhalese, properly so-called, who were colonists from Magadha

I

—and the language of the Tamilians ; nor is there any reason for sup-

1l

posing that the natural course of migration (viz., from the mainland to

1§

the island) was ever inverted to such a degree as to justify the suppo-

1l

sition that the whole mass of Dravidians entered India from Ceylon.

30

Dr Gundert’s suggestion, mentioned in p.

, 1s better capable of being

16

defended than Mr Curzon’s, but is also, as it appears to me, encumbered

of !

with greater difficulties than the ordinary theory.

16

16

ORIGI}IAL Usk AND ProGrEssiveE EXTENSION oF THE TErM ‘ SODRA.’

i

16

The 111-51,55. of the Dravidians are now so commonly designated Stdras,

16

especially by Bréhmans and Europeans who take their caste nomen-

clature from Brahmans, and the Dravidians themselves are so generally

il

content to be called by this name, that it cannot but be regarded as

a remarkable circumstance that they were originally designated, withous

11

o

distinction or exception, as Khsattriyas, by the highest and most

the

ancient authorities in such matters—viz., Manu and the Mah4-bharata.

016

The references will be found in Muir’s Sanskrit Texts,” vols, i., ii.,

1

in which will also be found extracts from various genealogical lists

the

in which the Dravidians are repre‘sented to be the descendants of

Kshatriya princes.

ol

It is true that they are represented also as having

1)

fallen from the rank of Kshatriyas into the condition of wrishilas,

‘outcasts of Sfidras,” by the neglect of Brahmanical rites; but this

ud

J#

does not affect the statement made regarding what was supposed to

have been their original condition.

However remarkable this state-

by

ment may be, in consequence of its contrariety to more modern ideas,

o1

its ethnological value must be admitted to be very small, seeing that

el

not only are the Sakas, a Scythian race, and the Chinas, or Chinese,

of all Mongolians the most Mongolian, described as originally Kshat-

the

b

riyas, equally with the Dravidians, but both they and the Dravidians

| 88

are placed in'the same category with the Yasanas or Greeks, of all

; t0e

Aryans the most: normally - Aryan.

Perhaps the chief value of the

il 1

ally

statement consists in the proof it furnishes that the Dravidian inhabi-

tants of the southern part of the peninsula were regarded from the

Jian

the

earliest times as occupying a very different position from that attri-

ablf

buted to the Nishiddas and other rude forest tribes (some of whom

i the

at least seem to have been equally Dravidians in origin) inhabiting the

0008

forests and hilly ranges in Central India, and occasionally disturbing

Fial

]l([uav

the contemplations and interrupting the sacrifices of holy rzshas.

The

M

i

I

2

INTRODUCTION

\\°\

latter are generally described as vile sinners, as ugly and uncouth as

they were savage

Possibly also when we read of the rakhasas or

giants so frequently met with by the rishis and epic heroes, we are to

understand merely an irreconcilably hostile portion of those aboriginal

tribes ; whilst those of them that showed a friendly disposition, like

Rama’s allies, are half praised, half ridiculed, as intelligent monkeys,—

by an interesting anticipation of the Darwinian theory, according to

which the monkey progenitors of the human race will have to be sought

for in the tropics, probably in India

It is doubtful whether even the

rude Dravidian and Kolarian tribes of Central India ever deserved to

be described in such terms ; but the fact that the Pdudyas, Cholas, and

other Dravidian races, were represented at the same time as having

been originally, not rakshasas or monkeys, but Kshatnya,s equally with

the Solar and Lunar princes of Aryan India, proves conclusively that

they at least were considered almost as civilised and as occupying

almost as respectable a position as the orthodox Aryans themselves

The term ¢ Sfidra,” which is now the common appellation of the mass

of the inhabitants of India, whether Gaudians or Dravidians has been

supposed to have been originally the name of a tribe dwelling near the

Indus

Lassen recognises their name in that of the town Z0dgos on

the lower Indus; and especially in that of the nations of the Sddgos

in Northern Arachosia

He supposes them to have been, with the

Abhiras and NishAdas, a black, long-haired race of aborigines, not

originally a component part of the Aryan race, but brought under its

influence by conquest ; and that it was in consequence of the Sidras

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 aborigines in the interior part of the country, extended

Whatever may have been the origin of the

to all the servile classes.

name ¢ Stidra,” it cannot be doubted that it was extended in course of

time to all who occupied or were reduced to a dependent condition ;

whilst the name ¢ Dasyu’ or ¢ Miéchcha’ continued to be the appella-

tion of the unsubdued, non-Aryanised tribes

Most writers on this subject seem to suppose that the whole of the

Sfidras, or primitive, servile classes of Northern India, to whom this

name was progressively applied, belonged to a different race from their

Aryan conquerors

Whilst I assent to every other part of the supposi-

It seems to

tion, I am unable to assent to the universality of this

§

me to be probable that a considerable proportion of the servants,

dependents, or followers of the high-caste Aryans belonged from the

As the Slavonian serfs are Slavonians, and

first to the Aryan race

f

the Magyar serfs Magyars, there is no improbability in the supposition

!

W

g

USE OF THE TERM SUDRA.,

113

that a large number of the Aryan serfs or Sfdras (perhaps at the

¥

outset the majority) were Aryans; and I cannot on any other supposi-

|

tion account for the fact that so large a proportion of the component

materials of the Prakrits and northern vernaculars is Sanskrit.

The supposition of the Aryan origin of a large number of the Stdras,

0

seems also most in accordance with the very old mythological state-

ment of the origin of the Stidras from Purusha’s or Brahma’s feet ; for

b

though the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, the twice-born classes,

16

0

are represented as springing from more honourable parts of the body,

yet the Stidras are represented to have sprung from the same divinity,

d!

though from an ignoble part ; whereas the Nishadas, or barbarian

|

aborigines, are not represented to have sprung from Brahma at all,

h

but formed what was called in later times a ‘fifth class,” totally uncon-

i

nected with the others.

It appears probable from this mythological

Ig

tradition that the S'dras were supposed in the first ages to differ from

the ‘ twice-born’ Aryans in rank only, not in blood.

I regard as con-

N

firmatory of this view the statement of Manu that ‘all who become

el

outcasts are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the

the

Mléchchas or that of the Aryans:’ for in the same manner, all who

on

enjoyed the protection of the Aryans, as their dependents and servants,

@gw

would naturally receive a common appellation, probably that of

the

Stdras,—whether, as aborigines, they spoke ‘the language of Mléch-

ot

chas,” the non-Aryan vernacular, or whether, as Aryans of an inferior

118

rank in life, they spoke ‘the language of Aryans,” a colloquial dialect

a8

of Sangkrit.

It is true that the three twice-born castes alone are called

0

Aryans by the Satapatha-Brahmana of the Rigveda: but as ‘the four

the

classes,” including the Stdras, but excluding the Dagyus and Nishadas,

1d€d

are distinctly referred to in the Vedic hymns; as outcast Aryans are

the

styled ¢ Dasyus’ by Manu ; and as the higher classes of the Tamilians

eOf

monopolise the national name in this very manner, and pretend that

on;

the lower classes of their race are not Tamilians, I think that we may

\eﬂa'

safely attribute the statement in question (in part, at least) to the

pride of ‘the twice-born.’ Even the Vratyas, who are distinguished

the

from the Stdras, and are regarded as an inferior class, did not differ

ths

from the Brahmans in language, and must, therefore, have been Aryans.

fhelr

The aboriginal non-Aryan inhabitants of India seem to have been

subdued, and transformed from Dadyus and Mléchchas into &

u

A

pOSi‘

dras, by

18 t0

slow degrees. In the age of Manu, they retained their independence

3ﬂts,

and the appellation of ‘ Mléchchas’ in Bengal, Orissa, and the Dekhan ;

e

but in the earlier period referred to in some of the historic legends of

the Mahé-bharata, we find the Mléchchas and Dagyus disputing the

’ aud

;itioﬂ

possession of Upper India i‘tself with the Aryans. Sagara, the thirty-

h

ANTRODUCTION.

14

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

in the reign preceding his, in conjunction with certain: tribes connected

with the Lunar line, those aborigines had succeeded in overrunning

his territories.®

The introduction of the Dravidians within the pale of Hindfism

appears te have originated, not in conquest, but in the peaceable pro-

There is no tradition

cess of colonisation and progressive civilisation.

extant of ja warlike irruption of the Aryans into Southern India, or of

the forcible subjugation of the Dravidians; though, if such an event

ever took place, some remembrance of it would probably have suryived.

All existing traditions, and the names by which the Brahmanical race

is distinguished in Tamil — viz., Ewyar, fathers, instructors, .and

Pdrppdr, overseers (probably the ¢monomor of Arrian)—tend to show

that the Brahmans acquired their ascendancy by their intelligence and

their administrative skill.

'No;;tllerll India to the

The mest adventurous immigrations from

* Sagara, finding himsélf unable to extirpate or enslave those heterodox tribes,

entered into a compromise with them, by imposing upon them various distin-

guishing marks; by which, I think, we may understand their obstinate per-

sistence in the use of the distinguishing marks to which they have been accus-

tomed. One of those marks is worthy of notice in an inquiry into the relations

of the early Dravidians.

““The Paradas,” it is recorded, ‘¢ wore their hair leng

in obedience to his commands.”

Professor Wilson observes, with reference to

this 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 characteristic rather of the Teutonic and Gothic nations.” The usage

()

referred to is equally characteristic of the Dravidians. . Up to the present day

the custom of wearing the hair long, and twisted into a knot at the back of the

head, is characteristic of all the inferior castes in the southern provinces of the

Tamil country, and of some of the castes that occupy a respectable position. In

1

ancient times this mode of wearing the hair was in use amongst all Dravidian

soldiers ;

and sculptured representations prove that at a still earlier period it was

the general Dravidian custom. The Kotas of the Nilgherry Hills wear their hair

in the same manner. The Tudas wear their hair long, but without confining it

in a knot. Probably it was from the Dravidian settlers in Ceylon that the

Singhalese adopted the same usage; for as early as the third century A.D.,

Agathemerus, a Greek geographer, describing Ceylon, says, ““ The natives cherish

their hair as women among us, and twist it round their heads.” There are

S’ig

1

pictures, Dr Gundert informs me, in the early Portuguese books of voyages,

representing the Tivar and other Malayajam castes, in which they invariably

The wearing of the hair long appears to have been re-

i

appear with long hair.

garded by the early Dravidians as a distinctive sign of national independence :

Lt

whilst the shaving of the hair of the head, with the exception of the sikkd or the

kudumi, the lock at the back of the head, corresponding to the tail of the Chingse,

T3

was considered as a sign of Aryanisation, or submission to Aryan customs, and

.admission within the pale of Aryan protection.

I

USE OF THE TERM SUDRA.

115

R

Dekhan were thosé of the offshoots of the Lunar dynasty, a dynast;y

and

which originated from the Solar, and whose chief city Ay6dhya, Oude,

The

;cted

was the traditional starting point of most of their immigrations.

Péndya kings of Madura were feigned to have sprung from the Lunar

Ding

line.

The title ‘ Pandya’ is derived, as has already been mentioned,

p

, from the name of the Pindavas of Northern India, the cele-

Qs

brated combatants in the great war of the Maha-bharata, to-whom every

‘ PlO

Cyclopean work of unknown antiquity is traditionall ascribed.. This

fo

ition

derivation of the name of Pandyas is doubtless correct; but there is

or of

very little reason to suppose that the kings of Madura, by whom this

event

name was assumed, sprang from any of the royal dynasties of Northern

jived,

India. The marriage of Arjuna to a danghter of the second king of the

| racr.?

and

Pandyan dynasty, whilst on his travels in the South, according to the

]

show

Maha-bharata, falls far short of proving (what it is sometimes supposed

3 and

by natives to prove) that the PAndya kings were Kshatriyas. Besides,

what are we to conclude from Arjuna’s abandonment of his Pindyan

bride shortly afterwards, according to the same story.

The Aryan

o e

immigrants to the South appear to have been geuerally Brahmanical

priests and instructors, rather than Kshatriya soldiers; and the kings

X mbe&

of the Pandyas, Cholas, Kalingas, and other Dravidians, appear to have

; distiﬂ'

been simply Dravidian chieftains, whom their Brahmanical preceptors

e pﬂ'

p a00Lse

and spiritual directors dignified with Aryan titles, and taught to imi-

['ela.ﬁ(llﬁ

tate and emulate the grandeur and cultivated tastes of the Solar, Lunar,

air 100§

ence 10

and Agni-kula races of kings."“ In luter ti%nes we may see the progress

s

T

£ —_—

}13 wore

o s

* A similar opinion respecting the relation that subsisted between the Aryans

he ustg?

and the early Dravidians was -expressed by Professor Max Miiller (““Report of

sent d&f

British Association for 1847”). ¢ Wholly different: from the manner in which the

k of e

Bréhmanical people overcame the north of India, was the way they adopted of

ogof

taking possession’ of and settling in the country south of the Vindhya. They did

ion, 2

not enter there in crushing masses with the destroying force of arms, but in the

il

more peaceful way of extensive colonisation, under the protection and counte-

ol b7

nance of the powerful empires in the north.

Though sometimes engaged in wars

el 10

with their neighbouring tribes, these colonies generally have not taken an offen-

foig

sive but only a defensive part; and it appears that, after having introduced

gt

Brahmanical institutions, laws, and religion, especially along the two coasts of the

uy sl

sea, they did not pretend to impose their language upon the much more nume-

4 che[iﬁh

rous inhabitants of the Dekhan, but that they followed the wiser policy of adopt-

There g

ing themselves the language of the aboriginal people, and of conveying through its

e

.

medium their knowledge and instruction to the minds of uncivilised tribes. In

m"al'la

1y

this way they refined the rude language of the earlier inhabitants, and brought it

b

to a perfection which rivals even the Sanskrit.

By these mutual concessions, a

dent®

much more favourable assimilation took place between the Aryan and aboriginal

i f

race; and the south of India became afterwards the last refuge of Brihmanical

Chmese:

science, when it was banished from the north by the intolerant Mahommedans.

i

fm

It is interesting and important to observe how the beneficial influence of a higher

116

INTRODUCTION.

of a similar process in Géndwana,vwhere we find that Gond chieftains

have learned from their Brahman preceptors, not only to style them-

selves Rajahs, but even to assume the sacred thread of the ¢ twice-born’

Kshatriyas. The gradual transformation of these semi-barbarous chief-

tains into Kshatriya princes (see * Gazetteer of Central India,” Intro-

duction) shows how the Pandya and Chola chieftains of the South may

originally have been Dravidian Poligars (Pd/etyakkdran, the holder of

a pdleiyam, a feudal estate), like those of Ramnad and Pudukottei in

later times, and may in process of time have risen in rank as in power,

assuming as they did so the Kshatriya titles of Deva, Varma, &c., and

finally, in some instances at least, succeeding in getting themselves

recognised as Kshatriyas by the original Kshatriyas of the North.

Whilst it is evident that tl}e entire mass of the Dravidians were

regarded by Manu and the authors of the Maha-bharata and the Puranés

as Kshatriyas by birth, it is remarkable that the Brahmans, who settled

amongst the Dravidians and formed them into castes, in imitation of

the castes of the North, seem never at any time to have given the Dra-

vidians—with the exception perhaps of the royal houses—a higher title

than that of Stdra. They might have styled the agricultural classes

Vaigyas, and reserved the name of Stidra for the village servants and

the unenslaved low castes; but acting apparently on the principle that

none ought to be called either Kshatriyas or Vaidyas but Aryans, and,

that the Dravidians were not Aryans, they seem always to have called

them

idras, however respectable their position.

[

In consequence of this the title Sfdra conveys a higher meaning in

Southern than in Northern India.

The primitive Stidras of Northern

India seem to have been slaves to the Aryans, or in a condition but

L}

little superior to that of slaves.

They seem to have had no property

I

of their own, and can scarcely be said to have had any civil rights. In

Southern India, on the contrary, it was upon the middle and higher

classes of the Dravidians that the title of

tidra’ was conferred ; and

the classes that appeared to be analogous to the servile Sudras of

I

1

Northern India, were not called ¢ Stidras, but ¢ Pallas,” ° Pareiyas,” &ec.,

names which they still retain. The application of the term ¢Stdra’ to

d]

the ancient Dravidian chieftains, soldiers, and cultivators does not

[

prove that they had ever been reduced by the Brahmans to a dependent

Ig

position, or that they ever were slaves—as the northern Stidras appear

The Brahmans, who came in

a]

to have been—to any class of Aryans.

f

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

g

which, if successful, every vital principle of an independent and natural develop-

iy

ment is necessarily destroyed.”

I

\t‘

A

It

-PRE-ARYAN CIVILISATION.,

117

I}

i)

‘ peaceably, and obtained the kingdom by flatteries,” may probably have

of

persuaded the Dravidians that in calling them Stdras they were con-

ferring upon them a title of honour.

10

If so, their policy was perfectly

1Ay

successful ; for the title of ¢Stdra’ has never been resented by the

0t

Dravidian castes; and hence, whilst in Northern India the Stdra is

11

supposed to be a low-caste man, in Southern India he generally ranks

el

next to the Brahman.

The term Stdra, however, is really, as we have

nd

seen, as inappropriate to any class of Dravidians as the term Kshat-

)

riya or Vaisya. It is better to designate each Dravidian caste simply by

its own name, as Vellalas, Nayakkas, &c.,in accordance with the usage pre-

ere

vailing amongst the people themselves in each locality, without attempt-

148,

ing to classify the various castes according to Manu’s principles of

ed

classification, which in reality are quite inapplicable to them, if not,

of

indeed, equally inapplicable to the castes now existing in the north.

i

itl

Pri-ArRYAN CIVILISATION OF THE DRAVIDIANS,

568

am‘l

Though the primitive Dravidians were probably unacquainted with

the higher arts of life, they do not appear to have been by any

that

means a barbarous and degraded people. Whatever may have been

ane.

the condition of the forest tribes, it cannot be doubted that the

Jled

Dravidians, properly so called, had acquired at least the elements of

civilisation, prior to the arrival amongst them of the Brahmans.

g n

If we eliminate from the Tamil language the whole of its Sanskrit

et

derivatives, the primitive Dravidian words that remain will furnish us

bt

with a faithful picture of the simple, yet far from savage, life of the

o

non-Aryanised Dravidians.

Mr Curzon holds that there is nothing in

In

the shape of a record of the Tamil mind which can recall to us any-

gher

thing independent of an obvious Sanskrit origin ; and that if the con-

and

trary supposition were tenable, we ought to find the remains of a

1S C’f

literature embodying some record of a religion different from Hinduism.

\dc

Traces of the existence amongst the non-Aryanised Dravidians, both

g 1

ancient and modern, of a religion different from Hinduism, will be

gk

pointed out in the Appendix.

At present I will merely adduce those

1&81}@

records of the primitive Tamil mind, manners, and religion which the

ppE?J

ancient vocabularies of the language, when freed from the admixture

of Sanskrit, will be found to furnish.

ne m

From the evidence of the words in use amongst the early Tamilians,

18 llp

we learn the following items of information.

!

by

They had ¢ kings,” who

dwelt“in ¢ strong houses,” and ruled over small ¢ districts of country.’

;\6 OD

They had ¢minstrels, who recited “songs’ at ‘festivals,’ and they

seem to have had alphabetical ‘characters’ written with a style on

I

8

INTRODUCTION.

palmym leaves. A bundle of those leaves was called ‘ a book ;’ they were

without hereditary ¢ priests’ and ‘idols, and appear to have had no

idea-of ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ of the ¢soul’ or ‘sin;’ but they acknow-

edged the existence of God, whom they styled %6, or king— a realistic

title little known to orthodox Hindfism.

They erected to his houour

a ‘temple,” which they'called A¢-i/, God’s-house ; but I cannot find

any trace. of the-nature of the ‘ worship’ which they offered to him.

They had ‘laws’ and ‘ customs,” but no lawyers or judges. Marriage

existed among them. They were acquainted with the ordinary metals,

with the exception of ‘tin,’ ‘lead,” and zinc ; with the planets which

were ordinarily known to the ancients, with the exception of ¢ Mercury’

and ¢ Saturn.” They had numerals up to a hundred,—some of them to

a thousand ; but were ignorant of the higher denominations, a ‘lakh’

and a ‘crore.’” They had ¢ medicines,” but no ¢ medical science,’ and

no ¢ doctors ; ¢ hamlets’ and ¢ towns,” but no cities ;’ ¢ canoes, ‘boats,’

and even ‘ships’ (small ‘decked’ coasting vessels), but no foreign

‘ commerce ;’ no acquaintance with any people beyond sea, except in

Cleylon, which was then, perhaps, accessible on foot at low -water ; and

no word expressive of the geographical idea of *island ™ or * continent.’

They were well acquainted with ¢ agriculture, and delighted in ‘ war.’

They were armed with ¢ bows’ and ‘ arrows,” with spears’ and ‘ swords.’

All the ordinary or neccssary arts of life, including ‘ spinning,’ ¢ weav-

ing,” and ¢ dyeing,” existed amongst them.

They excelled in * pottery,’

as their places of sepulture show, but were unacquainted with the arts

i

They had no acquaintance with ¢ sculpture’ or

of the higher class.

¢ architecturé';’ with ¢ astronomy,’ or even ‘astrology ;’ and were igno-

0)

rant, not only of every branch of ¢ philosophy,” but even of ¢ grammar.

I

Their developed intellectual condition 1s especially apparent in words

relating to the operations of the mind. ‘Their only words for the

{

‘ mind’ were the ¢ diaphragm’ (tlie ge7v of the early Greeks), and * the

i

They had a word for “thought,” but no

inner parts’ or ¢ interior.

word distinet from this for ¢ memory,” ‘ judgment,” or ¢ conscience ;? and

I

no word for ¢will” To express ‘the will’ they would have been

A

§]

obliged to describe it as ¢ that which in the inner parts says, ¢] am

1

going to do so and so0.

§;

This brief illustration, from the primitive Tamil vocabulary, of the

I

social condition of the Dravidians, prior to the arrival of the Brahmans,

of

will suffice to prove that the elements of civilisation already existed

0

amongst them. They had not acquired much more than the elements ;

Ll

and in many things were centuries behind the Brahmans whom they

fo

revered as instructors, and obeyed as overseers : but if they had been

e

left altogether to themselves, it is'open to dispute whether they would

DATE OF DRAVIDIAN (iVIL[bA'IION

I

‘;

ele

not now be in a better conchtlon

at least in point of morals: and

10

intellectual freedom, than they are

The mental culture and the higher

W

civilisation which they derived from the Brahmans, have, I fear, been

gtic

more than counterbalanced by the fossilising caste rules, the unprac-

our

tical, pantheistic philosophy,-and the cumbersome routine of inane

nd

ceremonies, which were: introduced amongst them by the guides of

their new social state.

il

lagt

a8

ProBABLE DATE oF ARYAN CIVILISATION OF THE DRAVIDIANS

hic

1y

It would appear from the unanimous voice of ancient legends that

the earliest Dravidian civilisation was that of the Tamilians of the

1 0

kh

Pandya kingdom, and that the first place where they erected a city and

and

established a- state was Kolkei, in the TAmraparni river (see p

),

This civilisation was

18,

near the southern exfremity of the peninsula

probably indigenous in its origin, but it seems to have been indebted

1))

for its rapid development at so early a period to the influence of suc-

) 10

aud

cessive colonies of Aryans, chiefly Brihmans, from Upper India, who

were probably attracted to the South by the report of the fertility of

nelll

the rich alluvial plains watered by the Kavéri, the TAmraparni, and

Wi

other peninsular rivers; or as the legends relate, by the fame of

ot

Rama’s exploits, and the celebrity of the emblem of Siva, which Rama

ea

discovered and worshipped at Ramisseram, or Rémé$varam, a holy

tM\o

place on an island between the mainland and Ceylon

The leader of

]ea A

the first or most influential Bréhmanical colony is traditionally said to

e

have been Agastya, a personage who is celebrated in Northern India as

| 1"’“

one of the authors of the Vedic hymns, then as the holiest of hermits

pa

performing sacrifices and austerities in the remotest forests, and ever-

word

more penetrating farther and farther into the hitherto unknown South

o the

In the ‘South he is venerated as the earliest teacher of science and

gt

literature to the primitive Dravidian tribes

It is very doubtful

bl

whether Agastya (if there ever were such a person)

as really the

g

leader of the Brahman immigration ; more probably he is to be con-

o e

sidered as its mythological embodiment

‘The Vindhya mountains,’

it 1s said

[

prostrated themselves before Agastya ;’ by which I under-

stand - that they presented no obstacle to his resolute southward

progress

0

f {06

for he is said to have penetrated as far south as the vicinity

of Cape Comorin

hmah‘

He is called by way of eminence the Zamir muni

d

E)l‘[e

or Tamilian sage, and is celebrated for the influence he acquired at the

el b

court of Kul$ékhara, according to tradition the first PAndyan king, and

p

for the numerous elementary treatises he composed for the enlighten-

ment of his royal disciple ; amongst which his arrangement of the

g bt

ﬂﬂld

INTRODUCTION.

120

grammatical principles of the lan_gua,ge has naturally acquired most

renown.

He is mythologically represented as identical with the star

Canopus, the brightest star in the extreme southern sky in India, and

is worshipped ncar Cape Comorin as Agustésvara.

By the majority of

orthodox Hindfis he is believed to be still alive, though invisible to

ordinary eyes, and to reside somewhere on the fine conical mountain,

commonly called ¢ Agastya’s hill,* from which the Porunei or Tamra-

parni, the sacred river of Tinnevelly, takes its rise.

The age of Agastya and the date of the commencement of the Brah-

manical civilisation of the Tamilians eannot now be determined with

It

certainty ; but data exists for making an approximate estimate.

was certainly prior to the era of the Greek traders, for then the greater

part of the country appears to have been already Brihmanised, the

principal places had received Sanskrit names, and the Pandya dynasty

of kings had become known even in Europe.

It seems as certainly

subsequent to the era described in the RAmayana ; for then the whole

of the south of India seems to have been still inhabited by barbarians,

who ate human flesh, consorted with demons, and disturbed the con-

templations of hermits.

The age of Agastya is apparently to be placed

between those two eras.

If we could be sure that the references to the

civilised Cholas, Drévfc_las, &c., which are contained in the present text

of the Mah4-bhérata, formed originally part of that poem, the era of the

commencement of Tamilian civilisation, and the date of the Agastyan

colony from which it proceeded, might be brought within a still nar-

rower compass, and placed between the age of the Rdméiyana and that

of the Maha-bharata.

The genuineness of those references, and their

age, if genuine, being as yet doubtful, and the era of Manu (in which

there is an allusion to the Chinese, under the name of Chinas, whichs

like similar allusion to the Chinas in the Maha-bharata, looks very

It is hard to say

modern) being generally now placed lower than ever.

where we are to look for trustworthy means of arriving at an approxi-

mate date.

At first sight Ceylon seems to furnish us with the infor-

z

mation required.

The immigration into Ceylon of the colony of

Aryans from Magadha, headed by Vijaya, is placed by the Mahdwamso

about B.C., 550, or at least some time in the course of that century ;

and if this were regarded as certain, it might be argued that the

Aryans must have become acquainted with, and formed establishments

* The local name of this mountain is Podigei or Peria Podigei—that is, the

i

great Podigei.

Podigei is capable of being interpreted as ‘the place of retire-

ment.’

Compare

b

A softened pronunciation in use in books is Podiya (malei).

Byrriyw, the name of the mountain from which, according to Ptolemy, the

{

principal river south of the Kavéri took its rise.

()

DATE OF DRAVIDIAN CIVILISATIUN:

2

8

in, the Dekhan and the Coromandel coast, and must have taken some

al

steps towards clearing and civilising the Dandakaranya, or primitive

d

forest of the peninsula, before they thought of founding a colony in

of

Ceylon.

We have no documentary evidence, however, for any of these

to

particulars earlier than the date of the composition of the MahAwamso,

il

which is placed between 459 and 477, a.p.

Though the date of the

It

arrival in Ceylon of the colony from Magadha is uncertain, it is quite

certain that some such colony must have arrived in Ceylon several

centuries before the Christian era.

This appears from the evidence of

ith

language.

Tamraparni (Pali TAmbapanni) was the name given by the

It

Magadha colonists to the place where they landed in Ceylon (said to

1

have been near Putlam), and afterwards to the whole island.

This

he

name, in the shape of TamgoBdin, became known to the Greeks as early

aty

as the time of Alexander the Great, and it is singular that this is also

ly

the name of the principal river in Tinnevelly on the opposite coast of

India.

0

I

This river TAmraparni is mentioned by name in the Mah4-

I

bhirata as a river in which the gods had once bathed, and it is evident

Ol

from this reference to it in the MahA-bharata that it must have been

el

known by that same name from a very early period, and that there

the

must have been some special reason for its celebrity. We are led,

text

therefore, to infer that the Magadha colony which settled in Ceylon

the

may previously have formed a settlement in Tinnevelly at the mouth

yal

of the Tamraparnl river—perhaps at Korkei, which appears, as we

have already seen, to have been the earliest residence of the Péandya

lar

hat

kings.

Vijaya, the leader of the expedition into Ceylomn, is related in

helr

the Mah4-wamso to have married the daughter of the king of Pandi ;

ich

and though it may be doubtful enough whether he really did so (for

on the same authority we might believe that he married also the queen

ol

el

of the Singhalese demons) ; this at least is certain, that it was the per-

say

suasion of the earliest Singhalese writers, who were, on the whole, the

most truthful and accurate of oriental annalists, that the PAndyan

05k

kingdom on the coast of India opposite to Ceylon (the first kingdom

)10F

established on Aryan principles in the peninsula) existed prior to the

Y {]i

S0

establishment of the Magadha rule in the neighbouring island.

Dr Burnell, in an article in the /ndian Antiquary for October 1872,

iy :

he

attributes the introduction of Brahmanical civilisation to a much later

s

period. He thinks it not too much to infer that about 700, A.D. (the

date of Kumarila Bhatta, who speaks of the language of the Telugu

fhe

and Tamil people as a language of Mlechchas), BrAhmanical civilisation

)

ottt

had but little penetrated the south of India.

Brahmans had, no

doubt, begun to find the South a promising field of labour, but there

pp?

the

could have been very few settlers,

“T do not mean,” he says, “ to

122

INTRODUCTION.

deny for a moment that a few Sanskrit names are found some centuries

earlier in South India, such as are preserved to us by classical writers,

but they occur only in the fertile deltas or important seaports of the

A

South, and were probably introduced by Buddhist missionaries.”

distinction may perhaps be drawn between the elementary Brahmanical

civilisation of the era of the introduction of which I have been treating

There is no proof of

and the development. of Dravidian leterature.

Dravidian literature, such as we now have it, having originated much

before Kumérila’s time, 700, A.D., and its earliest cultivators appear to

have been Jainas ; but in so far as that species of civilisation which

falls short of a national literature is concerned, the Dravidians may

have been civilised, as I have supposed, and to a certain degree Brah-

Doubtless the

manised, some centuries before the Christian era.

Jainas themselves used Sanskrit in Southern as in Northern India at

the commencement of their work as teachers (perhaps even for a cen

tury or two), before they set themselves to the task of. developiﬁg

amongst each of the Dravidian races a popular literaturé independent

Most of the early

of the language of their rivals the Brahmans.

Sanskrit names of places in Southern India, with two exceptions, are

One of

neither Buddhistical nor Brahmanical, but simply descriptive.

those exceptions, however, Kumdrs, Cape Comorin, is clearly Brah-

manical, not Buddhistical, as appears from the statement of the author

of the “ Periplus ”-himself ; and the other, Mathurd, Madura, though it

might be regarded as meaning simply * the sweet city,” is more probably

and therefore of

a reminiscence—Mathurd, the capital of the Yadavas

Brahmanical origin.

It seems probable that Aryan merchants from

the mouth of the Indus must have accompanied the Pheenicians and

Solomon’s servants in their voyages down the Malabar coast towards

Ophir (wherever Ophir may have been), or at least taken part in the

trade.

If Mr Edward Thomas's suppesition (Journal of the Royal

Asiatic Society, 1871) that the basis of the Lat character of Northern

India was a previously existing Dravidian character, and Dr Burnell’s

(see “ Dravidian Alphabets ”), that the earliest character used in India

was one which was borrowed by thé Dravidians from traders who

brought it from the Red Sea, and which was then borrowed by the

Aryans from the Dravidians, be accepted, this early intercourse of the

Dravidians with Pheenicians on the one hand, and with Aryans on the

other, may account in some degree both for what they borrowed and

for what they lent.

Both those suppositions, however, await confirma-

t1on.

It appears certain froin notices contained in the Vedas that the

Aryans of the age of Stﬂ(nnun practised fm'cign trade, but it remalns

uncertain to what ports their ships sailed.

o

Al

A

\

123

"\?'IVT’IQUIT,[‘Y OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

8

R}:]LATIVE ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

Notwithstanding the antiquity of Dravidian civilisation, the anti-

inferior to that

quity of the oldest Dravidian literature extant is much

|

of Sanskrit,

It can boast of a higher antiquity than

that of any of

i

4

the Aryan vernaculars of Northern India ; but, except

in this connec-

tion, and in comparison with the literature of the modern languages of

o

Europe, it is questionable whether the word ¢ antiquity *is a suitable

(]

one to use respecting the literature of any of the Dravidian languages.

th

Age of Telugu Literature.—The earliest writer on Telugu grammar

A7

is said to have been a sage called Kanva, who lived at the’ court of

1

Andhra—raya, the king in whose reign Sanskrit is said to have been

he

first introduced into the Telugu country, according to the tradition

al

formerly mentioned. For this tradition there is probably a historica /

3l

groundwork, the introduction of Sanskrit derivatives being necessarily

g

contemporanebus with the immigration of the Bréhmans; and the

ent

statement that the first attempt to reduce the grammatical principles

I

|

f

of the lahguage to writing proceeded from a Brahman residing at the

ale

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 most Telugu grammars, in Sanskrit)

ot

was written by a Brahman called Nannaya Bhatta, or Nannappa, who

b

is also said to be the author of ‘the greater part of tﬁefTeluﬁgu version

Dly

of the Mahd-bharata, which is the oldest extant composition of any

(]

extent in Telugu.

Nannappa lived in the reign of Vishnu Vardhana,

o

a king of the Kalinga branch of the Chalukya family, who reigned at

Alid

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,

10

the

in his Cyclic tables, places it, on better authority, in the beginning of the

7;/:[[

twelfth century, A.D.

Appa-kavi, who ranks next to Nannaya Bhatta

1l

as a grammarian, wrote his commentaries not in Szmt;rit, but in Telugu

verse.

olls

]

L

With the exception of a few works composed towards the end of the

twelfth century, nearly all the Telugu works that are now extant appear

) fl

to have been written in the fourteenth and subsequent centuries, after

e

the establishment of the kingdom of Vijaya-nagara ; and many of them

fhe

were written in comparatively recent times.

Though the Telugu litera-

ﬁ]ld

ture which is now extant cannot boast of a high antiquity, the language

It

must have been cultivated and polizhed, and many poems that are now

\U

lost must have been written in it long prior to the twelfth century—

the date of

pa

N

T

’s translation of the Maha-bharata : for as this

aw

“zlﬂlllli\yiL

o uE

+

v

ranslation is considered ‘the great standard of Telugu poetry,’ 1

124

INTRODUCTION,

cannot be supposed to have sprung into existence all at once, without

the preparation of a previous literary culture.

It must have been the

crowning achievement of several centuries of earnest work.

There is a large collection of popular Telugu aphorisms on religious

and moral subjects attributed to the poet Vemana: more than two

thousand go by his name, but a selection of about seven hundred has

been translated by Mr C. P. Brown, who supposes Vemana may have

lived in the sixteenth century.

If, as I conceive, the strongly mono-

theistic, anti-Brahmanical, anti-ceremonial tone with which most of the

aphorisms are pervaded, is due, like the same tone in the poems of

the Tamil ‘ Sittar’ (which will be referred to presently), to the influence

of Christian teaching, I should be inclined to place Vemana at least a

century later, perhaps even as late as the beginning of the eighteenth

century.

In style his verses do not differ from the popular composi-

tions of the present day.”

Age of Canarese Literature.—Much new light has been thrown on

the antiquity of Canarese literature by the publication of the Sabda-

manidarpanam (‘“‘Jewel-Mirror of Words”), the most ancient and

esteemed grammar of classical Canarese, written by Késava or Kési-

raja, in the preface to which Mr Kittel, the editor, has carefully

worked out an answer to various questions that naturally suggest

themselves to the modern mind respecting the authorship of the book

and its date.

Késava was a Jaina, and the Jainas were the first to

cultivate Canarese literature with zeal and success.

Most of the poets

he cites were Jainas, and if it be true that the earliest Jaina literature

written in Northern India dates from the fourth century a.Dp., several

additional centuries must be allowed for the appearance of an indi-

genous Jaina literature in so distant a region as the Canarese country.

Késava cites eleven predecessors in the art of poetry by name, besides

referring to others, and styles them frequently ¢ the poets of antiquity,’

‘the ancients,’ &e.

He speaks of certain compositions as written in

Pala-gannadam, ancient Canarese, whilst he calls the language used

by himself simply Canarese, though his language is regarded as ancient

(Canarese now.

Already also the use of the peculiar vocalic 7, which

is retained in Tamil and Malay4lam, was beginning to be forgotten in

Canarese, for he gives rules for its use, whilst he gives no rules for the

use of the hard r, which disappeared from Canarese in still later times,

though it is still retained in Tamil and Malayéalam, and to a certain

extent in Telugu.

Both these letters are retained in the Badaga

£t

2

£

e

s

=

L L

* See Gover’s ‘‘ Folk-Songs of Southern India’”

Mr Gover was inclined to

attribute to Vemana a much higher antiquity.

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

125

dialect, an old Canarese patois spoken by the Badagas of the Nil-

gherry hills, a Canarese colony long separated from the parent stock.

These circumstances tend to bring down Késava's date to at least

1000 A.D.

It is brought down to about this date more conclusively

by means of a reference made by a poet cited by Késava to ¢the burn-

ing sword of Tailapa.’

The dynasty of the Chéalukyas, to which

Tailapa belonged, reigned in Kalyana from about 800 A.p. to 1189,

when it was extinguished ; and the Tailapa probably referred to (the

warlike Tailapa IIL.) restored the dynasty in 973 A.D.

Késava does

not cite the Basava-Purina, which is known to have been written in

He is men-

1369 A.p., and therefore, probably, was anterior to it.

tioned by name as a famous author in a book written in 1637 a.p.

The Hari-vamsa had been translated into Canarese before Kédava

wrote ; but though the poets whose works he cites in illustration of

his rules, were well acquainted with the incidents and characters of the

Maha-bhérata and the Ramayana, these works do not appear to have

been rendered into Clanarese at that time.

On the whole, therefore, but

especially from the reference to Tailapa, Mr Kittel concludes that

0

Késava lived about 1170 A.p., a period which, as will be seen, was

It isea

one of great literary activity in the Tamil country also.

remarkable fact that at the time when Késava wrote, ¢ Sanskrit words

in a fixed form, either as tatsamas or tadbhavas, apparently to the

k

same amount as in our days, had already been appropriated by the

Canarese people.’

Mr Kittel states also that Késava’s work is still

0

the only true standard for all the niceties of the Canarese of the

fs

1%

present day, the essential features of the language having remained

wholly unchanged.

In the Indian Antiquary for January 1875, Mr

ol

Kittel has followed up this account of Kédava and his times by an

article on old Canarese literature in general, under the four heads of

Jaina, Lingéita, Saiva, and Vaishnava.

)

Age of Malaydlam Literature.—Interesting as the Malay&lam lan-

fy

guage undoubtedly is, both in itself and on account of the light it

1

throws on the point of development Tamil had reached before Malay-

dlam finally separated from it and set up for itself, it must be con-

1l

fessed that Malayalam literature can advance fewer claims to antiquity

i

than the literature of any other cultivated member of the Dravidian

)l

family. The following is the substance of the information on this

16

subject given us by Dr Gundert, our best authority as to Malayilam

questions, in the preface to his Malayilam dictionary.

If we except

1l

a few inscriptions in copper and stone, the history of Malayilam

it

literature commences with the .“ R4ma Charita,” which is probably

the oldest Malayalam poem still in existence.

This poem was com-

w0

126

NTRODUCTION

posed before the introduction of the Sanskrit alphabet now used in

writing Malayalam, and is deserving of the particular attention of the

scholar, as it exhibits the earliest phase of the language,—perhaps

centuries before the arrival of the Portuguese

For several antiquated

The bulk of the other great

words this poem is the only authority

poems (the ¢ Méaha-bhérata,” the “ Raméyana

and the versions of the

Puranas) were composed within the last two or three centuries

Many

Malayalam compositions of later date, especially such as are current

among the Vedantists, evidently affect Tamil modes of expression

Age of Taml Laterature

ature is older than Telugu orx

Canarese,. and considerably older than Malayalam, though the high

antiquity which is’ ascribed to some por tions of it by the Tamilian

literatt cannot be admitted.

The sage Agastya occupies in Tamil literature a place of still

greater eminence and importance thin that of “Kanva in Telugu.

Not only is the formation of the Tamil alphabet attfibuted to Agastya

and the first treatise upon Tamil grammar, together with the original

but he 1s

settlement of the grammatical principles of the language

also said to have taught the Tamilians the first prineiples of medicine

of chemistry or alchymy, of magic, of architecture, astronomy, and

law ; and about fifty treatises on these sciences, most of them appa-

Portions of the

rently very modern, are attributed to his pen

treatise on grammar attributed to him exist, but their authenticity

is not generally admitted by well-informed Tamilians, who are pecu-

liarly well versed in" questions relating to grammar and grammatlcdl

works.

Though the hterary eultivation of the Tamil lanoudrre may have

commenced, as the Tamilians believe, in the age of Agasta (premising

Lhowever, that it is'undecided whether he was a real personage, or 18

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 attributed to him, those which advocate the system of the

Siddhas (Tamulice Sittar), a mystical compound of monotheism, quiet-

ism, and alchemy

ith a tinge of Christianity, must certainly have

been 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 purpose of gaining the ear

We cannot

of the people for whose use the books were composed

doubt that the subject of the following stanza, which is contained in

the Ndna nuru, or ¢ Centum of Wisdom, a small poem attributed to

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

127

Agastya, has been borrowed from statements of Christianity, notwith-

e

standing that Christianity is not directly named in it, or in any other

s

work of this class :—

fed

““ Worship thou the Light of the Universe; who is one;

eal

Who made the world in a moment, and placed good men in it ;

the

Who afterwards himself dawned upon the earth as a Guru;

I\

al

Who, without wife or family, as a hermit performed austerities ;

Who, appointing loving sages (siddhas) to succeed him,

?61{!

Departed again into heaven :—worship him.”

101

- It is a striking illustration of the uncritical structure of the ordinary

igh

HindQ mind, that this stanza is supposed, even by Tamil (iterats, to

ian

have been written by Agastya himself many thousands of years ago.

Hindts endeavour to give it .an orthodox Hind@ meaning, and native

stll

Christians regard it as a prophecy.

Though there is not a single

gl

archaism in it ; though it is written not only in the modern dialect,

il

but in a colloquial idiom, abounding in solecisms, neither party enter-

&L

tains any doubt of its antiquity.

(Bt

Next to the fabulous Agastya, though many centuries before the

(Ine,

treatiges ascribed to him, we may perhaps place the author of the Tol-

aud

kappiyam (Tam. tol/, ancient ; Sans. kdvya, poem), or ancient book, a

g

real person, though fabled to have been one of Agastya’s disciples, who

o

the

quarrelled with his master and set up for himself.

The Tol-kdppiyam

oty

is generally admitted to be the oldest extant Tamil grammar, and has

Jecll

been supposed, though on somewhat slight evidence, to be the oldest

tical

Tamil composition now extant, with the exception of certain fragments

to be referred to presently.

fare

-Though written by.a Saiva, its Saivism is not that of the mystical

isI0g

schools of the Védanta or.Saiva-siddhanta ; and in the chapters which

or

are still in existence extant (for much of it is supposed to have been

g OF

lost), native grammarians have noticed the existence of various gram-

ool

matical forms which are considered, but I think without sufficient

ba

I

warrant, to be archaic.

It is traditionally asserted that the author of

f the

this treatise, who is styled technically ¢ Tolkdppiyanar,’ the man of the

f i

ancient book, embodied in his work the substance of Agastya’s gramma-

tical elements.

This tradition is on a par with that which ascribes so

(111

jef

many anonymous works of modern times to Agastya himself : neverthe-

j jate

‘!‘\

less, if any relics of poems of the first age of Tamil literature still survive,

sty

e by

they are to be found amongst the poetical quotations which are con-

e ol

tained in this and similar works, and in commentaries which have been

written upon them.

it

Some of those quotations are probably the very

oldest specimens of the poetical style that are now extant.

Whatever

e Il

antiquity may be attributed to the Tolkdppiyam, it must have been

128

INTRODUCTION.

preceded by many centuries of literary culture,

It lays down rules for

different kinds of poetical compositions, which must have been deduced

from examples furnished by the best authors whose works were then in

existence.

A rule is simply an observed custom. Grammars, as well

as well as poems, had preceded the Tol-kippiyam, for

it continually

cites rules which had been laid down by preceding

grammarians.

Hence the formula which so frequently recurs, enmandr pulavar, ¢ the

[This form, enmandr instead of

poets (z.e., the grammarians) say.’

enbar, is one of the supposed archaisms of this writer ; but enbar

appears to me more ancient as well as more regular.] In endeavouring

to trace the commencement of Tamil literature, we are thus carried

further and further back to an unknown period.

Even when we come down to the later period, if it were really later,

of the Kural and the ChintAmani, when Tamil literature is supposed

to have reached the summit of its perfection, we find that the exact

age even of those great compositions is unknown. We have not a single

reliable date to guide us, and in the mist of conjecture a few centuries

more or less seem to go for nothing. Tamil writers, like Hind@ writers

in general, hid their individuality in the shade of their writings. Even

the names of most of them are unknown. They seem to have regarded

individual celebrity, like individual existence, as worthless, and absorp-

tion into the Universal Spirit of the classical literature of their country

as the highest good to which their compositions could aspire.

Their

readers followed in the same course, age after age.

If the book was

good, people admired it ; but whether it was written by a man or by a

divinity, or whether it wrote itself, as the Vedas were commonly sup-

Still less did they

i

posed to have done, they neither knew nor cared.

care, of course, if the book were bad.

The historical spirit, the anti-

quarian spirit, to a great degree even the critical spirit, are develop-

ments of modern times.

If, therefore, I attempt to throw some light

on the age of the principal Tamil works, I hope it may be borne in

mind that, in my opinion, almost the only thing that is perfectly cer-

tain in relation to those works is, that they exist.

It will be convenient to arrange the principal extant works in cycles,

which appear to follow one another, with more or less probability, in

chronological order.

1. The Jaina cycle.—1 might perhaps have called this instead the

cycle of the Madura Sangam or College, seeing that two of the most

renowned books of this period—the N4ladiyar and the Kural-—-are said

11

to have received the imprimatur of the college ; but in the accounts

respecting the college and its proceedings that have been handed down

to us the legendary element predominates to such a degree, and the

e

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

129

for

books now extant aseribed to members of the college, or said to have

il

been approved by them, are such commonplace productions in compa-

1

rison with those two, that I prefer regarding the college as merely

ell

“ the shadow of a great name,’ and describing the principal works of the

lly

period, not as those which emanated from the college, but as those of

the Jaina cycle, from the internal evidence of the works themselves.

118

the

Leaving out of account the isolated stanzas, already referred to, of

of

high but unknown antiquity, which are quoted as examples in the

oal

grammatical and rhetorical works, the oldest Tamil works of any extent

ne

now extant are those which were written, or claim to have been written,

160

by the Jainas, or which date from the era of the literary activity of the

Jaina sect. The Jainas of the old Pandya country were animated by

ter,

a national and anti-Brahmanical feeling of peculiar strength ; and it is

sed

chiefly to them that Tamil is indebted for its high culture and its com-

parative independence of Sanskrit.*

The Saiva and Vaishnava writers

act

|

of a later period, especially the Saivas, imbibed much of the enthusiasm

[1E8

for Tamilic purity and literary independence by which the Jainas were

e

distinguished : in consequence of which, though Tamil literature, as a

el

whole, will not bear a comparison with Sanskrit literature, as a whole,

it is the only vernacular literature in ‘India which has not been con-

pded

S01)

tented with imitating Sanskrit, but has honourably attempted to emu-

late and outshine it.

iy

In onme department. at least, that of ethical

[hen

epigrams, it is generally maintained, and I think must be admitted,

that Sanskrit has been outdone by Tamil

;

The Jaina period extended

was

probably from the eighth or ninth century a.p., to the twelfth or thir-

by 8

teenth. TIn the réign of Sundara Pandya, called also Kfn or Kubja

sup

fhey

Pandya, the date of which will be considered further on, the adherents

ik

of the religious system of the Jainas are said to have been finally

expelled from the Pandya country ; consequently, all Tamil works

elop

which ‘advocate or avow that system may be concluded to have been

lght

16 il

written before the middle of the thirteenth century A.D., and probably

before the decadence of Jaina influence in the twelfth.

[ 0et

An exception

* Dr Burnell, in the article already quoted, says—*‘‘ All earlier civilisation in

70l

Southern India, so far as it is known, is connected with the Jainas.

Hiwen

iy, 10

Thsang, who visited the Telugu and Tamil countries in 639-40 A.D., mentions

that the inhabitants were chiefly Nirgranthas (i.e., Digambara Jain

as).

He

mentions a few Buddhists, but has not a word about Brahmans,

d i

The vague

term by which the Tamil language is mentioned (by Kumarila), Andhra-Dra

vida-

ot

bhést4, is remarkable, as it indicates that a systematic study of the so-

called

aid

. . There

e\

Dravidian languages can hardly have begun in the eighth century,

can be little doubt that Bhaw Kumarila regarded the South Indian (Dravidi

an)

quns

dialects as Mlechcha, or un-Brahmanie, uncivilised languages.

He does not say

o

"o expressly, but his words imply that he thought so.”

i e

INTRODUCTION.

130

must be made in behalf of the Sudﬁmani Nigantu, a classical diction-

ary, by Mandola-purusha, a Jaina writer of the sixteenth century, who

enjoyed the protection of one of the kings of Vjaya-nagaram.

The Kuwal of Tiruvalluvar, a work which consists of 1330

distiches, or poetical aphorisms, on almost every subject connected

with virtue, wealth, and pleasure (the three chief objects of human

existence, according to Hind@L writers—the three purushdrtha), and

which is regarded by all Tamilians (and perhaps justly) as the finest

composition of which the Tamil can boast, appears to be not only the

best but the oldest Tamil poem of any extent which is now in exist-

ence.

I think we should not be warranted in placing the date of the

Kural later than the tenth century A.D.

The reasons which induce me to assign to it so high an antiquity

are as follows :—

(1.) The Kural contains no trace of the distinetive doctrines of

Sankara Acharya. It teaches the old Sankhya philosophy, but ignores

Sankara’s additions and developments, and would therefore appear to

have been written before the school of Sankara had popularised itself

in the South; though probably not before Sankara himself, who seems

to have lived not later than the ninth century.

(2.) It contains no trace of the distinctive doctrines of the Agama

;

or Saiva-siddhanta school—a school which, since about the eleventh

i

century A.D., has exercised a more powerful influence on Tamil

eV

literature and the Tamil mind than any other. It exhibits no acquaint-

ance even with the existence of this school.

(3.) There is no trace in the Kural of the mysticism of the modern

|

Purénic system ; of Bhakti, or exclusive, enthusiastic faith in any one

deity of the Hind® Pantheon. The work appears to have been written

before Saivism and Vaishnavism had been transformed from rival

0

schools into rival sects ; before the Purénas, as they now stand, had

become the text-books of Hindfl theology; and whilst the theosophy

of the early Vedanta and the mythology of the Mah&-bharata com-

prised the entire creed of the majority of Hindds.

(4.) The author of the Kural is claimed with nearly equal reason

He is claimed also, but very feebly, by Vaish-

é

by Saivas and Jainas.

1

navas. On the whole, the arguments of the Jainas appear to me to

preponderate, especially those which appeal to the Jaina titles by

f

which God is described, and the Jaina tone that pervades the ethical

(]

part of the work:—e.g., scrupulous abstinence from the destruction

of life is frequently declared to be not only the chiefest excellence of

i

Nevertheless, from the

the true ascetic, but also the highest virtue.

indistinctness and undeveloped character of the Jaina element which

1

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE

131

101}

is contained in it, it seems probable that in Tiruvalluvar’s age the

Jainism of the Tamil country was rather an esoteric ethical school, than

who

an independent objective system of religion, and was only in the pro-

330

cess of development out of the older Hindfiism. This would carry

back the date of the Kural to the ninth or tenth century

cted

man

(6.) The Kural is referred to and quoted in grammars and pro

sodies which were probably written in the eleventh or twelfth century.

and

106

il

For these reasons, such as they are, we seem to be warranted in

It must be

y the

placmg the Kural in the tenth century A.p., at least.

remembered, however, as in almost every snmlar inquiry pertaining to

XIS

f {he

Indian literature, that the reasons for this conclusion possess only a

very limited amount of probability, and are capable of being overruled

by the first discovery of a reliable date or fact

There are reasons

ity

also for regarding it as possible that the Kural should be placed

several centuries later

It is the concurrent voice of various traditions

)

1018

that Tiruvalluvar lived before the dissolution of the Madura College

and it is certain that the Kural is included in a poetical list of

ar 10

eighteen works which the college-board (in this case tradition says it

ol

§o6I8

was literally ¢ board) sanctioned

Those traditions go on to state that

the Kural was the very last work presented for the approval of the

{ o1t

college, and that it was in consequence of the rejection of the Kural

in the first instance by the syndicate (on account of the low caste of

yell

its author), that the college ceased to exist.

The board miraculously

Ton

expanded itself to receive the Kural, and then miraculously contracted

quamt

itself 8o as to thrust out all the existing members of the college, where-

upon, unable to bear the disgrace, they are all said to have drowned

ot

themselves

If any weight could be attached to this tradition, it

my Oﬂe

would bring down the date of the Kural considerably, for other

Wﬂt ()

) l‘Wﬂl

traditions connect Nakkirar (who is always represented as the president

of the college) with the reign of Rarikala Chédla, who seems to have

i b

lived in the thirteenth century. Another tradition of a similar ten-

sopt

dency is that which places Auveiyar (Tiruvalluvar’s sister) in the reign

g (00

of Kulbtunga Chola, who is known to have lived in the twelfth century

We must be cautious, however, of placing the Kural so late as

reaﬂ()ﬂ

Kuldtunga Chéla’s reign, for it may be regarded as certain that it was

Vil

in that reign that the Tamil RAm&yana was completed and published

18 f0

and Tamil scholars are of opinion that there is internal evidence in

fle b

the Rdmayana of its author’s acquaintance with the Kural espe-

i

cially in certain stanzas relating to the duties and qualifications of

o

ambassadors

UL

jone?

It is a remarkable circumstance that the author of the Kupal is

ot

represented to have been a Pariar,—born, according to the legend, at

f Whlch

INTRODUCTION.

132

Meilapar, near Madrds. , Anoﬁher legenﬁ rep‘resents him to have been

the offspring of a BrAhman father by a Pariar mother.

His real name

is unknown.

The Valluvars are the priestly division of the Pariars,

and also soothsayers, and the author of the ‘Kural’ is known only as

Teruvalluvar, ‘the sacred Valluvan’ or Pariar priest.

This is one of

those traditions which are so repugnant to inveterate popular pre-

judice, that they appear too strange for fiction, and are probably

founded on fact.

It is a still more remarkable circumstance that

certain poetical compositions of universal use and popularity in the

Tamil country, and of considerable merit, are ascribed to a sister of

Tiruvalluvar, a Pariar woman !

Auveyar's real name, like that of her

brother, is unknown,—Awuver or Awveiydr, signifying ‘a mother, ‘a

venerable matron.’

The Jaina period produced another great ethical poem on ¢ the three

objects of man,” called the Naladiyéar.

The style of the stanzas of

which it is composed is more discursive and rhetorical than that of the

;

Kural, and Dr Granl considers it on this account probably more

f

ancient.

There is a still stronger argument, I think, for its priority to

1l

the Kural.

As it is admitted on every hand that the Kural excels all

t

Tamil compositions of this kind, it seems improbable that a later

writer of inferior power should have chosen the same “subject and

treated it according to the same rules.

Kural means ¢ brief; referring

to the brevity of the verse employed : Néaladi means ¢ four feet,’ refer-

:a

ring probably to the four line stanza in which the poem is written.

The name of the author is unkhoWn, as well as his date. All that is

known is that he was a Jaina, that he wrote in the Pindya country,

18

which he frequently describes by well-chosen epithets, and that his

work is included in the list of those said to have been sanctioned by

{

the Madura_College. - Some native scholars are of opinion that the

I

whole of the N4ladi is not the composition of one author, but that on

L)

the contrary it appears by internal signs to bfa a collection of stanzas

f

by different hands.

Il

The Chintdmani,* a brilliant, romantic epic, Eontaining 15,000 lines,

fi

is the most celebrated Tamil poem written by an avowedly Jaina

I

author.

Partly from its Jaina origin, partly from the difficulty of its

0

style, it is little known ; but Beschi, who made the Chintdmani the

i

model on which he composed his ZémbAavani, was probably right in

€]

asserting that the author ““may with justice be called the prince of

Ll

Tamil poets.”

The style is considered superior even to that of Kam-

i

l

* Chintdmani, Sans. the gem which yields all one desires, a favourite title of

books in all the Indian languages.

{

il

=

been

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

E3

43

lame

ban’s Tamil Ramayana.

The name of the author is unknown.

It is

iar,

the opinion of some native scholars that the Chintdmani preceded the:

1} &

Kural.

They think they can trace allusions in the Kural to matters

ne of

contained in the Chintdmani, also amplifications in the Kural of

e

matters which the Chintdmani expresses more briefly. These reasons

ably

are adduced still more confidently to prove the priority of the Kural to

that

Tt would - be a remarkable circumstance if it

the Tamil Ramiyana.

| the

were capable of being clearly proved that the Chintdmani, which is

e of

without doubt the greatest epic poem in the Tamil language, is also

the oldest Tamil composition of any extent now extant.

f h'er

I, 8

To this period also belongs the oldest classieal dictionary of the

Tamil language, called the Divakaram (divd-kara, the day-maker, the

thres

sun), a work ascribed to Séndan, a writer who is said to have been a mem-

i of

ber of the Madura College.

The other two classical Tamil dictionaries,

f the

the Pingalandei and the StidAmani Nigghantu, were also the composi-

1o

tion of Jainas.

We have to place in this period, though probably near

ity fo

its close, the most celebrated and authoritative of Tamil grammars,

'e

Iyl

the Nanntl of Pavanandi.

This is regarded up to the present day as

i

the standard grammar of the language, though its method, like that of

f i

all Indian grammars, is very perplexing. No Tamil grammar was

g

written by a Jaina before the time of Paranandi.

The Jainas of the

pefel

early period were great dictionary-makers, but they seem to have left

ritteD.

the writing of grammars to Saivas.

hat i

The Tamil Rdmdyana Cycle.—The Tamil version of the RamAyana

uoftfy

is an imitation rather than a translation of VAlmiki’s celebrated poem.

b I

The Sanskrit original is sometimes rhetorical, sometimes simple,

ed If

touching, and natural, sometimes prosaic and prolix.

The Tamil

ab tt

imitation never condescends to be natural, much less prosaic, but is

always elaborately rhetorical and ornate.

It piles up epithet on

hat 08

a0

epithet, simile on simile, till the thought is obscured and the narrative

interrupted and almost forgotten.

To the Tamil ear it seems the per-

fection of sweet harmonious rhythm, but to the severer European

) i

v J 3iﬂ3

judgment its sweetness borders upon lusciousness, and its harmony too

often suggests the idea of monotonous jingle.

The difference between

of 1

the Tamil and the Sanskrit Ramayana may be compared to the differ-

ot

ence between Pope’s Iliad and the Iliad of Homer ; but this compari-

son, though a just one so far as it goes, gives only an imperfect idea

K

at best of the difference between the two works.

Notwithstanding its

faults of style, from the point of view of a cultured taste, the Tamil

Ramfyana is undoubtedly a great poem, and in this department of

e o

composition the ChintAmani alone can dispute with it for the palm of

supremacy. The author, Kamban, so-called ‘from the name of the

INTRODUCTION.

134

district to which he belonged, Kamba-nadu, in the Tanjore country, a

portion of the ancient Chola-désa.

“ His fame as a poet having

reached the ears of Rajendra Chola, he was invited to his court, and

honoured with the title of the king of poets.

Several poets undertook

‘When recited in the

to prepare a Tamil version of the Réméyana.

presence of Kulotunga Chola, who had succeeded to the throne, Kam-

Several other works are attributed to

ban’s version was preferred.” *

him, of which the Ererupadu, seventy stanzas in praise of the plough,

is best known.

So many great poets, authors of works held in high esteem to the

present day, seem to have flourished in Kamban’s time (in particular

Pugaréndi, Otteikfittan, and Auveiyar), that I have thought the litera-

ture of this period best described by the name of the Raméyana cycle,

and it becomes in consequence a point of interest to endeavour to

determine its age.

Nothing has been definitely ascertained respect-

ing the date of the first or Jaina cycle ; but as Kamban’s era synchro-

nises with the reigns of the two most celebrated kings of the Chola

line, our prospect of being able to determine his date—-the earliest date

in Tamil literature which we are likely to be able to determine—seems

more hopeful. If it were possible to accept the date which is supposed

to be furnished by the Tamil Ramayana itself, our search would at

once come to an end.

In a stanza which is prefixed to the work, and

which is commonly, but without any conclusive authority, attributed

to the author himself, it is stated that it was finished in the year of

This date used to be

the SalivAhana era corresponding to A.D. 886.

accepted as genuine, not only by natives, but by those few European

scholars who had turned their attention to matters of this kind., If

it were genuine, the Tamil version of the RAmayana might fairly claim

to be the oldest Tamil composition now extant—a supposition to which

the internal evidence of style is opposed ; and the author to be regarded

as the father of Tamil poetry. This date, though it is the only one

with which I amm acquainted in the whole range of Tamil literature, is,

I fear, a surreptitious addition to Kamban’s poem, prefixed to it by

some admiring editors for the purpose of giving it a higher antiquity

than it can justly claim.

We must therefore fall back in this inquiry

on the dates of the Chola kings.

Kamban is connected with the reigns of R4jéndru Chodla and his

successor Kuldtunga Chola, not by any inscriptions or documents

which leave no room for uncertainty, but only by traditions, legends,

* Murdoch’s ¢ Classified Catalogue of Tamil Printed Books ; Notices of Tamil

Authors,” p. 87.

=

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

135

and stories ; * but these are so numerous, and on the whole so consis-

)

tent, and they are corroborated to such a degree by what appear to be

10g

undesigned coincidences, that I think their evidence, at least with

nd

regard to the point of contemporaneousness, may safely be accepted.

00k

I do not find it stated in any inscriptions that Kul6tunga was Réjén-

the

dra’s son, but that he was his successor (whether his immediate suc-

Al

cessor or not) appears from an inscription I obtained at Kottar, near

4o

Nayercoil, in the Tamil-speaking part of Travancore.

This inscription

iz

]

is cut on the walls of a temple, and states that the temple in question

was erected in Kottar, called also ¢the good town of the triple crowned

the

Chola, by Kulbtunga, So6ra dévar, ‘to the great divinity Réjéndra

A_AL

il

Sl

Orésvaram

’ (i.e., to Siva as worshipped by Réjéndra Chola, or to

610

Rajéndra Chola himself considered as identified with Siva after his

yelt

death).t The inscription itself is dated in the thirty-first year of

)

Kulétunga Sora.

[I have found several records of gifts made to this

pectr

and other temples dedicated to Rajéndra Cholé$vara in succeeding

oho:

reigns, including one in the reign of Sundara Pandya.

Ounly one of

(hfla

these inscriptions furnishes us with a date, and that unfortunately is a

late one.

b date

It is a record in the same temple at KottAr of a gift to the

SEEI8

same Chola king’s divinity, and is dated in the Saka year, answering

pposed

to A.D. 1370, in the fifth year of Parikrama Pandi dévar.

Réjéndra

ald o

himself is generally in inscriptions in the Pandya country called simply

g il

R4jéndra Chola, but in one inscription I have found him called Réjén-

ihuted

dra Chola Pandyan.]

What was Réjéndra’s date ?

I have found two inscriptions at Cape

ieaj‘ Of

fo bt

Comorin, one in the fourth year of his reign, and another in the fifth,

o

in each of which Ré4jéndra is related to have achieved a victory over

Ahara Malla (a Jaina king of the Chéalukya race) on the banks of the

ud, i

Tunga-bhadra.

The date which I supposed to be contained in one

y cla'i

0 Wthh

of these inscriptions I found afterwards was unreliable; but an in-

scription found by Sir Walter Elliot (Journal of the Royal Asiatic

;egardfd

Society) in the western Chélukya country, in which the same battle

is mentioned (though the victory is claimed for the Chalukya king),

{7 b

places Ahara Malla, R4jéndra’s contemporary, in the middle of the

mﬁquit?

eleventh century. According to inscriptions obtained by Sir Walter

Elliot in the Kalinga country or Northern Circus (at that time ruled

5 mqu“?

—

over byvthe eastern branch of the Chalukya dynasty), and which were

d B¢

* These traditions have recently been collected in a book called the Vinddarasu

Ucumeﬂﬁ

Manjari, by VirasivAmi Chettiar, late head pandit of the Presidency College,

1egeﬂd5'

Madras.

t Compare the Roman title ¢ Divus Augustus,’ that is, Augustus regarded as

deified after his death.

gof w

INTRODUCTION

;.

worked up by Dr Eggeling in a paper read before the International

Congress of Orientalists in 1874, R4jéndra Choéla commenced to reign

in A.p. 1063, and ruled not only over the ChZla country, but over the

B}

Kaliya country, and, as my inscriptions prove over the Péandya

country also.

The battle between him and Ahara Malla must, there-

fore, have taken place between 1063 and 1066

I have an inscrip

tion of Réjéndra Chgla’s, belcnging to the southern portion of the

Pandya country, dated in the thirtieth year of his reign

This carries

us down to A.D. 1093

When he died, and was succeeded by Kuld-

tunga Chdla, is at present uncertain, but Sir Walter Elliot places this

event in A.D. 1112, afteria reign of forty-nine years

I have an in-

scription dated in the forty-fourth year of Kul6tunga Chéla ; but it

1s unnecessary to place the publication of Kamban’s ¢ RAmayana’ so

late as this

Supposing that it was commenced in R4jéndra’s reign,

and finished in Kul6tunga’s, as all traditions represent, its publication

cannot have been much before 4:p. 1100, and was probably not much

after that date. Supposing that it was published as late as the twenty-

fourth year of Kulétunga’s reign, this would be exactly 250 years

after the date given in the stanza prefixed to the poem.

It would,

therefore, appear that the poem must have been antedated (probabl)

by some admiring editor) 250 years.

It seems certain that Kamban was posterior to Ramanuja, the

He refers to

celebrated founder of the Sri Vaishnava system.

Ramanuja by name in a poem called the ‘Sadagdpar Andadi,” which

is always attributed to him.

It might be supposed doubtful whether

this poem were really written by Kamban, but native scholars think

there can be no doubt about its authorship, as Kamban’s style, they

ay, was sut generus, and incapable of being imitated. As Ramanuja

is placed by Professor Wilson

on what appears to be conclusive

evidence, in the beginning of the twelfth century a.p.,» Kamban’s

date must be posterior to Ramanuja’s

The supposition that he lived

/s

in the following century in the reigns of R4jéndra Ch®la and Kul®™

tunga Chola, will perfectly suit all the circumstances of the case

The same traditions and stories which place the poets Pugaréndi

and OtteikQttan, together with Kamban, in the reign of Kulbtunga

Chola, place also Auveiyér, the reputed sister of Tiruvalluvar, in the

ame reign, and connect her by means of conversations and incidents

with those three poets

I therefore place her tentatively in this cycle

though this will have the effect either of discrediting the tradition

\r

* Brown, in his

Cyclic Tables

places King Vishnu Varddhanana’s conver

sion by Ramanuja in 1133 a.pn

e

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

137

which represents ﬁér as Tiruvalluvar's sister, or of bringing down ﬁhe

4

age of the Kuril lower than the internal evidence of style and

he

matter seems to warrant.

This period, however, does not seem too

ya

The two sets of brief verses called the

late for Auveiyar herself.

£

Alli-éudi and the Kondrei-véndan, each commencing with a -con-

P

secutive letter of the Tamil alphabet, which are ascribed to Auveiyér,

e

appear to be of considerable antiquity: but the Advaita work which

16§

is called Auveiyir's Kural must have been written subsequently to

the arrival of the Muhammedans in Southern India ; and the collection

1is

of moral epigrams (most of them possessed of real poetic merit) which

11

is called the ¢Mfdurei,’ or ‘proverbial wisdom,” appears to have been

written after the arrival of Europeans, perhaps after the arrival even

§

of the English.

The proof of the modern origin of the ¢ Mfidurei’ is

1,

contained in the following simile :—¢“ As the turkey that had seen the

on

forest peacock dance, fancied himself also to be a peacock, and spread

ich

his ugly wings and strutted, so is the poetry which is recited by a

conceited dunce.”

iy

As it is certain that the turkey is an American

Al

bird, which was brought to Europe from America, and introduced into

India from Europe, there cannot be any doubt of the late origin: of the

1t

I

‘ Mtdurei,’ of this stanza was always an integral portion of 4t When

)

I have mentioned this anachronism to native scholars, and have called

f0e

their attention to the circumstance that the Tamil word for * turkey’

to

(like the words denoting ‘tobacco,” potato,” &c.), is not an original

(1

root, but a descriptive compound—viz., vdn-kori, signifying the great

her

fow],” they have courageously maintained that the turkey was always

found in India.

ink

Another and more ingenious explanation has beenl advanced by Mr

hey

T. M. Scott=of Madura, a warm admirer of Tamil poetry.

In an

ije

edition of the ¢ Madurei’ Mr Scott maintains that by vdn-kdr: we are

si\'e

to understand, not the turkey, but the pea-hen.

Though this ex-

alld

el

planation is ingenious, I think it inadmissible, on grounds both of

il

philology and of natural hiztory.

The pea-hen could not have been

described as having ‘ugly wings;

and if it had been the intention

of the writer to distinguish the hen from the cock, she would not have

ol

marred her purpose by styling the cock alone ¢the pea-fowl,” and its

Il

hen ¢ the great fowl,” thereby necessarily suggesting the idea that what

i

It would be

she called ‘the great fowl’ was a totally different bir

NS

safer to argue that the stanza in question was not originally contained

‘cle.

in the collection, of which, however, no proof can be adduced.

‘.timl

(3.) The Sarwa Revival Cycle.—To this period belongs twe-large col-

lections of hymns—an earlier and a liter—in praise of Seva and Saiva

el

temples, breathing an intensely religious spirit, and mostly advocating

138

INTRODUCTION.

the Saiva-siddhanta system of religious philosophy. The earlier collec-

tion, called 7Wru-vdsagam, composed by Mdnikka-vdsagar (Manikya-

vichaka), one of the most enthusiastic propagators of Saivism, has a

great reputation amongst the Tamil people up to the present day for

its elevated tone and religious earnestness. The heretics that Manikka-

p

vasagar chiefly confuted were Buddhists from Ceylon, according to the

account of a great debate on the merits of the rival creeds related

in the Zvruvddir purdnam ; we can scarcely err, therefore, in placing

him earlier, perhaps at least a century earlier, than the other great

apostie of Saivism in the Tamil country, Gndna Sambandha, who

flourished during the reign of Sundar-Pandya (the date of whose reign

will be considered further on), and whose opponents were Jainas.

Manikka-vasaga is not included amongst the sixty-three Bhaktas or

Saiva devotees, belonging to Gthana Sambandha’s period, whose lives

are recorded in the Z%ruttondar purdnam, and he is generally stated

by Tamil writers to have lived at an earlier period. Some, it is true,

place him later than the sixty-three, but, I think, with much less pro-

bability. A story contained in the Madura Sthala purinam places

Manikka-vasaga in the reign of Arimardana Pandya, whose minister he

is represented to have been, and whose name stands tenth in the list

of kings in that purdna before that of Sundara Pandya. I have no

confidence in any name in that list before Sundara’s, the name with

which it ends; but we may conclude that the prince in question, or

at least Manikka-visaga, lived before Sundara.

The later and larger collection of Saiva hymns was composed chiefly

by Ndna-Sambandha, a native of Sheally (Sdgdri), near Chellum-

brum (Cladambara), a sacred Saiva temple in the Chdla country,

who together with his disciples (of whom the most eminent were Sun-

dara and Appa, who also were authors of numerous hymns) devoted

themselves to uprooting Jainism and spreading Saivism throughout the

Tamil country. The general title of these hymns is Dévdram (dévdrha,

Sans. worthy of God).

Sambandha’s hymns, 384 in number, have

been published in three volumes ; Sundara’s and Appda’s in one volume

each. These three persons held the most distinguished place amongst

‘ the sixty-three devotees of Siva,’ of each of whose life and labours,

including a variety of romantic and miraculous exploits attributed to

them, a memoir has been furnished in a popular book already referred

to, the Ziruttondar purdnam (the purdna of the holy disciples), com-

monly called the Zeriya purdnam, or great purdnam, composed by a

poet called Sékkirdr.

Some of the incidents in Sambandhd’s career,

especially his recouversion of Sundara Pdndya, king of Madura, from

Jainism, and the impaling of eight thousand Jainas, who had been van-

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE,

139

quished in discussion and outdone in miracles, are related also in the

last portion of the Z%ruviletyddal purdnam, the Sthala purdna of

Madura, The date of the Z¥ruttondar purdnam is unknown ; but if it

be true, as is related, that the Z%ruvilesyddal purdnpam was translated

from the Sanskrit original at the request of Atc-vira-rdma Pdndya, the

poet-king of Madura (as there seems no reason for doubting), it dates,

as will be seen further on, from the sixteenth century A.D.

Another

of the sixty-three devotees, Seramdn Perumdl, who is said to have been

a son of one of the S'éra or Kérala kings, was also the author of some

poems belonging to this cycle,

There seems no reason to doubt the propriety of placing the most

famous poets and theologians of the Saiva revival in the time of Sun-

dara Pandya, in whose reign they are invariably placed by native tra-

ditions, as well as by the books referred to; and as this reign is an

important era, both for the history of Tamil literature and for the date

of the almost final extinction of Jainism in the Tamil country by the

Saivas, it becomes as important to endeavour to ascertain the date of

this king’s reign as it was to fix that of Kulotunga Chola’s.

In the

first edition of this work, I stated that Sundara Pandya seemed to me

to be identical with the Senderbandi mentioned by Marco Polo, who

visited Southern India in A.D. 1292. This identification, however, has

Mr Nelson, in his * Madura Manual,”

not found much acceptance.

after a long and elaborate discussion of the evidence before him, comes

to the conclusion that Sundara lived in the latter half of the eleventh

century, and therefore nearly two hundred years before Polo’s Sender-

bandi ; and Colonel Yule, in private communications with which he has

h

favoured me, states that he considers it clear from the statements of

the Muhammedan historians, Wassaf and Rashiduddin, that there were

i

two Sundars in M’abar about Polo’s time, and that whilst he thinks

10

Polo’s Senderbandi was identical with the earlier of the two, he is

0

inclined to the opinion that this person was not a genuine king of

17

Madura but an adventurer, and therefore not the Sundara Pandya, the

16

date of whose reign I am anxious to ascertain.

of

The question of the date of this Sundara Pandya, the last king of

1%

the old Pandya line, is beset with difficulties.

Inscriptions belonging

f0

to his reign are very numerous.

There are at least twenty in my own

o

possession, but not one of them contains a date.

If ever a dated

inscription belonging to his reign should be discovered (which might

readily happen if a thorough search were made, seeing that the district

i 3

gl

of country from which my inscriptions have been taken does not

amount to more than a fifth part of the old Pandya country), all doubt

o

o

would be at-an end.

It might be necessary in that event to abandon

140

jNi‘li()}}JU(JTION.

Marco Polo’s Senderbandi altogether ; but till ti;en I feel reluctant

to give him tp. “That the true Sundara Pandya, who impaled the

Jainas, and with whose name the ancient Jist of Pandya kings breaks

suddenly off, belongs rather to the end of the thirteenth century (Polo’s

era) than to the end of the eleventh, as Mr

Nelson supposes, appears

to me at present best to accord with the various items of evidence

with which we have to deal.

It is certain that Sundara lived after

Réjéndra Chola, for there is an inscription in my possession, as I have

already mentioned, in which a gift is recorded to have been made in

the thirty-second year of Sundara to the temple of Ré4jéndra Sorés-

varam. This takes him out of the eleventh century altogether, a.D.

1112, according to Sir Walter Elliot’s lists, being the last year of

Réjéndra’s reign. Tt is in the highest degree probable that Sundara

was preceded also by Kuldtunga Chéla who, as we know from an

inscription already referred to, ruled over the whole of the Pandya

country, like Réjéndra himself, without a rival, shortly after R4jéndra’s

reign. It is certain that he was preceded by Vikrama Pandya, called

also Vikrama Chola-Pandi, who is related, in an inscription in my

possession dated in Sundara’s reign, to have previously made a gift to

the temple on which the inscription is found, in conjunction with

Vira Chola, both of whom appear to have reigned in the interval

between Réjéndra Chéla and Sundara Pandya. I may add.that his

reign must have been subsequent (probably a considerable time sub-

sequent) to the era of Ramanuja, who flourished in the beginning of

the twelfth century a.n. In several of the inscriptions belonging to

Sundara Pindya’s reign in my possession, gifts to Sri Vaishnava

establishments are recorded, and in one of these one of the witnesses

to the gift is designated RAmAanuja-disa, the servant or devotee of

Rémanuja, a clear proof that RAmanuja was already deceased, and had

already for a considerable time been regarded as a sacred personage.

The person referred to as Ramanuja in this connection could not have

been Rama’s younger brother, who is sometimes called by that name in

the RAmAyanam.

This seems to me quife irreconcilable with the idea

that Sundara reigned in the latter part of the eleventh century. Lastly,

if we may consider it certain, as I think we may, that the same Sun-

dara Pandya, called also Kubja Pandya, or in Tamil Kimn Pandiyan,

was in some sense the last of the kings of the old Pandya line—(seeing

that his name stands last in the list, that he is the last king mentioned

in the Madura Zoruvileiyddal purdnam, and, that all traditions repre-

sent his reign as having been fo)

lowed by a period of anarchy, during

which several Muhammedan d

ynasties were established at Madura)—

then it must be considered certain that his reign come

s nearly down.

=

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE

141

to the period of the tw

Sundar Bandis mentioned by the Muham-

medan historians, one of whom ‘may have been the Senderbandi of

Marco Polo himself.

The statements of the Mubammedan historians respecting the first of

their two Sundaras do not seem to me irreconcilable with the sup-

position of the identity of Polo’s Sender with the Sundara Pindya of

the inscriptions

If we leave out of account Wassaf’s second Sundara

who flees to Delhi in 1310, we find him agreeing with Rashiduddin

with respect to the Sundara who died in 1293, the man of four brothers,

whom we may with very little hesitation .identify with Marco Polo’s

Sender, who was reigning in 1292.

Is it impossible also to identify

this same Sundara with the Sundara of the inscriptions ¢ I think not.

It is clear from both the Mulﬂammedan historians that at the close of the

thirteenth century there reigned in Madura @ Sundara Pindya who was

Dewar—that is, as they interpreted the title, lord paramount—of M’abar

= the Pindya-Chdla country

He was, it is true, one of four (or five)

brothers ¢ who had acquired power in different directions, yet still he alone

was called Dewar, and said to have been possessed of immense wealth

Polo also, though he speaks of his brothers as kings,” yet speaks of

Sender alone as ‘a crowned king,’ and gives him distinctively the title

of Bandi

so that it is evident that in some respects he was regarded

as supreme

There is no trace in Sundara’s inscriptions of his brothers,

or of his power being in any degree shared by them, or of the position

he and they held being one that they had ¢ acquired,” instead of being

one that they had inherited ; but these are particulars which would

not be likely to make their appearance in insecriptions; and there is

nothing in the inscriptions or traditions inconsistent with the supposi-

tion that he had brothers who had acquired power together with him-

self

All that is necessary to stipulate for in order to bring the

accounts into agreement, is that in -some sense he alone should be

Pandi Devar, or lord paramount, so that his name only should appear

in the inscriptions, and in this, as it seems to me, no particular diffi-

culty can be involved. Polo represents his Sender Bandi as ruling

over Soli, which he describes as ‘the best and noblest province of

India.

i

Colonel Yule is quite right, I have no doubt, in identifying

Soli with Tanjore—that is, with the Chéla country—but this, instead

of being a difficulty in the way of identifying Sender Bandi with the

)

Sundara Pandya of the inscriptions, is in reality an ar gument in favour

of this identification ; for whilst Sundara is called in some inscriptions

é

simply Sundara Pandya, in a still larger number he is called Sundara

Chola-Pandya, and represented as having conquered the Chéla country

4

and had himself consecmted there as Chéla king.

It is clear, however

i

i42

INTRODUCTION.

that Polo’s Sender Bandi ruled not only over the Chéla country, but

also over at least the coast district of Madura and Tinnevelly (the

Péandya country), inasmuch as it is stated that it was in his territory

that the pearl fishery was carried on.

I find another point of agree-

ment, not of diversity, in the traces we find in Sundara’s court of

Muhammedan influences.

Rashiduddin represents his Sundar Bandi

as succeeded by a Muhammedan, and Wassaf agrees with Rashid in

giving him a Mubammedan minister.

Now it is clear from an inscrip-

tion in Nelson’s Madura Manual,” recording the confirmation by

Virappa Néayakkar, in A.p. 1573, of a grant originally made by Kfin

Péandi (z.e., the Sundara Pandya of the inscriptions, called also Kfn

Pandiyan) to a mosque in Madura, that Muhammedan influences had

found a footing in the PAndyan country even in the time of the genuine

Sundara Pandya ; and we know that in those days Muhammedan

power was extending so rapidly on every hand, that where it received

an inch it would not be slow in taking an ell.

It seems to follow,

therefore, quite naturally that Sundara’s name should stand last in the

list of the ancient Pandyan line, and that tradition should represent

the Madura country soon after as entirely in the hands of Muham-

medans.

This would be an extraordinary circumstance if Sundara

Kin Pandi lived in the latter part of the eleventh century, but not by

any means extraordinary if he lived in the latter part of the thirteenth.

I may add that, so far as can be ascertained from inscriptions, only one

Sundara Pindya ever reigned.

In whatever part of the Pandya

country this name appears, the epithets by which he is described

For

invariably:show that the person referred to is one and the same.

instance, in the elaborate inscription at Madura, given by Mr Nelson,

we find a curious play on the numerals up to six ; and in an inscrip-

tion obtained by me at Tinakolur, a place on the TAmraparni river in

Tinnevelly, I find the very same play on the numerals, though more

briefly expressed.

[Thus, “ He who by means of ONE umbrella throws

a cool shade over Two countries ” z.e., the Pdndya and Chéla coun-

tries), “ who cultivates the THREE kinds of classical Tamil, who

cherishes the Four Vedas, the F1ve species of sacrifice, and the Six

(orthodox Saiva) sects.”

The Madura inscription goes on to eight.]

I have one

The Sundara Pandya of the inscriptions had a long reign.

inscription dated in the thirty-second year of his reign, that in which

a gift is recorded to the temple of R4jéndra Cholesvara.

It was

natural therefore, especially seeing that it synchronised with the Saiva

revival, that it should abound in inscriptions.

Now, as there are no

inscriptions in which there is any reference to any other prince of this

name, as it is certain that we have inscriptions pertaining to earlier

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE.

143

reigns, and certain also that we have dated inscriptions pertaining to

subsequent réigns ; and as the Sundara of the Muhammedans must

be presumed to have had a long reign, seeing that he occupies so

large a space in their description of the kingdom, ports, trade, &e., of

M’abar, I do not see any valid reason (pending the discovery of a dated

inscription) why we should hesitate to identify their Sundar, both

with Polo’s Sender and with the Sundara or Kan Pandya of the

inscriptions and the Saiva revival.

’Y

(4.) The Vaishnava Cycle.—The poetical compositions of seven of

the twelve Alvars or Vaishnava devotees, followers of Ramanuja, which

are included in the Naldyira (p)prakandham or Perea Prabandham (‘the

Book of the Four Thousand Hymns’ or the Great Book’), are still

more numerous than those of Ménikya VAachaka, Niana Sambandha,

I

and the other Saiva devotees previously referred to, and are considered

not inferior to them in religious fervour or poetical merit.

As the

Tiruvdsakam and collection of DévArams are regarded by the Saivas

as “the Tamil Veda,” so the same title is claimed by the Vaishnavas

"

for the Nalayira (p)prabandham, especially for those parts of it which

are called Peria tiru-mori, ‘the Great Sacred Word,’ and Tvru-vdy-

1

morz, ‘the Words of the Sacred Mouth.’

|

It is still more difficult to ascertain the date of these compositions

with any degree of accuracy than that of the compositions of the Saiva

h

\l4

revival, not only in consequence of there being no chronological data

fh

in the poems themselves (a defect which they share with almost all

Tamil, and indeed with almost all Hind@i, poems), but also in con-

¢

lor

sequence of there being no incidents on record connecting their authors

with any of the Chfla or Pandya kings.

Ré&ménuja’s own date is

0,

fixed with tolerable accuracy to the beginning of the twelfth century,

p

i}

in consequence of the fame of his conversion of Peddata, the Jaina king

of the Hoisala race, afterwards called Vishnu Varddhana ; and Nidna

e

WS

Sambhandhee’s reconversion of Sundara Pindya from Jainism to

Saivism, furnishes us with the materials for approximately deter-

i

ho

mining his age; but no such important conversion to the Vaishniva

faith is attributed to any of the authors of the Né4layiram Prabandham.

¥

We are, therefore, left very much in the dark as regards the age of the

It]

16

poems of this cycle, except with regard to one particular, viz., that they

are all subsequent (probably several generations subsequent) to the

ith

era of RamAnuja, the great teacher whose system they advocate, and

ya9

to whom they frequently refer by name. Probably we shall not greatly

s

err if we attribute to the older of these compositions nearly the same

10

date as Ménichya Vachaka’s Tiruvisakam ; and place the latter, with

{his

the DévArams of Sambandha, Sundara, and Appa, somewhere about

jer

144

INTRODUCTION.

the era of Sundara Papdya’s reign.

This seems to have been a period

of intense religious excitement all over Southern India, and the fame

of the compositions of the prophet-poets of one faith would naturally

fire the genius of the not less highly gifted prophet-poets of the other.

It'is singular that there is no reference in one of these sets of poems

to the other, but this does not prove that they were not coutemporary

)

it only proves that they were widely sundered in feeling and aim.

Our own Milton betrays no signs of having ever heard of Jeremy

Taylor ; our own Jeremy Taylor betrays no signs of having ever heard

of Milton

yet both were contemporaries, and the one the greatest

poet, the other the greatest prose-writer, of his age.

Tf there was so

wide a separation between Puritans and Churchmen in the seventeenth

century iri England, we need not wonder that many centuries earlier

the Saiva and Vaishnivd poets of the Tamil country, though probably

Iy

contemporaries, or nearly so, believed that they had no ideas in

common, and moved in the orbits of their several creeds far apart.

“(8.) The Cycle of the Literary Revival.— After a long period (pro-

bably nearly two centuries) of literary inactivity, during which the

name of not a single great writer can be mentioned, the Tamil mind

again awoke.

At the head :of the poets of the new period stands

Ativira-rdma Pdndya, an elegant and prolifie ‘writer, without much

original genius, whose chief aim seems to have been to reproduce the

glory of the Chintlmani and the other great classics of the earlier age.

The most celebrated of the compositions attributed ‘to him is the

Nerdadam (Naishada), a version of the story of Nala in eleven hundred

Tamil stanzas, all of themn exceedingly ornate, and many of them ex-

ceedingly voluptuous.

Another celebrated composition attributed to

him is the Kasi kdndam, which from its title might be supposed to be

the kdndam, or book, of that name which forms a portion of the

Skanda puréna, but which in reality is an independent work. He is

also said to have been the author of the admired Tamil versions of two

of the Sanskrit Purinas, the Linga and the K{irma,

His best work

from a moral point of view, and the only one in which he shows any

real ‘originality,-is a littlé poem called the ¢ Vettri Vérkei,’ in the first

line of which he mentions his name—a great novelty in Tamil litera-

tﬁre.

We may attribute also to this period, T think, the Tamil version

of the Maha-bharata, mainly by Villi Puttirir, which, though not so

celebrated as the Tamil Kamayanan of Kamban, is regarded as a very

fine composition ; together with a large number of translations from

§

&

Sanskrit on all subjects, including most of the Puranas. Perhaps the

most valuable, certainly the most thoughtful, compositions of the period,

V

were the philosophical treatises in explanation of the Vedantic and

ff

I

f

——

d

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE,

145

Baiva Siddhantic doctrines; some of them translations from Sanskrit,

A

and some imitations.

In this class the Nnana V

as

1}

ishtaun, the prin- o

cipal Tamil Vedantic poem; and the Siva-fidna-bédham, with its

1§

commentary the Siva-idna-siddhi, the most authoritative exposition

)

it

in Tamil of the Agzma or Saiva-Siddhantic system, may be regarded

1|

s worthy of special notice. Probably this was the period also in which

most of the medical treatises were composed; and also the erotic

rd

poems, which betoken a late period and a depraved taste.

Most of

est

the compositions included in the list of Tamil Mivar poets, and some

50

e

at least of those attributed to the members of the Madura Laugaun,

ith

appear to me to belong to this period—a period of translations and

ler

il

elegant extracts, of moral platitudes and feminine conceits, rather than

one of original thought.

10

Ati-Vira-Riman Péndija has sometimes been regarded as a mythical

person.

His name never appears in any traditions respecting the

10

political history of his country; and if really a reigning king, it is

{he

concluded that he could not also have been a poet, but must have

ind

been merely a patron of poets.

It is difficult of course to ascertain

%nds

whether he may not have received help from the poets of his court,

ek

especially in his long translations from the Sanskrit Puranas; but it

{10

is so rare a thing for a Hind@ king to be also a celebrated poet, that

age

it seems unlikely so many poems should have been attributed to him,

the

especially poems evincing what natives regard as such exquisite taste’

Jred

if he had not really been their author.

However this may be, I find

| 65

it to be certain that this personage really existed and reigned, and I

4 b

find also a satisfactory reason why his name does not occur in the

10 e

political history.

¢ Ati-Vira-Raman’ was not his real name, but his

the

assumed literary name—his nom de plume.

His real name, by which

ie i

he was known as a reigning sovereign, was Vallabha Déva.

I had

0

many inscriptions in my possession pertaining to Vallabha Déva’s

otk

reign, which were without date.

At length I found a dated inscrip-

3 40y

tion, which turned out to be a peculiarly valuable one for Tamil literary

) ﬁl‘St

history. This is an inseription in Sanskrit, in the Grantha character,

et

It is

found in the interior of the temple at Courtallum, Tinnevelly.

el‘é,il)ﬂ

in the fortieth year of Vallabha Déva, “who ¢s 4ti- Vira-Rdman ;” and

0 80

that this person with the double name is the very person we are in

) e

search of appears from this also that he is praised for his skill in

from

sangtta-sdhetya, ‘music and belles [lettres.

This fortieth year of

It

ps the

Vallabha Déva corresponds to the Saka year 1527 (a.p. 1605).

thus appears that Ati-Vira-Raman, the poet-king, came to the throne

]eriode

o

in A.D. 1565.

A predecessor of his (apparently his immediate pre-

decessor) was Vikrama Péndija (Kdst kanda, he who visited Beuares),

k

146

INTRODUCTION.

the year of whose accession, according to an inscription in my posses-

sion, was A.D. 1543 ; and he again was preceded by Pardkrama Pandya,

the year of whose accession, according to another inscription, was A.D.

1516.

The power of these princes, however, could have been little

better than nominal ; for the lieutenants of the Raja of Vijayanagar,

who came to Madura about the middle of that very century, at the

unwise request, it is said, of the Pandya prince, to help him against

the Cholas, never returned to Vijayanagar, but founded a new local

dynasty (the Nayaks of Madura), who from that time forward relieved

the Pandyan princes, first.of the greater part, and then of the whole,

of their power, and ruled the country in their own name, with scarcely

any reference to Vijayanagar.

I do not suppose that all or most of

the works referred to as included in this cycle, were composed exactly

within the limits of Ati-Vira-Péndiyan’s reign.

Doubtless some were

earlier than his time, some later ; but it was about his time that they

were written.

He appears to have been a great patron of literature,

and his own name is the most distinguished amongst the writers of

that time.

It is related that it was at his request that the Madura

Tiruvileiyddal Purfnam was translated from Sanskrit; and doubtless

this was not the only case of the kind that occurred.

(6.) The Antv-Bréhmanical Cycle.—1I refer here to the compositions

of the Sittar school—a series of compositions which occupy a position

of their own in Tamil literature as regards both matter and style, so

that, whatever be their age, they cannot well be included in any other

cycle.

The Siddhas or ¢sages’ (Tamulice Sittar) were a Tamil sect the

adherents of which retained Siva as the name of God, but rejected

everything in the Saiva system which was inconsistent with pure

theism.

They cultivated alchymy (rdjayana) as sedulously as the

Arabians, from whom they appear to have derived their knowledge of

1t

One of their number is said to have visited Arabia, and another

refers to the Franks.

Several of them refer to the Turakhas, the name

by which the Indian Muhammedans are known in the South. The

poems of the Siddha school are wholly modern and colloquial, with

grammatical forms unknown to the ancients ; but they make up by

clearness and force for what they lack in classical refinement.

The

writers evidently believed what they wrote, and wished. to produce an

impression, especially on the common people.

So far they are deser-

i

ving of commendation ; but it was a peculiarity of theirs of which we

cannot approve, that most of them took to themselves without warrant

)

Thus one of

R

the names of Pishis or of renowned teachers and poets.

it

them called himself Agastya, another Kapila, another Sankara Acharya,

SC

another Gautama, another Tiruvalluvar.

What is surprising is that

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE,

147

A

this audacity was perfectly successful.

The writers are now almost

The school has

d

universally supposed to have lived at an early period.

now ceased to exist, and this contributes to throw around their writ-

e

ings an air of antiquity. They are much quoted by native Christians,

i,

who generally fancy them to have been endowed with a prophetic

16

spirit, and to have meant Christ by the Sat-Guru (true teacher) to

nsh

whom they constantly refer.

I have no doubt that they were more or

»ca]

less acquainted with Christianity, and that their prophecies were after

e

the event, like those of the Sybils of ancient Christianity. Who could

doubt the allusion to Christianity in the following ?—

e,

Ily

““ God i8 one and the Veda is one ;

0l

The disinterested Guru is one, and his initiatory rite one ;

tly

When this is obtained his heaven is one ;

There is but one birth of men upon the earth,

ere

And only one way for all men to walk in :

hey

But ag for those who hold four Vedas and six Shastras,

e,

And different customs for different people,

And believe in a plurality of gods,

$ 01

Down they will go to the fire of hell ! ”

s

Hess

The author of this composition calls himself Konkanar, the name of

one of the supposed disciples of Agastya.

To me, however, he appears

jons

by the adoption of that name to identify himself with the neighbour-

tlon

hood of Goa (in the Konkana country), the first place where Christian

teachers from Europe formed a settlement.

I quote the last stanza

y 80

i

et

from a striking series of verses by a writer of this school on the

i

identity of God and love—premising that the word used for God is

Sivam, the neuter of Siva—

60

fol

pﬂl‘e

“ The ignorant think that God and love are different.

he

None knows that God and love are the same.

10 01

Did all men know that God and love are the same,

They would dwell together in peace, considering love as God.”

other

Al

The writer calls himself 7%rumilla, the name of another supposed

The

disciple of Agastya.

Tirumidla was the name also of one of ¢ the sixty-

gl

three’ Saiva devotees mentioned in the Toruttonda purdpam ; but this

plf

must have been a different person, for no one can attribute the idea

The

conveyed in the verse quoted above to any but a Christian source.

Another of the writers of this school is called Pattira gereydr (from

el

the name of the place to which he belonged). I quote one verse out

) 1%

of more than two hundred of his Pulambal or Lamentations to illu-

;rran‘

strate the ante-Brdhmanical feeling pervading the writings of this

L

school.

QA

i)

by

“Oh! when will the time come that I shall burn the

D astras,

and

fhat

b

¥

i

48

INTR()DUC'J'ION.

prove the four Védas to be a lie, and discover the mystery and obtain

salvation ?”

Undoubtedly the most striking compositions emanating from mem-

bers of this school are those contained in a book called Siwwa-vdkyam,

* Words about God,’ the author of which is known only as Swa-vdkyar,

from the name of his book.

I quote the following specimens as

illustrations both of his matter and style.

“ As milk once drawn cannot again enter the udder, nor butter churned be

recombined with milk ;

As gound cannot return to a broken conch, nor the life be restored to the body

it left ;

As a decayed leaf and a fallen flower cannot be reunited to the parent tree ;

So man once dead is subject to no future birth.”

THE SHEPHERD OF THE WORLDS.

How many various flowers

Did I, in bye-gone hoursj’

Cull for the gods, and in their honour strew ;

In vain how many a prayer.

I breathed into the air,

And made, with many forms, obeisance due.

Beating my breast, aloud

How oft I called the crowd

To drag the village car ; how oft I stray'd,

JIn manhood’s prime, to lave

Sunwards the flowing wave,

And, circling Saiva fanes, my homage paid.

But they, the truly wise,

Who know and realise

Where dwells the SEEPHERD OF THE WORLDS, will ne’er

To any visible shrine,

§

As if it were divine,

Deign to raise hands of worship or of prayer.

i

.

0

I quote the above poetical version of a remarkable stanza of “ Siva-

Ll

rakyar’s Specimens of Tamil Poetry,” by my son, Mr R. C. Caldwell,

4

in the /ndian Antiquary (Bombay) for April 1872.

See also Gover’s

)

“ Dravidian Folk-songs.”

The poems of the Sittar school should be attributed, I think, to the

th

seventeenth century.

Looking at their matter and style, we might

Id

suppose them to have been written during the last century; but the

0

school from which these remarkable poems emanated has passed so

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE,

149

entirely away without leaving a relic behiud, that we seem to be

obliged to place it a century earlier.

Its nearest representative in the

present day is the Brahma Samdj, some of the members of which

advocate the semi-Christian theism of their school in excellent Tamil

prose.

(7.) The Modern Writers.—I mean by these the writers of the

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, including perhaps a few who

belonged to the close of the seventeenth. Books belonging to this period,

though generally of little real value, appear to be exceedingly numerous,

not perhaps because the number of books then written was greater than

in former times, but because many mediocre works which people would

not care to preserve by copying have not yet had time to crumble of

themselves into dust.

Of the poems belonging to this period which

have acquired a name, one of the earliest is the Tamil version of the

Prabhi Linga Lil4, a translation from the Canarese, which is considered

the finest composition in Tamil pertaining to the Vira Saiva or Jan-

gama sect.

Another is a small ethical treatise called the Niti-nepi-

vilakkam, a portion of which is much used in schools.

These belong

to the close of the seventeenth century, to which period also probably

belong the poems of Pattanattu Pillei.

The post of honour, not only

in the beginning of the eighteenth century, when they flourished, but

throughout the entire modern period, is to be assigned to two con-

temporary poets, one a native, the other a foreigner. The former of

these, TAyumanavar (‘ he who became a mother also,” the name of the

manifestation of Siva worshipped at Trichinopoly), was a religious-

minded Saiva, in whose poems it is believed that a distinct tinge of

Christianity can be traced. e appears to have had opportunities of

becoming acquainted with Christianity ; but however this may be, it

is certain that his poems are characterised by much earnestness as well

as by much beauty of langnage.

The other, whose poems occupy a

still higher place in literature, was the celebrated Beschi, not a Tami-

lian, like every other Tamil poet, but_an Italian, a missionary priest of

the Jesuit order, who acquired such a mastery over Tamil, especially

over its classical dialect, as no other European seems ever to have

acquired of that or any other Indian language.

His prose style in the

\tl

colloquial dialect, though good, is not of pre-eminent excellence, but

ol

his poems in the classical dialect, especially his great poem, the

eI

Témbavani, a long and highly wrought religious epic in the style of

the Chintdmani, are so excellent, from the point of view of Hindt

the

ideas of excellence (that is, they are so elaborately careful, so highly

i

ornamented, so invariably harmonious), that I have no doubt he may

0

150

INTRODUCTION.

fairly claim to be placed by the votes of impartial native critics them-

selves in the very first rank of the Tamil poets of the second class ;

and when it is remembered that the first class comprises only three, or

at the utmost four, works—the Kural, the Chintdmani, the Ramé-

yanam, the Naladiyar—it seems to me, the more I think of it, the more

wonderful that a foreigner should have achieved so distinguished a

position.

Though the Témbavani possesses great poetical merit and

exhibits an astonishing command of the resources of the language,

unfortunately it is tinged with the fault of too close an adherence to

the manner and style of ¢ the ancients ’—that is, of the Tamil classics

—and is still more seriously marred by the error of endeavouring to

Hindfiise the facts and narratives of Scripture, and even the geography

It is a

of Secripture, for the purpose of pleasing the Hindfi taste.

remarkable illustration of the difference in the position occupied in

India at present by poetry and prose respectively, that Beschi’s poetry,

however much admired, is now very little read, whilst his prose works,

particularly his grammars and dictionaries of both the Tamil dialects,

are in great demand.

The principal compositions of the latter part of the last century were

dramas, hymns in praise of temples, and abbreviations of older works.

In the present century an entirely new style of composition has

appeared—uviz., good colloquial prose, which, through the spread of

European influences, seems likely to have a struggle for the mastery

with poetry, in the Tamil literature of the future.

The name of the

father of this species of composition (in so far as Hindds are concerned)

deserves to ,be remembered.

It was Tandava-rdya Mudaliyir, at one

time a teacher in the College of Madras.

To him we are indebted for

the Tamil prose version of the Panchatantra, and, through the influence

of his example, for versions of the RAmAyana, the Mahé-bhirata, &c.,

in the same style of flowing and elegant, yet perfectly intelligible, prdse.

There has been a considerable amount of literary activity, according to

Dr Gundert, in Malayilam during the period under consideration, the

Kérala Utpatti, or Origin of Kérala, with some other works of impor-

tance, having been written, he supposes, during the last century,

before Hyder’s invasion.

The introduction of printing during the present century has given a

powerful impulse, if not to the composition of new Tamil works, yet

at least to the publication (and thereby to the preservation) of old ones.

The tollowing list of Tamil books printed in Madras up to 1865, com-

f

pared with Bengéli books printed in Calcutta, is taken from Murdach’s

Ie

‘“ Classified Catalogue of Tamil Printed Books.”

i

ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LI’.I.’IH?‘A'I‘U‘RE.

51

Il

)

BENGALTL

TAMIL.

or

Protestant Books and Tracts,

26‘3

587

b

Roman Catholic Publications,

87

Muhammedan Books,

4]

36

It

Saiva

do

Vaishnava

37

23

do

80

103

il

Vedantic

do

40

101

Je,

Brahma Sauvaj do

51

Jurisprudence,

49

19

fo

Ethics,

59

03

Medicine,

48

24

43

fo

Poetry and the Dra

53

103

Tales,

%na,

53

by

42

Tamil works surpass Bengili in numbers, I

ut 1t does not follow

m

that they are of a higher character.

Dr Murdoch asserts that they are

1,

ks,

not. He says, with regard to Madras publications, “ Reprints of old

ek

books, or feeble modern imitations of them, constitute the great

bulk of the issues of the native presses,

There is far more intellectual

activity in Bengal.”

£

This is not the proper place for attempting to furnish the reader

ks

with an estimate of the intrinsic value of Dravidian poetry.

I have

48

of

only space to remark here that, whilst an elevated thought, a natural,

expressive description, a pithy,

sententious maxim, or a striking com-

iy

parison, may sometimes be met w

has

ith, unfortunately elegance of style

the

always been preferred to strength, euphony h

1ed)

truthfulness,

as been preferred to

and poetic fire has been quenched in an ocean of conceits.

00

Nothing can exceed the refined eleg

for

ance and ¢linked sweetness’ of

many Telugu and Tamil poems ; but

a lack of power and purpose,

N0

all

and a substitution of sound for sense,

more or less characterise them

o,

and hence, whilst an

anthology composed of well-selected extracts

would please and sur

(S

prise the English reader, every attempt to trans-

0

g {0

late any Tamil or Te

be a failure.

lugu poem ¢n extenso into English, has proved to

the

;pOY

It is deserving of notice that alliteration is of the essence of Dravi-

fil§f

dian poetry, as of the more modern Welsh ; and that the Dravidians

have as just a claim as the Welsh to the credit of the invention of

end

rhyme.

The rhyme of modern European poetry is supposed to have

yeb

had a W.

elsh or Celtic origin ; but Dr

Dravidians.

avidian rhyme was invented by

nes

The chief peculiarity of Dravidian rhyme consists in its

(ol

seat being, not at the end of the line, but at the beginning—a natural

o

result of its origin in a love of alliteration. The rule in each Dravidian

dialect is that the consonant which intervenes between the first two

égt;‘;r

{

I

INTRODUCTION

152

vowels in a lin

is the seat of rhyme

A single Tamil illustration must

suffice :—

s17'el

tédi

érei (t)t8du.”—AUVEI

If you seek for prosperity

Seek for a plough.”

The acreement of those two consonants constitutes the minimum of

but often the entire first foot of one line

rhyme which is admissibl

sometimes the second feet

rhymes with the same foot in the second

in each line also rhyme ; and the rhyme is-sometimes taken up again

further on in the verse, according to fixed laws in each variety of

metre

The menfal phyisology of the Indo-European and Dravidian races

It 1s illustrated in some

respectively is illustrated by their literature

degree by their languages, and even by the systems of sound which

are characteristic of those languages

The languages of the Indo-

European class are fond of combining clashing consonants, and weld

ing them into one syllable by sheer force of enunciation

and it is

certain that strength and directness of character and scorn of difficulties

are characteristics not only of the Indo-European languages, but of the

races by which those languages are spoken.

On the other hand, the

il

Dravidian family of languages prefers softening away difficulties to

th

grapphno with them : it aims at ease and softness of enunciation rather

8

than impressiveness ; multiplying vowels, separating consonants, assimi-

e

lating differences of sound, and lengthening out its words by successive

th

agglutinations, it illustrates the mental characteristics of the races by

fa

which it is spoken, by the soft, sweet, garrulous eﬁnmlnacy of its

i

utterances

il

Perhaps, however, the chief cause of the inferiority of Dravidian

!

poetry, as a whole, to Indo-European poetry, as a whole, is to be found

not so much in its preference of elegance to strength, as in its subjec-

tion to the authority of precedent and custom, which is at least as com-

plete as anything we meet with in later Sanskrit

Literature could never flourish where the following distich (contained

in the “Nanmfl,” or classical Tamil grammar) was accepted as a

settled principle :

th

)

“ On whatsoever subjects, in whatsoever expressions, with whatsoever arrange-

ment,

I

Classical writers have written, so to write is denoted propriety of style.”

axg

a

For the last two hundred years Dravidian literature appears to have

ing

‘made but little real progress.

This is sometimes attributed by natives

-

g—

6‘»\ \“ \(‘l |

AN TIQtIITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE,

1§

153

to the discouraging effect of foreign domination,‘ but it seems far more

largely owing to the natural tendency to decay and death which is

inherent in a system of slavery to the authority of great names.

Now that native education has commenced to make real progress,

and the advantages of European knowledge, European civilisation, and

o

European Christianity are becoming known and felt by so many of the

i

hil

L

Hindfis themselves, it may be expected that the Dravidian mind will

et

ere long shake itself free from its thraldom, and be stimulated to enter

all

upon a new and brighter career.

If the national mind and heart were

0

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

0es

and Vaishnava doctrines, it is reasonable to expect still more important

me

results from the propagation of the grand and soul-stirring truths of

ich

Christianity, and from the contact of the minds of the youth with the

do

ever-progressive literature and science of the Christian nations of the

West

eld

h 18

It is a great and peculiar advantage of the English and vernaculal

It

168

education which so many Hindfis are now receiving from European

b

16

missionaries and from Government teachers, that it is communicated to

the

all who wish to receive it without distinction of caste. In former ages

g £0

the education of the lower castes and classes was either prohibited or

ther

sedulously discouraged ; but now the youth of the lower classes are

il

being admitted to the same educational advantages as those enjoyed by

Q;We

the higher castes.

The hitherto uncultivated minds of the lower and

s Iy

far most numerous classes of the Hindt community are now for the

f it

first time in history being brought within the range of humanising and

elevating influences. A virgin soil is now for the first time being

jdia

ploughed, turned up to the air and light, and sown with the seed of

oud

life ; and infprocess of time we may reasonably expect to reap a rich

1bje

crop of intellectual and moral results.

ol

qued

In the Appendix I have adduced the evidence formerly confa'ned in

@

the Introduction, proving that the Tuda, Kota, G¢nd, and Ku are

Dravidian tongues, and have also reprinted some remarks on the late

o

114,

Mr Gover’s “ Folk Songs of Southern India.”

I have endeavoured to

answer the question, ‘“ Are the Pariahs and the Tudas Dravidians ?”

and have subjoined some remarks “ On the Dravidian physical type,”

o a?

and “ On the religion of the ancient Dravidian tribes.”

i

NOTE ON TRANSLITERAZION,

Air foreign words, to whatever family of languages they may belong

are represented in this work in italic letter, for the double purpose of

preventing unnecessary expense and trouble, and of facilitating com-

parisjon

=

Long vowels are invar§jbly marked thus,—da

when no such

[(40L

accent is placed over a vowel, it is intended that it should he pro-

nounced short

£ and o, being invariably long in Sanskrit, are left

unaccented in the transliteration of Sanskrit words in works treatine

of Sanskrit

The Dravidian languages having short ¢ and o, as well

as long, it is to be understood that they are to be pronounced short

when unaccented, *

All vowels are pronounced in the Continental manner.

As will be

explained, e7 corresponds to the Sanskrit a:

The ¢ lingular

r ‘‘cerebral ” consonant

are denoted by a sub

scribed dot—e.g., ¢, d, » - the peculiar vocalic , and the surd 7, of the

South Indian languages are denoted in a similar IANNEL==¢.g., 7, .

the obscure, inorganic nasal n or m is italicised—e.g7; 750

L2 -

—

the

nasal of the palatal row of consonants, ordinarily writte:

nj or nY,, is

written 7

- and the hard rough » is represented by a heavier letter

The dental ¢ in Tamil, and the corresponding ¢ or ¢ in Malayalam,

are pronounced in the middle of a word, or between two vowels, like

the English ¢4 in than ; and in Tdu(ru, J and ck, when followed .by

certaln vowels

and #s

are pronounced like d

but as these are

ana one consonant

1S

merely peculiarities of pronunciation

not

exchanged for another, no change has been made in the characters

by which those sounds are represented

I have found it very difficult to determine how the third consonant

in Tamil, answering to the Sanskrit ¢k, should be represented. The

difficulty is owing to the circumstance that its pronunciation, when

doubled, differs considerably from its pronunciation when single.

e

When single, its pronunciation closely resembles that of the Sanskrit

¢, when doubled, it is identical with that of the Sanskrit chcl

il

e

ave thought it best, therefore, to represent it by these letters

This

7//;

2

-

* Mr Burnell, in his ““ Specimens of South Indian Dialects,” No. 1, Konkani

" (Mangalore, 1872), mentions that Professor H. H. Wilson being accustomed to

speak North Indian dialects only, used always to say 7élugu, instead of Telugu

e

NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION.

is the way in which I have deal‘t with the other Tamil letters, the

pronunciation of which, when single, differs from their pronunciation

when double—e.g., d, which, when doubled, I have represented, as the

pronunciation requires, as ¢, and d, which, when doubled, becomes

in like manner #¢.

There is a tendency in all the Dravidian languages to pronounce ¢ as

if it were e, and o as if it were wo.

In colloquial Tamil, this pronun-

ciation, though often heard, is seldom represented in writing; but in

modern Canarese and Telugu, ¥ before e and v, or w before o, are often

written as well as pronounced.

In Canarese and Telu grammars, it has

become customary, in rendering words in the Roman character, to write

ye for e, and wo for o, even where the native characters employed are e

and o alone—e.g., Can., wondu, one, and yeradu, two, instead of ondu

and eradu.

As this euphonic change seems to be a corruption, not a

primitive dialectic peculiarity, and as it tends to hinder comparison

with the other dialects, all such words will be written in this work

without the # or v, and it will be left to the reader who is acquainted

with the native usage to pronounce those words as usage requires.

This usage prevails also, it seems, in Mahrathi and Konkani ; and Dr

Pope, in his “ Outlines of the Grammar of the Tuda Language,” points

ke

out the existence of traces of this usage even in English—e.g., “ ewe

”»

is pronounced “yew” and ‘“one” ‘ won

This he attributes to

>

: (Celtic influences.

As regards the Dravidian languages, it does not

seem necessary to suppose this peculiarity to be one of any great

antiquity, seeing that the spelling of Dravidian words has always been

phonetic, and hence that and » would have been written as well as

pronounced, if this pronunciation had been prevalent at the time the

languages were first committed to writing.

The people in the neigh-

bourhood of Madura, where the purest Tamil is supposed to be spoken,

pride themselves on pronouncing initial ¢ and o pure.*

* Furopeans often notice the appearance of this peculiarity in the pronuncia-

[14

tian of English by the people of South India.

“ Every ” becomes

yevery,” and

‘““over

”

wover.”

One of the best illustrations of this peculiarity I have heard

was mentioned to me by some members of my family.

As they were travelling

along a road in Tinnevelly, they passed a finger{post at a cross road, on which

the name of a place was inscribed in English. They did not catch the name as

they passed, and therefore sent back a native girl to find it out for them. The

girl; knew very little English, and on her return said she could not make out

the name, but could repeat the letters.

“ What were they ? ”’

Answer—* Yen,

yeh, yell, yell, woe, woe, war !”

These dreadful sounds represented the name

“ Nalloor.”

T

DRAVIDIAN

GRAMMAR.

R e

PAR TR

———

SOUNDS.

I will be my endeavour in this section to elucidate the laws of sound

by which the Dravidian languages are characterised. Special notice

will be taken of those regular interchanges of sound in the different

dialects which enable us to identify words under the v

arious shapes

they assume, and to which it w

ill frequently be necessary to allude in

the subsequent sections of this

work.

DrAVIDIAN ALPHABE

T8.—Before entering on the examination of the

Dr

avidian sounds, it is desirable to make some preliminary observa-

tions on the alphabets of the Dravidian languages.

There are three different Dravidian al

phabets at present in use, viz.,

the Tamil,

the Malayalam, and the Telugu-Canarese.

I class the

Telugu and the Canarese ch

aracters together, as constituting but one

alphabet ; for though there are differences between them, those dif-

ferences are few and unimportant.

The Tulu has ordinarily been

written hitherto in the Malayalam character, but Canarese char

acters

are now used in the books printed at the German Mission Press at

Mangalore.

It is this character which is used in Brigel’s Tul

u

’/

Grammar.

The Ku grammar of which I have made use is written in

the characters of the Oriya—characters which are less

appropriate than

those of the Telugu wonld have been for expressing

the Ku sounds.

The other uncultivated dialects of this family h

ave hitherto been con-

tent to have their sounds expressed in the Roman ch

aracter,

The three Dravidian alphabets which h

ave been mentioned above,

viz.,, the Tamil, the MalayAlam, and the Telegu-C

anarese, together with

their older but now obsolete shapes, and the G

antha, or character in

which Sanskrit is written in the Tamil country, have all been derived,

—

6

SOUNDS.

it is supposed, from the early Deva-nagari, or rather from the still

earlier characters contained in Asoka’s inscriptions-—chara,cters which

have been altered and disguised by natural and local influences, and

especially by the custom, universal in the Dekhan, of writing on the

leaf of the palmyra palm with an iron stylus.

The following remarks of Mr Beames (“ Comparative Grammar of

the Modern Aryan Languages of India,” Tntroduction, pp. 62—66) show

clearly how these alterations have taken place :—* The Oriya characters,

in their present form, present a marked similarity to those employed

by the neighbouring non-Aryan nations, whose alphabets have been

borrowed from the Sanskrit; I mean, the Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil,

The chief peculiarity in the type of all

Singhalese, and Burmese.

these alphabets consists in their spreading out the ‘ancient Indian

letters into the elaborate maze of circular and curving forms. This

roundness is the prevailing mark of them all, though it is more remark-

able in the Burmese than in any other ; Burmese letters being entirely

globular, _a;nd having hardly such a thing as a straight line among

them.

The straight, angular letters which Asoka used are exhibited

da (Nerbudda) in more

in the inscriptions found at Sooni on the Narma

than their pristine angularity, but adorned with a great number of

additional lines and squares, which render them almost as complicated

The next modification of these

as the glagolitic alphabet of St Cyril.

letters occurs in the inscriptions found at Amravatl on the Kistna,

where the square boxes have been in many instances rounded off into

semicircles.

From this alphabet follow all the Dravidian and the

Singhalese ; probably also we may refer to this type the Burmese and

even the Siamese, and the beautiful character in use in Java, which 1is

evidently of Aryan origin, as its system of Pasangans, or separate

forms for the second letter of a mexus, and Sandangans, or vowel and

diacritical signs, sufficiently testify.

¢« Whether the Oriyas received the art of writing from Bengal or

Rt e )

Assuming

from Central India is a question still under dispute

that they got their alphabet from Central, rather than from Northern,

Tndia, the reason of its being so round and curling has now to be

explained. Tn all probability, in the case of Oriya, as in that of the

other languages which I have mentioned above, the cause is t0 be

found in the material used for writing.

The Oriyas and all the popu-

lations living on the coasts of the Bay of Bengal write on the Talpatra,

or leaf of the fan-palm, or palmyra (Borassus flabelliformas).

The leaf

of this tree is like a gigantic fan, and is split up into strips about two

inches in breadth or less, according to the size of the leaf, each strip

being one naturally-forllleq fold of the fan. On these leaves, when

‘

7

DRAVIDIAN ALPHABETS.

by

dried and.cut into proper lengths, they write with an iron style; or

Lekhani, having a very fine sharp point. Now, it is evident that if

the long, straight, horizontal matra, or top line of the Deva-nagari

alphabet, were used, the style in forming it would split the leaf,

because; being a palm, it has a longitudinal fibre, going from the stalk

to the point. Moreover, the style being held in the right hand and

the leaf in the left, the thumb of the left hand serves as a ful’cfum on

which the style moves, and thus naturally imparts a circular form to

the letters. Perhaps the above explanation may not seem. very con-

vincing to European readers; but no one who has ever seen an Oriya

working away with both hands at his Lekhani and Télpatm_ will

question the accuracy of the assertion; and though the fégt may not

be of much value, I may add, that the native explanation of the origin

of their alphabet agrees with this.

..« The Oriya letters, however,

have departed less from the early type than those of fheir neighbours

the Telingas.

.- Without going through the whole alphabet letter

by letter, it may suffice to say in general terms, that the Oriya cha-

racters show signs of having arisen from a form of ‘the Kutila character

prevalent in Central India, and that its love of circular forms, common

to it and the neighbouring nations, is due to the habit of writing on the

Talpatra, Talipot, or palm-leaf, with an iron style.”

It was supposed by Mr Ellis, and the supposition has gained cur-

rency, that before the immigration of the Brahmans into the Tamil

country, the ancient Tamilians were acquainted with the art of writ-

ing ; that the Brahmans recombined the Tamil characters which they

;

found in use, adding a few which were necessary for the expression

b

of sounds peculiar to the Sanskrit ; and that from this amalgamation,

which they called Grantha, or the book (grantha lipi, or “the book

d

character”), the existing Tamil characters have been derived. There

can be little doubt of the derivation of the Tamil character in ordinary

or

use from the Grantha ; for some characters are identical with Grantha,

ui

letters which are still in use, and others with more ancient forms of

i

the Grantha ; but the other part of the hypothesis, viz., the existence

be

of a Pree-Sanskrit Tamil character, out of which the Grantha itself was

il

developed, is more doubtful ; and though it is true that there is a

be

native Tamil word which signifies “ a letter,” and another which signi-

pll

fies “a book,” yet there is no direct proof of the existence of Tamil

characters. older than the time of the arrival of the first Brahman

fi

ol

immigrants. The character called Hale Canada, or Old Canarese, and

ji10

the various characters in which Tamil is found to be written in old

inscriptions, seems to be founded on the basis of an alphabetical

)

heb

system which was originally intended for the use of the Sanskrit.

SOUNDS.

Mr Edward Thomas, in an article on “ Recent Pehlvi Decipher-

ments,” in the Jour. R. 4. 8. for 1871, has put forth a theory allied to,

but not identical with, Mr Ellis’s.

He supposes the earliest characters

in which Sanskrit or the Prakrits were expressed—that is, the cha-

-

racters used in Asoka’s edicts—to have had a Dravidian origin ; that

they were originally invented to meet the requirements of Turanian

(Dravidian) dialects ; and that the principal change, effected when the

“ normal Dravidian alphabet” was converted into the “ Prakrit or Lat

alphabet,” consisted in the system of means adopted for the expression

of the aspirates.

Mr Thomas considers that the Lat alphabet made a

difference between short and long e, though the form used for the

latter is made to do duty for aw.

On the other hand, ¢ the oldest

known Dravidian alphabet,” published by Dr Burnell, which is to be

described presently, makes no difference between long ¢ and short,

which is one of the arguments that may be adduced in favour of the

theory of the derivation of that alphabet from the Sanskritic alphabet

of Asoka.

The characters used in certain early Tamil inscriptions, such as the

ddsanas, or royal grants, in the possession of the Jews of Cochin and

the Syrian Christians on the Malabar coast, deserve special considera-

¥

tion.

The inscriptions themselves were published and interpreted

many years ago in the Journal of the Madras Literary Society. They

are written in the Tamil language, though in an idiom which is slightly

The alphabet of these

tinged with the peculiarities of Malayalam.

inscriptions has been printed by Dr Burnell, of the Madras Civil Ser-

The

vice, in the Indian Antiquary for August 1872 (Bombay).

characters have been taken from a facsimile of the copper $dsanas in

the possession of the Jews and Syrians in Cochin, one of which has

been ascertained, from the astronomical data contained in it, to be

dated in A.D. T74.

Dr Burnell says of these édsanas, “ Paleographi-

cally they are of the greatest value, for they are the oldest inseriptions

in Southern India that have yet been discovered, and give the oldest

form of the ancient Tamil alphabet.

It appears.to have fallen into

disuse in the Tamil country about the tenth century, but was generally

in use in Malabar up to the end of the seventeenth.

It is still occa-

sionally used for deeds in Malabar; but in a more modern form, and

still more changed, it is the character used by the Mapillas of North

Malabar and the islands off the coast.”

1 formed for myself an alpha-

bet of these characters many years ago, and have found it used in

inscriptions in Tinnevelly as late as the twelfth century, if not later ;

but an old variety of the existing Tamil character was also in use at

the same time.

The latter character seems to have been introduced

DRAVIDIAN ALPHABETS.

9

into Tinnevelly and the extreme south of Travancore during the

supremacy of the Chola kings.

I am therefore inclined to call it the

Chola character.

Rajendra Chola’s inscriptions (in the eleventh cen-

tury) are in this character.

I have found inscriptions of the time of

Sundara Pandiya (called also Chola-Pandiya) in both characters; and

though unable at present to determine with accuracy the date of Sun-

dara’s reign, I have no hesitation in placing it several generations later

than that of Rajendra Chola. Dr Burnell considers the Tamil-Malay4-

lam character of the Jewish and Syrian inscriptions the origin of the

character used in the Asoka edicts, and thinks that ¢ the only possible

theory of the origin of the character of the Southern inscriptions is

that it is an importation brought by traders from the Red Sea, and

thence from Pheenicia, and is therefore of Egyptian origin eventually.

In many respects the old Tamil alphabet resembles that of the Him-

yaritic inscriptions found in Yemen.

In one respect it differs remark-

ably from that (the Himyaritic) alphabet, but agrees with the Ethiopic

—in that the consonants are modified by the addition of the vowels.”

These suggestions are well worthy of further consideration ; but for the

present they seem to me to be hardly in accordance with the facts with

which we are acquainted respecting the history of Indian culture.

That the character of the Asoka inscriptions (third century B.¢.) was

gradually modified into the Tamil-Malayalam character (the earliest

dated specimen of which belongs, as we have seen, to A.D, 774), in the

lapse of centuries and in the progress of literature, from the original

seats of the Aryans to the extreme south, may surely be regarded as

more probable in itself than that the Asoka character was nothing

I

more than an adoption or imitation of the Tamil-Malayalam character,

N

even though we should grant that the latter may originally have pre-

14

sented some differences of form—of which, however, there is now no

)l

proof.

b

The fact that the “ oldest known South Indian alphabet ” makes no

09

distinction between long and short ¢, or long and short o, but has only

1

one character for each vowel, like the Sanskrit alphabets and the

Iy

modern Malay&lam, whilst it has different characters for the long and

short forms of the other vowels, @, %, u, tends to show that it was framed

o

ol

originally for the expression of Sanskrit sounds, not for those of the

Dravidian languages.

On the other hand, may it not be said that

ith

the fact that different characters are provided in Asoka’s alphabet

It

B

for the expression of the dental and the lingual sounds respectively,

points to the origination of that alphabet amongst a people in whose

ol

1

system of sounds that difference was of more essential importance than

it is in Sanskrit ?

It will be seen, in the section on the Origin of the

1ced

10

SOUNDS

that whilst the difference in question

Lingual or Central Sounds

seems to have been in Sanskrit the result of gradual development, 1t

enters into the very essence of the means whereby the simplest and

most necessary ideas are differentiated in Tamil and other Dravidian

-

languages

On the whole, the question ,of the origination of the

Indian written characters—that is, the question whether Asoka’s cha-

racters were derived from the Dravidian or the Dravidian from Asoka’s

—does not yet appear to me to be conclusively: settled

For the pre-

sent, I am inclined, with Mr Beames, to prefer the latter solution

Since the above was written, I have seen some -of the inscriptions

referred to by Dr Eggeling in his paper on the Chera Dynasty, read

before the International Congress of Orientalists in London, 1874

and in these inscriptions, which are considerably older than the Syrian

and Jewish ones (the oldest is dated in A.D 247), I find that the

characters used do not resemble those referred to by Dr Burnell, but

agree substantially with those in which Sanskrit was written at that

The characters may best be described as an

period in North India

archaic form of the Hale Kannada.

Much information on the subject of Indian characters is contained

in Mr Edward Thomas’s edition of “ Princep’s Essays on Indian Anti-

quities.”

The questlon of the origin of the South Indian characters is

one which requires, and which would probably reward, further research

It is much to be wished that all the Southern alpbabets, ancient and

modern, were compared with one another and with the characters used

in Northern and Central India and Barma, and especially with those

found in inscriptions in Ceylon

The characters which Jambulus pro-

fesses to have found in use in Ceylon do not perfectly suit any characters

which are known to have existed. The impression left on my mind is

that they were ““ developed mainly out of his inner consciousness

The modern Telugu-Canarese differs considerably from the modern

Tamil, and departs more widely than the Tamil from the Deva-nagari

type; but there is a marked res emblance between some of the Telugu-

Canarese characters and the ﬂorrespondmd characters found in the

$asanas of Cochin

The modern Malayalam character is manifestly derived from the

Tamilian Grantha

On the whole, there seems to be reason to con-

clude that all the alphabetical characters which are used or known in

Southern India have a common origin, whether or no their origin is

1L

the same as that of the existing alphabets of Northern India, namely,

the system of characters in which Sanskrit and the Marathi was first

written

The greatness of the difference between the Southern and

the modern Northern alphabets arises probably from the antiquity of

p—

DRAVIDIAN ALPHABETS.

14

the literary cultivation of the Southern vernaculars as compafed with

the Northern

The Southern vernaculars appear to have began to be

cultivated in that early period when the cave character was used : the

Northern vernaculars were not cultivated, and can scarcely be said to

have existed, till after the cave character had become obsolete, and had

been superseded by the later Deva-nagari

The Telugu and the Cana-

rese alphabets have been arranged on the model of the Deva-nagari, or

at least they correspond thereto in power and arrangement

The only

difference is, that a short ¢ and o, and a hard x, which"is- unknown to

the Sanskrit, are contained in those alphabets, together with a surd /

which is not used in the modern Sanskrit, but is found in the Sanskrit

of the Védas, as well as in the Dravidian languages

0Old Canarese

possesses also the vocalic of the Tamil and Malaydlam

In other

respects the characters of those alphabets are convertible equivalents of

the Deva-nagari

The Malayalam alphabet generally agrees with the

Telugu and the modern Canarese

it differs from them in having the

vocalic 7 of the Tamil, in addition to the other characters mentioned

above ; and in having only one character for long and short ¢, and

another for long and short o

The aspirated letters and sibilants which

all those alphabets have borrowed from the Sanskrit, are seldom used

except in pronouncing and writing Sanskrit derivatives

Those letters

are not really required for native Dravidian purposes

though, through

the prevalence of Sanskrit influences, they have acquired-a place in the

pronunciation of a few words which-are not derived from the Sanskrit

The letters ¢& and j are pronounced in-Telugu in certain situations ts

and dj; but no additional characters are employed to represent those

sounds.

The Tamil alphabet differs more Wldely than the Malayalam or the

Telugu-Canarese from the arrangement of the ‘Deva-nagari

The

grammar of the Tamil language having, to a considerable degree, been

systematised and refined independently of Sanskrit influences, and

1

Sanskrit modes of pronunciation being almost unknown. to Tamilians

1

the phouetic system of the Tamil demanded, and has secured for itself

\7

a faithful expression in the Tamil alphabet

The materials of that

alphabet appear_to be wholly, or in the main, Sanskrit

but the use

I8

which is made of those materials is Tamilian

I

The-following are the principal peculiarities of the Tamil alphabet

1

In common with the Telugu and Canarese alphabets, the Tamil

1

alphabet possesses separate characters for long and short e, and for

j

long and short o

Formerly it had but one character for the long and

56

short sounds of these vowels; and it is believed that the marks by

g

which the long are now distinguished from the short were first intro-

of

4

12

SOUNDS.

duced by the celebrated missionary Beschi.

The Tamil has no char-

acters corresponding to the liquid semi-vowels 7¢ and 7, which are

classed amongst vowels by Sanskrit grammarians; and it has not

adopted the anusvdra, or obscure nasal of the Sanskrit. Much use is

;|

made of nasals in Tamil ; but those nasals are firm, decided sounds,

not ¢ echoes,” and are classed amongst consonants by native gram-

marians.

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 in a similar manner into %, 7, or

n, according as it is followed by a palatal, a cerebral, or a dental.

The

Tamil alphabet has nothing to correspond with the Aalf anuswdra of

the Telugu—a character and sound peculiar to that language.

Never-

theless, the tendency to euphonise hard consonants by prefixing and

combining nasals, from which the Zalf anuswdra Las arisen, is in full

operation in Tamil.

The Tamil makes no use whatever of aspirates, and has not borrowed

any of the aspirated consonants of the Sanskrit, nor even the isolated

aspirate A.

It professes to possess a letter, half vowel, half consonant,

corresponding in some respects to the Sanskrit visarga, and called

o Yphe

dydam (that which is subtle, minute).

It is pronounced like a

guttural %, but is only found in the poets, and is considered a pedan-

/a%%

tical invention of the grammarian.

In arranging the consonants, the Tamil alphabet follows the Deva-

nagari in respect of the wargas, or rows, in which the Sanskrit con-

sonants are classified and arranged.

It adopts, however, only the

first and the last consonant of each row, omitting altogether the inter-

mediate letters.

In the first or guttural row, the Tamil alphabet

adopts %, and its corresponding nasal ng, omitting %A, g, and gh . in

the second or palatal row, it adopts ¢#, and its corresponding nasal 7,

omitting chk, j, and j& : in the third or cerebral row, it adopts ¢, and

its nasal 72, omitting ¢, d, and dh: in the fourth or dental row, it

adopts #, and its nasal n#, omitting ¢4, d, and dh : in the fifth or labial

row, it adopts p, and its nasal m, omitting ph, b, and bh.

Thus the Tamil alphabet omits not only all the aspirated conson-

The

ants of the Deva-nagari, but also all its soft or sonant letters.

sounds which are represented by the sonants of the Deva-nagari are

as commonly used in Tamil as in Sanskrit ; 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.

13

pose by the Tamil alphabet is that which corresponds to the first

consonant—rviz., the tenuis or surd in each of the Deva-nagari vargas.

In the varga of the semi-vowels, the Tamil follows the Deva-nagari ;

but it subjoins to that varga a row of four letters which are not con-

tained in the Deva-nagari.

These letters are a deep liquid 7, which

will always be represented in this work as #, a harsh, rough », which

will be represented as T'; 7, a peculiar surd [, with a mixture of »

and 7, a letter to which it is unnecessary to affix any distinctive mark,

form rather than of sound.

the difference between it and the » of the dental varga being one of

This » is that which is invariably used as

a final, and it is also much used, in combination with ¥, to represent

the peculiar Tamil sound of ndr.

The Tamil alphabet is destitute of the Sanskrit sibilants $, sh, and

s. The second and third of these sibilants are occasionally used in

pronouncing and writing Sanskrit derivatives; but 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, they are borrowed

from the Grantha, from which a few other letters also are oce

asionally

borrowed to express Sanskrit sounds,

The first of the three Sanskrit

characters referred to above, namely, the § of Siva, is never used at

1

all in pure Tamil : the Tamil palatal or semi-sibilant which corre-

sponds to the Sanskrit ¢k, and which is pronounced as a soft § or sk

when single, and as cheh or &, when doubled, is the letter which is

used instead.

The following comparative view of the Deva-nagari and the Tamil

alphabets exhibits the relations which the one bears to the other.

It

VoweLs.

)

li

Sanskrit a, § : 5

5

Uy W 2o vhs Ird e

ar

—osaten: ah

(S TRNSN

—

U

Tamil

Wy .0

)

Uy W — —

e

2

é

(4

0,0:a:—:—h

I

l

CONSONANTS

Sans.

Gutturals,

k, kh

9 gh

{1y,

A

Ditto,

Tamil

k

)

—_—

I

Palatals,

Sans.

ch, chh

ARy

Ditto,

Tamil

)

ch, —

Linguals,

Sans.

2

th

;—

dh

i:g

he

Tamil

At

Ditto,

2

7

Dentals,

Sans.

2

th

;

dh

ha

Ditto,

Tamil

t’

n

t-h§

Labials,

Sans.

bh

il

»s ph

Ditto,

Tamil

D

—.’_

i

-

.

|

14

£

T

J

ND

S

CONSONAi\rrs— contrnued.

L,

Semi-vowels, Sans.

Y,

Tamil

L,

v,

)

Ditto,

Ys

Sibilants and aspirate,

Sans.

S,

g s

h

¢ pitto, Tamil

* « Farly Printing in India,” a paper by Dr Burnell, M.C..S, in the Bombay

Antiquary for March 1873.— The art of printing was introduced into India by

the Goa-Jesuits about the middle of the sixteenth centary, but they printed only

in the Roman character at first. Father Estevad (é.¢., Stephens, an Englishman),

about 1600, speaks of the Roman character as exclusively used for writing Kon-

kani, and the system of transeription which he used in his Konkani Grammar

(4rte de lingoa Canarin) and Purann is really worthy of admiration. It is based

on the Portuguese pronunciation of the alphabet, but is accurate and complete,

and has been used by the numerous Konkani Roman Catholics of the west coast

R i et

of India up to the present time.

In the seventeenth century the Jesuits appear

to have had two presses at Goa ; in their College of St Paul at Goa, and in their

house at Rachol. Few specimens of their work have been preserved, but there

is ample evidence that they printed a considerable number of books, and some of

large size.

Abeut the end of the seventeenth century, it became the practice at

Goa to advance natives to high office in the Church, and from that time ruin and

degradation began, and the labours of the early Jesuits disappeared. Literature

was entirely neglected, and the productions of the early presses were probably

used as waste-paper ‘by the monks, or left to certain destruction by remaining

unused and uncared-for on their bookshelves.

There is, however, in the Cochin

territory, a place quite as famous as Goa in the history of printing in India.

Often mentioned by travellers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,

Ambalacdtta (i.c., Ambalakkddu, or ¢ Churchwood’) is not to be found on the

maps, and recent inquirers have supposed that the site is forgotten, and that

inquiry was useless. The late Major Carr appears to have arrived at this conelu-

sion after visiting Goa in order to get information about it. The place, however,

still remains, but as a small village with a scanty population of schismatic Nes-

terians ; it is inland from Cranganore, and a few miles to the north of Angamali.

The Jesuits appear to have built here a seminary and church dedicated to St

Thomas soon after 1550, and in consequence of the results of the Synod of Uda-

yompura, presided over by Alexius Menezes, Archbishop of Goa, in 1599, it

Sanskrit, Tamil, Malayalam,

became a place of great importance to the mission.

and Syriac were studied by the Portuguese Jesuits residing there with great

success,! and several important works were printed; of which, however, we have

only the names left us, as recorded by F. de Souza and others, and still later by

Fr. Paulinus. The last tells us that ¢ Anno 1679 in oppido dmbalacdtte in lig-

num incisi alii characteres Tamulici per Ignatium 4ichamont indigenam Malaba-

;:

rensem, iisque in lucem prodiit opus inscriptum : Vocabulario Tamuelco com a

significbgao Portugueza composto pello P. Antem de Proenga da Comp. de Jesw,

Miss. de Maduré’ The first Malabar-Tamil (? Malayalam) types had been cut by

a lay brother of the Jesuits, Joannes Gonsalves, at Cochin, in 1577. Ambalacatta

}

1 The German Jesuit Hanxleden, who died at Pds4r (in South Malabar) -in 1782, possessed

a comprehensive knowledge of Sanskrit literature.

j

DRAVIDIAN ALPHABETS.

15

"DRAVIDIAN SYSTEM oF SoUNDS.—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 Deva-

nagari alphabet.

It is not my object to explain in detail the pronun-

.ciation of each letter, but such observations will be made on each

vowel and consonant in succession as seem likely to throw light on

the principles and distinctive character of the Dravidian system of

sounds.

Tamil grammarians designate vowels by a beautiful metaphor,

as uy'z'r or the life of a word ; consonants as mey, or the body ; and

the junction of a vowel and consonant as wyir mey, or an animated

body.

1. VowerLs.—(1.) ¢ and 4.

The sound of these vowels in the

Dravidian languages corresponds to their sound in Sanskrit, as pro-

I

nounced everywhere in India except in Bengal, where & is pronounced

xlf

as .© In Tamil, @ is the heaviest of all the simple vowels, and there-

10

fore the most liable to change.

It evinces a tendency to be weakened

0o

into e—(comp. Sanskrit balan, strength, with Tamil belan ; Sanskrit

a

nd

japa, prayer, with Tamil sebam.

See the pronoun of the first person.)

e

In the other dialects it maintains its place more firmly ; but even in

)y

them it is ordinarily strengthened at the end of words by the addition

ng

i

of the euphonic syllable vu, consisting of the enunciative vowel %, and

the » euphonically used to prevent hiatus. ¢ has almost entirely dis-

q'm‘

16

appeared from the end of nouns in Tamil, and has been succeeded by

the

u or es, but remains #%re in Southern Malayalam.

Where final «

hab

i

changes into e/ in Tamil, it generally changes into e in Canarese, or

else it is propped up by the addition of vu.

AL

In Telugu, and especially

Nes

in Malayélam, this vowel is less subject to change.

Neuter plurals of

pal

appellatives and pronouns, which originally ended in « in all the

0 j*

dialects, and which still end in @ in Malayilam, now end in most

i

instances in e7 in colloquial Tamil, in ¢ in Telugu, and in « in Cana-

gr&lf

was destroyed by order of Tipu, when his army invaded Cochin and Travancore ;

: pare

a true barbarian and savage, he spared neither Christians nor Hindus, and to him

attaches the infamy of destroying most of the ancient Sanskrit MSS. which time

(23 by

p I§

had spared in Southern India.

Brahmans have yet stories current how in those

times their ancestors had to flee to the forests with a few of their most precious

e

i

books and possessions, leaving the remainder to the flames.”

I may add to the

above Fr. Paulinus’s statement, that the title of the book printed in 1577 was the

J¢ 1l

(l

i

“ Doctrina Christiana,” which was followed the next year by a book entitled the

“ Flos Sanctorum.” After mentioning the Tamil Dictionary, printed in 1679, he

it

adds, “From that period the Danish missionaries at Tranquebar have printed

i

A

many works.”

16

-

SOUNDS.

rese.

Thus, ava, those (things), has become aver in Tamil, aws in

Telugu, v in Canarese: in Malayilam alone it is still ava.

The long @, which is formed in Tamil by the coalescence of two short

a’s, becomes poetically 6.

Vinna-v-ar, heavenly ones, becomes vennor.

The long final 4

In old Canarese, even short ¢ becomes sometimes o.

of Sanskrit feminine abstracts becomes in Tamil ei—e.g., déd, Sans.,

desire, Tam. déer; Chutrd, Sans., dpril—May, Tam., Sittirer. The

same @ becomes ¢ in Canarese—e.g., Gangd, the Ganges, is in Canarese

Gange or Gange-yu.

The diphthong into which final ¢ and & are

weakened in Tamil is represented more properly as ez than as as.

The

origination of the Tamil e from a, and the analogy of the Sanskrit

diphthong a7, which is equivalent to dé, might lead us to regard the

Tamil diphthong as a¢ rather than es.

It is curious, however, that

though it originated from a, every trace of the sound of & has dis-

It is represented in Grantham and Malayslam by a double

appeared.

¢, and in Telugu-Canarese by a character which is compounded of ¢ and

4. it accords in sound also very nearly with the sound of & or ey in

Tt is also to be observed that the Tamil ez is the equivalent

Turkey.

of the ¢ of the MalayAlam accusative, and is the ordinary representative

of the final e of Canarese substantives and verbal nouns.

It is worthy

of notice also that Kumérilabhatha (Intro. p.

), in transliterating the

!

Tamil nadei into Sanskrit characters, writes it, not as nadai, but as

I

nade.

He evidently considered the Dravidian e/ nearer ¢ than ac.

conclude, therefore, that this sound is best represented by the diph-

thong ei, which corresponds to the 7 of the Greeks.

“ The change from « to e is rare in bases, though more frequent in

inflections.

Of this change among the modern languages Gujarati

gives many instances.

It must here be remarked that the spelling of

most of these languages, owing to the want of a literary standard, is

very irregular, and in the cases now about to be noticed, it is probable

that the spelling has been made to conform to the pronunciation.

If

this had been done in Hindi and Panjabi, they too would to the eye

seem to have changed the « into e

Instances also occur

in which not only @, but even @, is thus modulated.

This process,

which is irregular and capricious, resembles our own English habit

of turning « into e

R b et

The ¢ in the modern Indian languages

is never short, as in Prakrit, but is constantly long

The

breaking down of @ and @ into e seems to be one of those points

where non-Aryan influences have been at work

The Sanskrit admits

of the modulation of ¢ into ¢ by the addition of an @ sound, but

it does not include within the range of its phonetic system the

process of flattening « into e by the appendage of an ¢ sound.

This

-~

VOWELS.

1

‘

process of flattening @ into e by the appendage of an 7 sound. This

transition is foreign to the genius of the ancient language, in which

e is always long.

The Dravidian languages, however, possess a short

¢ as one of their original simple vowel sounds, side by side with the

¢ corresponding to the Sanskrit é.

The Tamil further substitutes

for the Sanskrit é—r.e., & +1—a sound of ei—i.e., ¢+ 7.

This short

e of the Dravidians is often found in Canarese to replace the a

and @ of Sanskrit, and in Tamil e corresponds thereto

It

would be rash, in the present imperfect state of our knowledge on

the obscure subject of the relations between the Dravidians and the

early Aryans, to lay down any definite law on this point; but it is

noteworthy that the Aryan tribes who came most closely into contact

with Kols and Dravidians exhibit the greatest proclivity towards the

use of these broken vowels.”—Beames, pp. 137-141.

(2.) 7 and 2.

These vowels call for no remark.

wk i nThe s G 1o28

ot 2/

- (3.) » and 4. In the Indo-European languages, and also in the

3o

it

Semitic, the vowels & and 4@ are very decided, inflexible sounds,

If

which admit of little or no interchange with other vowels, or euphonic

1o

softening,

In the Dravidian languages, long # is sufficiently persis-

oy

tent; but short « is of all vowels the weakest and lightest, and is

e

largely used, especially at the end of words, for euphonic purposes, or

(N

as a help to enunciation.

In grammatical written Telugu, every word without exception must

h

end in a vowel ; and if it has not naturally a vowel ending of its own,

% 18 to be suffixed to the last consonant.

This rule applies even to

1

Sanskrit derivatives; and the neuter abstracts ending in m, which

ati

have been borrowed from Sanskrit, must end in m-» in Telugu.

f

Though this » is always written, it is often dropped in pronunciation.

?

1§

In modern Canarese a similar rule holds, with this additional develop-

ment, that « (or with the euphonic copula v, vu) is suffixed even to

ble

I

words that end in a—e.g., compare the Tamil sila, few (things), and pala,

il

many (things), with the corresponding Canarese kela-vu and pala-vu.

The Tamil rule, with regard to the addition of % to words which end

ook

(6

in a consonant, accords with the rule of the ancient Canarese.

That

it

rule is, that in words which end in any hard or surd consonant, viz.,

in %, ch, ¢, t, or p (each of which is the leading consonant of a varga),

9068

e

or in the hard, rough r, which is peculiar to these languages, the hard

consonant shall be followed by u (as ¢ by sh’»d in Hebrew), in con-

s

sequence of its being impossible for Tamilian organs of speech to pro-

it

In most

b

nounce those letters without the help of a succeeding vowel.

instances this enunciative u is not merely short, but so very short that

h

its quantity is determined by grammarians to be equal only to a fourth

s

B

18

SOUNDS.

of the quantity of a long vowel. In Malayilam a short @ sometimes

replaces the short « of the Tamil.

Dr Gundert considers this a pecu-

liarity of the Malayalam of Cochin and of the Syrian Christians.

Foreigners, who are led more by the written sign than by the spoken

sound, have often, he says, been led to regard this letter as a. The short

2 of Tamil is still further shortened in Northern Malayilam, so that in

the northern districts it is not written at all, but a small circle, or dot

merely, over the letter is used to express the sound. This may be

represented by our apostrophe—e.g., kirakk’ = kirakk-w. The same usage

prevails still more extensively in Tulu, in which the pronunciation of

this final « is still more like the Hebrew sh’vd. After all vowels except

6 and % it is hardly possible to catch the sound. In so far as it is

enunciated at all, it resembles a very short German 4.

The change of

the Tamil s/adu (there is not) into the Telugu /édu, and many changes

-

of the like nature, seem to be the result of a similar contraction of

initial vowels.

It often happens (though it is not an invariable rule) that the final

surd, to which enunciative % or @ has been appended, is doubled,

apparently for the purpose of furnishing a fulerum for the support of

the appended vowel.

Thus, the Sanskrit »d%, speech, becomes in

Tamil vdk(k)-w,; 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

consonants above mentioned, and if the initial consonant of the suc-

ceeding syllable is one which cannot be assimilated to it, the final

consonant is doubled, and = is affixed.

Thus, advaita, Sans., in-

duality, becomes in Tamil attuveida.

The rule by which d, when thus

doubled, becomes ¢, will be explained hereafter.

In modern colloquial

Tamil, » is suffixed to almost every final 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 I—e.g., $0l(l)-u, speak, instead of

simply $ol.

The employment of » in the manner and for the purposes

now mentioned is obviously quite foreign to Indo-European usages.

It is not derived from Sanskrit, and is opposed to Sanskrit laws of

sound.

It will be termed the enunciative u, and will generally be

separated off by a hyphen.

{d.)ieie: o, 0

The Dravidian languages possess and largely

employ the short sounds of the vowels ¢ and o (epsilon and omicron),

and most of them have different characters for those sounds, for the

purpose of distinguishing them from the corresponding long vowels.

Sanskrit is destitute of short ¢ and o.

The entire absence of those

e MWIZCZM .

(o3

o

611”52, lu

VOWELS,

19

sounds from a language which attends so nicely as Sanskrit, to the

minutest gradations of sound, cannot be the result of accident ; and the

importance of the place which they occupy in the Dravidian system of

sounds, contributes to show that the Dravidian languages are indepen-

dent of Sanskrit

In a few cases,¥in all the dialects, particularly in

the instance of the demonstrative bases, as @ and 7, and the interrocative

b

base e, the short vowel has sometimes been converted into a lone one

by becoming the seat of emphasis ; but such cases are rare and excep-

tional, and in general the difference between short ¢ and o and the

i

corresponding long vowels is a difference which pertains not to

f

euphony or the inflexional form, but to the bases or roots of words

and is essential to the difference in the signification—e.g., in Tamil

té] means clear, and t&/ scorpion ; kdl, stone, and kdl, foot.

“ The first trace of the adoption of this short e by Aryan populatmns

is found in Prakrit, and takes the form, not of a distinct sound. from

the long Sanskrit &, but of a shortening of that sound itself

Thus

\&1

words which in Sanskrit exhibit long e, followed by a single consonant

ad,

occur in Prakrit with e followed by a double consonant

As Prakrit is

of

always very careful to preserve the quantity of Sanskrit words, it is

il

apparent that the common people who spoke Prakrit, having come to

ar

regard e as a short sound, felt it necessary to double the following con-

b

sonant, in order to preserve the quantity ; the vowel, which in Sanskrit

was long by nature, becoming thus long by position

L R ]

These words

il

were pronounced with a short e, as in English get, bed,; and the barren-

e

ness of invention of the persons who reduced Prakrit to writing is

il

shown by their omitting to provide a separate character for this new

i

sound, as the Dravidians have done.”—Beames, p. 141

s

(4.) e

It has already been mentioned that ez, unlike the Sanskrit

ull

diphthong az, represents e and 4, not a and ¢

The primitive Dravi-

gel

dian o changes into e, and this again into es

Thus, the head is

Gltﬂl

tale, in Telugu and Malayalam, tale in Canarese, and tali in Tamil

This Malaydlam «_is not pure, but according to Dr Gundert, is a

do

modification of ez,

1311 f

)Oﬂe)

Hence e, not a, appears in the dative,

When I

wa‘

s

et is succeeded in Tamil by another ei, with only a single consonant

between them, the first ei, though naturally long

, is considered short

H

i

by position, and is pronounced short accordmgly-——eg, udermez, pro-

fbe

perty, is regarded in prosody as udeimex.

In such cases, e is seen to

cfely

be equivalent to its original ¢ or &

(6.) aw

roﬂ)

This diphthong has a place in the Tamil alphabet ; but it

he

is not really a part of any of the Dravidian languages, and it has been

placed in the alphabets solely in imitation of Sanskrit

It is used

el

only in the pronunciation of Sanskrit derivatives; and when such

st

20

SOUNDS.

derivatives are used in Tamil, they are more commonly pronounced

without the aid of this diphthong.

Ordinarily the diphthong is sepa-

rated into its component elements ; that is, the simple vowels @ and %,

from which it is derived, are pronounced separately, with the usual

euphonic v of the Tamil between them to prevent hiatus.—e.g., the

Sanskrit noun saukhyam, health, is ordinarily vpronounced and written

in Tamil savukkiyam.

It is a peculiarity of the Tamil system of sounds, as distinguished

from that of the other languages of the family, that the vowels ¢, 7,

e, ¢, and wu, acquire before certain consonants followed by ¢ and its

cognate ¢i, a compound, diphthongal sound, which is different from the

sound which they have as simple vowels.

Thus, ¢ before ¢, 2, r, 7, T,

7, and [, followed by a or ez, acquires something of the sound of e: %,

before the same consonants, with the exception of the first # and the

first 7, and followed by a or ez, takes a sound resembling @ % remains

always unchanged ; but ¢, not only before the above-mentioned seven

consonants, but before all single consonants, when it is not succeeded

by 4, u, or e, is pronounced nearly like o, and in Telugu, o is generally

used in writing those words.

e, before the consonants above men-

tioned, with the exception of the semi-vowels, loses its peculiarly

slender sound, and is pronounced nearly as it would be if the succeed-

ing consonant were doubled.

A

¢, with the same exceptions, acquires a

.

, sound similar to

0

‘This change of e into o especially distinguishes

'Tulu.

Thus, the Tamil vépdum, must, is in Tulu 0dd, vells, silver,

*Vid

is bolls.

These changes in the sounds of the Dravidian vowels under

certain circumstances are not owing exclusively to the influence of the

i

following consonants.

They illustrate more especially the power of

one Dravidian vowel to bring another vowel into harmony with itself.

In all the changes now referred to, we see the power of the vowel @

and its cognate ez penetrating into the preceding syllable. The circum-

stance most worthy of notice, in connection with these changes, is that

each of the short vowels 7, %, and e, retains its natural sound, if it is

succeeded by another ¢, u, or e

Thus, ura, Tamil, infinitive, to have,

to be, is pronounced ora, but the imperative uru is pronounced as it is

written.

This rule discloses a law of sound which is unlike anything

that is discoverable in Sanskrit.

So far as it goes, it corresponds to

the Scythian law of harmonic sequences, which will be referred to

hereafter.

The vowel &, occurring in the last syllable of a word ending in 2, %,

r, 7, {, or [, acquires a slender sound resembling that of e—e.g., avar,

This change corre-

Tamil, they (honorifically, he), is pronounced aver.

sponds to the weakening of the sound of heavy vowels in the ultimate

CONSONANTS.

21

or penultimate syllables of words, which is sometimes observed in the

Sanskrit family of tongues.

hy

)l

16

II. ConsonaNTs,—Tamil grammarians divide all consonants into

ol

three classes—(1.) Surds, which they call vallinam, or the hard class,

viz,, k choor §, ¢, ¢, p, v ; (2.) Nasals, which they call mellinam, or the

ol

soft class, viz., 7, %, », n, m, with final 2 ; and (3.) Semi-vowels, which

they call idezyinam, or the medial class, viz., y, r, [, v, r, I

In this enumeration, as I have already observed, the sonant equiva-

1t$

he

lents of the surd consonants (viz., g, the sonant of % ; J, the sonant of ch

y

or §; d, the sonant of ¢; d, the sonant of ¢, and b, the sonant of p) are

omitted. In the Northern Dravidian dialects the difference between

ly

e

surds and sonants is generally expressed by the use of different charac-

ters for each sound, in imitation of the system of the Deva-nigari ; but

1§

in Tamil and in Malayalam, in accordance with the peculiar Dravidian

yell

law of the convertibility of surds and sonants, one set of consonants

de

serves for both purposes, and the difference between them is expressed

all

in the pronunciation alone,

16l

It is desirable, before proceeding further, to inquire into this law,

ViZ, i

aly

el

The Convertibility of Surds and Sonants.—We have seen that the

68 8

Tamil alphabet adopts the first and last of each of the Deva-nagari

hes

vargas, or rows of consonants, viz., the unaspirated surd and the nasal

e,

of each varga; we have also seen that the Tamil has not separate

s

characters for surds and sonants, but uses one and the same character

f the

—that which, properly speaking, represents the surd only—to express

o Of

both. This rule does not apply merely to the written characters of the

IN |

language, but is the expression of a law of sound which is inherent in

,ng [

the language itself.

pout

There are distinct traces of the existence of this law in all the Dra-

5 t‘ﬂét

vidian dialects ; but it is found most systematically and most fully

1h B

developed in Tamil and Malayalam, The law, as apparent in the Tamil-

Malayalam system of sounds, is as follows :—%, ¢, ¢, p, the first un-

| ha‘?v

e

aspirated consonants of the first, third, fourth, and fifth vargas, are

il

always pronounced as tenues or surds (ve., as k, t, t, p) at the begin-

ld‘ 1]

ning of words, and whenever they are doubled. The same consonants

i 1

are always pronounced as medials or sonants (i.e, as g, d, d, b) when

single in the middle of words. A sonant cannot commence a word,

iy

neither is a surd admissible in the middle, except when doubled ; and

iy

S0 imperative is this law, and so strictly is it adhered to, that when

Qe

words are borrowed from languages in which a different principle pre-

i

vails, as Sanskrit or English, the consonants of those words change

2

~

()

SOUNDS.

from sonants to surds, or vice versd, according to their position—e.g.,

danta, Sans. a tooth, becomes in Tamil, tandam ; bhdgya, Sans. happi-

ness, becomes pdkkiyam. This rule applies also to the case of com-

pounds.

The first consonant of the second word, though it was a

surd when it stood independent, is regarded as a sonant when it

becomes a medial letter in a compounded word. This difference is

marked in Telugu by a difference in the character which is employed—

e.g., anna-dammulu (for anna-tammulu), elder and younger brothers ;

kotta-badu (for kotta-padu), to be beaten ; but in Tamil, and gener-

ally in Malayalam, the difference appears in the pronunciation alone.

This rule applies to all compounds in Telugu ; but in Tamil, when

the words stand in a case-relation to one another, or when the first is

governed by the second, the initial .surd of the second word is not

softened, but doubled and hardened, in token of its activity—e.g., in-

stead of kotta-badu, to be beaten, it prefers to say kotta-(p)padu. In

dvandva compounds Tamil agrees with Telugu.

A similar rule applies to the pronunciation of ck or ¢ (the Tamil $),

the (first consonant of the second warga.

When single, it is pro-

nounced as a soft, weak sibilant, with a sound midway between §, sh, 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 chck or ¢é. The principle involved in this

instance is the same as in the cases previously mentioned, but the

operation of the rule is in some degree different. The difference con-

sists in the pronunciation of this consonant in the beginning of a word,

as well as in the middle, as a sonant—z.e., as §.

By theory it should

be pronounced as ck 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 Malayilam and Telugu it is

written as well as pronounced ch. A somewhat similar rule prevails

with respect to the rough r of the Tamil, which is pronounced as r

when single, and like ttr when doubled.

The Tamilian rule which requires the same consonant to be pro-

nounced as % in one position and as g in another—as ¢, ¢, p, in one

position, and as d, d, b, in another—is not a mere dialectic peculiarity,

the gradual result of circumstances, or a modern refinement invented

by grammarians, but is essentially inherent in the language, and has

been a characteristic principle of it from the beginning.

The Tamil characters were borrowed, I conceive, from the earlier

Sanskrit, and the language of the Tamilians was committed to writing

on or soon after the arrival of the first colony of Brahmans, probably

several centuries before the Christian era.

Yet even at that early

CONSONANTS.

23

period the Tamil alphabet was arranged in such a manner as to embody

the peculiar Dravidian law of the convertibility of surds and sonants.

The Tamil alphabet systematically passed by the sonants of the San-

skrit, and adopted the surds alone, considering one character as suffi-

1

cient for the expression of both classes of sounds.

This circumstance

clearly proves that ab énitio the Dravidian phonetic system, as repre-

=

sented in Tamil, its most ancient exponent, differed essentially from

N

that of Sanskrit.

(o)

In none of the Indo-European languages do we find surds and

)il

sonants convertible ; though Hebrew scholars will remember the exist-

hen

ence in Hebrew of a rule which is somewhat similar to the Tamilian

!

respecting k£, ¢, p, and their equivalents.

The Hebrew consonants

1100

composing the memorial words begad kephath, are pronounced in two

10:

different ways, according to their position,

When any of those con-

In

sonants begins a word, or in certain cases a syllable, it is to be

pronounced hard—that is, as a surd or tenuis; and if it be an

i)

aspirated letter, it is then deprived of the aspirate which it naturally

pfl)‘

possesses. To denote this, such consonants have a point, called a

ad

dagesh, inscribed in them. When those consonants are found in any

d1n

other position, they are pronounced as sonants, and two of them, ph

i 18

and th, as aspirates. This rule resembles the Tamilian in some parti-

culars ; but the resemblance which will be found to exist between the

fhis

e

Tamilian rule and the law of sounds which prevails in some of the

00l

languages of the Scythian family, amounts to identity. In the Finnish

and Lappish there is a clearly marked distinction between surds and

Wﬂrds

jould

sonants : a sonant never commences a word or syllable in either tongue.

jyf

But in the oldest specimen of any Scythian language which is extant—

g (f b

?

the Scythic version of the inscription at Behistun—Mr Norris ascer-

1

tained (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1853) the existence

of a law of convertibility of sonants and surds which is absolutely

gl

ja?

identical with the Tamilian. He ascertained that in that language,

in the middle of a word, the same consonant was pronounced as a

sonant when single and as a surd when doubled.

We now enter upon an examination of the Dravidian consonants in

g 00

detail.

it

,-euted

(1.) The guttural varga : k, g, and their nasal # or ng. These con-

sonants are pronounced in the Dravidian language precisely as in San-

] s

skrit. g, the sonant of %, which is expressed by the same character in

\Mﬁer

Tamil, is pronounced in Tamil-Malayalam in a peculiarly soft manner,

Its sound resembles that of an Irish g7, and is commonly used to express

iting

the % of other languages.

pably

Thus, the Sanskrit adjective mahd, great, is

written in Tamil magd ; but so soft is the g, that it may be considered

el

4

SOUNDS.

aé an equivalent to , pronounced with less roughness than is usual

with that aspirate.

(2.) The palatal varga : ch or §, 7, and 7. It has been observed that

the Tamil rejects the Sanskrit sibilants $, sh, and s. The consonant

which it adopts instead is ¢#, which is pronounced in Tamil in a manner

somewhat similar to the soft aspirated § of Siva, or as a very soft sh,

In fact, it may be

with as little sibilation or aspiration as possible.

regarded as a palatal, not as a sibilant ; and when it is doubled, it takes

precisely the sound of the Sanskrit palatal ck or ¢, or its English equi-

valent in which. In Telugu, the sound of ch is that with which this

consonant is pronounced, not only when doubled, but also when single ;

and a similar pronunciation prevails in the lowest colloquial dialect of

the Tamil, in which ez, to do, is pronounced chey, as in Telugu. It

is probably the ancient pronunciation of this letter which is retained

S

/4

by the lower classes.

The very soft sound of it as

is probably

When the Tamil

a refinement originating with the higher classes.

alphabet was arranged, and § was made the equivalent of ¢h, and even

after the arrival of the Europeans in India, when the Portuguese wrote

Soramandalam as Choramandel, and the missionary Ziegenbalg wrote

Stidra as Tshuddira, the harder palatal sound seems to have been the

one in general use.

This letter should perhaps be represented as c/ in

the Roman character, like the corresponding Telugu letter, but the

sound of § is the sound so generally heard at present, when the letter is

single, that the use of ¢k or ¢ would be puzzling to the student of Tamil.

I have, therefore, resolved to adhere to § as in the former edition.

Jj, the second unaspirated consonant of this row, is not used in

correct Tamil ; but in Telugu it is both written and pronounced : in

vulgar Tamil also ¢k is sometimes pronounced like j. The same sound

of jis sometimes admitted in the use of those Sanskrit derivatives in

which the letter j is found in Sanskrit ; but ordinarily the Tamil sound

of ¢/ or ¢ is used instead.

7, the nasal of this row of consonants, is pronounced as in Sanskrit

in all the Dravidian languages. 7, 2, or 7y, as this letter is commonly

transliterated in English, being a double letter, and liable to mislead,

i

I think it better to represent this sound by 7.

The n of the lingual

series will be represented as before by 7 ; the dental n, as before, by =,

without any diacritical mark.

We frequently find # (nj) used in

Malayélam, as an initial, where the Tamil uses n—e.g., fidn, I, instead

of the Tamil ndn.

Possibly both the Tamil » and the Malayalam 7

are representatives of an ancient y, as will appear in the examination

of the personal pronouns, ndn, fidn = ydn.

Tamil nandu, a crab, is

siapdw in Malayilam, and yandrs in Canarese.

s

CONSONANTS.

25

|

It is necessary here to notice the existence in Telugu of a peculiarly

soft pronunciation of ck and j, with their aspirates, which is unknown

i

in Sanskrit and the Northern vernaculars, and is found only in Telugu

1f

and in Marathi.

Ch is pronounced as ¢s, and j as dz, before all vowels

el

except 2, 7, ¢ ¢, and ev.

Before these excepted vowels, the ordinary

l

sounds of ¢& and j are retained. Whether the Telugu borrowed these

bo

sounds from the Marathi, or the Mar4thi from the Telugu, I can

€5

scarcely venture to express an opinion ; but this is not the only par-

11

ticular in which those languages are found to agree. A sound repre-

118

sented as zh is much used in the Tuda dialect, especially in connection

e

with » and 7.

of

¢ Maréthi has two methods of pronouncing the palatals.

In tatsa-

i

mas and modern tadbhavas, and before the palatal vowels 7, 7, ¢, and

el

a?, ch and j are pronounced as in Sanskrit; but in early tadbhavas,

Iy

désajas, and before the other vowels, ch sounds ¢s, and j, d

This

nil

peculiarity is not shared by any of the cognate languages, while, on

jen

the other hand, the ¢s and dz sounds (so to speak, the unassimilated

ot

palatals) are characteristic of the lower state of development of the

Tibetan

oté

non-Aryan, Turanian, or what-you-call class of languages.

the

on the one side, and Telugu among the Dravidians on the other,

Al

retain them, Marathi, from its juxtaposition to Telugu and other

the

non-Aryan forms of speech, might naturally be expected to have under-

118

gone somewhat of their influence, and this pronunciation of the palatals

nil

is probably an instance in point.

By the expression * unassimilated

palatals” T mean that, whereas, in the Aryan palatals, the dental and

B

sibilant of which they are composed have become so united into one

1

sound that the elements can no longer be separately recognised, in the

vUUd

Turanian class the elements are still distinct.”—Beames, p. T2.

Dr

3 iIl

Trumpp also attributes the pronunciation of ck and j in certain con-

llmd

nections, as ¢s and dz in Marithi, to Dravidian influences.

(3.) The lingual or so-called cerebral varga: t, d, . The pro-

fri

nunciation of the consonants of the cerebral varga in the Dravidian

languages does not essentially differ from their pronunciation in San-

iy

Bﬂda

skrit.

In expressing these consonants, with their aspirates, in Roman

gnal

characters in this work, a dot will be placed under each, to distinguish

them from the ¢, d, and n, of the dental row. Though ¢ is the surd

1y

10

consonant of the linguals, it is not pronounced at the beginning of any

word in Tamil, like the other surds.

Its sound is too hard and rough

ad

to admit of its use as an initial ; and, therefore, in those few Sanskrit

i

ol

derivatives which commence with this letter, ¢ is preceded in Tamil by

the vowel ¢, as a help to enunciation.

When ¢ is thus preceded by a

), 1

vowel, it is no longer an initial, and therefore no longer a surd ; and

206

SOUNDS.

hence it becomes ¢ by rule; so that the sound of ¢ is never heard in

Tamil, except when ¢ is doubled.

In the other Dravidian dialects, ¢

Tamil differs from

is sometimes pronounced singly, as in Sanskrit.

the other dialects in refusing to combine ¢ with 2, and changing

it into ¢ when » is combined with it.

This peculiarity is founded

upon a general Tamilian law of sound, which is that nasals will not

combine with surds, but coalesce with sonants alone.

In consequence

of this peculiar law, such combinations as 7¢, #¢, and mp, which are

admissible in Telugu and Canarese, are inadmissible in Tamil, in

which nd, nd, and mb, must be used instead. This rule applies also

to £ and ckh, which, when combined with the nasals corresponding to

them, become ¢ and j.

Thus, mantapa, Sans. a porch, becomes in

Tamil mandabam ; anta, Sans. end, becomes andam.

Probably the

difference between Tamil and the other Dravidian languages in this

point arises from the circumstance that Tamil has remained so much

freer than its sister idioms from Sanskrit influences.

A similar rule

respecting the conjunction of nasals with sonants alone is found in

Finnish, and is possibly owing to that delicacy of ear which both

Finns and Tamilians appear to possess.

I reserve to the close of this examination of the Dravidian conson-

ants some observations on the circumstance that the consonants of the

lingual or cerebral class are found in Sanskrit as well as in the lan-

guages of the Dravidian family.

(4) The dental varga : t, d, n. The letters of the dental varga have

generally the same sound in the Dravidian languages as in Sanskrit.

The principal exception consists'in the peculiarly soft pronunciation of

¢ in Tamil and Malay4lam between two vowels : it is then pronounced,

It is only

not as d, but with the sound of the soft English ¢ in that.

when it is combined with a nasal (as in the word which was cited

above, andam, end) that the sonant of ¢ is pronounced in Tamil as d;

the sound of d being, in such a conjunction, more natural and easy

than that of #4.

As this peculiar sound of ¢ is found only in Tamil

and in Malayalam, a daughter of Tamil, it is doubtful whether ¢& is

to be considered as the original sound of the sonant equivalent of ¢,

or whether it is to be regarded as a corruption or further softening

of d. On the whole, the latter supposition seems the more probable ;

and as the ¢ of Tamil corresponds to the d of Telugu and of the

other dialects in position and power, I shall always write it as 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

Another exception to the rule that the dental letters have the same

pronunciation in the Dravidian languages as in Sanskrit consists in

CONSONANTS.

27

gé(a/ wal W=ck)

the pronunciation of the Sanskrit ¢ in certam connections in Malay4lam

as l—e.g., dltmdv’, soul, for dttmdv’ (Tam. dttumd), from the Sans. déimd;

Kéraldlpatiz, for Kemlotpattz the title of the History of Malabar.”* 7z, ,+ 747

§

One of the sounds peculiar to the Tuda is the hard sound of A, as

¢

in the English word ¢hin

This is the pronunciation to be given to

the ¢& in atham, he, she, it, they.

(6

(5.) The labial varga

ps b, m. The pronunciation of p, and its

[6

sonant b, requires no remark. One of the peculiarities of Tuda is the

|

existence in it of the sound of f—e.g., pif, an insect

In the other

30

Dravidian dialects f is unknown, and p is used instead in words

0

containing f borrowed from English

With regard to the use of m in

1

combination, I have only to observe, that though it changes into 7,

9

7 or 7, when immediately succeeded by a guttural, a palatal, a lingual

15

or a dental, it is not to be confounded with the anusvdra of the San-

The true anusvdra—i.e

h

skrit alphabet

the sound which m takes

le

in Sanskrit before the semi-vowels, the sibilants, and the letter A—

1

is unknown to the Dravidian lancuaces

A character called by the

name of anusvdra, but of a different power from the anusvdra of the

th

Sanskrit, is in use in Telugu and Canarese

but it is used merely as

i

the equivalent of the consonantal m in euphonic combinations, and

even as a final

The Telugu has also a vocalic nasal, the half anusvdra

he

which, though it is used merely for euphony, bears a close resemblance

to the true anusvdra of the Sanskrit

There is nothing in any of the

\(4

Dravidian languages which corresponds to the use of the obscure nasal

1t

anusvdra as a final in Hindi and in the other Northern vernaculars

The euphonic use of m or », and its modifications, and its use to

)

l,

prevent kiatus, will be considered at the close of this section

ly

(6.) The varga of the liquid consonants or semz-vowels: ¥, 7, I, v

el

e

In classical Tamil neither » nor / can commence a word ; each

(Ir

of them requires to be preceded by an euphonic auxiliary vowel ; » by

tor a, and ! by »

This appears most distinctly in words borrowed

5]

al

from Sanskrit, as in these instances we are certain of the original form

of the word. Thus 7djd, Sans

15

becomes in Tamil ¢rdsan or irdyan,

and also arasan or arayan ; révaty, Sans, the nakshatra of that name

ng

becomes wravati; rakta, Sans. blood, becomes wrattam or arattam

rava, Sans. sound, becomes aravam. The last word never becomes

)

travam. So also loka, Sans. the world, becomes in Tamil uldgam,

he

and by a further change, through the preference of the Tamil for short

el

vowels, ulagam, and still more elegantly wlagu. The same rule applies

id

to the second set of semi-vowels, 7, /, r, which are the exclusive pro-

perty of the Dravidian languages, and none of which can be pronounced

il

without the help of preceding vowels

10

28

SOUNDS.

Of these distinctively Dravidian semi-vowels, 7 is used most largely

by Tamil.

It is used also in Malayalam, and its use is one of the

distinguishing features of old, as distinguished from modern, Canarese.

Its sound resembles that of the English » (not the Irish or Scotch)

after a long 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 English books as z& or 7zh; but this is merely a local pro-

nunciation of the letter which is peculiar to the Northern districts of

the Tamil country: it is at variance with its affinities and its inter-

changes, and is likely to mislead the learner.

7 is the only Dravidian

In

consonant which is pronounced differently in different districts.

the southern districts of the Tamil country, it is pronounced by the

mass of the people exactly in the same manner as /, which is the letter

generally used instead of 7 in modern Canarese.

Between Tanjore

and Pondicherry, it is softened into 72k or zh; and in Madras and the

neighbourhood, this softening process has been carried to such a length,

that in the speech of the vulgar, » has become 7, or a silent letter.

Even in correct written Tamil # sometimes disappears—e.g., porudu,

time, becomes pédu.

It sometimes changes into y in Malayalam.

Telugu, which commences to be spoken about two days’ journey north

of Madras, has lost this letter altogether.

Generally it uses ¢ instead,

as the Canarese uses /; but sometimes it uses no substitute, after the

manner of the vulgar Tamil of Madras.

Looking at such Telugu

words as kinda, below, answering to the Tamil kérnda, and mingu, to

swallow, answering to the Tamil virungu, we cannot but suppose that

Telugu had this letter originally, like Tamil, and that it lost it gra-

dually through the operation of that softening process which, in the

colloquial Tamil of Madras, converts £iré, below, to %42

Though 7 is

generally changed into / in Canarese, it appears to have become 7 in

some words—e.g., ardu, having wept, instead of aradu, Tamil.

It is

sometimes also assimilated—e.g., porudw, Tamil, time, became pottu

(porudu, pordu, poddw, pottw) in old Canarese, in modern Canarese

hottu.

The change of 7 into 7 is common in Tulu.

/ (5@*«7)

! is a peculiar heavy /, with a mixture of , which is found in all

if'@

the Dravidian languages.

It may be styled the cerebral /; and it is

probably derived from the same source, whatever that source may be,

from which the cerebral consonants ¢, d, and 7, have proceeded. A

similar / is found in Vedic Sanskrit, and an / identical with it is

common in several of the North Indian vernaculars.

“From the examples given in this and other sections, it must have

struck the reader that a close connection, if not a certain degree of con-

fusion, exists in some languages between 7 and {. 'This latter letter is

CONSONANTS

9

~

9

|

very common in Oriya, Bengali, and Gujarati; less in Panjabi; and is

16

not found in the others

Its pronunciation defies description; some-

Its

times it sounds like 7%, again like 7z, and again merely a harsh /

point of contact is high up in the palate, near

and the tongue in

hor

uttering it is shaped as in uttering the simple /

It appears to be

165

apriciously substituted by the vulgar, in those languages where it

10

exists, for the common 7/, and in a considerable number of instances

this substitution has become the rule

o & o o o

0t

It will be noticed that this

letter never occurs initially in any of the languages

and there appears

o

’.

to be no reason for doubting that the sound itself is of non-Aryan

origin, notwithstanding the fact that the character is found in Vedic

In

{ne

Sanskrit

We do not know how this character was pronounced in

fer

those days, beyond this—that it in some degree resembled d. But the

equivalent of ¢, in the modern languages, is not J

, but lA.

Moreover

e

the

Panjabi has side by side with X

a character, rﬁ, whlch accurately cor-

ih,

responds to the Sanskrit d.”— Beames, p. 245

The hard rough » of the Dravidian languaces is not found in San-

{1

skrit, and is not employed in pronouncing Sanskrit derivatives

It is

iy

Bl

found in Telugu poetry and elegant prose, and the grammarians insist

upon using 1t

but in the modern dialect of the Telugu it is seldom

il

used. In Canarese, the use of this letter is confined to the poets and

4,

the ancient dialect

fhe

It is evident that it was originally contained in

all the dialects

though, possibly through the influence of the Sanskrit

gt

Rl

it is now seldom used except in Tamil and Malayalam, in which it

holds as firm footing as ever,

In some of the older Tamil alphabets I

tﬂat

have found this letter appropriately expressed by a double , and, to

it

the

distinguish it from the softer letter, it will be represented i in this work

by a Clarendon r, emblematical of its greater strength. Wi b Za a ..

8

KA&SAM =

In the use of this hard r in Tamil, there are two peculiarities whlch

In

are worthy of notice

30

18

(i.) r, when doubled, is pronounced as ¢¢tr, though written rr

The

Aofil’

¢ of this compound sound differs both from the soft dental ¢ of the

638

fourth varga, and from the cerebral 7, and corresponds very nearly to

the emphatic final ¢ of our English interrogative what 2

This sound

]ﬂH

of ¢ 1s not expressed in writing, but in pronunciation it is never omitted

ih 8

and it is one of those peculiar Dravidian sounds which are not derived

e,

from Sanskrit, and are not found in it

The double #» or ¢ of the

A

Tamil (rr) is sometimes softened in Telugu to a single ¢, and in

{18

Canarese still further into t—e.g., mdrru (mdttru), Tam., of which

one of the meanings is an answer, a word, is in Tel. mdta, in

AL

Can. mdtu

The ¢ is also sometimes doubled in Telugu—e.g., Tam.,

iy

1)

parry (pattru), a laying hold ; Tel., pattu

Can., both patfw and o

[ 1§

30

SOUNDS.

pattu (hattw). Even in old Canarese a similar change often takes

place.

/

n

(ii.) The letter » (not the dental n, but the final n of Tamil), a

J pmissn letter which is not found in Telugu, is often prefixed in Tamil to the

rough r for the sake of euphony, when the compound =r acquires the

%

b sound of ndr—a sound of which the Tamil, like the language of Mada-

r

% 40

gascar, is exceedingly fond.

In Tulu this sound is further softened to

fij—e.g., kanru, Tamil, a calf, is in Tulu, kadje.

In another class of

words, the » which is prefixed to r is radical, and should be followed

by d, according to rule (e.g., in the preterites of verbs whose root ends

in n) ; but r is suffixed to » instead of d, in consequence of which the

sound of ndr is substituted for that of nd.

I consider the r radical, and: the » euphonically prefixed, in minre

(mindru), Tam., three (for madru, Can., the more ancient form of the

word), and in onru (ondru), Tam., one (for oru). The n I consider

radical (or an euphonised form of the radical), and the r used euphoni-

cally instead of d, in the following examples :—enru (endru), having

spoken, instead of endu,; $enru ($endru), having gone, for $endu (which

is instead of the less euphonic Seldu).

In the speech of the vulgar in

the Tamil country, and in MalayAlam, this compound ndr is further

altered into nn or 7.

In Telugu and Canarese nd seems always to be

found instead of ndr.

See Numerals I. and IIL*

(7.) The sibilants and the aspirate: $, sh, s, h.

It has already been

mentioned that Tamil is destitute of sibilants.

The other Dravidian

# T quote here from Dr Gundert’s communication. “Is m#ru more ancient than

mandru ? Canarese dislikes the nasals (except the half anusvara, which it likes to

introduce—e.g., sainhya instead of sakhya, tolerable). Kandru, Tam. a calf ; Can.,

Taru. Which is the older? I suppose ru in mindru, three, and ondru, one, to be

the formative du, tu, changed by its contact with final n. mun, on, appear to me

the original forms, the one from the radical mu, to be before, to excel (whence

mun, before, and probably Sans. mukha, the face ; also Tam. mdkk-u, the nose,

Many old

and the verb m, to be old) ; the other, from the radical o, to be one.

nouns are formed with n (as én, Tam. what? This = changes into r, as in pi¥,

from pin, after ; also into »—e.g., ular, birth, the same as ulan and ulavu.

Oru,

one, appears to me therefore only the more liquid equivalent of the noun on. Senxu

or §endru, having gone, I should rather derive from $el-ndu than from Seldu, as

the latter would have to become $erru, Settru.”

I place Dr Gundert’s observa-

tions at the foot of the page, instead of incorporating them in the text as usual,

because in this instance I am unable to adopt his view. A comparison of all the

forms of the Dravidian numerals for ‘‘one” and “three” (see the chapter on

Numerals) appears to me to confirm the supposition expressed in the text. The

change of §eldu into Sendru would be quite in accordance with many precedents

found in old Tamil words—e.g., pandsri, a hog (literally, ‘‘a tusker”), from the

radical pal, a tusk, with the usual formative ¢ or di. Compare also ninru (nindru)

for nindv, having stood, the euphonised form of nildu, from the root nil, to stand.

CONSONANTS,.

31

)

idioms freely use the sibilants and aspirates of Sanskrit in writing

and pronouncing Sanskrit derivatives, and to some extent, through

the prevalence of Sanskrit influences, in the pronunciation even of

e

pure Dravidian words. In Tamil, the § of Siva, occurring in San-

he

skrit derivatives, is represented by the peculiar palatal which answers

a

to the ¢k of the Sanskrit, and the sound of which, when single,

closely

0

resembles that of & The other sibilants, sk and s, are altogether

o

excluded from pure classical Tamil.

In later Tamil books, and in the

ol

speech and letters of the better-educated Tamilians of the present age,

ldn

those sibilants are freely employed in writing and pronouncing words

he

which have been borrowed from Sanskrit ; and in such cases, the cha-

racters which are used to express them are taken from the Grantha.

]

By the mass of the people, however, those letters are rarely pronounced

he

aright ; and in the remoter districts the vulgar substitute for them, in

Jer

accordance with the genius of the language, those letters which the

Il

ancient grammars enjoin, and the use of which is exemplified in the

g

Sanskrit derivatives employed in the Tamil classics, The substitutions

ich

are as follows :—g#, the lingual sibilant of the Sanskrit, is represented

1l

in general by the lingual d; sometimes by the liquid 7 ; sometimes

{het

even by the dental ¢ or d. s, the sharp sibilant of the Sanskrit, is

)be

sometimes represented by ¢ or ; sometimes it is omitted altogether ;

sometimes it is changed into the Tamil ch, the equivalent of §. When

d when

L 4

hee)

this sibilant stands at the beginning of a Sanskrit derivative, an

-

i

it is desired, in accordance with modern usage, to pronounce

it with L5 |

the unmodified Sanskrit sound, it is preceded (at least in pro

nuncia-

‘7/14’14;1:

tion) by the vowel 4, without which i cannot be e

tha

nunciated, in that Srrgnn

(st

connection, by Tamil organs, Thus, str

, Sans. a woman, is always

(any

pronounced and generally written ist;rs,

e

to 1

Tamil and Malayalam

are destitute of the sound of 4 I believe,

) e

indeed, that this sound

hencé

guages, and that it

was originally foreign to the Dravidian lan-

crept into Telugu and Canarese through the in-

1059

fluence of Sanskrit,

}y Uld

Tamil upholds its

claim to a sterner independence,

1 Pif.

if not to a higher antiquity,

(rty

than the other tongues, by not only re-

fusing to use the letter h,

but by refusing to pronounce or write the

Gt

aspirated consonants inclu

iy &

ded in the Sanskrit words which it borrows,

serth

Dr Trumpp («

Sindhi Grammar,

’ p- xXVi.) mentions the aversion of the

Prakrit to aspirates, and remar

usUﬂL

ks, that ¢ this aversion seems to point

Jthe

g 01

to a Tatar underground current in the mouth of the common people,

The

the Dravidian languages of the South being destitute of aspirates.”

as is

e

In modern Canarese % is regularly used as a substitute for 2,

y 2

sometimes the case in MarAthi ;

but ancient Canarese agrees in this

g,;dr ll}

particular with Tamil.

fan

32

SOUNDS.

ORIGIN OF THE LINGUAL OR “ CEREBRAL” SoUNDs.—In all the

languages and dialects of India, whether they belong to the Aryan

or to the Dravidian families, much use is made of a series of conson-

ants—¢, d, with their aspirates, and —which are called by Hindu

grammarians “ cerebrals ” because they are pronounced far back in the

mouth, with a hard, ringing sound. I have reserved to this place

some observations on the existence of this peculiar class of sounds in

two families of tongues which are so widely different from one another

as the Dravidian and the Sanskrit.

Tt seems natural to suppose that one of those families must have

borrowed the sounds in question from the other ; but it remains to be

determined which was the borrower, and which was the original pro-

prietor. Hindi, Bengali, and the other vernaculars of Northern India

have doubtless inherited the lingual consonants from Sanskrit, from

the decomposition of which those languages have mainly arisen ; but it

is very difficult to suppose that they have been borrowed in this manner

On the contrary, I have

from Sanskrit by the Dravidian languages.

long been persuaded that they were borrowed from the Dravidian lan-

guages by Sanskrit, after the arrival of the Sanskrit-speaking race in

The reasons which lead me to adopt this view are these :—

India.

(1.) The lingual consonants are essential component elements of a

large number of primitive Dravidian roots, and are often necessary,

especially in Tamil, for the discrimination of one root from another ;

whereas in most cases in Sanskrit, the use of cerebral consonants

instead of dentals, and especially the use of the cerebral n, instead of

2

the dental 2, is merely euphonic.

(2.) None of the lingual consonants has ever been discovered in any

of the primitive languages which are related to Sanskrit. They are

not found in Greek or Latin, in Gothic or Celtic, in Lithuanian,

Slavonian, or modern Persian : they are not found in cuneiform Per-

sian or Zend—those sister dialects, with which the Sanskrit finally

shook hands on crossing the Indus and settling in Arys-varta. On

the other hand, the Dravidian languages, which claim to have had

an origin independent of Sanskrit, and which appear to have been

spoken throughout India prior to the arrival of the Aryans, possess

the lingual sounds in question, and, for aught that appears, were

in possession of them always. They are found even in the Brahui.

There is no trace of these sounds in the Aryan family of tongues

west of the Indus; but no sooner does a member of that family

cross the Indus, and obtain a lodgment in the ancient seats of the

Dravidians and other allied tribes in India, than the lingual sounds

make their appearance in their language.

It is worthy of mnotice also,

e

CEREBRAL CONSONANTS.

33

he

that the Prakrits, the earliest vernacular dialects of the Sanskrit

1

Al

make a larger use of the linguals than Sanskrit itself.*

Ol

(3.) Those consonants which Tamil has borrowed from Sanskrit

du

within the period of the existence of Dravidian literature have

the

been greatly modified to accord with the Tamilian laws of sound and

delicacy of ear.

Thus Tamil omits the aspirates even of Sanskrit

lage

sin

derivatives, and omits or changes all the sibilants.

It systematically

ther

softens down all harsh sounds.

Even the Sanskrit lingual-sibilant sk

cannot be pronounced by Tamil organs.

Hence it seems improbable

that a series of harsh ringing sounds, like the cerebral ¢, ¢, and

AL

) be

n, should have been borrowed by Tamil from Sanskrit without

pYO

change, and used in the pronunciation, not only of Sanskrit deri-

ndia

vatives, but also of a large number of the most essential Dravidian

roots.

from

b if

(4.) Though Telugu has been more exposed to Sanskrit influ-

et

ences than Tamil, yet larger use is made of those sounds in Tamil

than in Telugu—a circumstance which seems incompatible with the

have

supposition of the derivation of those sounds from Sanskrit.

p Jan

Putting all these considerations together, it appears to me pro-

o 1

bable that instead of the Dravidian languages having borrowed the

lingual consonants from Sanskrit, Sanskrit has borrowed them from

sofd

the Dravidian languages; and it will, I think, be shown in the “ Glos-

sall)

sarial Affinities,” that Sanskrit has not disdained to borrow from the

ther

Dravidian languages words as well as sounds.

nalfs

After the foregoing observations were written, I met with Mr

al o

Norris’s paper on the language of the “Scythic tablets” of Behistun,

and found a similar opinion expressed therein respecting the Dravi-

n 0

dian origin of the Sanskrit cerebrals.

Mr Norris says, “ I will here

5}7 ae

express my conviction that the sounds called cerebral are peculiar to

aﬂiﬁﬂr

the Tartar or Finnish class of languages; that the really Indian

) P@f‘

languages are all of Tartar origin, or at least that their phonetic and

fualy

grammatical affinities are Tartar ; and that the writers of Sanskrit

(O

4 d

* The Vedic Sanskrit possesses a peculiar l—resembling the lingual [ of the

9

edd

Dravidian languages—which has disappeared from the more modern Sanskrit.

s

This ! is one of the most distinctive features of the Dravidian languages, espe-

e

cially of Canarese and Tamil, and its origin is probably the same as that of the

other linguals. It is retained occasionally in Tamil and Telugu, and very fre-

i

quently in Canarese and Malayalam, in the rendering of Sanskrit words, though

g

it has disappeared from those words in Sanskrit itself.

It is retained also in

Marithi, Konkani, and other neighbouring Aryan languages. The lingual ! of

il

the Vedic Sanskrit is regarded, not as an independent consonant, but as a substi-

tute for ¢. It will be shown hereafter that d often changes into ! in the Dra-

.oﬂﬂd°

vidian languages, and that / in its turn sometimes changes into d.

C

i

34

SOUNDS.

adopted the sound from their Indian neighbours, in the same way that

the Scandinavians appear to have adopted a similar sound from their

neighbours the Lapps, who are undoubtedly Tartars ; the Icelanders,

who retain the old Scandinavian language, pronouncing the words

Sfalla and fullr as though written fadla and fudlr.

““ It is certainly the case that this peculiar articulation has not been

noticed as cerebral, so far as I know, by the writers who have treated

of those languages; but this may be accounted for from the fact that

Tartars have had few, if any, native grammarians; that, generally

speaking, their languages are unwritten, and that, where written, the

alphabet, not having been adopted by themselves, but given to them

by nations more civilised than themselves, the difference between the

dentals and cerebrals was not striking enough to a foreigner to induce

‘him to invent new characters to designate the sounds new to him.

But the existence of a ¢ or d, convertible into /, is well known to

Finnish philologers.

Castrén, a Finnlander, in his ¢ Ostiak Gram-

mar,” uses distinct characters for the cerebral and dental d and ¢,

though not giving them these denominations, and directs that the

former should be pronounced somewhat aspirated, with the addition of

I, as dhl or dl, and thl or tl; observing that similar sounds occur in

the Lappish and Finnish tongues.”

The theory of the origin of the lingual consonants advocated above

has been found to be in accordance with Professor Benfey’s views.

In

his “ Complete Sanskrit Grammar,” p. 73 (I quote Dr Muir’s trans-

lation of the passage, “ Sanskrit Texts,” part ii, 460), the Professor

says, “The mute cerebrals have probably been introduced from the

phonetic system of the Indian aborigines into Sanskrit, in which, how-

ever, they have become firmly established.”

On the other hand, Dr Biihler, Professor of Sanskrit in the Elphin-

stone College, Bombay, argues, in a very able paper in the Madras

Journal of Literature for 1864 (pp. 116-136), that I have not estab-

lished my position, and that it is more probable that the sounds in

question have been developed by the Sanskrit independently of other

tongues, and spontaneously.

T regret that this valuable contribution

to Indian philology has not, so far as I know, been reprinted in Europe.

We are so far in agreement that Dr Biihler thinks I have ¢ proved two

things beyond all doubt—firstly, that the so-called ¢ cerebrals,’” or, as

they are now termed, linguals, of the Dravidian dialects are not derived

from the Sanskrit ; and, secondly, that they did not belong to the

original sounds of the primitive Indo-European tongues.”

He goes on to say, ““ Dr Caldwell’s statements contain a little error

in point of fact. He says, ‘None of the linguals has ever been discovered

in any of the primitive languages which are related to Sanskrit.’

This

is perfectly true in regard to ¢, th, dh, and », but the Sanskrit 7, 77,

7%, and sh, are, according to the testimony of the grammarians and of

CEREBRAL CONSONANTS.

39

11

the pronunciation of the modern Pandits, likewise lingual ; the second

¥

and fourth of these sounds (r¢, sk) are found in Zend exactly in the

D

same words and forms as in Sanskrit ; and the first (») is common to

ds

all the Indo-European languages.”

I was aware that sk was a lingual

sound, and also that it was contained in Zend as well as in Sanskrit ;

but the fact that this s was unknown to the Dravidian languages,

ol

though in such common use in Sanskrit, was adduced by me (in para-

el

graph 3) for the purpose of proving that the other linguals, which

are in still more common use in the Dravidian dialects than in San-

hat

1

skrit, could not have been borrowed from the Sanskrit by those dia-

ALY

lects.

My argument referred to the cerebrals or linguals of the third

e

varga alone, viz., ¢, d, » ; and it is admitted by Dr Biihler that these

I3}

sounds were not originally contained in any of the Indo-European

the

languages, and that in Sanskrit itself, though their use is very ancient,

they are an ¢ innovation.”

I admit that 7, 74, and 74, notwithstanding

106

their vocalic softness, have a just claim to be ranked amongst linguals.

i

The Indian 7, whether in Sanskrit or in the vernaculars, I consider more

) 10

decidedly lingual than the » of Europe.

It is one of the most difficult

letters to Europeans; and the Dravidian languages contain, besides

i

the » they have in common with Sanskrit, two #’s of their own, more

lingual and more difficult still.

I did not enter into the consideration

of the lingual characters of » in connection with my argument, because

it

this consonant, whatever minute differences may be observed in its

It i

pronunciation. in different countries, is the common property of all the

organic languages of Kurope and Asia, and also because, though the

influence of a contiguous » is well known to have largely contributed

to the development in Sanskrit of the lingual sounds ¢, d, 7, it is

hore

scarcely, if at all, possible to detect the operation of any such influence

In

in the Dravidian languages, in which the lingual sounds seem to have

JliS

occupied from the beginning an essential place of their own in the

differentiation of roots.

§

sl

{0

The chief value of Dr Biihler’s paper consists in the fulness and

0

clearness with which he traces the progressive stages of the develop-

ment in Sanskrit of the lingual sounds in question, especially through

I

He summarises his results thus :—

)

the phonetic influence of 7 and sk.

“ We have seen that the ancient linguals » and sh produced lingual

mutes and nasals, either independently or assisted by the universal

i

law of assimilation, and that also 74 and #4, the two lingual vowels, the

former of which at least belongs to the pre-Sanskritic period, brought

about the same result,

Hence the Hindfl contracted a liking for these

ﬂ.)ge.

sounds, and changed not only %, which, on account of its changeable

il

0

WY

nature, easily lent itself to this proceeding, to dk, but also dentals to

the corresponding linguals,

ot @

Moreover, I have pointed out repeatedly

how the predilection for linguals becomes stronger and stronger in

3]"“6“{

o i

course of time—how in the daughter-languages of Sanskrit, and in their

daughters, laws which cause the production of linguals become more

and more stringent.”

eﬂ(’r

He then states that the probability of the theory advocated by him

ot

would be considerably enhanced if it could be shown that languages,

Ths

1, ';'Z.

other than the Sanskrit, have independently developed sounds of the

il i

lingual class, and proceeds to argue that such sounds‘ have actually

36

SOUNDS.

been developed in modern times in various Teutonic and Slavonic dia-

lects, especially in English, though they have not been distinguished

as such in grammars.

He quotes Professor H. H. Wilson as an English

writer who has recognised the existence of linguals in his own language.

Professor Wilson says (‘‘Sanskrit Grammar,” p. 3), ‘The Sanskrit

consonants are generally pronounced as in English, and we have, it

may be suspected, several of the sounds for which the Sanskrit alpha-

bet has provided distinct signs, but of which signs are wanting with

us.

This seems to be the case with the cerebrals.

We write but one

¢t and one d, but their sounds differ in such words as trumpet and

tongue, drain and den, in the first of which they are cerebrals, in the

second dentals.”

There is no doubt, I think, that the sound of the

English ¢ and d, in such connections, is slightly lingual, and also this

semi-lingual sound is developed through the influence of the contiguous

7

The case would be stronger, however, I think, if » preceded the

dental or nasal, instead of following it, and if the vowel preceding r

were long, not short.

Thus the sounds ¢ d, and », in the English

words mart, yard, and barn, seem to me to have more of the character

of the Indian linguals than in trumpet and drain.

Dr Biihler pro-

ceeds to observe that the proper persons to decide this question are the

natives of India.

He says, “ Every Englishman who has learned

either Mahrathi, Guzerathi, Hindi, or Bengali, from a native teacher,

will have observed that the Séstri or Munshi constantly corrects his

pronunciation, not of the linguals, but of the dentals, and tells him

that he (the pupil) always uses the former instead of the latter.

The

conclusion to be drawn from this fact is, that the Englishman is familiar

with the first class of sounds only. Besides, the natives of India, in

transliterating English words, constantly use their linguals to express

the English so-called dentals. They write, for instance, direktar, instead

of director, gavarnment, instead of government, &c.”

There is undoubtedly a measure of truth in the supposition advo-

cated above.

The English ¢, d, and n, approach more nearly to the

sound of the Indian linguals than to that of the dentals, especially

when intensified by a contiguous .

The influence of r on a contigu-

ous d in English is well known.

Hence, in several grammars of the

Indian vernaculars intended for the use of Englishmen, students are

advised to begin learning the lingual sounds by fancying the ¢, d, or »

of the vernacular preceded by 7.

It accords generally also with my

experience that Englishmen have less difficulty in acquiring the lingual

sounds than in learning the peculiarly soft, distinctively dental sounds

of the Indian ¢, d, and n.

Beyond this, however, I am unable to go.

There is still a great gulf, I conceive, between the slightly lingualised

English dentals and the true Indian linguals,—a gulf which many

European students of the Indian languages are never able to pass as

long as they live (though they themselves are generally the last people

to suppose this to be the case). The difference between the two classes

of sounds could not be better illustrated than by getting a native

unacquainted with English to pronounce the two words referred to by

Professor Biihler, which have become naturalised in the country, and

especially the long list of similar words, with their native translitera-

tions, given at the end of Dr Biihler's paper by the editor of the

=

‘CEREBRAL CONSONANTS.

37

Madras Literary Journal.

Every person who has taught English to

g;

Indians knows how difficult it is to get them out of their lingual pro-

nunciation of the English ¢ and d.

1h

Up to this point, all the lingual sounds referred to by Dr Biihler,

1

whether in Sanskrit and the Indian vernaculars derived from it, or in

b

the tongues of modern Europe, have been found to be, and have been

th

admitted to be, merely phonetic developments.

Does this appear to

13

be the case also in the Dravidian languages? I do not find any appre-

1l

ciable difference between any one of these languages and the rest with

e

regard to the use of ¢ or ¢, but a considerable difference ‘is apparent

he

with regard to the use of 7 and the peculiarly Dravidian linguals 7, r,

hig

and /.

Many words which have 7 and [ in the other dialects have 7

)us

and / in Telugu.

Are we to explain this by supposing that Telugu

he

remained unchanged, whereas in the other dialects, especially in Tamil

I

and Malayalam, a certain fondness for the lingual sounds (that is, for

hsh

the more distinctive sounds, as compared with the less distinctive)

fol

developed itself more and more as time went on, as has been the case

0

in Sanskrit and the North Indian vernaculars?

I think not.

On the

contrary, the existence in several of the Dravidian languages of a ten-

iy

ned

dency to soften down these distinctive sounds is capable of being

proved by a comparison of the ancient dialects of those languages with

het,

i

the modern. Thus old Canarese had the deep, vocalic, lingual 7 of the

him

Tamil and Malayilam, whilst the modern Canarese has lost it.

This

i[9

sound does not now exist in Telugu, and it cannot clearly be proved

that it ever had it; but the analogy of all the other dialects leads

{h‘lf

m

us to conclude that it had it originally, and that it lost it in course

of time, as we know that Canarese did.

Even in Tamil, it seems

[‘e\S

ead

merging, in most parts of the country, either into / or », and the true

pronunciation is now seldom heard. Both in Canarese and in Telugu

the use of the hard lingual r, of which Tamil and Malayalam are

A

the

so fond, has become almost entirely obsolete, though the use of this

consonant by the poets testifies to its currency in olden times. In

ally

Tulu this r has altogether disappeared, its place being generally sup-

ol

plied by j.

the

It seems probable, therefore, that in those instances in

which Telugu has 7 and 7, whilst the other dialects have » and A

ale

Telugu represents, not the older, but the more modern, usage of the

or fh

people.

1y

Even though it should be admitted that Tamil carried its

predilection for lingnal sounds beyond the first phase of the language

il

into the period when its secondary themes, derivatives, and inflexional

nds

suffixes were formed, it would still have to be reme

00,

ered—(and in

this respect it would differ widely from the Sanskrit)—that the place

19d

any

those sounds held in the first phase of the language itself was certainly

far from being merely phonetic.

Large numbers of the oldest verbal

518

roots in the language, representing the most primitive and necessary

)ple

ideas, are differentiated from other roots solely by the difference be-

5569

tween the two classes of consonants.

The following Tamil instances

i\

will suffice :—

by

kudz,

to leap.

en,

to say.

d

kuds,

to drink.

to count.

en,

[t

puder, to hide.

manet, a house,

e

pudet, to sift.

manei, a stool.

38

SOUNDS.

to make a noise

aru,

to be scarce.

kattu,

kattu,

to tie.

aru,

to cut off.

kottu,

to dig.

ari,

to weep.

to kill.

ko;‘_gﬁu,

to drum.

kol,

ary,

to gnaw.

kol,

to take.

to know.

tuler,

to end.

are,

art,

to destroy.

tuler,

to bore.

When these instances of the use of the lingual consonants in Tamil,

which is richest in linguals, and which may be accepted in this parti-

cular as the best representative of the Dravidian family, are compared

with the uses to which the linguals are put in Sanskrit, as amply illus-

trated by Dr Biihler, it will be apparent at once that the position

occupied by the linguals in the Dravidian dialects differs essentially

from that occupied by them in Sanskrit and the dialects derived from

1t

They evidently pertain, not to the phonetic development or eupho-

nic refinement of the Tamil, but to its system of roots, meanings, and

laws of specialisation.

They take us back to a point in the history of

If

the language beyond which we cannot hope to be able to ascend.

Sanskrit were to be deprived of its linguals, there is hardly an idea or

shade of thought it expresses now which it would not then be equally

able to express; but if Tamil were deprived of its linguals, it would

cease to be able to express some of the most rudimentary, necessary

ideas, and would scarcely be worthy to be called a language.

The position occupied by the lingual consonants in Sanskrit and in

the Dravidian languages respectively being now fully before us, we come

back to the question at issue, How did these sounds first make their

appearance in Sanskrit ?

The question, it appears to me, is mainly

one of probabilities.

Speaking generally, with a reservation of the

slight modifications already admitted, these sounds are peculiar to

India.

We find them in both the varieties of highly-organised human

speech, the Sanskritic and the Dravidian, which have existed in India

side by side for three thousand years; and there is reason to believe

that for an unknown period before that the Sanskrit-speaking race came

into still closer contact with the Dravidians (or with some people

speaking a language analogous in structure to that of the Dravidian

tongues), not only after they arrived in India and occupied the seats of

the Dravidians, but possibly even before they crossed the Indus, whilst

Which, then, is the

on their way through the country of the Brahuis.

more probable supposition?— that these peculiarly Indian lingual

sounds developed themselves spontaneously and quite independently in

each of those varieties of speech, the Sanskritic and the Dravidian ? or

that they had a common origin, having developed themselves first in

one family, and then spread from that to the other ?

The balance of

probabilities seems to me in favour of the latter supposition; and if

this supposition of a common origin be adopted, we seem then to be

warranted in concluding that it was in the speech of the primitive

Dravidians that these sounds originated, and that it was through Dra-

vidian influences that a predilection for these sounds developed itself

in the speech of the Indo-Aryan race.

It is freely admitted by Dr

Biihler that ¢ the linguals of the Dravidian dialects are not derived

CEREBRAL CONSONANTS.

39

from the Sanskrit.”

On the supposition, therefore, that they have a

common origin, would it not follow that Sanskrit must have derived

them from the Dravidian dialects ?

cl«%/

Dr Biihler argues that “ the possibility of the borrowing of sounds

by one language from another has never yet been proved,” and that

“ comparative philologists have admitted loan-theories too easily, with-

mw

aft

out examining facts.”

“ Regarding the borrowing of sounds,” he

says, ‘it may suffice for the present to remark, that it never has been

U

shown to occur in the languages which were influenced by others in

it

historical times, such as English, Spanish, and the other Romance

languages, Persian, &c.”

“ We find still stronger evidence,” he says,

ol

15

‘““against the loan-theory in the well-known fact that nations which,

0n

like the Jews, the Parsees, the Slavonian tribes of Germany, the Irish,

&c., have lost their mother-tongues, are, as nations, unable to adopt

I

o

with the words and grammatical laws also the pronunciation of the

foreign language.”

I am quite prepared to agree with Dr Biihler up

ho-

to a certain point.

ailt

I admit that many nations, possibly that most

0

nations, even whilst adopting wholesale the words of other nations with

whom they have been brought into close contact, are found to have

I

1)

retained their own pronunciation without acquiring the peculiarities of

the pronunciation of those other nations. But admitting it to be a fact

lly

lhll

that ten nations have not borrowed sounds from other nations, it is

unsafe to argue from this that the eleventh nation cannot have done so.

aly

It is merely a question of fact; and if we find it in any case to be a

1

fact that this supposed impossibility has taken place, all we can do is

to add this new fact to our existing stock of facts, and modify our

il

el

theories accordingly. An interesting illustration of the necessity of

leaving an opening for new facts may be discovered in a portion of Dr

iy

Biihler’s own argument,

“ Let us consider,” he says, ¢ the case of the

fhe

English. Though half of its words have been imported by the Norman

3

race, though most of the old Saxon inflexions have perished in the

nall

struggle between the languages of the conqueror and the conquered,

dia

though in some instances even Norman affixes have entered the organism

e

of the original language, the quictism of the Saxon organs of speech

e

has opposed a passive and successful resistance to the introduction of

e

foreign sounds.

The English has received neither the clear French «,

ot

nor its », nor its peculiar nasals. On the contrary, it has well preserved

300

its broad, impure vowels and diphthongs, and it is now as difficult for

st

an Englishman to pronounce the French a or u, as it was for his Saxon

ihe

ancestors eight hundred years ago.”

This argument is well worked

g

ml

out. It proves conclusively that the English, whilst adopting much

( n

of the vocabulary of the Normans, did not adopt their pronunciation.

o

But what shall we say about the Normans themselves ?

Not two

i

hundred years had elapsed since the first settlement of the Northmen

) UI

in France when they conquered England ; and during that short time

they had not only exchanged their own Norse for the French of the

]I

be

period, but had adopted those sounds—had acquired those peculiarities

e

of pronunciation—which Dr Biihler treats as distinctively and inalien-

i

ably French. The very sounds to which he refers—the clear French

ol

a, the %, and its peculiar nasals, and of which he says that it is as

difficult for an Englishman to pronounce them now as for his Saxon

I

ol

40

SOUNDS.

ancestors eight hundred years ago—are sounds which the Northmen

only a short time before their arrival in England had picked up from

the race they conquered. What can be said of this, but that the

imitativeness of the Normans is as much a fact in history, and as much

entitled to throw whatever licht it can on the possibilities of Indian

philology, as the passiveness of the early English?

May not this at

least be inferred, that if the Normans had so much of the faculty of

imitation as to be able to adopt the language of a race with which they

came in contact, pronunciation and all, it requires no straining of the

imagination to suppose the Sanskrit-speaking race imitative enough

to adopt—mnot the language of the race that preceded them in India—

not their pronunciation—but merely a certain peculiarity in their pro-

nunciation of a few consonants with which they could not fail to be

struck ?

“The possibility of the borrowing of sounds by one nation from

another” receives an illustration from the ¢ click ” of Southern Africa ;

and this illustration is all the more appropriate, seeing that the ¢ click,”

somewhat like the lingual sounds of India, is not a new, independent,

consonantal sound, but merely a peculiarity of pronunciation attaching

to a certain class of consonants.

Dr Bleek remarks, “ The occurrence

of clicks in the Kafir dialects decreases almost in proportion to their

Sl T e S RIS TS B P TR e

distance from the Hottentot border.

Yet the most southern Tekeza

dialects and the Se-suto have also (probably through Kafir influence)

become to a slight extent possessed of this remarkable phonetic

element.”—Bleek’s Comparative Grammar, p. 13.

Bishop Callaway,

S(:

in his preface to vol. i. part i. of his “Zulu Nursery Tales,” Natal

!

(and London, Triibner & Co.), says, “It is generally supposed that

the sounds called clicks are a modern intrusion into the alliterative

b

class of languages, arising from intercourse with the Hottentots.”

He

)

adds, “ The view that the clicks are not native to the alliterative lan-

f}

guages is quite in accordance with the theory I have formed of their

nature.”

%ﬂ

One of Dr Biihler’s objections to the supposition of the lingual mode

of pronouncing certain consonants by the Sanskrit-speaking race hav-

W

ing been derived from the Dravidians is, that the words containing

0f

linguals which I had represented as borrowed from the Dravidian

(]

languages by the Sanskrit are not numerous enough to render this

supposition admissible.

The number of such words might easily be

|

increased; but I do not attribute the adoption of lingual sounds by

the Aryans to the influence of the words, whether few or‘many,

borrowed by them from the Dravidians.

It does not appear to me a

§

necessary condition of the adoption of a peculiar pronunciation that

“a great number of foreign words containing the particular letter

:

should first be borrowed, and that the sound should thus become per-

fectly familiar to the people.”

In the case of the South African

“ click,” each tribe retains its own words, whilst pronouncing them in the

b

Hottentot fashion.

But we need not go beyond the Sanskrit-speaking

d

race itself for an illustration of the possibility of a peculiarity in

b

pronunciation making its way, not by the introduction of new words,

but by the modification of the pronunciation of words already in exist-

ence.

()

Dr Biihler considers the lingual sounds of the Sanskrit an inde-

CEREBRAL CONSONANTS.

4]

el

10

pendent development, ““a phonetic innovation which has outgrown in

course of time its original and legitimate limits.” He thinks it capable

the

of proof that the dental sounds in Sanskrit are more ancient than the

nuch

lingual, and that the predilection for lingual sounds went on gradually

dian

increasing. Supposing this granted, we are naturally led to inquire by

Is af

what process the transformation of dentals to linguals became a cha-

by of

racteristic of the language of the whole race?

It must have arisen,

they

according to his theory, not from the adoption of new words, but from

f the

a certain peculiarity in the pronunciation of old words passing, like a

ough

new fashion, from one person to another. One person must have made

1dia—

a beginning ; that person’s family must have imitated him ; from one

family the peculiarity must have spread to the other families of the

I -

to be

gotra ; gotra after gotra must gradually have caught the infection ; and

then at last, when the usage became universal, the new literature of the

from

race provided it with a lasting resting-place.

It appears to me, there-

fria

fore, that, on Dr Biihler’s hypothesis, as well as on mine, the borrowing

ok’

of sounds must have been carried on on a very extensive scale.

My

ndent

hypothesis merely serves to show how this process may have received

qching

its first impulse, and been accelerated in its course.

Probably also the

rrente

Indo-Aryans were not the only people in ancient or later times amongst

whom borrowing prevailed. How could the whole of the members of

) {hel

Tekert

any nation or race have acquired its stock of distinctive sounds and

words—how could organised varieties of speech have taken possession

et

onefe

of the large areas in which they are now found—had not the practice

stigmatised as the ‘“ loan-theory” been in continual operation? Descent

o,

accounts for much ; imitativeness, as it appears to me, for more.

Nt

gd thﬂﬁ

After writing the above, I found a discussion of the same question

aniffe

by Mr Beames in §§ 59, 60, of his “ Comparative Grammar of the

Modern Aryan Languages of India.”

Mr Beames takes to some extent

y i

fo i

the same line as Dr Biihler, but he enters more fully into the investi-

gation of the question of the relation of the cerebrals to the dentals.

f the

With much of what he says I fully agree.

| mott

“The connection between dentals and cerebrals rests on the principle,

which I shall do my best to prove in this section, that these two classes

g it

of sounds are really the weaker and stronger branches respectively of

i

tz?llgﬂ?

one and the same group, which, as being produced by the instrumen-

tality of the tongue, may be comprehended under the general name of

p 108

i

{ U

linguals. From the nature of the case, it might be anticipated that

Sanskrit, in its polished or classical stage, would incline to the use of

i I

the softer or dental branch, while, on the other hand, the popular

Hil

speech, as represented by the Prakrits, would adhere to the harsher

106

or cerebral forms. It will be seen in the sequel how far this anticipa-

il mqf

tion is borne out by facts

The modern languages present at

I EM

first sight an inextricable chaos and confusion,

There are cases ()

0 per

where the Sanskrit has the dental, Prakrits and the moderns the cere-

il

Tl

bral ; (8) where Sanskrit has dental, Prakrit cerebral, and the moderns

i fhe

3

dental ; (y) where Sanskrit and Prakrit have dental, the moderns cere-

Ak

bral ; (0) Sanskrit cerebral, Prakrit the same, but the moderns dental.

iy "

There are also instances in which two words, apparently cognate, differ

o

only in this letter—one having the cerebral, the other the dental

P

“ There would seem to be some misapprehension as to the nature of

il

42

SOUNDS.

the Aryan cerebrals, which are treated by European scholars as though

Cer

they were a class of sounds unpronounceable by our organs, and only

o

to be with difficulty learnt by persons who have heard them uttered by

Jes

the natives of India.

Inasmuch as they are only found in the Indian

of

branch of the great Indo-Germanic family, it has been somewhat

of

hastily concluded that they are foreign to that family ; and as a set

al

I(

of sounds which, in name at least, is identical with them, is found in

o1

the Dravidian languages, it has been assumed that these sounds are of

da

non-Aryan origin, and that they have sprung partly from a tendency to

pro

harshen the pronunciation of the dentals acquired by the Aryans from

the

their non-Aryan neighbours since their arrival in India, and partly

oy

from a wholesale importation of non-Aryan words into Sanskrit and

nf

its modern descendants.

0r]

“ Without absolutely denying the possibility that both of these

(id

theories may contain a certain amount of truth, I would bring forward

4y

some considerations to show that they .are not either undoubtedly

i

i

correct, or even necessary to account for the presence of these sounds.

Tas

“To go to the root of the matter, we may endeavour to get at a true

10 |

perception of the real state of the question by analysing the sounds

themselves.

kng

|

All consonants are produced by checking the outward

EVe

flowing breath, through bringing into contact two of the organs of the

deJ

mouth.

Among these checks there is a regularly graduated series,

de

produced by the contact of the tip of the tongue with the region ex-

01

tending from the centre of the palate to the edges of the upper teeth.

tho

This series may be called the lingual series.

If the tongue-tip be

loy

applied to the highest point of this region—that is, to the centre of

Ig

fa

the hard or true palate—the sounds are harsh, and similar to the letter

i

U

7

Contact a little lower down, or more towards the front, produces a

Dor

sound less harsh, and so on ; the more forward the contact the softer

the,

the sound, till at last, when we get to the edge of the teeth, the sound

{ea

which results is extremely soft and smooth.

The sounds of this series,

1o

as expressed by the Teutonic branch of the family, are among the

In

0f

(|

harsher, though not absolutely the harshest, notes of the series.

f

expressing ¢ and d, we Teutons touch with our tongues the gum or

hug

fleshy part of the palate just above the teeth. The Southern European

g

races form the contact lower down, just where the osseous substance

the |

of the teeth issues from the gums, thus producing a softer sound than

the Teutons.

The Persians and Indians form it low down on the

Wag

Uty

teeth, almost at their edge, thus producing the softest sound of all.

the

This Indian sound, being the result of impact on the teeth, is a true

ey

dental. We Teutons have no dental sounds at all, and the Italians have

lo

only semi-dentals.

The Indians have, however, in addition to their

i}

g

true dentals, another series produced by contact at a point a very little,

6

if at all, higher than the Teutonic contact, so that they possess, so to

speak, the highest and lowest notes of the scale, but not the inter-

the

mediate ones.

0y

tOv

“ With the exception of the harsh Indian contact, the Teutonic is the

Jugt

highest in the scale, and the reason of this is probably that the race

0

which uses it, living in a cold country, has preserved that nervous

vigour which enables it to employ its organs of speech firmly and

i

that

crisply.

In the South of Europe the warmer climate has induced a

)

P

CEREBRAL CONSONANTS.

43

ougn

certain amount of laxity, which has told on the articulation, and the

only

point of contact has therefore fallen lower, to a position which requires

4 by

ndian

less effort on the part of the speaker; while in the still hotter climate

of Persia and India, greater relaxation has taken place, and the muscles

ik

a 86

of the tongue have become flaccid ; the member itself is long and soft,

and naturally seeks the lowest and easiest place of utterance.

Thus it

nd In

are 0

comes to pass that the words which the Teutons pronounce with ¢ and

d are pronounced by the Indians with ¢ and d.

While daughter, as

1ty 0

pronounced by an Englishman, would be written by the Indians ddzar,

Ji

10

they themselves at an early period said dukitd.

If we could find out

p«rth

how the word was pronounced by the Aryans before they descended

1t ad

into the plains of India, we should probably have to write it duhatd,

or rather, in those days the sounds represented by the letters ¢ and d

hese

did not exist

The relaxation indicated by those letters must

A

have taken place after the Aryans came into this country. Before that

bt

o(lly

time, and probably for some centuries after it, their lingual contact

\um

was, we may fairly assume, as crisp and firm, and its place as high up

al

T

in the palate, as that of their European brethren.

In those days they

50

s

i

knew of no distinction between ¢ and ¢, d and d. They had, how-

Gl

ever, in their language words in which an # preceded or followed a

oL 1o

olle )

dental, and in such combinations their lingual sounds assumed by

degrees a harsher note, being produced by a contact nearer to the place

101 €5

of utterance of 7, which is very high up in the palate.

The people,

et

1l

though they gradually softened their place of contact, and brought it

Ube

lower down in the mouth in the case of a single consonant, naturally

OI

A

retained a high contact when an » was in combination, and this habit

(e

must have become more and more marked as time went on.

In pro-

i

portion as the point of utterance of ¢ and d sank lower in the mouth,

12

the distance between it and the point of utterance of # got greater and

gunt

greater, and the additional labour of moving the tongue from one point

orley,

to the other increased, and to avoid this, the higher and harsher point

d

1!

of contact for ¢ and d was retained. Then as the 7, under the influence

Ii

of other phonetic laws, began to be regularly omitted, nothing remained

i} of

but the linguals at a high point of contact—that is, what we now call

cerebrals.

So that when at length the att of writing was introduced,

ropﬂﬂ

A

the national pronunciation had by that time become so fixed that it

dl

nall

was necessary to recognise the existence of two separate sets of lingual

utterances, and to provide appropriate symbols for each.

But when

0‘1 t 10

0

il

they were confronted by the task of assigning either ‘cerebral or

4tl

1"

dental linguals to any individual word, the grammarians to whose

0%

lot it fell to reduce their already highly-developed language to writ-

, fhet

ing, must have had a difficult problem to solve.

It is perhaps not to

be expected that we should be ableat this distance of time to detect

Jit

16

o

the principles on which they worked, or to ascertain what were the

considerations which guided them in determining in each case whether

joier

i

to write a dental or a cerebral.

It results, however, from the remarks

Just made, that what we now call the cerebrals are the real equivalents

15 f

o 18

of the European ¢ and d, and that it is not these, but the Indian dentals

N

which are peculiar to those tongues.

It is fair, therefore, to assume

(L

that the original form of such words as those which are given above as

e

b

examples, is that which retains the cerebral, and that the dental form

44

SOUNDS.

i

has grown out of the cerebral one by the process of weakening and

Qen

softening which the Aryan organs of speech have undergone from the

Qen

effects of climate.

It would certainly be in full and complete harmony

very

with the present theory that the Prakrits, regarded as the colloguial

ourr

languages, should exhibit a more frequent use of the cerebral, while

ot

it

the Sanskrit, regarded as the language of literature, should prefer the

softer dental ; and, as has been stated above, it is actually asserted by

ent

several authors that this is the case.

Unfortunately, however, an

)

examination of such examples of Prakrit as are available by no means

il

bears out this assertion, and the evidence of the modern languages,

and

which is of almost conclusive importance in this respect, shows that

{hat

both dental and cerebral are used with equal frequency, even in

Jany

derivatives from a common root ; and more than this, dentals are used

1}

in cases where the recorded Sanskrit word is written only with a

(on

cerebral.

Jis

“It must have struck every one who has resided in India that the

IL

native ear, though keen and subtle beyond belief in detecting minute

that

differences of sound in native words, is very dull and blunt in catching

and

foreign sounds.

The ordinary peasant, who never mistakes sd, seven,

¢l

a8

for sdt, sixty, however softly or rapidly spoken, will often be quite

WO)

unable to catch a single word of a sentence in his own language, how-

Cer

ever grammatically correct, and however distinctly uttered by an

et

European, simply on account of some apparently trifling difference in

pronunciation.

Now we see something of this sort in the Prakrit of

4

Ie

the plays. The slight differences or rudenesses of pronunciation among

hngl

the lower classes were made much of by play-writers, and exaggerated

(0n;

almost grotesquely. This tendency probably led to the practice of

]

writing every n in Prakrit as », and will also account for much of the

Thaft

irregularity in the employment of the cerebrals and dentals.

Provin-

Dy

cial peculiarities of pronunciation, such as exist in the present day in

0l

various parts of India, were seized upon and fixed, and words were

ity

spelt accordingly, without reference to their etymology.

egg

“One of the most striking of these provincial peculiarities is the

i

fondness of the Sindhi for cerebrals.

This language has preserved the

thay

harsher point of contact, and has not allowed itself to be weak and soft.

{le

The sturdy Jats, wandering over their barren deserts, were engaged in

g

a constant struggle with nature for the bare permission to exist, and

e

there was therefore little risk of their becoming languid or effeminate

Ay,

in speech or in any other qualification.

““The further transition of the cerebrals and dentals into the semi-

Whe

alge

vowel / is a point attended with some obscurity. The process seems,

funy

like so many phonetic processes in the Indian languages, to work back-

bef;

wards and forwards, and to branch out into further collateral develop-

by

ment, as into / (), », and the like.

I is a dental letter, and the

b

change from d to ¢ and then to , involving, as it does, a passage from

g

a dental to a cerebral, and back again to the dental, can only be

ly

accounted for on the supposition advanced above, that originally there

gt

was no difference between the two classes of sounds, and that, subse-

i

quently to the rise and establishment of this difference, the popular

(fyg

ear has continued to recognise the close connection of the two, and to

DAY

be a little uncertain when to use one, and when the other

=

CEREBRAL CONSONANTS.

45

“I will now sum up what has been said about the cerebrals and

g aad

dentals, and the two forms of 7.

The cerebrals are the harsher, the

om the

dentals the softer, forms of the lingual series.

The former correspond

ALY

very nearly to our English sounds, the latter are unlike any sound

Llogu

current in Europe, and have arisen from the debilitating effects of a

], whi

hot climate

* e o o o

From all these circumstances we infer the original

efer the

unity of all the lingual group,

and its affinity to the European

erted by

dentals.”

Ve, 4l

Mr Beames has discussed the origin of the cerebral sounds, and the

0 Tneans

nature of the difference between them and the dentals so exh

austively,

nguages,

and I

o thit

am so perfectly in agreement with him in much of what he says,

that, though I have already given to the discussion of this subject too

gven 1

large a share of the space at my disposal, I have thought it best to

e vl

reprint nearly all he has said ¢ extenso, and allow it to speak for itself,

i

contenting myself with making only a few remarks on that portion of

his theory which runs counter to my own. I need not r

epeat anything

firic

I have said in my remarks on Dr Biihler’s paper.

Whilst I admit

y e

that the dentals of the European languages are only p

artially dentals,

atting

and that the dent

als of the languages of India, being formed into a

class by themselves se

i, erel

parate from the cerebrals, are more perfectly

be qui

worthy of being called by that name, I do not admit that the Indian

cerebrals represent the ori

age, b

better than the dentals.

ginal sounds of the letters of the lingual class

iy

orate B

In another passage (p. 264), Mr Beames speaks of the ce.rebrals as

i

“regarded by the Pandits, who worked at a time when the usual

lingual contact of their nation had passed dow

n to a lower point of

agg el‘&!&l

contact, as in some way derived from the dental

8 an erroneous view,

in which they have been followed by many Europ

ean scholars.” In this

e !

ol

matter, as it appears to me, the Pandits have not fallen into error.

Dentals were regarded as best representing the true pronunciation of

P

old Aryan words, not only at the time when P4

gt iy

nini and the gram-

matical writers lived, but also at the time when S

anskrit compositions

were first committed to writing.

Cerebral sounds had by that time

come to be sharply distinguished from dentals, and

Hes ! i

a separate set of

orfed &

characters had been invented for their ex

pression ; yet, on comp

aring

the stock of w

ords possessed in common by the Sanskrit

and the other

ad

languages of the Indo-European group, it will be manifest that dentals

izl

i1

i

iy

were in almost every instance preferred.

Cerebral sounds seem to

have been tre

ated as novelties, or at least

as later developments,

36'61111]’5

whereas dentals were regarded as

ance,

a portion of the old Aryan inherit-

e il

But this line of argumen

t is capable of being carried much

further back.

Long before grammatical rules were formed—Ilon

)

¢l

ok

before writing was introduced—at that early period when the Vedic

foredf

hymns began to be composed, and sacrificial formulae began to be

handed down from priest to priest, the same distinction between dentals

i

and cerebrals, and the same

a6 i

!

I cannot do better th

preference for ‘dentals, evidently existed.

an quote Mr Beames himself.

He says (Intro-

| Oﬂl‘

duction, p. 5), “Although Panini lived in an age when

the early Aryan

Jy e

dialects had already undergone much change from the

ir pristine con-

f ¥

dition, yet among the Brahm

ans, for whom alone he laboured, there

pO

pn]?f

existed a traditional memory of the ancient, and then obsolete, form of

p,

il

46

SOUNDS.

many words.

They would remember those archaic forms, because

their religious and professional duties required them constantly to

recite formulss of great antiquity, and of such sacredness.that every

e i ==l <

letter in .them was supposed to be a divinity in itself, and which had

consequently been handed down from primeval times absolutely un-

changed.”

Again, if Mr Beames’s theory respecting the origin of the Sanskrit

dentals and the antiquity of the cerebrals were perfectly tenable, it

ought to be applicable also to the dentals and cerebrals of the Dra-

vidian languages.

It ought to be evident, or at least should appear

probable, that the Dravidian dentals were a later class of sounds than

the cerebrals, brought into existence by the heat of the climate.

But

there is no ground whatever for such a supposition, in so far as the

Dravidian languages are concerned, for dentals as well as cerebrals

-

show themselves, as I have already mentioned, in the oldest and most

i)

necessary roots in each dialect, and cerebrals are more largely used in

—t

Tamil, which is spoken in the extreme south of the peninsula, where

—r

e

the heat is greatest, than in Telugu, which is spoken where the heat is

less intense.

Moreover, the development of the cerebral sounds is not

in any degree in the Dravidian languages, as in Sanskrit, owing to the

:

influence of a contiguous 7.

It looks, indeed, as if it were to the heat

of the Indian climate that the cerebral sounds—not the dentals—were

owing. If it be admitted that the heat of the climate has an enervat-

?

ing effect on the organs of speech, as it certainly has on the organs of

digestion, may it not be supposed that the introduction into the speech

f

Iy

of the people of the harsh piquant sounds of the cerebral letters was

owing to the same cause to which they were indebted for the introduc-

1g

tion of hot, piquant curries into the list of their articles of food ?

Wh

e

I quote here some observations of Mr Beames in confirmation of the

line of argument taken by myself in my remarks on Dr Biihler’s paper.

1d;

Ty

«T am not in a position to point out how far or in what direction

Aryan vocalism has been influenced by these alien races (Kols, Dravi-

B,

dians, &c.) ; but that some sort of influence has been at work is almost

1)

beyond a doubt. It may, however, be conjectured that the pronuncia-

tion has been affected more than the written language, because the latter

fl‘d]

is always by conscious and intentional efforts kept up to some known

standard. To one who has spent some years in the Panjab or Hin-

the

dustan, the ordinary pronunciation of the Bengalis and Oriyas certainly

Wh

the

sounds uncouth and foreign, and as these two races are surrounded by

and much mixed up with non-Aryans, it is probable that the contiguity

the

de

of the latter will eventually be found to have had much to do with this

N

peculiarity.”—P. 128.

“This curious heavy [ is very widely employed in the Dravidian

lgt

I

group of languages, where it interchanges freely with » and d, and it

is also found in the Kol family of Central India.

The Marathas and

I;

Oriyas are perhaps of all the Aryan tribes those which have been for the

oy

longest time in contact with Kols and Dravidians, and it is not sur-

Al

prising, therefore, to find the cerebral / more freely used by them than

by the others.

. . It is noticeable in many languages, that where

a nation gets hold of, or invents, some peculiar sound, it straightway

falls in love with it, and drags it into use at every turn, whether there

thy

CEREBRAL CONSONANTS.

47

becanse

be any etymological reason for it or no.

We English, for instance,

antly b

have dragged our favourite ¢4 into a number of words where it has no

ab evely

business to be; and similarly the Oriyas and Marathas bring in this

beloved ! where 7 should be.”—P. 445,

hich hed

ufely

“ Oriya and Maratha have long been spoken in tracts partly peopled

by non-Aryans: in the case of the former, by Kols and Telingas ; in

, Sonskt

that of the latter, by Gonds, Bhils, and Canarese.

The Aryans of

enalle, i

Gujarat also displaced non-Aryan tribes, and may from them have

the D

caught this trick of speech (the use of broken vowels and a short €), as

Id e

may also the Bengalis from the numerous wild tribes on their fron-

mds tt

tiers.”—P. 141,

It will be seen that, whilst as regards the special

e, B

question of the adoption of the cerebral sounds from the Dravidians by

f

ar 8 (e

fho

the Indo-Aryans, Mr Beames’s opinion coincides, on the whole, with

g ool

Dr Biihler’s, as regards the general question of the possibility of pecu-

liarities of pronunciation being borrowed by one people from another,

b oud it

Jy el I

with which it is very much mixed up, his opinion coincides with mine.

I claim his vote also with regard to one of the cerebrals themselves—

sl Vi

fhe e

the cerebral /.

Dr Trumpp, in his recently-published ¢ Grammar of the Sindhi Lan-

unds 2

guage,” advocates the view of this question I have taken.

He thinks

ying 0

the North Indian vernaculars have been considerably influenced by the

fof

0 D¢l

s~

Dravidian, or at least non-Aryan, languages spoken by the Indian

aborigines ; and, in particular, attributes the cerebrals to this source.

a1 el

“The cerebrals,” he says, “comprise the most non-Aryan elements of

1o 0

the language (the Sindhi).” He thinks “nearly three-fourths of the

) the

fs'

words which commence with a cerebral are taken from some aboriginal

|l

non-Aryan idiom, which in recent times has been termed Scythian, but

e nfdl

which we should prefer to call Tatar.”

“ This seems,” he says, “to

il

be very strong proof that the cerebrals have been borrowed from some

m‘ioj ok

idiom anterior to the introduction of the Aryan family of languages.

hler

The Sanskrit uses the cerebrals very sparingly, but in Prakrit, which

mt (W

|

is already considerably tinged with so-called ¢ provincial,” that is, with

Fols

non-Aryan elements, they strug

gle hard to supplant the dentals.”—

pris®

5o S

i

Hence the preference by natives of cerebrals to dentals in the

f

transliteration of European words, of which so much use is made by

i

I

0

Dr Biihler and Mr Beames, appears to be merely in accordance with

Oﬂle

the preference of cerebrals to dentals exhibited in the Prakrits, and

b

which is found in full operation in the dialects which h

ave sprung from

I

the Prakrits. This preference simply proves, in Dr Trumpp’s opinion,

0ol

that the cerebrals are more familiar to the people of India than the

I

dentals (p. 24).

He attributes also to Dravidian influences the aver-

dom

sion of the Prakrit to aspirates, and the peculi

ar pronunciation certain

letters (c2 and f) have received in certain connections

in MarAthi,

Mr Edkins (in “ China’s Place in Philolog

b Dmx'

y”) remarks that in the

¢

g

Malay alphabet a Dravidian influence may be suspected in the cerebral

i’

series of letters ¢, d, ». The initial consonant in Malay is generally

el ‘OI

single, as in the Dravidian tongue.

2

0 fhen

AL

The Dravidian / (as will be seen under the next head) is inter-

it

i

,a“Th

changeable with the cerebral ¢, through their middle point, the vocalic

g

Jethe

SOUNDS.

48

7

All these letters indeed appear to have a cognate origin.

They

are so easily interchanged, that one is tempted to consider them all

merely as varieties of one and the same sound.

DianeEcTIC INTERCHANGE OF CoNSONANTS.—Under this head I

intend to consider, not the euphonic refinements which have been

tabulated, and perhaps in part invented, by grammarians, but those

natural, unintentional mutations and interchanges which are brought

to view by a comparison of the various Dravidian dialects.

These

dialectic interchanges will be found to throw much light on the Dra-

vidian laws of sound, whilst they enable us to identify many words

and inflexional forms contained in the various dialects, which appear

at first sight to be unconnected, but which are in reality the same.

Following, as before, as far as possible, the order of the Deva-nigari

e IR A e S Ry

alphabet, I proceed to point out the dialectic changes to which each

I omit the aspirated con-

Dravidian consonant appears to be liable.

sonants as not really Dravidian.

1. The gutturals : k, g, 7

¢ being merely the sonant of %, in the changes now to be inquired

into, £ and ¢ will be regarded as identical.

(i.) %, when used as a sonant—that is, as g—changes into ». Where

we have ¢ in Tamil, we sometimes find » in Telugu—e.g., dgu, Tam.

I

to become; awvu, Tel

In %d, the infinitive of this verb in Telugu,

>

which corresponds to the Tamil d¢ga, & (or g) reappears.

It is in the

&

al

middle of words, where it is a sonant, that this consonant evinces a

tendency to be changed into v.

This tendency constantly appears in

f

the spoken language of the lower classes of the Tamil people in the

i

1)

Southern provinces ; and has found a place even in the poets—e.g.,

nova, to be pained, instead of the more common ndga.

g in the

1§

i

middle of a word is sometimes lost altogether, not merely softened into

v—e.g., pagudi, Tam. a share, has become pdds, half ; $agadu, a cart,

g

S’ddu MAagan Mt o

In Telugu, » is often not only pronounced, but written, instead of

g—e.g., pagadamu, coral, corrupted into pavadamu.

Compare with

N

It

this the change of the Sanskrit laghw, light, into the Latin levis.

will be seen that, per contra, v sometimes becomes ¢ in Telugu.

This

change sometimes takes place in Malayalam also—e.g., chuvanna, red,

fi

L

is often chuganna ($ivanda, Tam.)

’

(ii.) £ changes into ¢4 or

S

As the Tamil § becomes ch when

fo

doubled, and is represented in the alphabet by the equivalent of the

i

Deva-nigarl ch, the change of % into ¢4 is identical with that of k

k

into §.° The former change appears in Telugu, the latter in Tamil.

DTALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

49

They

em 4l

Compare the change of the Greek and Latin % into the Sanskrit §—

e.g., 0ixa and decem, softened into dasan, ten.

Canarese generally retains %, the older pronunciation of this con-

head |

sonant ; and where % is found in Canarese, we generally find ck in

ve feel

Telugu and § in Tamil—e.g., kinna, Can. small ; chinna, Tel. ; $inna,

ot how

Tam. : %evi, Can. the ear; chevi, Tel. ; éevi, Tam. : gey, Can. to do ; lofz.eﬂ“—‘

ol

chéy, Tel. ; ey, Tam. Sometimes the older % is Tetained by Tamil {‘{Wnu

as well as by Canarese, and the softening appears in Telugu only— /o/Zan’

- They

the Dri

e.g., kedu, Tam. and Can. to spoil; Tel. chedu or cheru.

The word /ckesra=

ny o

for hand is in Tamil kes, in Canarese keiyi, in Telugu /es (also kélu) ;

but there is another word in Telugu, ché (cheyyz), the hand, which is

appe

SaG:

the ordinary instrumental affix (cheta), and this is evidently a softened

form of %e: or ké.

E

!

A similar change of % into ch appears in Sanskrit—e.g., compare

ithad

ated

vdch-as, of speech, with the nominative vd%, speech.

(iii.) k& change systematically into ¢4 or cheh. This change may be

regarded as the rule of the pronunciation of the lower classes of the

Tamil people in the southern districts. Farther north, and in gram-

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 forma-

g, T

tives of verbs, the double % of the Tamil is replaced regularly by c% in

é’{ﬂ(’ T

Telugu. The following instances of this change are contained even in

0 Tehgx

grammatical Tamil :—kdychchu, to boil, for the more regular kdykku, o> T

39 10

and pdychchu, to irrigate, for paykicu.

A single illustration will suffice

T

to illustrate the perfect conformity in this point between the vulgar

appe:us '

pronunciation of Tamil in the extreme south and the regular gram-

pl i J

matical use of ¢k for &k in Telugu.

Veikka, Tam. to place (infinitive),

poeta/

is pronounced veichcha by the illiterate in the southern Tamil districts ;

g1 !

and in grammatical Telugu the same word is both written and pro-

froed

nounced vercha.

ke

(iv.) % appears sometimes to have changed into &. I cannot adduce

a good instance of this change in the Dravidian languages ; but I

il f&ld !

suspect that the ¢ of some inflexional terminations in Gond (e.9., the

mp“re il

nominative plural of the personal pronouns) has been derived from the

1

i

Tamil . Compare also vdkilz, a doorway, Telugu, with the Malayalam

g ¥

form of the same word, vdtil or vddil.

I am doubtful, however,

aﬂ}lﬂ i

whether this illustration can be depended upon, because the Tamil

form of the same word is vdsal, classically vdyel, from vdy-il, literally

S!‘h “hﬂ

mouth-house. In other families of languages the interchange between

jut L

% and ¢ is not uncommon—e.g., Doric réwog, he, instead of e-xeivos.

fi

i it

2. The palatals : ch or §, j, 7).

g

I class the changes of c#, $, and j together, those letters being in

D

50

SOUNDS.

The only change to which

reality but one in the Dravidian languages.

this letter § or j is liable, is that of being softened into . In words

borrowed by Tamil from Sanskrit, y is optionally used instead of §,

and very commonly instead of j.

Thus rdjd, Sans. a king (in Tamil

rdéd, and with the masculine formative, rd@s$-an), becomes rdy-an.

In

the southern provinces of the Tamil country this change of § into

7 has become a characteristic of the pronunciation of the lower classes.

In those provinces, in all words in which this letter occurs, whether

Sanskrit or Tamil, the § is changed into y—e.g., they say artyi, rice,

instead of arisz.

In Malayilam this becomes ar«.

Dr Gundert thinks

the d of the Tulu pudar, name, derived from the § of the corresponding

Canarese pedar.

If so, we have here a change of § into d.

On comparing Canarese with Tamil, we often find § where we should

have expected y—e.g., hesar (for pesar), Can. a name, instead of peyar,

Tam.

It seems unsafe, however, to assume that in these cases y was

Py

the original and § the corruption.

It may as well be that § was the

original and y the corruption.

The Tamil peyar may therefore be a

softened form of the Canarese hesar (Tulu, pudar), and what renders

this more likely is that the Tamil peyar itself is still further softened

into pér.

In high Tamil, as in Malayalam, the softened form is often

preferred by the poets as more elegant.

It may possibly therefore be

more ancient—e.g., pesm, green, is in both languages more poetical

than pasum. All that is certain with regard to such cases is, that ¥

and § often change places.

The existence, however, of a dialectic

change from § to 7, as apparent especially in the southern districts, is

clearly proved by the change Sanskrit derivatives have undergone.

3. The linguals or cerebrals : ¢, d, n.

(i.) The lingual #, when used as a sonant and pronounced as d, is

sometimes changed into the vocalic » in Tamil—e.g., nddzs, Sans. a

measure, is commonly written and pronounced in Tamil ndys ; and this

is colloquially pronounced nd@l¢ in the southern districts by a further

change of 7 into /.

In old Canarese this Sanskrit d often becomes

7, as in Tamil.

These letters are considered cognate, like 7 and ¥, /

and /.

In Tuda, d becomes r—e.g., ndd-u, a district, becomes ndr.

The counterpart of this change—viz., the change of r into d—is still

more common in the Dravidian languages.

In Telugu there

(See 7.)

are some instances of the change of ¢ into the hard, rough r—e.g.,

chedu, to spoil (Tam. and Can. kedu), should have for its transi-

tive form cheduchu, answering to the Tamil kedukku ; whereas cheruchw

is used instead.

(ii.) =

This lingual nasal is frequently softened in Telugu into

n, the nasal of the dental row.

Tamil, perhaps the most authentic

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

51

hich

representative of the ancient speech of the Dravidians, makes much

fords

use of 7, as well as of the other cerebrals; and the colloquial

of §

Tamil goes beyond the grammatical Tamil in preferring » to =.

ol

Telugu, on the other hand, whilst it uses the other cerebrals freely

i

enough, often prefers n to 7.

Thus it softens the Tamil (and old Dra-

§ o

vidian) words kaz, eye, vin, heaven, man, earth, into kannw, vinnu, and

[nsses

mannu.

It softens even some Sanskrit words in a similar manner—

hether

e.g., in addition to gunpamu, quality, a tatsama word, it uses also the

), it

tadbhava, gonamu.

Malayalam sometimes uses 7 instead of n—

thin

I

i

e.g., minakku, to thee, instead of, but also in addition to, minakku.

onding

On the other hand, it sometimes softens n into n, like Telugu—e.g.,

tuniyu, daring, instead of the Tamil tunpivu,

So also epbadu, eighty,

R

7/

shul

in Tamil, becomes embadu in Malayilam. Tamil in general leaves »

f pfydi‘e

unassimilated to succeeding consonants—thus, pep, Tam. a female, has

;l:;

g 3/‘?&5

become pendu, without change ; but this » is hardened by assimilation

A

s {he

into ¢ in petter, female.

So entu, Can. eight, which must have been

ote b

the original form of the word in Tamil (en, eight, fu, properly du, the

ende

neuter formative), has become in Tamil effu.

The » has disappeared

altogether in peder, for pefter, Tam. female.

softeﬂﬁd

i offed

4. The dentals - ¢, d, n.

il

(i) ¢, or its sonant equivalent d, changes into » in Tamil, especially

between two vowels.

In the interchange of the cerebral d and 7, r

poeﬁtﬁ}

i

sometimes appears to have been the original sound, and d the corrup-

dialecf{t‘

tion ; but in the change which is now referred to, it is d that appears

oSk

o

§

to be the original sound, which is changed into 7.

This change may

arise from the circumstance that the » into which d is altered is pro-

;0119.

nounced very like a dental, and bears a considerable resemblance to

K dl

d. In the southern districts of the Tamil country, the change of d

S

(when preceded and followed by a vowel) into 7 or r is exceedingly

common in the pronunciation of the lower classes; but the same

i

change has in some instances found its way into the written lan-

) furh

guage—e.g., virer, seed, or to sow, instead of the more correct vides.

RNt

heono

In Canarese ad, the inflexional increment, or basis of most of the

fﬁnf‘fﬁ’f'

o

g

oblique cases of certain singular nouns, changes in some instances

s

into ar—e.g., compare id-ar-a, of this, from id-u, this, with mar-ad-a,

i)

of a tree, from mara, a tree.

In this instance the change from d

il it

to 7, or some equivalent change, was obviously required by euphony :

| r/fl

td-ad-a would have been intolerably monotonous, and mar-ar-a not

ol

i

ﬁl

less so. The ar of the Canarese idara is supposed by Dr Cundert

i\

to be the equivalent of the Tamil an in <dan, of this.

Even if this

should be so, the change of & into » in Tamil, especially in the south,

uﬁu v )

is indubitable.

This change (of d into r) is not unknown to the

i

e

02

SOUNDS

North Indian languages; and in that family it is often followed up

Some instances occur in Hin-

by a further change of 7 into ¢

dustani and Bengali—e.g., des, ten, becomes 7e¢k in the compound

numbers, as bd-reh, twelve

An instance of the change of 7 into ¢

is furnished by another compound numeral, sixteen, which is not

s6-reh

but so-leh

The Prakrit also changed d into », as 1s seen

in the instance of the word raha, ten, which has superseded dala,

a softened form of the Sanskrit dade, and which is used instead of

daha at the end of compound numerals.

It seems to me possible,

but not very probable, that in these cases, and also in the use in

Bengali and Mardthi of / instead of d or ¢, as a sign of the pre-

terite and passive participles, we see an evidence of the ancient

prevalence of Dravidian influences in Northern India

It may be

noticed here that the Umbrian also regularly changed d into r—e.g.,

sedes was written seres

As in Tamil, however, this change took

place only when d came between two vowels

This pecu-

(ii.) ¢ or d sometimes changes in Malayélam into ¢

liarity is apparent chiefly in words borrowed from Sanskrit—e.g.,

paltmam, a lotus, from Sans. padma

Paltmandbha, also vulgarly

Palpandba, from Padmandbha, the Travancore name of Vishnu, he

who has a lotus navel;

télparyam, from Sans. tdtparya, purpose.

% The Dravidian ¢ar, pronounced taf, euphonised from tan, its own, the

+

fr

inflexion of tdn, self, is also sometimes pronounced tal. } p e

by

(iii.) ¢ or d sometimes changes into §.

This change appears in Tamil in the optional use of § in the forma-

ki

Wi

tives of nouns, instead of d. Thus, peridu, large, or that which is large

yi

The

is commonly used instead of peridu, the more correct form

vulgar Tamil vayasu, age, is derived, not directly from the Sanskrit

5\

vayas, as might be supposed, but from wvayadw, the regular Tamil

equivalent of vayas

In Telugu, also, d is frequently subject to this

AN

change

In Malayslam ¢ and § interchange, especially in the speech of

)

the vulgar

Dr Gundert mentions a curious instance of this inter-

76>

S

change

The lower classes, he says, sometimes say Sewatte tévikka, to

serve God, instead of tewvatte sévikka

We appear to have a remarkable

v&.ﬂj

instance of the softening of d into §, of § into y, and finally of the

obliteration of the y itself, in the Dravidian word already mentioned

'

signifying a name.

This in Tulu is pudar, in ancient Canarese pesar,

i

aM,

In Tuda

0

in classical Tamil peyar, and finally in modern Tarml per.

‘/""J d sometimes becomes ¢sk (or ck)——-e g., evd-u, Can. five, becomes

D

vtsh.

00

Ui

(iv.) nd changes in Tamil into 7

In this change j must be con-

sidered as identical with §, being the sound which

akes when pre-

ult(

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

53

ceded by a nasal ; and it is always expressed by $ in Tamil.

In this

1)

in

conjunction the dental » changes into #, which is the nasal of the

und

palatal row. The change of nd into 7 especially takes place after the

vowels 7 or e.

In general it is heard in the pronunciation of the lower

it |

classes only ; but in a few instances it has found its way into gramma-

) Hw

§eel

tical compositions—e.g., eindu, five, has changed into eviiju, and this

again, I believe, into a@iju, a form which is found even in the Tamil

loha,

classics. The change of nd into 7ij is classical in Malayalam. (See

adof

the numeral five.)

sl

(v.) tt change into cheh in Tamil after the vowels ¢ and es.

The

g 1l

change to which I refer appears to be one of dd into ¢§, if the form of

. pIE'

the Tamil letters is regarded ; but it has already been explained that

ncitt

sonants become surds when doubled ; and hence dd must be expressed

\?.)’ !Db‘

as ¢f, and § as cheh, this being their pronunciation when in juxtaposi-

’(U’

tion.

The corruption of the double, soft dentals ¢ into the palatals $§,

ok

This

which are represented by chck, is peculiarly easy and natural.

cheh which arises out of ¢, though almost universally characteristic of

pEC\‘v

the pronunciation of the mass of the Tamil people, as distinguished

]

from the literati, is rarely found in grammatical compositions, except

i

in the formatives of derivative nouns, especially after the semi-vowels

1, It

r and r—e.g., unar-chchi, sensation, knowledge, instead of wupar-tte

uypl}sf.

which is more in accordance with analogy. In Malayalam this change

i, e

from ¢ to ¢k not only appears in the pronunciation of the vulgar,

but is the rule of the language after the vowels ¢ and e, and ch is

written as well as pronounced—e.g., compare chirichcha, that laughed,

fomt

with the corresponding Tamil éiritta.

g Jatth ";y'

(vi) = also changes, though still more rarely, into m—e.g., miru,

T

you, in Telugu, appears to have been altered from niru, the form which

lar;sl'fﬁ

answers to the Tamil n%r, and which Telugu analogies would lead us

Talﬁﬁ

to expect. (See the section on ¢ The Pronoun.”)

p

9. The labials : p, b, m.

ot i

(L) p changes in Canarese into /. This remarkable rule applies to

Bl

the initial p of nearly all words in modern Canarese, whether they are

pure Dravidian words or Sanskrit derivatives—e.g., pattu, Tam. ten

(padi, Tel.) is in Canarese hattw.

.’if‘n’f‘f“‘ 4

In like manner, papa, money, a

o ¥

Sanskrit derivative, is in modern Canarese hana. This change of p

ltiﬂfzejl

into % seems to have taken place in comparatively recent times ; for in

: [)f 1)

old Canarese, and in the dialect of the Badagas of the Nilgherries,

i

p almost invariably maintains its ground. A change similar to this is

o

occasionally apparent in the Marathi, the neighbour of the Canarese

on the north ; the Sanskrit participle b4f¢a-s, one who has been, being

g 0

Il

altered in Marsthi to hoto—e.g., hoté-n, I was,

Compare also the

54

SOUNDS.

Prakrit %6-mi, I was, from bldta-sma.

A similar change of p into %

appears in Armenian—e.g., foot is in Armenian /et (for pet), and

father, hayr (for payr)

What is p

It is curious to notice the same change in the far East.

in Chinese became in Japanese first f then %.

(ii.) b, the sonant of p, sometimes changes into m—e.g., pads, Tel.

ten, becomes mids in tom-midi, nine, a compound which the analogy

E

of both Tamil and Telugu would require to be tom-bade ; enbar, they

will say, is often in poetical Tamil enmar ; un-bdn, Tam. being about

to eat, the future verbal participle of uz in classical Tamil, becomes

i

un-mdn in Malayalam.

b is also euphonically added to mm in vulgar

Tamil.

I do not refer to such words as pdmbu, Tam. a snake, as com-

pared with pdmu, Tel. ; for in those instances the m itself is euphonic,

\\

and bu (in Can. vu) is the real formative ; compare Can. Ldvu (pdru),

a snake.

Cases in which the m is radical and the & euphonic occur

plentifully in colloquial Tamil—e.g., kédumes, wheat, commonly pro-

nounced kddumber, from Sans. gédhidma.

(iii.) & is often softened into » in Tamil.

Most transitive verbs in

Tamil form their future tense by means of p or pp,; and in the corre-

sponding intransitives we should expect to find the future formed by

b, the sonant of p. Where the root ends in a nasal consonant, this b

ﬁg

appears ; but where it ends in a vowel, b is ordinarily changed into 2.

(See the section on “ The Verb.”) In some instances in theTamil poets

A

this & of the future is changed, not into », but into m, according to the

i

previous rule.

(iv.) m changes into n.

This change is often apparent in the nomi-

i

natives of neuter nouns in Tamil, the ordinary termination of many of

which is m, but which optionally terminate in n—e.g., pala-n, profit, a

i

derivative from phala, Sans., is more commonly used than pala-m. In

L

Telugu, kola-nu, a tank, answers to the Tamil kula-m.

(v.) m changes into v. mdman, father-in-law, and mdms, mother-in-

law, in Tamil, are softened in Coorg into mdvu and mdvs ; ndm, we, and

nim, you, in ancient Canarese, are softened in the modern colloquial

ama M amuc Care

bt 0 . dialect to ndvu and nivu.

Ci

6. The liguid consonants or semi-vowels: y, r, l, v, r, I, 1.

| q%m"

(i.) v changes into % and ». In some cases, though it is certain that

Thus

y and n interchange, it is uncertain which is the more ancient.

the Dravidian pronoun of the first person is ndn, #dn, ydn, dn; and it

n might be argued either that ydn was derived from ndn, through the

~

4

’»

middle point #dn, or that, through the same middle point, ndn was

be !

derived from ydn.

On examining, however, words borrowed from

Sanskrit, there can be no doubt that in some instances at least y was

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

€

14

)

)

the original and n the corruption.

Thus, yuga, Sans. a yoke, is in

Tamil nugam, and Yama, the god of death, is sometimes ¥ aman,

sometimes Naman.

It is curious to trace the different forms this

word assumes in Tamil. We find Yaman, Eman, ﬁaman, and Naman,

The European word ““anchor” has become in Tamil nangkuram and

el

nangkdram. The change of ¥ into n in yuga and Yama is mentioned

by Tamil grammarians themselves.

B

We have probably an instance of

]

the same tendency in the change of the formative of the Tamil relative

ouf

participle ya (y + a) into na—e.g., $olliya, that said, becomes $ollina,

e

and this $onna.

Joat

(ii.) y sometimes changes into d in Canarese and Tulu—e.g., ddva,

Ol

Can. who, which, what, alternates with gdva ; ddvadu, what thing,

il

with ydvadu.

The latter word is dddavu in Tulu.

0

(iil.) y changes into §. It has been shown that ck, §, and J are soft-

cour

ened into y in Tamil. Notwithstanding this, and in direct opposition

pl'(%

to it, we find in colloquial Tamil, especially in that of the southern dis-

tricts, a tendency also to harden g into §,

Where § ought to be, it is

% ill

pronounced as y, and where y ought to be, it is pronounced as §—e.g.,

o1t

pasi, hunger, is mispronounced by the vulgar pay: ; whilst vayaru, the

belly, is transformed into vadarw.

This change of ¥ into § is not eon-

4ty

s D

fined to the south, though it is more frequently met with there. Even

\t() (3

in Madras, payangal, boys, is pronounced pasangal, and ayal, near, is

not only pronounced but written agal.

The change of y into §, and

poew

o

again conversely of § into 7, might seem to be owing to some peculiar

perversity, but doubtless there is a cause for the change in each case,

and hence it is not always easy to determine which is the original and

ok

i i

which the corruption. Where is used euphonically to prevent hiatus,

it does not change into §.

Oﬁt: 4

, B

¥ is regularly changed to j in Hindi, Panjabi, Bengali, and Oriya ;

less frequently in Marathi, Gujarathi, and Sindhi.

In these three

languages y retains its liquid sound of y. This change is by Vararuchi

ol

confined to initial y. The stress laid on an initial consonant being

) k

greater than that on one in the middle of a word, it is natural that Y

,oquial

should be more often changed to j in the former position than in the

latter.”— Beames, p. 249.

(iv.) 7 changes to r. This, as might be expected, is a very common

i

0 fié

change. What is 7 in one dialect is often r in another, or vice versa.

v

i

o

The following is an example of both sounds interchanging in one

E

.319

ol i

and the same dialect :—In Tamil there are two words for black, karw

i

) e

and karu.

They are now independent, with meanings that some-

AL

what divaricate, but there can be no doubt that they were originally

o

identical.

i

o6

SOUNDS.

th

(v.) 7 changes into /.

r and ! are found to be interchangeable in

Dr Bleek, speaking of the Setshuana

(l

many families of languages.

dialects, remarks, “ One is justified in considering # in these dialects as

Iy

e

a sort of floating letter, and rather intermediate between / and 7 than

a decided 7 in sound.”

In the Dravidian family, this interchange of #

be

and / is one of very common occurrence.

Sometimes is corrupted into

n

7 ; but in a larger number of cases 7 appears to be the original, and [ the

In the case of the distinctively Dravidian 7 and /, the

it

corruption.

change is uniformly of the latter nature; and the change of the ordi-

¢

nary semi-vowel 7 into the corresponding 7, though not uniform, is an

exceedingly common one, and one which may be regarded as a charac-

fin

It

teristic of colloquial Tamil.

It is common in Malayalam also.

it

lot

is especially at the beginning of words in Tamil that this change

occurs, and it takes place as frequently in the case of derivatives from

e

Sanskrit as in the case of Dravidian roots—e.g., rakshi, to save

of

(raksh, Sans.), is pronounced by the vulgar lakshe or lafchi. In the

middle of words 7 is less frequently changed into 7, nevertheless where

sta

Tamil uses » we sometimes find 7 in Telugu—e.g., tert, to appear, in

Sk

This is also the equivalent of the

i

Tamil, becomes telz-yu in Telugu.

Tamil zefz, clear ; but I consider ter¢ and tels, in Tamil, different forms

§ta

of the same root.

Similarly the » of Tamil sometimes becomes 7 in

g

the middle of words in Malayilam—e.g., Tam. pariées, a shield ; Mal.

]

palisa.

i

Seeing that a tendency to change r into 7 still exists and operates

)

in the Dravidian languages, especially in Tamil, it may be concluded

It

that in these ancient roots which are the common property of several

e

families of language, and in which an interchange appears to exist

1ot

between 7 and /, » was the original and / the altered sound—e.g., if the

the

Dravidian %ar-u or kdr, black, is connected, as it evidently is, with the

thy

Sanskrit kdl-a, black, it may be concluded that the Sanskrit form of the

for

Toot is less ancient than the Dravidian ; and this supposition seems to

et

be confirmed by the existence of this root, kar, black, in many of the

to

Scythian languages.

Compare krz, the root of krishna, Sans. black.

th

The fact of the frequency of the interchange between r and ¢ (irre-

spective of the question of priority) would lead us to suspect a remote

)

connection between several sets of Dravidian roots which are now con-

Ve

sidered to be independent of each other—e.g., compare $ir, Tam. small,

iR

with $il, few ; and par (probably another form of per), large, with pal,

th

many. Another form of i, small, is $in.

b

(vi.) 7 changes into 7.

Whilst the ordinary change is that of » into

W

I, the change of [ into » is occasionally met with, and forms one

g

of the peculiarities of Tulu.

Tulu generally changes the final ¢ of

1

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

o7

the other Dravidian languages into r—e.g., »¢/, Tam. a bow (billx,

Can.) becomes in Tulu ber.

In this instance it cannot be doubted that

[ was the original termination of the word, for we find the same root

west of the Indus in the Brahui 6¢lla, a bow. A similar interchange

between / and » takes place in Central Asia.

The { of Manchu is »

in Mongolian.

6

(vii.) I sometimes changes into r—e.g., compare 7/, Tam. to stand,

16

with neruttu, to cause to stand.

I

In Zend and old Persian, / was unknown, and 7 was syétematically

il

used instead.

In Telugu, lu, the pluralising suffix of nouns, is some-

times changed into 7u.

This change, however, of / into 7 is not syste-

[t

matic, as in Tulu, but exceptional. In Tamil, / is euphonically changed,

{7

not into 7, but into r before all hard consonants—e.g., palpala, various,

becomes in written compositions parpala.

This proves that a change

(¢

of 7 into » is not contrary to Tamil laws of sound.

In-

he

“l is constantly changed to » in Sindhi when non-initial.

stances are—Sans. kdla, black, Sind. kdrd,; Sans. sthala; place,

616

1l

Sind. tharw. In the Prakrits the reverse is the case ; in nearly all the

the

dialects except the principal or Mah4rashtri, » is changed into Z. This

I8

statement is made among others of the Magadhi dialect.

In the

In

modern Magadha country, that is, in Southern Bihar, however, the

tendency is decidedly the other way; and throughout the Eastern

il

Hindi area, from Oudh to the frontier of Bengal, the rustics constantly

pronounce 7 where / is the correct sound.

rofe3

This I can testify from

personal observation during many years’ residence in these parts. Thus

uled

‘vel‘ﬂl

we ordinarily hear karid for kdld, black ; and this peculiarity may be

noticed occasionally in the speech of the lower orders in other parts of

st

the Hindi area, as, for instance, in Marwari, chdrnd, to wander, for

f 06

h the

chalnd.. In old Hindi poems many instances may be found, as Jangar

for jangal, forest, and the like.

In fact, so great is the confusion

)f the

s 10

between these two letters, that they may in some parts of India be said

to be used indifferently, and the speakers appear to be unconscious that

i fhe

I

they are saying 7 instead of . . . . .

jie

“The semi-vowel r is a very persistent letter, and is never ejected or

(it

elided. In Prakrit it is changed into (in certain words). There is

olt

7 0

very little tendency to change » into Z in the Indians of the present

day. The tendency, as I stated under 7, is rather the other way,

il

though writers on the Prakrits affirm that in all the minor dialects # is

)l

changed into /. As far as it concerns the real origin and root-form of

words, the matter is one of little moment.

If it be true that the

f ]‘Hto

cerebral sounds were not originally distinguished from the dentals, then

g 0If

it must follow that the semi-vowels of the respective groups were

1]01

g

58

SOUNDS.

identical.

If there was a time when d was the same as d, there must

§

also have been a time when 7 was not sounded differently from 7, and

just as in the present day we find that there exists confusion between

)

!

d and d, ¢ and ¢, so we are prepared to find that there is in the minds

of the lower classes, in many provinces, a tendency to use » and / as the

Iy

same sounds.

il

It is of no import, then, whether we take » as the

original and / as the corruption, or wvice versa.

We have no right to

assume that the form found in classical Sanskrit is the true and

original one ; rather, in the present state of our knowledge, we should

(i

be disposed to be very sceptical upon this point.”—Beames, pp.

fo

247-250.

e

(viil.) 7 changes in the language of the Kus to d. The change of ¢

into { is common enough, but the regular change of / into ¢ is peculiar

B

to this idiom—e.g., pdlu, Tel. milk, is in Ku pddu; llu, house, is

In

eddu.

Compare also the change of the Sanskrit / into ¢ in the North

1t

Indian vernaculars—e.g., #dlz, the intoxicating juice of the palmyra

palm, is in those vernaculars #dd%, whence the word used by the

(0

English, toddy. The Telugu name of the tree is ¢ddw, equivalent to

P

the Hindi ¢dd or ¢dy.

Lwt 1

di

(ix.) The » and 7 and the 7/ and { of the other dialects change in

Inf

the dialect of the Tudas to rsk, 2k, and lzsh.

1§ ¢

(x.) v is generally hardened in Canarese into b in the beginning of

tha

‘Where

vk

a word—e.g., vdy, Tam. to flourish, becomes in Canarese bdl.

thi

» is not changed into b, viz., in the middle of words, Canarese gene-

il

s

rally softens it into w.

The same softening is sometimes observed

0

in the prenunciation of the lower classes of Tamilians.

In Malayélam

0y

the sound of v stands midway between the English v and .

This

-

b soft sound is common in colloquial Tamil also.

0y

o WAD

(xi.y The » euphonic of Tamil is sometimes changed into ¢ in

()]

' Telugu.

Both y and v are used euphonically to prevent hiatus in

1y

Tamil ; so in Telugu ¢ is sometimes used not only instead of v, but

f

i

also instead of y. Compare Tam. aru-(v)-ar, six persons, with the

Kol g

Tel. dru-(g)-uru.

Compare also gdru, Tel. honorific singular (really

(Y

/977

This will

plural) suffix, with vdru, he (they), its more correct form.

T

perhaps explain the occasional use of g instead of » as the sign of

th

the future tense in high Tamil—e.g., Seygén, instead of Seyvén, I

1n

will do.

Iy

(xil.) v appears to change into m in MalayAlam. It has already been

i

mentioned that & in Tamil sometimes becomes m in Malayilam—

th

e.g., Tam. un-bdn, about to eat, is in Mal. up-mdn—Dbut it is doubtful

whether this might not rather be represented as a change of v into

|

m—e.g., where Tamil has kdn-bdn, about to see (the future verbal

i

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

59

st

participle), Malayilam uses optionally either kdnu-vdn or kdvp—n?;dn,'

and

so where Tamil says wvdrvavan (or vdrbavan), he who flourishes,

fi

eell

Malayalam says either vdrvavan or vdrumavan.

Here, in so far as

Tl

1inds

1 A IAA

Malayalam itself is concerned, b disappears, and the interchange is

34

he

between » and m.

I have noticed, also, an interchange between

o

g §

he

v and m in the Finno-Ugrian languages; m in Finnish is v in

bt to

Hungarian,

and

(xiii.) 7 (the peculiar vocalic 7 of Tamil) interchanges with five

ould

different consonants.

Sometimes it becomes n—e.g., mirugu, Tam.

) PP

to sink, is changed in Telugu to mupugu; and kure, Tam. a hole,

becomes in Canarese kuna.

Ordinarily 7 is changed in Telugu into

N

of d

It

d. Neither Telugu nor modern Canarese possesses the Tamil 7.

uliar

is found, however, in old Canarese, of which it is a distinctive sign.

,

In a very few instances Telugu uses 7 or / instead of 7, sometimes

l!

North

it omits the consonant altogether, without using a substitute, but in

lmye

a large majority of instances it converts » into d.

7 is ordinarily

0y the

converted in Canarese into /, and the same change characterises the

ot

¢ll

pronunciation of the mass of the Tamil people in the southern

districts of the country.

In Malayilam » is sometimes converted

into /, but more frequently into 4.

Thus Malayirma (Malay4lam)

nge 1

is often written and pronounced Malayiyma.

In Tulu, is generally

yif

In Canarese

i

changed into r—e.g., Tam. porudu, time, Tulu, pordu.

[hert

this » is assimilated—e.g., ottu (pottu) for the Tulu pordau.

Compare

P gene

also the Telugu poddu.

We thus find s~ interchanging with =,

d, I, y, and 7, and lastly assimilating itself to the succeeding con-

»baeﬂed

il

sonant,

Iﬂ)ﬂu

T

This change of 7 into [, and the previous one of # into d, form the

constituents of an important dialectic law. 'That law is, that the same

o 0

consonant which is 7 in Tamil is generally d in Telugu, and always [ in

modern Canarese.

Thus a fowl is k6r-¢ in Tamil, k6d-2 in Telugu, and

Jatus

1l

kol in Canarese.

The numeral seven is ér-u in Tamil, é/-« in Telugu,

f 1 i

8 Sl

and é/-« in Canarese

In the compound numeral élndru, seven hun-

dred, the Telugu éd-u is found to change, like the Canarese, into él-w.

r (reauf

s il

The word signifying time which is included in the adverbial nouns

then and now (literally that time and this time), is in Tamil poru-du,

, Sl{fﬂ OI

in Telugu prodd-u or podd-w, then pud-w, and in Malayilam pél.

/)

Wﬂ' I

In the last instance, however, Malayilam uses ! only when final.

When followed by a vowel it is 7, as ippérum, appdrum, now and

then.

It thus appears that / and d are as intimately allied as ¢ and

g

y&

x

This is a point of some importance in the affiliation of languages,

for an interchange of @ and [ is characteristic of the Ugrian family of

foll

languages, as well as of the Dravidian family and the North Indian ver-

el

-

60

SOUNDS.

naculars. The same word is written with ¢ or d in Ostiak, and with

! in Magyar and Finnish.

(I

A corresponding interchange is ocasionally observed even in the

Indo-European languages—e.g., compare dexguwe, a tear, with lachryma.

(0

Similar changes in several of the modern Romance dialects might also

fr

be adduced, but in those languages it is rarely met with, whereas it is

W]

a characteristic dialectic sign of several families of tongues belonging to

n

the Scythian group.

I

(xiv.) r (the strong rough r of Tamil) is frequently changed in Tulu

o7 o

il

into j—e.g., miiru, the original form of mdndru, Tam. three, becomes

of

4

malji; aru, Tam. six, becomes dj.

It changes also in Tulu into d—

w

Th

e.g., nidu, one hundred, instead of niiru.

It changes still more fre-

%

al(

quently into the soft 7. The tendency of Tulu appears, therefore, to be

)

to soften down this hard sound. This change of 7 into j, the equi-

il

valent of ¢ is directly the converse of the change of s into r, which is

it

143,

s0 common in the Indo-European tongues.

T&

(xv.) This strong r sometimes changes in Tamil into n—e.g., pir in

16

o\ piragu, afterwards, is identical with pin, afterwards ; $ir-u, little, is

1§

\:‘F"\ i de

2

tical with sinn-a, little.

10

2

vi.) 7 changes in Tulu into n—eg., kén, to hear, replaces the

ol mo

7 v

@l

‘

.

b

14

. Tam.-Can. %él.

So also kol, to take, to buy, Tam.-Can., becomes in

77

(g

I

,,,,Ju';; Tulu kon. In Telugu the latter word becomes kon-w. Even in Tamil

Tiy

the [ of kol is euphonised into 2 in the gerund kon-du.

P!

9,

it

(xvii.) ! sometimes changes in Malayalam into 7, and this again

g

i

into . The name of the country and language is an instance of this.

W

w

7Y

drma is for dlma (euphonised in Tamil into dnmer), from @/, to rule,

i

to possess.

It has already been shown that Malaydrma becomes also

Malayayma.

lan

i

Having now finished the consideration of the dialectic changes which

X3

pure Dravidian consonants undergo, it remains to point out the changes

which take place in the Sanskrit sibilants, when words in which they

i

Al

occur are borrowed from Sanskrit by Tamil

1. sh.

The hard, lingual sibilant of Sanskrit is unknown to

g

oby

classical Tamil.

Sometimes it is changed into §, a change which ordi-

an

narily takes place at the present day in the pronunciation of the lower

classes in the southern districts.

sh is sometimes, though rarely, con-

e

als

verted in Tamil into s,

Dr Gundert supplies me with some instances

al

of this in old MalayAlam—e.g., kshaya, Sans. loss, is in old Mal

written kirayam, and the name ZLakshmanan in an old copy of the

il

oy

Ramayana is written Zlarkkanan. Here rkk stands for ksh.

Some-

times sh is assimilated to a succeeding n—e.g., the name Vishpu

becomes sometimes, both in poetical Tamil and in Malayalam, Vinau.

i

i

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

61

This name appears also in poetical.TamiI as Vipdu, a word which

denotes the wind as well as Vishnu.

16

Dr Gundert identifies the »tn of

Vingu, Vishnu, with the Tam.-Mal. word vip, sky, a true Tamil word

I

50

connected with the root v/, to be bright.

The derivation of Vishnu

1§

from v2f and wip looks very tempting, but I fear Sanskrit lexicographers

will refuse to yield to the temptation.

Most commonly s/ is converted

fo

in Tamil into ¢d. This ¢ is sometimes softened down into the dental d,

lit

Thus, manushya, Sans. man, becomes in classical Tamil mdnida-n ;

and this by a further change becomes manida-n. A very old example

16§

L—

of the change of the Sanskrit sk into ¢, in Tamil, can be adduced.

IC

The month A shddha, Sans. July—August, has become in Tamil Ade;

and this change dates probably from the earliest period of the cultiva-

e

1

tion of the Tamil language.

In Taisha, January—February, the hard

sh, instead of being changed, has been discarded altogether : the Tamil

|18

name of this month, as far back as the literature reaches, has been

Ter

i

2. s. The hissing sibilant of Sanskrit, answering to our English s,

i

is ordinarily in Tamil converted into d, the sonant of ¢, which is pro-

fle

nounced as ¢4 in that—e.g., mdsam, Sans. a month, becomes in classi-

cal Tamil mddam (mdatham) ; and manas, the mind, becomes manad-u

9 il

(manath-v). In this conversion of the Sanskrit s into d (or ¢4) in

'anﬂ

Tamil, there is a change from the sibilant to the dental, which is

exactly the reverse of that change from the dental to the semi-sibilant

oall

which has already been described.

thi

¢“If asked to account for the connection between two sounds at first

rulpy

sight so widely opposed, I would refer to similar conditions in other

o

languages, as, for instance, the substitution of r for ¢ in Attic Greek, as

péMrTa, daharra, for pihsoa, daradoa.

Among modern languages, the

Jled

example of the Spanish may also be adduced, where ¢ before the

ges

palatal vowels e and ¢ is pronounced as tk.

From the same cause

they

arises that defect in speaking called a lisp, which renders some English-

men unable to pronounce sibilants or palatals otherwise than as half-

b

obscure linguals.

But whereas in England this is only an individual

i

and personal peculiarity, in Spanish it becomes a law.

The people of

o ()

Madrid all lisp, not only in pronouncing ¢ and z, but also in s.

So

(on

also, to go to a different age and family of languages, the Chaldeans

q0es

and Syrians lisp the Semitic sk, as in Heb. shdlosh, Chal. telath, Syriac

il

tloth, three.”— Beames, p. 216. Mr Beames goes on to explain physio-

fhe

logically the origin of this tendency to change s into

e

When s happens to be the first consonant of a Sanskrit derivative, it is

lsl!l”

sometimes omitted in Tamil altogether—e.g., sandhyd, evening, becomes

l'}'ll'm,

ande; sthdnam, a place, becomes ¢tdnam. More commonly in modern

62

SOUNDS.

Tamil an 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., istire

$, the soft sibilant of Sanskrit, sometimes

(strt, Sans.), a woman.

|

passes through similar changes.

Generally it is represented by the

corresponding § or ¢k of the Dravidian languages, but sometimes it is

i

converted, like the harder s, into ¢, as in the very ancient derivative

tiru, sacred, for Sré. Sometimes it is discarded altogether, especially

when compounded with ». Thus, Srdvana, the month of August—

f

September, is in Tamil 4vani. The Malayalam Onam, the ceremony of

the month Srdvana, carries this change further still.

This change,

(!

The Sanskrit sibilant never changes into 7 in Tamil.

though very common in languages of the Indo-European family, rarely,

(

if ever, appears in the Dravidian. It may be conjectured, but cannot

d

be proved to have taken place. The Tamil-Canarese root AT, 50 be

If

originally to sit (in Brahui ar), may be allied to the Indo-European

substantive verb, best represented by the Sanskrit as.® The Tamil

plural of rational beings ar, resembles the Sanskrit epicene nominative

plural as; and perhaps, though more doubtfully still, the Tamil uru,

iron, euphonised into #ru-mbu, may be compared with the Sanskrit

5

ayas, and the English word ¢ron (which is allied to ayas, through the

change of s into ), though I prefer connecting this word with the Tamil

il

root ¢r, dark.

of

e

Evpsonic PerMuTsTION OF CoNsonants,—The permutation of

(i

consonants for euphonic reasons, though it throws less light on the

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;

and the permutations which the grammar of Tamil requires or

§

I

allows are at least twice as numerous, and more than twice as per-

i

plexing to beginners, as those of Sanskrit.

On examining the permu-

b

tations of consonants prescribed in the classical grammars of Tamil,

Telugu, and Canarese—the three principal languages of this family

—it is evident that a considerable proportion of them are founded

upon Sanskrit precedents.

Another class in which Sanskrit rules

of euphony have been, not imitated, but emulated and surpassed, may

be regarded rather as prosodial than as grammatical changes.

But

l

* This is affirmed, but I think too positively, by Mr Gover (Cornhill Magazine

for November 1871, “ Dravidian Folk-Songs ).

“ Tamil and Telugu (qu. Cana-

rese ?) possess at the present day the complete verb which has left such traces in

our language as are, art, and were.”

DIALECTIC INTERCHANGES.

63

wel

after these have been eliminated, a certain number of euphonic per-

s

mutations remain, which are altogether peculiar to these languages,

Imes

and which proceed from, and help to illustrate, their laws of sound.

the

It will suffice to notice a few of those permutations; for the subject is

i

too wide, and at the same time not of sufficient importance, to allow us

afive

to enter here on a minute investigation of it.

ally

1. In dvandva compounds, ¢.e., in nouns which are united together,

not by copulative conjunctions, but by a common sign of plurality (in

;ust—

the use of which common sign the Dravidian languages resemble, and

ny f

probably imitate, the Sanskrit), if the second member of the compound

commences with the first or surd consonant of any of the five vargas

g,

(viz., k, ch, or §, ¢, t, p), the surd must be changed into the correspond-

rely,

ing sonant or soft letter.

In those Dravidian languages which have

o

adhered to the alphabetical system of Sanskrit, as Telugu and Cana-

0 bel

rese, this conversion of the surd into the sonant is carried into

0{]63.11

effect and expressed by the employment of a different character.

In

Tonl

Tamil, in which the same character is used to represent both surds and

native

il it

sonants, a different character is not employed, but the softening of the

first consonant of the second word is always apparent in the pronunci-

s

ation.

This peculiar rule evidently proceeds from the Dravidian law

1gh fhe

that the same consonant which is a surd at the beginning of a word

) szlﬂ

should 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 medial by position.

The existence of this rule in Telugu and

tion 0

Canarese, notwithstanding the Sanskrit influences to which they have

0l i

been subjected, proves that the law of convertibility of surds and

of oF

sonants is not confined to Tamil.

ea, ol

All the Dravidian dialects agree in softening the initial surd of the

second member of dvandva compounds; but with respect to com-

pires

pounds in which the words stand to one another in a case-relation—e. 7.

substantives of which the first is used adjectivally or to qualify the

p perﬂlU

second, or an infinitive and its governing verb—Telugu pursues a

(1

aﬂhv

different course from Tamil.

The rule of Telugu is, that when words

Al

g fin)f

belong to the druta class, including all infinitives, are followed by

founded

any word commencing with a surd consonant, such consonant is to

Il

f !

8

be converted (as in dvandva compounds) into its soft or sonant equiva-

‘Ded} mai

lent. The rule of Telugu on this point resembles that of the Lappish,

£

Bui

and still more the rule of Welsh; and it has been observed that

Welsh, possibly through the pre-historic influence of Finnish, is the

most Scythic of all the Indo-European languages.

v Magﬂ i

It is curious that in combinations of words which are similar to

09

i

il

those referred to above, and uniformly after infinitives in a, Tamil,

64

SOUNDS,.

,/WM

instead of softening, doubles and hardens the initial surd-sonant of the

succeeding word. Tamil also invariably doubles, and consequently

hardens, the initial surd of the second member of tat-purusha com-

pounds, z.e., compounds in which the words stand in a case-relation to

each other,

In such combinations, Canarese, though it is less care-

ful of euphony than either Tamil or Telugu, requires that the initial

surd of the second member of the compound shonld be softened :

it requires, for instance, that Awle togalu, a tiger’s skin, shall be

written and pronounced Aule dogalu.

Tamil, on the contrary, requires

the initial surd in all such cases to be hardened and doubled—e g.,

the same compound in Tamil, viz., pule t6l, a tiger’s skin, must be

written and pronounced, not puls dél, but puli-(¢)tol.

This doubling

and hardening of the initial is evidently meant to symbolise the transi-

tion of the signification of the first word to the second ; and it will

be seen that this expedient has been very frequently reso

rted. to by

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 kdy kombu, a wither-

ing branch, with k@y-(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 Sanskrit, and has probably been arranged in imitation of it.

Nevertheless there are some exceptions which may be regarded as dis-

tinctively Dravidian, and which are founded upon Dravidian laws of

‘sound—e.g., the mutation of / into n in various unexpected combina-

i

tions.

Through this tendency to nasalisation, pél-da, like, becomes

0

pon-da, or rather pon-dra; kol-da, taken, bought, becomes kon-da,

and the latter euphonic mutation has found its way in Telugu into the

[

root itself, which is kon-u, to buy, instead of the older Tamil %o,

Tulu also is kon.

It does not appear to have been noticed even by

W

Tamil grammarians, that /, in a few instances, has been converted into

i

n before k. Thus ndn-ku, pronounced ndn-gu, four, is derived from

ndl-ku, an older form of the word ; and Panguni, the Tamil name of

d

the month of March-April, has been altered from the Sanskrit Phal-

guna.

In Telugu a corresponding tendency appears in the change of 7

into » before f—e.g., 1lts, of a house, is softened into snfs. In all these

b

cases { is undoubtedly the original ; and these proofs of the priority of

)

l to n corroborate the suspicion that the Latin alius is older than its

Sanskrit equivalent anyas.

{

A rule of the Tuda, which seems to arise from considerations of

k

euphony, may here be noticed.

th and sk seem to be euphonically

S

| c[o'#w

.EUPHONIC NUNNATION.

65

the

inserted between / and % and 7 and k—e.g., nilthken, I stand, and

ity

ershken, I am, where we should have expected nilken and erken.

om-

140

EUPHONIC‘ NUNNATION OR NASALISATION.—Much use is made in

e

\itial

the Dravidian languages, especially in Tamil and Telugu, of the nasals

ng, @, n, n, and m (to which some add = or m, the half anuswdra of

el

the Telugu), for the purpose of euphonising the harder consonants of

| be

each varga.

All the nasals referred to, with the exception of the Aals

1res

anuswdra, which is an inorganic sound, are regarded by native gram-

£ (y

marians as modifications of the sound of m ; the nature of each modifi-

' be

cation being determined by the manner in which m is affected by

ling

succeeding consonants.

In Tamil, as in Sanskrit, all those modifica-

nsi-

tions are expressed by the nasal consonants which constitute the final

will

characters of each of the five vargas.

In Telugu and Canarese one and

) by

the same character, which is called anuswdra, but which possesses a

greater range of power than the anuswdra of the Sanskrit, is used to

\verd

represent the whole of the nasal modifications referred to.

The pro-

mes @

nunciation of this character, however, varies so as to accord with the

rither-

succeeding consonant, as in Tamil.

The nunnation, or nasalisation, of the Dravidian languages is of three

kinds.

i

d it

1. The first kind of nunnation is used to a greater extent in Tamil

101 )

than in any other dialect.

It consists in the insertion of a nasal before

PN dl

the initial consonant of the formative suffix of many nouns and verbs

Ll\‘?a 0l

The formative syllable or suffix, the nature of which will be explained

Wﬂnblm

more particularly in the succeeding section, is added to the crude root

i

of the verb or noun, and constitutes the inflectional theme, to which

fdly

the signs of inflection are annexed. The nasalised formative is used in

|

10

i

Tamil in connection with the intransitive form of the verb and the

:

igolated form of the noun.

pil

When the verb becomes transitive, and

when the noun becomes adjectival, or is placed in a case-relation to

oyel j

ol 10

some other noun, the nasal disappears, and the consonant to which it

ed il

il

was prefixed—the initial consonant of the formative—is hardened and

il

doubled.

(el

al

I

it

)

The nasal is modified in accordance with the nature of the initial

it P

consonant of the formative suffix : it becomes ng before % or g n

it if

L

¢0

before §, ch, or j; 2 before ¢ or d,; n before ¢t or d,; and m before P

or b.

oy

The Telugu uses the anuswdra to express all these varieties of

sound ; and the half anuswdra in certain other cases.

haﬂ i

(i) Of the use of the first nasal ng, to emphasise and euphonise the

o

formative suffix i or g-u, the Tamil affords innumerable examples.

One verb and noun will suffice—e.g., ada-ngu, to refrain oneself, to

B

66

SOUNDS

keep in, is formed from the root ada, by the addition of the formative

il

intransitive suffix gu, which is euphonised into ngw

kd-ngger, heat, is

0l

from kd or kdy, to burn (in Telugu kd-gu) ; with the addition of the

[

suffix gez, euphonised into ngge

The final ¢ is nasalised, not only in

the case of the addition of the formative, but sometimes also when 1t 1s

The

[/

radical—e.g., from pag-u, to divide, we have pang-u, a portion.

it

tendency of the Tamil to the nasalisation of this comsonant may be

13

illustrated by its treatment of a Sanskrit word.

Sans. szma]ca (from

oy suna) a. d’ty has become in Tamil (with the masculine termination an)

Do

1§

[

Sunagan, then $unangan, then by a further change (« being pronounced

tiy

like o before 7 followed by @) $énangi

The insertion of the nasal before % or g probably accounts for the

ot

shape of the Tamil adverbs, or rather nouns of place, angu, there, ingu

ver

here, engu, where

The demonstrative and interrogative bases «, ¢, and

10}

K

e are followed by hu or gu, the Tamil dative case sign, or rather sign

Plo

of direction, whence agu (b becoming g before a vowel) is nasalised into

(a

M angu. Dr Gundert prefers to derive these nouns of place from the

big

(supposititious) demonstrative nouns am and ¢im, and the interrogative

()

;35/

noun em, which last still survives in Tamil in the shape of en—e.g., €n,

he

én, what, why ; and takes in Telugu the shape of émz

By the addition

K

of the directive Ahu to these nouns, am, &c., they would naturally be-

F{I/

come angu, &

I recognise distinct traces of these supposititious

i

the

demonstrative nouns am or an and um or +n in formatives Of nouns 1n

the inflectional movements, and in the case signs, as will be seen under

]]I|r

each of those heads, probably also they are the bases of the poetical

e

Tamil equivalents of angu, &c.—viz., ambar, there, tmbar, here, embar,

s

i

It

where

Still T feel doubtful whether in angu, &c

we are to recognise

those demonstrative nouns

0r

If we compare ydngu, Tam. where, a

hy

poetical form of engw with ydndu, another noun.of place and time,

which appears to me to be derived from yd, one of.the interrogative

an

bases, and du, the formative, nasalised into ndw, as will' be seen under

oy

thex

the next head, it will appear probable that #dngu has been.formed in

oy

this manner, and if ydngu, then also angu, tngu, poetical, and angu,

mgu, and engu, the common forms

Besides, if we compare these

by

Tamil adverbial forms with the Gond adverbs aga, there

7a, here

Lt}

iy

wnga, now, hihe, hither, hoke, thither, with the Canarese dga, dgalu,

g

then, iga, now, ydviga, when, hdge, in that manner, lige, in this man-

ner, alternating with their nasalised form Adnge and Ainge,; and with

Sy

the Coorg akka, then, <kka, now, ekka, when (remembering that de-

P[(

monstrative nouns of time and place are in these languages more or

Ty

Iy

less equivalent—e.g., in Tamil, dndu means either there or then), we

shall conclude, I think, that the primitive form of the Tamil adverbial

Iy

D

EUPHONIC NUNNATION

6

7

5

noun angu, there Wlth its companions, was agu, and that ahgu is

on]y an instance of the fondness of the Tamil for nasalisation.

(See

“ Demonstratives, their use as Adverbs @

1§

(ii.) Instances of the euphonic use of the nasal of the second varga

6

» are more common in Telugu than in Tamil.

Thus, pasich-u, Tel. to

7

d1v1de is derived ‘from pag-u, Tam. (changed into pach-u, and then

nasalised into panch—u) and is analogous to the Tamil noun PANG-U, &

portion, derived from the same verbal root :

retti-iichu, Tel. to double,

)

o

is an example of the use of the euphonic nasal by verbs of the trahsi-

tive class—a class in which that nasal is not used by any. Other dlalect

It

but the Telugu.

(iii.) The cerebrals ¢ and d are not used

s formative suffixes of

,

I

verbs, though some verbal roots end in those consonants ; but they are

N

not unfrequently used as formatives of neuter nouns—e.g., tra-d-u, the

\()

probable original of the Tamil numeral two corresponding to the

the

Canarese era-du, has been euphonised to ira-pd-u

The Tamil adver-

bial nouns d-nd-u, there, i-nd-u, here, yd-nd-u, where, are derived from

\[3

a and

the demonstrative bases, and yd, the interrogative base, with

t,

the addition of the usual neuter formative d-u,

euphonised to 7ndu.

flon

dea’u where, when, is used also to signify a year ; ; another form is

'be

Ydnder.

In cotimon Tamil the word for year is dndu, but ydndu, is

1008

the iorm T have invariably found in inscriptions.

dndu, a_year, the

5 10

more recent word (or rather the obsolete form of this word dnder), is

nder

the origin of the word dffe, annual—e.( 9., Aiteikkarmam, Tam. and

Lﬁl

Mal. an annual ceremony.

The omission of the nasal 7 f10m the word

i '

d¢ter shows that-the nasal is a portion, not of the roat, but of the

s

formatlve and that it is merely euphonic in origin.

lwe adJectlval

\le’ &

shape * of a noun, or th%t Wthh appears in the 1nﬂec’r10n, may be re-

fie

garded, as a general rule, as its oldest shape.

Compare ¢ratter, Tam.

Afive

double from randu, two, with the Canarese eradu, two.

We see,

uﬂdﬂf

therefore, that the original shape of the noun of place or time under

el

conslderation was not dpdu, but ddu.

What seems to place this

il

beyond doubt 1s the fact that in Telugu the ¢ of these words is not

st

nasalised in ordinary writing, and only slightly nasalised in pronuncia-

tion.

et

They are dda, ida, éda, there, here, where ;

and the last word,

,”](L] Il.

¢da, changed to édu, is used like the correspondmcr Tamil ydng

du, to

ol

signify a year.

[lt will be shown under the head of the Interrog:

ative

| \&Hh

Pronouns,” that the Tamil 4 74 takes also the weaker form of ¢, and in

f 0

Telugu ¢.] We see the same primitive, unnasalised form of these de-

monstrative nouns in the Tulu ade, thither, ¢de, hither, ode, whither.

o

In Telugu a large number of masculine formatives in d-1 receive in

gl

pronunciation the obscure nasal n—e.g., for vddu-lu or vdd-lu

they.

68

SOUNDS.

f

A)“z’dndilu is commonly used. On comparing the Tamil ka;’azzdi, a

P

¥

spoon, with garite, the Telugu form of the same word, we find that

w sometimes the nasal is used of one dialect and rejecfed by another.

;(

{

fl

(iv.) We see an example of the euphenic use of #, the nasal of the

dental varga, in the intransitive verb tru-nd-u, Tam. to become correct,

from tiru, the radical base, and du, the formative, euphonised inte

0

An

ndw - the transitive form of the same verb is firu-ttu, to correct.

[t

i

example of the nasalisation of a noun of this class is found in maru-

ndu, Tam. a medicinal drug, medicine, which is derived from marw,

fragrant, with the addition of the formative du, euphonised to ndu—

I,

[y

Tulu and ancient Canarese, mardu, modern Canarese, maddu. We find,

I think, the same euphonic nasalisation in the Tamil demonstrative

p

adjectives anda, that, inda, this, enda, which. These appear to have

The

fn

been formed from the ‘neuter demonstrative pronouns ad-u, td-u, and

the interrogative e-du, by the insertion of the euphonic nasal (as was

i

probably done also in the case of angu, &c., and dndu, &c.), with the

fhe

addition of «, the sign of the relative participle, so frequently used in

e

ad-w would thus

the formation of vadjectives (see ““ Adjectives,”

1?\1};\

become and-a by an easy process.

Dr Gundert derives these adjec-

g

)

tives from am, ¢m, &c., the demonstrative nouns referred ‘to in the

previous paragraph, and da, the formative of relative parti¢iples. This

Py

relative formative, ‘however, is not da, but only e, and it would be

betW\

The demonstrative base am

necessary to put Dr Gundert’s case thus.

[’Tme

was developed into andu, by the addition of du, the neuter formative ;

lin}

and this and-u, by the addition of the relative participle sign @, became

fot}

and-a.

A confirmation of this view might be found in the Telugu

The

andu; there, which is also the sign of the locative case, and vndu, here,

LEN

as compared with the Canarese inda (originally, as we know, ¢m), the

iy

sign of the instrumental, but a locative case sign originally. This view

ﬂJbo

is very plausible, but on the whole I prefer adhering to the view 1

li)

have already taken, which accords with a still larger number of parallel

Mala;

instances of Tamil nasalisation.

The Tulu demonstrative pronoun #ndu

liy]

or undu, it (prox.), corroborates this view. It is simply a nasalised

Gl

form of the Tam. and Can. 7du (prox.), udu (intermediate). The

g I

Tamil andru, indru, &ec., that day, this day, &c. (Can. andu, indu),

may also be euphonisations of adu and idu, that and this ; though this

Loy i

euphonisation would be more in aceordance with rule if they were

g

formed from demonstrative nouns in a/ and ¢/, the existence of which

i By

we may surmise, but of which T can discover no distinet proof.

Com-

):Qﬂr.z

pare, however, the Canarese alli, ills, elli, there, here, where, which

Ty

may either be derived from supposed demonstrative nouns, al, ¢, €l, or

it

from the demonstrative bases of those nouns, a, 7, ¢, prefixed to &, an

ra\vi

EUPHONIC NUNNATION,

69

altered form of the Tamil ¢/, a house, which is used, as /¢ is in Canar-

I

ese, as a locative case sign.

The Tamil wttres, to-day, a secondary

form of wndru, to-day (also the corresponding attrer, that day, and

the

ettrer, what day), would seem to indicate the origin of ¢ndra, &c.,tfrom

etf,

a root ¢/ or «r, from which <ttres, &c., would naturally proceed like

nto

Compare wndru, Tam. there is not, and

ottrer, single, from or or or.

An

andru, it is not, which are regularly derived from the negative bases

Il

: 2l and «l.

Ml

(v.) Many examples of the éuphonio insertion of m before the suffix

=

in b might be adduced, but the following will suffice : #ru-mbu, to

find,

turn (intransitively), of which the root is unquestionably #ru, as

A1V

appears from the corresponding Telugu #iru-gu and Canarese #iru-vu.

have

The Tamil form of the transitive of the same verb is &ru-pp-u, to turn.

and

An example of a similar insertion of euphonic m before the forma-

W

‘tive b of a noun is seen in eru-mbu, Tam. an ant, when compared with

The formatives nd-w and mbu

1 the

the equivalent Canarese word wru-ve.

od 10

are extremely common terminations of Tamil nouns ; and with few, if

| f

hlla

any exceptions, wherever those terminations appear, they will be found

e

on examination to be euphonised suffixes to the root.

in the

2. The second use to which the euphonic nasal is put is altogether

This

peculiar to the Tamil.

It consists in the insertion of an euphonic »

between the verbal theme and the ¢, which constitutes the sign of the

il b

]

preterite of a very large number of Tamil verbs.

The same d ordi-

DQ

as0 0

narily forms the preterite in ancient Canarese, and it is not unknown

mALIWJ

to the Telugu ; but in those languages the nasal » is not prefixed to it.

eoant

The following are examples of this nasalisation of the sign of the pre-

T

gt

terite in Tamil : vdp-nd-én (for vdr-d-én), I flourished, from the root

1,

i

vdr, in Canarese, bd/ . compare old Canarese preterite, bd/-d-en.

So

1 ,| th

also viru-nd-u (for viru-d-u), having fallen, from the root viru or vir .

bis Syl

high Tamil, vé-d-u ; Canarese equivalent, bidd-u.

The corresponding

Rl

Malayalam vép-u, is an example of the absorption of the dental in the

pmlﬁl

nasal,

In colloquial, or vulgar, Tamil this euphonic insertion of n is

g

]

Thus, Sey-d-a, done,

¥

carried further than grammatical Tamil allows.

and pey-d-a, rained, are vulgarly pronounced $ey-nj-a and pey-nj-a.

g I

3. A third use of the euphonic nasal is the insertion, in Tamil, of

b

g

7 or 7 before the final ¢ or d of some verbal roots.

The same rule

I it

00

sometimes applies to roots and forms that terminate in the rough ¥,

Thus, kar-w, Can. a calf, is

or even in the ordinary semi-vowel 7.

f thh

o

kanr-y in Tamil (pronounced kandr-u); and madr-w, Can. three, is in

;0

In the first and second classes

i

Tamil mdnr-w (pronounced madnd-u).

{7

of instances in which nunnation is used for purposes of euphony, the

il tl, 0

Dravidian languages pursue a course of their own, which is different

l

N

70

SOUNDS.

from. the usages of the Scythian, as well as of the Syro-Arabian and

Tndo -Kuropean families of languages.

In the Syro-Arabian languages

especially in Talmudic Hebrew, euphomc n is always a final, and is

often emphatic as well as euphonic.

In Turkish, 7 is used between the bases of words and their 1nﬁex10ns

in @ manner similar to its use in Sanskrit.

In the North-Indian ver-

But none of

naculam an obscure nanle n, is often used as a final.

these usages perfectly corresponds to the Dravidian nasalisation referred

to under the first and second heads

In the third class of instances

the Dravidian usage bears a close resemblance to the Indo-European.

In the seventh class of Sanskrit verbal roots a nasal is inserted in the

special tenses, so as to coalesce with a final dental—e.g., nid, to revile

becomes nindati, he reviles

Compare also the root uda, water, with

its derivative root und, to be wet

A similar nasalisation is found both

in Latin and Greek

In Latin we find the unaltered root in the pre-

terite, and a nasalised form in the present—e.g., compare scidi with

seindo, cubuy with cumbo, tetige with. tango, fregi with frango.

Com-

pare also the Latin centum with the Greek é-xardv..

In Greek, compare

the roots wed and Al with the nasahsed forms of- those roots found

in the present tense—e.g., wavé-cvw to lgmn, and Aouf-diw, to take.

The principle of euphonic nasalisation contained in these Sanskrit

¥

Greek, and Latin examples, though not perfectly identical with the

Dravidian usage, corresponds to it in a remarkable degree

The differ-

¥

ence consists 1n this, that in the Indo Furopean languages the insertion

of a nasal appears to be purely euphonic, whereas in Tamil it gene-

§

The consonant to which

rally contributes to grammatical expression

!

n is prefixed by neuter verbs is not only deprived of the n, but also

hardened and doubled by transitives

PreveENTION OoF HiaTUs.—In examination of the means employed

in the Dravidian languages to prevent hiatus between concurrent

vowels, will bring to light some analogies with the Indo-European

languages, especially with Greek

[

In Sanskrit, and all other languages in which negation is effected by

the use of “ alpha privative

when this @ 1s followed by a vowel, 7%, 18

added to it to prevent hiatus, and @ becomes an, ¢z, or un

In .the

Latin and Germanic lancuaces this 2, which was used af first euphoni-

cally, has become an nseparable part of the privative particles 2z or wn.

In the greater number of the Indo Kuropean languages this is almost

the only conjuncture of vowels in which hiatus is prevented by the

insertion of an euphonic =

In Sanskrit and PAli, » is also used for the

purpose of preventing hiatus between the final base-vowels of nouns or

-

(5

§

PREVENTION OF HIATUS.

71

and

pronouns and ‘their case terminations, in order that the vowels of th@

4

base ma§ escape elision or corruption, and be preserve,a pure.

In

d 15

some 1nstances (a probably older) m is used for this purpose instead

of n. This usage is unknown in the cognate languages, with the excep-

1008

tion of the use of » between the vowel of the base and the términation

Tt

of the genitive plural in the Zend and the old high German

It is in

3 0t

Greek that the use of #, to prevent hiatus, has been most fully deve-

med

loped ; for whilst in Sanskrit contiguous vowels are combined or

MCES

changed, so that hiatus is unknown, in Greek, in which vowels are

DEdll

more persistent, » is used to prevent hiatus between contiguous vowels,

fhe

and that not only when they belong to the same wotd, but also, and

ovile

still more, when they belong to different words.

with

On turning our attentlon to the Dravidian languages, we may chance

hoth

at first sight to observe nnthmor which resembles the system now

mentidned.

In Tamil and Canarese,

pxe

and generally in the Dra-

with

vidian languages, hiatus between contiguous vowels is prevented by

Com

the use of » or y. Vowels are rarely combined or changed in the

.mpare

Dravidian languages, as in Sanskrit, except in the case of compounds

fomd

which have been borrowed directly from the Sanskrit itself : nor are

o ke

final vowels elided in these languages before words commencing with a

J158 |

vowel, with the exception of some short finals, which are considered as

mere vocalisations

i the

In Telugu and Canarese a few other unimportant

vowels are occasionally elided

quer

Ordinarily, however, for the sake of

ease of pronunciation, and in order to the retention of the agglutinative

setticD

b g

structure which is natural to these languages, all vowels are preserved

fhih

pure and pronounced separately ; but as hiatus is dreaded with pecu-

5 8

liar intensity, the awkwardness of concurrent vowels is avoided by the

interposition of » or y between the final vowel of one word and the

initial VOWel of thc succeedmo one.

The rule of the Tamil, which in

most partlcu}ara is the rule of the Canarese also, is that » is used after

l]PIO) ed

the vowels ¢, «, and o, with their long vowels, and aw, and that Y is

e i

used after 7, ¢, with their long vowels, and e

Thu

in Tamil, vara

0

ules, not come , is written and pronounced vara-(v)-illei, and vari-alla

(it is) not the way, becomes vari-(y)-alla

>LL€d of

This use of » in one conjunction of vowels, and of 4 in another, is

vel ) 19

doubtless a result of the progressive refinement of the language

ot

Originally, we may conclude that one consonant alone was used for

this purpose, and this may possibly have been » changing into m, =,

ot

and ¥

In Malayalam, as Dr Gundert observes, y has gradually

oSt

encroached on the domain of », pure a having become rare.

Words

D) the

like the Tamil avan (a+ (v) +n), he, remote

wan (¢+ (v) +n), he

for fe

proximate, changing in Telugu into vdndwy and véndu, prove sufficiently

s &

7

)

~

SOUNDS.

Hen

the great antiquity of wv.

They appear to me to prove that even in

Possibly, also, the = of the Telugu is

e

Telugu y is more recent than v.

more recent than m. The only thing, however, perfectly certain, is

P

fhat

that m, m, v, and g interchange in Telugu, Tulu, and Canarese, and

ind

n, v, and ¥ in Tamil.

Euphonic insertions between contiguous vowels

are observed in the common conversation of Dravidians, as well as in

A

written compositions; and they are found even in the barbarous

y

of an

dialects—e.g., in the Ku, which was reduced to writing only a few

years ago, » may optionally be used for euphony, as in Tamil. Thus,

réve

This insertion of »

in Ku, one may say either ddlu, she, or a(v)dlu.

iord:

or y takes place, not only when a word terminating with a vowel is

spong

followed by a word beginning with another vowel, but also (as in

¢ango

Sanskrit) between the final vowels of substantives and the initial

Thich

vowels of their case terminations—e.g., puli-(y)-¢l, in the tamarind,

of nof

form

pild-(v)-il, in the jack.' The use of alpha privative to produce negation

being unknown to the Dravidian languages, there is nothing in any of

00nse

them which corresponds to the use of an, @n, or un privative, instead of

two

)

a, in the Indo-European languages, before words beginning with a

vowel.

wopul

The only analogy which may at first sight have

| appeared to exist

Hiting

between the Dravidian usage and the Greek, in respect of the preven-

hiatlm,

tion of hiatus, consists in the use of » or y by the Dravidian languages

dngat

as an euphonic copula.

When we enter more closely on the examina-

ega

tion of the means by which hiatus is prevented, a real and remarkable

b ;

analogy comes to light ; for in many instances where the Tamil uses

U

v, the Telugu and the Tulu, like the Greek, use n.

By one of the two

i, )

classes into which all words are arranged in Telugu for euphonic pur-

the 2

poses, ¥ is used to prevent hiatus when the succeeding word begins

'];'ﬁ& he

with a vowel ; by the other, a very numerous class, # is used, precisely

Uigy

as in Greek.

Thus, instead of #nnagd égenu, it went slowly, the

Telugu requires us to say tinnagd-(n)-tgenw. When 7 is used in Telugu

By

to prevent hiatus, it is called druta, and words which admit of this

byt

euphonic appendage are called druta prakrits, words of the druta class.

dq\ ~¢

Drute means fleeting, and the druta n may be interpreted as the n

"(lal

whach often disappears.

The other class of words consists of those

by

which use 7 instead of n, or prevent elision in the Sanskrit manner by

g

sand/he or combination.

Such words are called the kgl class, and the

g

rationale of their preferring # to » was first pointed out by Mr Brown.

Ire

Whenever = (or its equivalent, 7z or nu) could have a meaning:of its

Tehlvl

own—e.g., wherever it could be supposed to represent the copulative

It}

conjunction, or the case sign of the accusative or the locative, there its

Rl

use is inadmissible, and either y or sandhz must be used instead. ‘

Oy ¢

73

‘ PREVENTION QE‘ H‘lx.:&TUS.

Il

Hence, there is no diﬁ:erence in principle between » and y, for the

1§

latter is used in certain cases instead of the former, merely for the

18

purpose of preventing misapprehension ; and it can scarcely be doubted

1

that both letters were originally identical in origin and in use, like v

ly

and y in Tamil.

1l

An euphonie peculiarity of the Telugu may here be noticed.

ny or

1§

nu, the equivalents of 7, are used euphonically between the final vowel

ew

of any word belonging to the druia class (the class which uses # to

1§,

prevent hiatus), and the hard, surd initial consonant of the succeeding

f

word—which initial surd is at the same time converted into its corre-

18

sponding sonant. They may also be optionally used before any initial

1

consonant, provided always that the word terminating in a vowel to

al

which they are affixed, belongs to the class referred to. It is deserving

nd,

of notice, that in this conjunction i or nu may be changed into that

00

form of m (the Telugu anuswdra) which' coalesces with the succeeding

yof

consonant. Occasionally, m is used in Telugu to prevent hiatus between

ld Of

two vowels where we should have expected to find =, or, in Tamil, ».

th 4

m may perhaps be regarded as the original form of the euphonic

copula of the Telugu, and » and y as a softening of the same. ' A

onit

distinct trace of the use, apparently.a very ancient use, of m to prevent

avel-

hiatus, instead of » or », may be noticed in classical Canarese, in the

guages

accusative singular of certain nouns—e.g., instead of guru-v-am, the

i

accusative of guru, a teacher, guru-m-am may be used. On the other

fl;able

hand, in Tulu, an older » seems to have changed into m, and even into

mb

] uged

Thus, mdl, Tulu, she (prox.), stands for smal, and that for wal :

mér, they (prox.), for smar, and that for svar, whilst the sing. masc. of

p {10

the same is smbe, for wan.

Compare the Tulu remote sing. mase.,

L

begt

aye, he. The evidence of all the other dialeets in favour of » being

originally the euphonic vowel of the pronouns s so0 strong that the Tulu

)

m must, I think, be regarded as a corruption.

In: colloquial Tamil m

i fle

Jelugt

1s used in some instances instead of v, where v alone is.used, not only

g i

by the classics, but by scrupulously correct writers: up to the present

day—e.g., eunamé, whatever it may be, instead of the more correct

g

Ao

eunavo, from eyna, what, and é, the particle expressing doubt.

)

f gt

It may be noticed here, that where # is used in the later Sanskrit

to prevent hiatus between base vowels and case terminations

, ¥ 1s often

ner by

used instead of the Sanskrit of the bedar.

i

I regard m .as the original form of this euphonic copula of the

Byo

Telugu, and » and y-as a softening of the same.

i i

It has been mentioned that » and y are the letters which are used in

Jfi%e

Tamil for preventing hiatus, where » and y are used by the Telugun.

On examining more closely the forms and inflexions of the classical

gstead‘

74

SOUNDS.

Tamil, we shall find reason- for advancing a step farther.

In Tamil,

f

also, n is used instead of » in a considerable number of instances,

especially in the pronominal terminations of verbs in the classical

f

dialect.

Thus, the neuter plural demonstrative being awves (for a-(v)-a

1l

(

from a-a), we should expect to find the same a-(v)-e, or the older

a-(v)-a, in the third person plural neuter of verbs; but we find a-(n)-a

e

instead—u.e., we find the hiatus of a-a filled up‘ with # instead of v—

Ja

So

0

e.g., srulkkindra(n)a, they are (neuter), instead of vrukkindra(v)a.

also, whilst in the separate demonstratives avas, he, and awar, they

th

(epicene), the hiatus is filled up with »—e.g., (a-(v)-an, a-(v)-ar), in

0f

the

the pronominal terminations of verbs in the classical dialect we find

I

a-(n)-an often used instead of a-(v) an, and a-(n)-ar instead of a-(v)-ar

—e.g., trunda(n)an, he was, instead of irunda(v)an, or its ordinary

e

contraetion srunddn: We Sometimes also find the same » in the neuter

6/1])

plural of appellative nouns and verbs in the classical dialect—e.g.,

fhe

pm’u,lq(n)a, things that are 1'ea]; realities, instead of porula(v)a, or

be

We

the

simply porula.

varu-(n)-a = varubaver, things that will come.

find the same use of » to prevent hiatus in the preterites and relative

al

I

past participles of a large number of Tamil verbs—e.g., /c&pﬂ(n)é‘n, I

lan

ey

showed ; kdt¢i(n)a, which showed ; in which forms the # which comes

between the preterite participle Zd¢fc and the terminations én and a, is

Y

clearly used (as v in ordinary cases) to prevent hiatus.

The euphonic

i

e

character of this » (respecting which see the Section on “ Verbs, Preterite

Tense ”) is confirmed by the circumstance that » optionally changes in

g

classical Tamil into y-—e.g., we may say kdtfi(y)a, that showed,

Sy

instead of kd¢gi(n)a.

Another instance of the use of » in Tamil for

ICoox

the prevention of hiatus appears to be furnished by the numerals.

1y

The compound numerals between ten and twenty are formed by the

)‘dl

combination of the qud for ten with each numeral in rotation.

The

g

Tamil word for ten is pattu, but padw is used in the numerals above

W |

twenty, and pads, identical with the Telugu word for ten, is used in

|

the numerals from eleven to eighteen inclusive.

Between this pady

y

and the units which follow, each of which, with the exception of

il a:

17}

midndru, three, and ndlu, four, commences with a Vo%vél; n is ingerted

»

for the prevention of hiatus where the modern Tamil _wduld have used

lh[ (

v

The euphonic character of this » appears to be established on

LIl

comparing the Tamil and Canarese numerals with those of the Telugu,

Py

in most of which % is used instead of n—e.g.,

of g

TeELUGU.

TAMIL AND CANARESE.

t'ney

fifteen

padi-(h)-énu

sixteen

padi-(n)-eindw (Can. eidu)

padi-(h)-dru

padi-(n)-dru

{tg

seventeen

padi-(h)-édu

padi-( 7@73?»21, (Can. élu)

Yoy

|

PREVENTION OF HIATUS.

~

{

5

il

In the Tamil compound numeral, padi-(n)y-mdndru, thirteen, we find

5,

the same 7 used as in the previous examples, though there is no hiatus

ieal

to be prevented. The Telugu has here pada-mitdu, the Canarese hadz-

)4

mérw,; and as the Canarese uses n, like the Tamil, in all the other

lder

compound numbers between, eleven and eighteen inclusive, and dis-

)4

penses ‘with it herga; I think it may: be concluded that in the Tamil

1~

padi(n)mundry; the » has crept in through the influence of the numerals

N

on each side of it, and in accordance with the euphonic tendencies of

they

the language.in. general. Dr. Gundert thinks padin hardly an example

f)y

of » used for the prevention of hiatus,

He prefers to regard the ¢n of

o find

these numerals as the ¢n of the oblique case, and considers padin-

(14

midndra (in Malayalam, padim-minu) as decisive to this effect.

He

‘,

inary

adduces also ombadin-dyiram (Tam. anbadin), nine theusand, and

puter

enbadin kodi (also capable of being used in Tamil), eighty crores. On

0,

the other hand, it may be replied that the % used by the Telugu cannot

be regarded as a sign of the oblique case, and that if it be admitted

»‘)a) cjr

that it is used simply for the prevention of hiatus, this fact should be

Y WC

elfie

allowed to throw light on the use of % in the same words in the?other

languages. It would be quite natural, however, that 7n, the inflexional

)i I

increment of the Tam.-Mal. oblique case, should be used instead -of the

) 0

merely euphonic n, where it appeared to fit in suitably. Identity of

a8

sound-would recommend it for occasional use,

In the Coorg dialect »

ppont

i

appears'in all the compounds after padu, the form of patbu, ten, used

gt I

in construction—e.g., padunange, ﬁfteen" padundru, sixteen § padunélu,

seventeen. Notwithstanding this, the inflexional inerement of the

/)

sh/}\\'&d,

/

Coorg does not contain =, but is either da or ra. Similarly in Tula,

hmit

et

in which the possessive increment is a, ta, or da, and the locative ¢’ or

', du or fu, n is inserted between pad’, ten, and the words for four, &e.,

iy

in the compound numerals from fourteen to nineteen inclusive—e.g.,

,

pad’(n)ormba, nineteen.

The n thus inserted must surely be euphonic.

Js o

ol

We have an ‘indubitable instance of the use of 7, €ven in common

Tamil, to prevent hiatus, in appellative nouns ending in ez—e.g., when

s

an appellative-noun is formed from ilez, youth, or young;-by annexing

fl

an, the sign of the masc. sing.; the compound 13 not iei-(y)-an, but

yinid

Uei-(7))-an, or even ilei-(n)-an. 7 is merely a more liquid form of 7,

gt

and in Malayalam regularly replaces » in the pronoun of the first

el

person.

Probably also mandr, the epicene plural of the future tense

, T

of the Tamil verb in some of the poets, is for ma-ar—e.g., enma-(n)-ar,

they will say, for enmdr, and thay for enbar, the more common form.

J7

There is thus reason to suppose that originally the Tamil agreed with

,1/])1‘

the Telugu in using a nasal instead of a semi-vowel to keep contiguous

vowels separate. It may be objected that % evinces no tendency to

oy

P2

(0

SOUNDS.

change into v.

I admit this; but if we suppose m, not », to have

been the nasal which was originally employed for this purpose, every

difficulty will disappear ; for m readily changes on the one hand to o,

and on the other to ». Nor is it a merely gratuitous supposition that

S

the Telugu may Lave used m at a former period instead of 7, for we

iyl

have already noticed that 7 or 2w, the euphonic equivalents of n, are

iy

interchangeable in certain conjunctions with the anuswdra or assimilat-

ing m ,; that in two. important instances (the copulative particle and the

aorist formative) the % of the Telugu replaces an older m of the Tamil ;

that m is occasionally used instead of m, to prevent hiatus between

P

{f

contiguous vowels ; and that in Sanskrit also, instead of the » which is

fl

ordinarily inserted between certain pronominal bases and their case-

t

terminations, an older 2 is sometimes employed. It may also be

of

noticed that the n¢ or mw, which may be considered as the euphonic

€l

suffix of the accusative in Telugu, is replaced in old Canarese by 7.

When the personal

i

In Tulu, 2 is sometimes used to prevent hiatus.

pronouns beginning with a vowel are suffixed to participles for the pur-

pose of forming participial nouns, » is euphonically inserted where v

]

would ordinarily be inserted in Tamil and Canarese—e.g., malpu-(n)-

(i

dye, he who makes. The Tamil agrees with the Tulu in thus inserting

il

*,

n after past participles ending in

%

exq.,-compare panii-(n)-avan, Tam.

Tt

he who made, with bafti-(n)-dye, Tulu, he who came.

Sometimes’ this

euphonic 7 is inserted in Tulu where y would be inserted in Tamil—

1

e.g., dhore-(n)-dlulu, Tuﬁu, gentlemen, Tam. durei-(y)-avargal (plural

used honorifically for singular).” In amma-(n)-dkulu, Tulu, mistresses,

the Tamil would run the vowels together. When the adverbial particle

il

aga is added to the root of a verb, to denote the time at which an

I

i

..,

action takes place, » inserted between the concurrent vowels

malpu-(n)-aga, when making.

Compare with these particulars the

uses of the drutalfy of the Telugu.

The emphatic particle & becomes

fo

;(‘ »

in Tulu not only y¢ or 4, according. to the nature of the preceding

fo

vowel, as in Tamil, but also né, after @, and sometimes after e—e.g.,

1

n is inserted in liké manner before d and 6, the

dye-(n)-¢, he himself.

interrogative particles, where » would be inserted in Tamil, as also

)\

before ¢ when used interrogatively.

The reader cannot fail to have observed that whilst the Dravidian

0

languages accord to a certain extent with the Sanskrit in the point

L

which has now been discussed, they accord to a much larger extent

{

with the Greek, and in one particular (the prevention of hiatus between

It is

the contiguous vowels of separate words) with the Greek alone.

{

impossible to suppose that the Dravidian languages borrowed this

usage from Sanskrit, seeing that it occupies a much less important

i

¥

HAEl\iOﬁIC SEQUENC;E.

(7

avE

place in Sanskrit than in the Dravidian languages, and has been much

£lY

less fully developed.

08,

It should be mentioned here that the letter » is in some instances

at

used to prevent hiatus in each of the Dravidian idioms.

In Tamil, kd,

e

the imperative singular of the verb to preserve, becomes in the plural,

are

N

not kd-@tum, but kd-(r)-wm. The Canarese in certain cases inserts r

2,

lat

or ar between the crude noun and the case terminations, instead of the

e

more common v, n, or d—e.g., karid’-ar-a, of that which is black. This

nl;

ar, however, is probably only another form of ad. The Telugu inserts

el

r in a more distinctively euphonic manner, as, for instance, between

his

certain nouns and dlu, the suffix by which the feminine gender is some-

o

times denoted—e.g., sundaru-(r-)ilu, a handsome woman. Compare

—

this with the Tamil soundariya-(v)-al, in which the same separation is

e

effected by the use of the more common euphonic .

7 1s inserted

goie

|

euphonically in Telugu in other connections also— e.g., poda-r-illu,

from poda, leaf, and /lu, house = a bower.

il

The d which intervenes between the ¢ of the preterite verbal parti-

pﬂf

i)

ciple and the suffixes of many Canarese verbs (e.g., mddi-(d)-a, that

did), though possibly in its origin a sign of the preterite, is now used

)

g

simply as an euphonic insertion.

This d becomes invariably n in

[ain,

Telugu and Tamil : and in Tamil it is sometimes softened further into

i

y. 1 1is sometimes stated to be used in Telugu for a similar purpose—

il

viz., t0 prevent hiatus between certain nouns of quality and the nouns

lurd

which are qualified by.them—e.g., karaku-{-ammu, a sharp arrow, but

I have no doubt that this ¢ is identical with ¢i, and was originally

e§a€S

an. inflexional particle.

g is in some instances used by the Telugu to

i

prevent hiatus, or at least as.an euphonic formative, where the Tamil

b

would prefer to use v—e.g., the rational plural noun of number, six

|

persons, may either be dru(g)ur-u or dru(v)ur-w.

k seems to be used

g 1he

for the saime purpose in padakondal(pada-k-ondw), eleven. gddu, he,

(Ol

i

/ ) :‘X‘

for vddu, and gdru, they, for vdru, are instances of the use of g for » in

ollg

Telugu.

i

j il

HArMoNic SEQUENCE oF VowEkLs.—In all the languages of the

P!

Scythian group (Finnish, Turkish, Mongolian, Manchu) a law has been

observed which may be called ¢ the law of harmonic sequence.” The

yidiﬂu

law is, that a given vowel occurring in one syllable of a word, or in

POiﬂE

the root, requires an analogous vowel, z.e. a vowel belonging to the

gtell

same set (of which sets there are in the Turkish four) in the following

jgvé@ﬂ

syllables of the same word, or in the particles appended to it, which,

B

therefore, alter their vowels accordingly. This rule, of which some

s

traces remain even in the modern Persian, appears to pervade all the

grfﬂﬁt

~

{

8

SOUNDS

ff

Scythian languages, and has been regarded as a confirmation of the

pr

theory that all those languages have sprung from a common origin.

18

Int' Telugu a sithilar law of attraction, or harmonic sequence, is found

to exist.

Te

Traces of it, indeed, appear in all the Dravidian languages,

i

especially in the Tulu, which in this particular comes nearest to the

of

Telugu ; but' it is in Telugu that it comes out more distinctly and

B

regularly. The range of its operation in Telugu is restricted to two

1ty

vowels 2 and Uy

but in principle it appears to be identical with the

4l

Scythian law, « being changed into 4, and ¢ into u, according to the

£Ve

nature of thé preceding vowel

Thus the copulative particle is n¢ after

%, %, et; and nu after w and the other vowels

ku

the sion of the

Y

il

dative case, becomes in like manmner %z after <, 2, and e:

In the above-

g

mentioned instances it is the vowels of the appended particles which

Thy

are changed throuch the attraction of the vowels of the words to which

(laf]

they are suffixed ; but in a large number of cases the suffixed particles

1o

retain their own vowels, and draw the vowels of the verb or nour to which

i d

they are suffixed, as also the vowels of any particles that may be added

Jrey

to them, into harmony with themselves

Thus, the Telugu pluralising

termination or suffix being /fu, the plural of katti, a knife, would natu-

e

(g

rally be kattel

but the vowel of ‘the suffix is too powerful for that of

by 1

the base, and accordingly the plural becomes Lattulu.

S0 'also, whilst

the singular dative is katti-ki, the dativé plural is, not kattla-ke, but

kattula-kw ;

K

for la, the plural mﬂe\lon Thas the” same power as the

pluralising particle Zu« to convert katés into Aaléw besides’ ‘being able to

ol

i

change %z, the dative post-position of the singular, into Lu

ta

In the inflexion of verbs, the most influential particles in Telugu are

fhay

those which are marks of time, and by suffixing which the tenses are

alam

formed. Through the attraction of those particles, not only the vowels

of the pronominal fragments which are appended to them, but even

¥

the secondary vowels of the verbal root itself, are altered into harmony

km

with the vowel of the particle of time

Thus, from kalugu, to be able

iy

I’Afﬂl

du, the aorist particle, and nu, the abbreviation of the pronoun nénu, 1

On

LY

is formed the aorist first person singular kalugu-du-nu, I am able

the other hand, the past verbal participle of kalugu, is not kaluge, but

(lﬁl\v

kalige, through the attraction of the final ¢, the characteristic of the

\\1

4|

tense ; and the preterite of the first person singular, therefore, is not

¥y

g

kalugi-ti-nu, but kaligi-ti-ni

Thus, the verbal root %kalu becomes

g

kale ; nu, the abbreviation of #énu, becomes %7, and both have by these

changes been brought into harmony with #, an intermediate particle,

b@t\\

which is probably an ancient sign of ‘the preterite

\Qna

This remarkable law of the Telugu phonetic system evidently accords

£y

with the essential principles of the law of harmonic sequence by which

1]

e

™~

PRINCIPLES OF SYLLABATION.

{

9

the Scythian languages are characterised, and differs widely from the

I¢

prevailing usage of the Indo-European languages.

The change which

i

is apparent in the pronominal terminations of the various tenses of the

S

Telugu verb (e.g., nu in the first person of the present tense, 74 in the

preterite), have been compared with the variation in Greek and Latin

e

of the pronominal terminations of the verb according to the tense.

1

But the change in Greek and Latin arises merely from euphonic cor-

V0

ruption, whereas the Dravidian change takes place in accordance with

|

a regular fixed phonic law, the operation of which is still apparent in

every part of the grammar.

£

Though T have directed attention only to the examples of this law

uhe

which are furnished by Telugu, in which it is most fully developed,

(5

traces of its existence could easily be pointed out in the other dialeéts.

ioh

Thus, in the Canarese verbal inflexions, the final euphonic or ennun-

1o}

ciative vowel of the abbreviated personal pronouns is , e, or ¢, accord-

168

ing to the character of the preceding vowel—e.g., mdduttév-e, we do,

joh

maduttir-i, ye do, mddidev-u, we did.

If in the means employed to

(e

{

prevent hiatus between contiguous vowels, the Dravidian languages

g

appeared to have been influenced by IndceEuropean usages, still more

g

decided traces of Scythian influences may be noticed in the phonetic

tof

l‘aw now mentioned.

ilsb

bu

PrincipLEs oF SvyrLnaBaTioN.—The chief peculiarity of Dravidian

the

syllabation is its extreme simplicity and dislike of compound or con-

610

current consonants; and this peculiarity characterises the Tamil, the

earliest cultivated member of the family, in a more marked degree

e

than any other Dravidian language.

In Telugu, Canarese, and Malay-

16

alam, the great majority of primitive Dravidian words—t.£., -words

\vels

which have not been derived from Sanskrit, or altered tkrough San-

ovell

skrit influences

and in Tamil all words without exception, including

0]

even Sanskrit derivatives, are divided into syllables on the following

‘&hler

plan.

Double or treble consonants at the beginning of syllables, like

Il I

str in strength, are altogether inadmissible.

At the beginning, not

(n

only of the first syllable ‘of every word, but also of every succeeding

hu

If-in the middle of a word of

syllable, ‘onily one consonant is allowed.

the

several syllables, one syllable ends with a cohsonant and the succeeding

Ju

one commenées with anotlier consonant; the concurrent consonants

med

must be euphonically assimilated; or elsé & vowel must be inserted

between them.

jese

At the conclusion of a word, double and treble con-

cle

sonants, gth in strength, are as inadmissible as at the beginning : and

every word must terminate in Telugu, Tulu, and Canarese, in a vowel ;

ordS

in Tamil, either in a vowel or in a single semi-vowel, as Z or 7, or in a

hieh

s

80

SOUNDS.

single nasal, as/n or m. Malayilam resémbles Tamil in this, but

It is

evinces a more decided preference for vowel terminations.

obvious that this plan of syllabation is extremely unlike that of the

Sanskrit.

The only double consonanfs which can stand together in the middle

of a word in Tamil without an intervening vowel, are as follows.

The

various nasals, ng, %, », n, and m, may precede the sonant of the varga

to which they belong

and hence ng-g, #-$, or 7i-ch, n-d, n-d, m-b,

may occur, also ngng, fii, nn, nn, mm, gm, and nm : the doubled surds,

kk, §§ or cheh, tt, tt, pp, ll, rr (pronounced #r; also tk, and ¢p ; Tk,

Ych, and Tp ; yy, L, vv ; and finally ¥, pronounced ndr. The only

treble consonants which can coalesce in Tamil, under any circumstances,

are the very soft, liquid ones, rnd and gnd. Tamilian laws of sound

allow only the above-mentioned consonants to stand together in the

middle of words without the intervention of a vowel.

All other con-

sonants must be assimilated—that is, the first must be made the

same as the second, or else a vowel must be inserted between them to

render each capable of being pronounced by Tamilian organs.

In the

other Dravidian dialects, through the influence of the Sanskrit, nasals

are combined, not with sonants only, but also with surds—e.g., pamp-u,

i

Tel. to send, en¢-u, Can. eight. The repugnance of the Tamil to this?

practice is so very decided, that it must be concluded to be non-Dra-

vidian.

Generally ¢ is the vowel which is used for the purpose of

separating unassimilable consonants, as appears from the manner in

which Sanskrit derivatives are Tamilised. Sometimes » is employed

instead of 2.

Thus the Sanskrit preposition pra is changed into pira

E

in the compound derivatives which have been borrowed by the Tamil ;

whilst Krishna becomes Kiruttina-n (¢ instead of sh), or even Kui-

tina-n.

Even such soft conjunctions of consonants as the Sanskrit

dya, dva, gya, &c., are separated in Tamil into diya, diva, and geya.

Another rule of Tamil syllabation is, that when the first consonant of

an unassimilable double consonant is separated from the second and

formed into a syllable by the intervention of a vowel, every such con-

sonant (not being a semi-vowel) must be doubled before the vowel is

suffixed.

Thus, tatva, Sans. nature, becomes in. Tamil tat(t)uva ;

apraydjana, anprofitable, ap(p)iraydsana.

In consequence of these peculiarities of syllabation and the aggluti-

native structure of its inflexions, the Tamil language appears very

verbose and lengthy when compared with the Sanskrit and the languages

of Europe.

Nevertheless, each syllable being exceedingly simple, and

the great majority of the syllables being short, rapidity of enunciation

is made to compensate for the absence of contraction and compression.

LN

PRINCIPLES OF SYLLABATION.

81

The Finnish, the Hungarian, (;md other languages of the same stock,

‘When

bgt

allow of only one consonant at the beginning of a syllable.

i 1§

he

foreign words which begin with two consonant are pronounced by a

Magyar, the consonants are separated by the insertion of a vowel—e.g.,

krdl becomes kirdly.

Where the first consonant is a sibilant, it is

il

formed into a distinet syllable by a prefixed vowel—e.g., schola be-

The

comes iskola. How perfectly in accordance with Tamil this is, is

g

known to every European resident in Soutbern India who has heard

i

the natives speak of establishing, or sending their children to an Eng-

nds,

lish 2skil.

The same peculiarity has been discovered in the language

1

of the Scythic tablets of Behistun.

In rendering the word Sparta

ouly

into Scythian, the translator is found to have written it with a preced-

1CES,

und

ing i—e.g., Isparta, precisely as it would be written in the present day

in Magyar or in Tamil.

fhe

Professor Max Miiller, in his ¢ Lectures on the Science of Language,

ool

Second Series,” adduces many similar instances in other familiar lan-

3/

e tlhe

guages.

“ Many words in Latin begin with sc, st, sp. Some of these

/;

en i

are found, in Latin inscriptions of the fourth century after Christ, spelt

[ the

Tt seems that the Celtic nations were

with an initial s—e.g., ssperitus.

nasls

unable to pronounce an initial s before a consonant, or at least that

-l

they disliked it. Richards, as quoted by Pott, says, ¢ No British word

o this

begins with s when a consonant or w follows, without setting y before

Dra-

it ; and when we borrow any words from another language which

056 i

begin with an s and a consonant immediately following it, we prefix a

ger I

¥ before such words, as from the Latin schola, ysgol ; spiritus, yspryd.’

1p10yed

The Spaniards in Peru, even when reading Latin, pronounce estudvum

) i

for studium, eschola for schola.

Hence the constant addition of the

Tl

initial vowel in the Western, or chiefly Celtic branch of the Roman

p fir

family. French espérer, instead of Latin sperare, stabilire, became

;anskriﬁ

establir, lastly établir, to establish]” (p. 195). “Words beginning with

\‘Zﬁ‘\

J g

more than one consonant are most liable to phonetic corruption. I

;Dﬁnt' Oi

certainly requires an effort to pronounce distinctly two or three con-

il aat

sonants at the beginning without intervening vowels, and we could

el CO“"

easily understand that one of these consonants should be slurred over

ore

and allowed to drop. But if it is the tendency of language to facilitate

;(t))u i

pronunciation, we must not shirk the question how it came to pass

that such troublesome forms were ever framed and sanctioned.

Most

aggll]tl

of ‘them owe their origin to contraction—that is to say, to an attempt

18 )]

to pronounce two syllables as one, and thus to save time and breath,

ﬂﬂﬂ&ges

though not without paying for it by an increased consonantal effort ”

(p- 187). ¢ There are languages still in existence in which each syllable

I

e, ﬂl]ﬂ

yisho?

consists either of a vowel, or of a vowel preceded by one consonant

s

9

8

~

SOUNDS.

This 1s-the

dnly, and-in.which no syllable ever ends in a consonant

case, for instance, in the Polynesian languages

A Hawaian finds it

almost, impossible to pronounce two consonants together

All syllables

in Chinese are open or nasal

In South Africa, all the members of the

great. family of speech called by Dr Bleek the Bi-ntu family, agree in

In the other

general with regard to the simplicity of their syllables.

family of South African speech, the Hottentot compound., consonants

are eqnally eschewed at the beglnnlng of Words

In Kafir we find

If we look to the Finnish, and the whole

gold pronounced <golide

Uralic class of the Northern Turanian languages, we meet with the

same disinclination to admit double consonants at the beginning, or any

consonants whatever at the end of words

No genuine Finnish word

begins with a double consonant, for the assxbllated and softened con-

%

sonants, which are spelt as double letters, were or1g1nally simple

sounds.

The Esthonian, Lapp, Mordvinian, Ostlaklan and Hun-

garian, by dropping or weakening their final and unaccented vowels,

have acquired a large number of words ending in simple and double

consonants

but throughout the Uralic class, wherever we can trace the

radical elements of-language, we always . ﬁnd s1mple consonants and

f

simple vowels ” (p. }9(37/

§

The mode in whiche6fmpound consonants are dealt with in Prakrlt

0

and the modern North Indian vernaculars, is investigated and explained

€0

The

by Mr Beames in Chapter iv. of his “ Comparative Grammar

If

Prakrit rules for the assimilation of compound consonants bear a con-

il

siderable resemblance, up to a certain point, to the Dravidian, espemally

I

in regard to the combination called by Mr Beames ¢ the strong nexus ”

)

—that is, the combination, without a vowel, of the stroncr consonants

U

only, such as 4, tp, &c., respecting which the rule of. the Prakrits, as of

Tamil, is that the first consonant qhould be assmnlated to the next.

f

Vararuchi expresses the Prakrit rule rather pecuhaxly by saying that

the first consonant is elided, the second doubled.

The correspondmg

I

Tamil rule applies only to the treatment of tadbhar as, no such con-

I

Junction of consonants as get, &c., being possible in words of purely

y

Dravidian origin.

by

8

Mixor Diarnrcric PECULIARITIES

b

1. Buphonic Displacement of Consonants.

i

In the Dravidian languages, consonants are sometlmes found to

i

change places through haste or considerations of euphony, especially,

fy

but not exclusively, in the speech of the vulgar

We have an example of this in the Tamil tasei, flesh, which by a

{

displacement of consonants, and a consequent change of the surd into

1

)]

3

MINOR DIALECTIC PECULIARITIES.

8¢

b

i

the sonant, has become gade: - kudirer, a horse, is in this manner often

€8

pronounced by the vulgar in the Tamil country kurides ; and looking

he

at the root-syllable of the Telugu word, gur-ram, it is hard to decide

1

whether kwurides or kwdirer 18 to be regarded as the true Dravidian

(¥

original, though the apparent derivation of the word from kudi, Tam.

i)

to leap, inclines me to prefer Ludires.

In many instances, through. the

il

operation of this displacement, we find one form of a word in Tamil,

e

and another, considerably different, in Telugu or Canarese.

Thus,

i

koppul, Tam. the navel, is in Telagu polkili, in Malayilam pokkul and

0y

poklal ; and padar, Tam. to spread as a creeper, is in Canarese parad-u.

2"4.//""'3

nd

In comparing words in the different dialects, it is always necessary to

DIk

bear in mind the frequent recurrence of this displace‘fment.

e

2. Buphonic' Displacement of Vowels.

1l

In Telugu we find many instances of a still more curious displace-

s,

ment of vowels. This displacement occurs most commonly in words

ble

which, consist of three short syllables beginning with a vowel ; and

{he

when it occurs, we find that the second vowel has disappeared, and

ad

that the first vowel has migrated from the beginning of the word to the

second syllable, and at the same time been lengthened to compensate

for the vowel that is lost.

i

(i1

We have here to deal, therefore, with an

jned

euphonic amalgamation of vowels, as well as an euphonic displacement.

The

I take as an example the Dravidian demonstrative pronouns, remote

o

and proximate ; and I select the plural, rather than the singular, to get

aaly

rid of the disturbing element of a difference which exists in the forma-

g1

tives. In Tamil those pronouns are avar, they, remote ; and tvar, they,

proximate, corresponding to ¢//4 and /.

The Canarese adds « to each

i

word, so that they become avare and vaiu.

g0l

By analogy this is the

next.

form we should expect to find in Telugu also; but on examination, we

find in Telugu vdru instead of avaru, and virw instead of warw. The

ot

neuter demonstrative pronouns of the Telugu being dissyllables, there

pding

1s no displacement in their nominatives (adz, that, ¢ds, this, correspond-

(i

.

ing closely to the Tamil adu, idu)

P

but when they become trisyllables

?urel§'

by the addition of the inflexional suffix i, we find a displ

acement

similar to that which has been described—e.g., adini, it or of it,

becomes ddni, and idini becomes dini.

Many ordinary substantives

undergo in Telugu a similar change—e.g., ural, Tamil

» & mortar, pro-

nounced oral, should by analogy be oralu in Telugu ; but instead of

g 0

-

oraly we find rolw. In each of the instances mentioned, the change

‘Iﬂﬂf )

AYLFAL é‘_

seems to have been produced by the rejection of the second vowel, and

yic

ya,

the substitution for it of a lengthened form of the first. This unsettled-

iy

Lu/?wr

int0

ness of the vowels, as Dr Gundert calls it, attaches chiefly to the

enunciation of /, r, and other liquid consonants.'

SOUNDS

84

As soon as this peculiar law of the displacement of vowels is brought

to light, a large number of Telugu words and forms, which at first sight

appear to be widely different from the Tamil and Canarese, are found

to be the same or but slightly altered. Thus kddu, Tel. it will not be,

or it is not, is found to be the same as the Tamil dgddu; lédu, there

is not, corresponds to the Tamil lladu, or sladu ; and by an extension

of a similar rule to monosyllables, we find /4, Tel, within, to be iden-

tical with «/, Tam. ; ¢/, Old Canarese

A similar rule of dlsplaeement

appears in the Tulu, though in a less degree

3. Rejection of Radical Consonants

The Telugu and Canarese evince a tendency jto reject or soften away

liquid consonants in the middle of words, even though such consonants

should belono to the root, not to the formative

Thus, nerfuppu,

Tam. fire, is softened into nippu; elumbu, a bone, into emmu udal

(pronounced odal), body, into ollu ; porudu, time, nto poddu ; erudu,

an ox, into eddw ; marundu, medicine, into mandu.

Tor the last word

For the Tam-

Tulu has mardu, Can. maddu (ancient Can. mqrdu).

erupadi, seventy Can. has eppattu ; for eruppu, Tam. to raise (root,

Tam. eru, to rise, Can. élu), Can. has ebbesu

For the Tam. koruppu,

So Tam. erumez, a buffalo,

“/ korumer, fat, Can. has kobbe, Tuln komme.

P

1A Tulu erme, Can. emme.

Something similar to this process takes p]ace,

f

/"‘y

\

[l

;?

»

but not so systematlcally, in vulgar colloquial Tamil.

Vi

In a few instances, on the other hand, the Telugu appears to have

Ll

T

«¥

v

retained a radical letter which has disappeared in some connections

T

v

e

\:’

from the Tamil.

For example, édu, with, together with, is the suffix

- On examining the Teluau we find that

fo

of the Tamil conjunctive case.

the corresponding suffix is ¢tdda.

Tt has already been shown that d in

4

Telugu corresponds to 7 in Tamil ; and consequently toda would become

in Tamil ¢dra.

!

tora (tora-mes) is contained in Tamil, and means com-

panionship—a meaning which appears also in many Telugu compounds ;

and thus by the help of the Telugu we find that the Tamil odu and

tora are closely allied, if not virtually identical ; that the meaning of

Vi

the suffix 6du accords with its use;

and that there is also reason to

I

j

conclude another pair of similar words to be allied, viz., udan, with

Can. odane, a suffix of the conjunctive case, in itself a noun signify-

q

ing connection, and fodar, a verbal root, to follow, to join on, written

Iy

also tudar

{7

Dr Gundert is richt in considering ddu a lengthened secondary form

|l

of odu, which is still used in Malayalam poetry (and equally so in

L4

Tamil)

Old Can. has oda, odam, modern Can. odane; Tulu otfugu,

%y]

with, Can. odane is of course the equivalent of the Tam. udan

together with

odu, therefore, he thinks, needs no explanation from

MINOR DIALECTIC PECULIARITIES

85

Tel. tddu, Tam. ¢6ra, companionship, the root of which latter word is

torw (found with this meaning in Tam. foruds, a crowd)

todar, to

}i

follow, explains itself as a verbal noun of fodu, to touch, to connect

These three roots he considers as altogether distinct from, and in-

dependent of, each other

It seems to me, however, on a comparison

I

of the three roots, difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are sub-

stantially identical.

The lenorthemng of the root vowel in secondary

1f

“forms of roots is quite common in Tamil, and the close relationship of

the radical meanings of the shorter forms, odu, to du, and toru, favours

the supposition that they are only different forms of the same root

I cannot perceive any essential difference between the radical mean-

4y

ts

ings of odu and todu

The former, as we see from its verbal noun

Ly

offu, means to touch so as to adhere, the latter simply to touch

The slight variation apparent in form and meaning appears to me to be

Jul

specialisations of a common root

See the section on the radiation of

(’71,

ol

roots, through ¢ Particles of Specialisation

4, Accent

a

It is generally stated that the Dravidian languages are destitute of

00l

accent, and that emphasis is conveyed by the addition of the 4 em-

p[lv

phatic alone.

Though, however, the Dravidian languages are destitute

alo

of the Indo-Greek system of accents, the use of accent is not altogether

oty

unknown to them and the position of the Dravidian accent, always an

acute one, accords well with the agglutinative structure of Dravidian

hae

words,

The accent is upon the first syllable of the word ; that syllable

tlon

aﬂﬁ

alone, in most cases, constituting the base, prior to every addition of

formatives and inflexional forms, and remaining always unchanged.

ot

The first syllable of every word may be regarded as the natural seat of

dun

accent ; but if the word is compounded, a secondary accent distinguishes

oOne

the ﬁrs’c syllable of the second member of the compound.

(o0

As in other languages, so in the Dravidian, accent is carefully to be

ull«'}J )

distinguished from quantity ; and in enunciation an accented short.

i ﬂlld

vowel is more emphatic than an unaccented long one

Thus, in the

gl

Intransitive Tamil verb adangugitadw, it is contained, the second

gon !

syllable, ang, is long by position ; yet the only accent is that which is

i

upon the first syllable ad, which, though shorter than the second. is

lﬁﬂlﬁ

more emphatic

Another example is furnished by the compound verb

udend'-irukkiradu, it is broken ; literally, having been broken it is

Though in this instance the second syllable of the first word of the

A

compound is Jong, not only by position, but by nature, and the second

syllable of the auxiliary word is long by position yet the principal

i

ccent rests upon the first syllable of the first word, ud, the most

iy

mphatic portion of the compound, and the secondary accent rests upon

front

86

SOUNDS.

ir, the first syllable and crude base of the auxiliary ; hence it is pro-

nounced wudeindirukhiradu, every syllable except the two accented

ones being enunciated lightly and with rapidity.

The general rule of the Dravidian languages, which fixes the accent

in the first or root-syllable, admits of one exception. In poetical Tamil

one and the same form is used as the third person of the verb (in each

tense, number, and gender) and as a participial noun—e.g., dduvdn

means either he will read, or one who reads—u.c., a reader. Even in

the colléquial dialect the third person neuter singular, especially in the

(Ii

future tense, is constantly used in both senses—e.g., 6duvadu, means

1

either it will read, or that which will read, or abstractedly, yet more

commonly still, a reading, or to read.

The same form being thus used

in a double sense, Tamil grammarians have determined that the differ-

ence in signification should be denoted by a difference in accent. Thus

when dduvdn is a verb, meaning he will read, the accent is left in its

natural place, on the root syllable—e.g., éduvdn ; but when it is an

appellative or participial noun, meaning he who reads, the pronominal

termination is to be pronounced more emphatically, that is, it becomes

the seat of accent—e.g., éduvdn.

Dr Gundert (in an article in the Journal of the German Orcental

Society for 1869) directs attention to a subject which I had not suffi-

ciently discussed—viz., the changes which Sanskrit sounds undergo

when Sanskrit words are Dravidianised :—OId tadbharas, he observes,

are not to be regarded as mere corruptions. ~ Most of the changes that

have taken place when Sanskrit words have been adopted by the

Dravidian dialects have been'in accordarce with rule, though some

appear to be arbitrary.

It would be easy, he says, to point out the

laws in virtue of which, for instance, the Sans. vrishabha, an ox, has

become basava in Can., Tel., and Tulu; in Tam. and Mal. z'qlgibd and

edava ; and also to show how the Sans. parva, a season, becomes in

Tam. paruva, in Can. habba; and how Brakma has become in Tel.

Bomma, and in Tam. Pirama.

He contents himself, however, with

pointing out some ‘of the laws which appear in the formation of the

oldest class of tadbharas.

One of these laws consists in the si{nple

omission of non-Dravidian sounds, such as the sibilants. Thﬁs, sahasram,

Sans. for one thousand, becomes in Can. savira, in Tulu sdra, in Tam.

dyiram. The latter has been formed, he thinks, thus——sakasiram =

a-a-iram = dyiram. So, out of the Pali name for Ceylon, Sthalam,

the old Tamil formed [ lam.

The nakshatras Mnigastrsham and

Srdranam, have become in Mal. Magayiram and Onam. Sramana, a

Jaina ascetic, becomes in Tamil Samana-n, and also dmana ; Stsam,

lead, becomes iyan.

Sl

MINOR DIALECTIC PECULIARITIES.

1

87

Another rule, which shows itself especially in Canarese, s the short-

ering of the long vowels of the Sanskrit.

Thus, from Sans. kumdri, a

young girl, comes Tamil Zumari (whence Comorin); from $réshii, a

superior, comes $effs (chetty), the title of the merchant caste. ' A

noticeable illustration is Sanskrit, snéha, oil, which in all the Dravidian

dialects becomes ney. Another important rule consists in the separa-

tion of vowels.

No old Dravidian word can commence with / or 7.

Hence rdjd, a king, becomes commonly irdsd, loka, ulégam.- The pre-

dilection for short vowels produces a further change in these words—

rdjd becomes in Tamil arasa-n and arayan; loka, ulagam, and uwlaga ;

Sans. névati, the nakshatra, becomes ravati.

S

il

16§

il

10

T}

ot

the

e

fpe

s

ad

510

I

i

{16

g

Tam

=

1l

ﬂ) Il

i

[

id

[

sl

ROOTS:

88

P AR T EE

e

ROOTS;

BEFORE proceeding to examine and compare the gfainmatical forms of

1

the Dravidian languages, it is desirable to exami

ne the characteristics

hich are effected in

of Dravidian roots, and the nature of the changes W

The manner in which

them by the addition of the grammatical forms.

various languages deal with their roots is

strongly illustrative of their

and it is chiefly with refer-

essential spirit and distinctive character ;

ence to their differences in this particular, that the languages of Europe

and Asia admit of being arranged into classes.

ded;

Those classes are as follows :—(1.) The monosyllable, uncompoun

or isolative languages, of which Chinese is the principal example, in'

I0

k

which roots admit of no change or combination, and in which all

xiliary words or

(8

grammatical relations are expressed either by au

phrases, or by the position of words in a sentence. (2.) The Semitic

i

£,

or intro-mutative la

nguages, in which grammatical relations are €x-

(3.) The

pressed by internal changes in the vowels of dissyllabic roots.

agglutinative langu

ages, in which granlma,tical relations are expressed

0

In

I

by affixes or suffixes added to the root or compounded with it.

the latter class I include both the Indo-European and the Scythian

groups of tongues.

They differ, indeed, greatly froné; one another in

th

00

details, and that not only in their vocabularies but also in their gram-

matical forms; yet I include them both in one class, because they

fo

appear to agree, or to have originally agreed, in the principle o

of

8

expressing grammatical relation by means of the agglutination of

auxiliary words.

The difference between them is rather in degree than

in essence. Agreeing in original construction, they differ considerably

0]

in development.

In the highly-cultivated languages of the Indo-

European family, post-positional additions have gradually been melted

¥

(

down into inflexions, and sometimes even blended with ‘the root;

whilst in the less plastic languages 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

CLASSIFICATION OF ROOTS.

89

original "position, but held fast its separate individuality.

In this

particular the Dravidian languages agree in general rather with the

Scythian than the Indo-European ; and hence in each dialect of the

family there is, properly speaking, only one declension and one conju-

gation.

It is to be remembered that the three classes mentioned above, into

fvhich the languages of ‘Europe and Asia have been divided, are not

separated from one another by hard and fast lines of distinction.

Their boundaries overlap one another, Probably all languages consisted

at first of isolated monosyllables. The isolative languages-have become

partly agglutinative, and changes in the internal vowels of roots, which

f

are specially characteristic of the Semitic languages, are not unknown

in the agglutinative class, especially in the Indo-European family.

Such internal changes may occasionally be observed even in the Dra-

)

vidian languages.

el

I here proceed to point out the most notable peculiarities of the

Dravidian root-system, and of the manner in which roots are affected

(28

by inflexional combinations.

pe

ARRANGEMENT oF DrAVIDIAN RooTs 1NTo Crasses.—Dravidian

il

roots, considered by themselves, apart from formative additions of every

) il

i

kind, may be arranged into the three classes of—(1.) Verbal roots,

capable in general of being used also as nouns, which constitute by far

O

i

the most numerous class ; (2.) Nouns which cannot be traced up to any

‘extant verbs; and (3.) Particles of which the origin is unknown,

2%

1. Verbal Roots.—The Dravidian languages differ from Sanskrit and

sl

Greek, and accord with the languages of the Scythian group, in gene-

rally using the crude root of the verb, without any addition, as the

In

imperative of the second person singular. This is the general rule, and

fitl

gl

‘the few apparent exceptions that exist are to be regarded either as

corruptions, or as euphonic or honorific forms of the imperative.

In a

prall

few instances, both in Tamil and in Telugu, the second person singular

fhef

of the imperative has cast off its final consonant, which is generally in

4

such cases a soft guttural or a liquid; but in those instances the

, {had

unchanged verbal theme is found in the less used second person plural,

or in the infinitive.

,rabl\'

A considerable proportion of Dravidian roots are used either as

Jodr

verbal themes or as nouns, without addition or alteration in either

ug]&d

case ; and the class in which they are to be placed depends solely on

1007

the connection.

The use of any root as a noun may be, and in general

o

J

is, derived from its use as a verb, which would appear to be the

Drﬂoﬂ

primary condition and the use of most words belonging to this class ;

d it

90

ROOTS.

but as such w 01ds when used as nouns, are used Wlthout the addltlon

of formatives or any other marks of derlvatlon they can scarcely be

regarded as derivatives from verbs;

but in respect of grammatlcal

form, the verb and the noun must be con81dered either as twin sisters

(I);

or as identical.

The following will suffice as examples of this twofold

t

condition or use of the same root:—gol, Tam. as a verb, means to

speak ; as a noun, a word ;

tars, Tam. as a verb, to Iop, to chop off

D

as a noun, a stake, a loom ; murs, Tam. as a verb, to break in two as

fi

a noun, a leaf a document written on a leaf, a bond "In these

i

instances it is evident that the radical mednmg of 'the ‘word is unre-

strained, and free to take either a verbal or a nominal direction

f0

Moreover, as the Dravidian adjective is not separate from the noun,

10

but is generally identical with it, each root may be said to be capable

i

of a threefold use—viz., (1.) as a noun, (2.) as an adjective, and (3.) as

i

a verb. Thus, in Tamil, Zad-«, if used as the nominative of a verb

ha

or followed by case terminations, is a noun, and means harshness or

JIE)

pungency ; if it is placed before another noun for the purpose of quali-

i

fying it, it becomes an adjectiv

e.g., kadu-nader, a sharp walk ; kadu-

Vet

vdy, the tiger, literally harsh mouth

and when standing alone, or

{il

preceded by a pronoun of the second person, it becomes a verb—e.g.,

kadu

J

be sharp

With the formative addition gw, the same root

Again, when the

L)

becomes Ladu-gu, mustard, that which is pungent.

the

included vowel is’lengthened, 1t becomes kddu, a forest literally what

it}

is rough, harsh, or rugged.

1y

It would appear that orlgmally there Wwas no difference in any in-

i

stance between the verbal and the nominal form of the root in any

Dravidian dialect

fi

Gradually, however, as the dialects became more

Da

cultivated, and as logical distinctness was felt to be desirable, a sepa-

ration commenced to take place

This separation was effected by

e

Ve

modifying the theme by some formative addition, when it was desired

to restrict it to one purpose alone, and prevent it from being used for

1ea]

others also

iy

In many instances the theme is still used in poetry, in

Ll

accordance with ancient usages, indifferently either as a verb or as a

noun ; but in prose more commonly as a noun only, or as a verb only

8o

2. Nouns.—In Sanskrit and the lancuages allied to it, all words,

th

1o

with the exception of a few pronouns and particles, are derived by

oy

native grammarians from verbal roots.

In the Dravidian languages

W

the number of nouns which are incapable of being traced up or resolved

into verbs is more considerable

Still, such nouns bear but a small

"

proportion to the entire number ;

and not a “few which are generally

}lC

I

considered to be underived roots are in reality verbal nouns or verbal

derivatives

P

CLASSIFICATION OF ROOTS

91

Many Dravidian dlssyllablc nouns have for their second syllable al,

I

]

a particle which is a commonly used’ formative of verbal nouns in

Tamil, and a sign of the infinitive in Oanarese and Gond. All nouns

|

of this class may safely be concluded to have sprung from verbal roots.

In most ‘instances their themes are discoverable, though in a few no

i

trace of the verb from which they have been derived is now apparent

I cannot doubt that the following Tamil words, generally reaarded as

primitives, are derived from roots which are still in use— viz., mml a

1S

finger, from vire, to expand ; kadal, the sea, from kada, to pass beyond

{4

pagal, day as distinguished from night, probably mid day, from pag-u

to divide ; kudal, a bowl, from kudez, to hollow out.

Il

There are many words in the Dravidian, as in other languages, de-

I

noting primary objects which are identical with, or but slightly altered

o

fI‘OIIl ex1st1no° verbal I'OOtS pOSSGSSan' a Imore O'enerlc swmﬁcamon

1S

)

What is specially noticeable is the smallness of the change the roots

have undérgone in the Dravidian languages.

One might, suppose the

0

name of the object to have been affixed to it only a. few years ago.

Ii

‘These languages present in consequence the appearance of fresh youth,

li

yet doubtléss the true inference is that they have remainéd ‘substah-

o

tially unclianged (possibly in consequence of the high cultivation they

J

received) from a very early period. The change effected consists in

00

general only in the addition to the root of a formative particle, or_in

e

the lengthening of the included vowel of the root.

Either way. the

I

name of ‘the object is simply a verbal noun with the 51gn1ﬁcat10n of a

noun of quahty The following illustrations are from the Tamil :—

nilam, the ground from nil, to stand ; nddu, the cultivated. country,

0y

from nadu, to plant ; kddu, the forest, :from kadu, to be rugged (com-

016

pare also kadam, a rough way, a forest) ; vin, the sky, from v/, to be

clear ; min, a star, also a fish, from min, to glitter ; vells, the planet

by

Venus also silver, from wve/, white ;

kudirei, a horse, from kudz, to

el

leap ; pandri (pal-ti), a hog,

from pal a tusk; ddu, a sheep, from

jor

ddu, to fresh.

(Dr Gundert carries this noun still further back, but

1

with some risk of error, to adu, to fight or cook, the sheep being re-

\3)

garded as the fighting animal, or the animal that was cooked) : fanp,

the eye, identical with Zdz (in the past tense kan), to see ; mukiu, the

nose (Tel. mukku, Can. malgu), from mug-ar, to smell ndkku, the

Iy

tongue, from nakku, to lick (compare the probably older nd, the tongue,

(]

with ndy, a dog, the animal that licks).

Probably also %es, the hand,

d

bears the same relation o dey, to do (Can. géyu), that the Sanskrit

I

kara, the hand

earsgtoﬁkar (%rz), to do.

In Telugu, ché, the hand, is

Iy

identical with cke, to.do (ke also is used in Telugu).

I may here re-

»al

mark that the na

es of animals in the Dravidian languages are not

s

92

ROOTS.

imitations of the sounds they make, but are predicative words, expres-

sive of some one of their qualities.

Though the greater number of Dravidian nouns are undoubtedly to

be regarded as verbal derivatives, a certain proportion remain which

In this class are to be

cannot now be traced to any ulterior source.

included the personal pronouns ; some of the particles of relation which

answer to the case to the signs and prepositions of other languages ; and

a considerable number of common nouns, including some names of

objects—e.g., kdl, foot, kal, a stone, and most nouns of quality—e.g.,

kar, black, vel, white, se, red, &c.

A suspicion may be entertained

that some of the apparently simple nouns belonging to this class are

derived from verbal roots which have become obsolete.

Thus, mun,

before, a noun of relation, appears at first sight to be an underived

radical, yet it is evident that it is connected with mudal, first ; and

this word, being a verbal noun in daf, is plainly derived from a verb

in mu, now lost ; so that, after all, mun itself appears to be a verbal

derivative : mél, above, may similarly be traced to a lost verb m,

apparent in the Telugu and Tamil midu, above ; mél is equivalent to

mi-y-al : Fir, below, may be traced to ke (found in kir-angw, root).

fl

3. Particles.—A large majority of the Dravidian post-positions and

i

adverbs, and of the particles employed in nominal and verbal in-

0

Every

flexions are known to be verbs or nouns adapted to special uses.

f

word belonging to the class of adverbs and prepositions in the Dravi-

1

dian languages is either the infinitive or the participle of a verb, or the

f

nominative, the genitive, or the locative of a noun ; and even of the

f

inflexional particles which are employed in the declension of nouns,

il

and in conjugating verbs, nearly all are easily recognised to be derived

h\

from nouns or verbs.

Thus, in Telugu, the signs of the instrumental

ablative, ché and chéta, are the nominative and locative of the word

hand. So also the Tamil locative of rest may be formed by the addi-

f

tion of any noun which signifies a place ; and the locative of separation,

If

a case denoting motion from a place, or rather the place from whence

(1

motion commences, is formed by the addition of 7% or of 4/, the ordi-

1l

nary sign of the locative of rest, which means here or a house.

The same suffix added to the crude aoristic form of the verb, con-

!

stitutes the subjunctive case in Tamil—e.g., var-il or var-in, if (he, she,

i

it, or they) come, literally, in.(his or their) coming—that is, in the

event of (his or their) coming.

Of the post-positions or suffixes, which are used as signs of case,

some distinctly retain their original meaning; in some, the eriginal

meaning shines more or less distinctly through the technical appropri-

ation ; but it is doubtful whether any trace whatever remains of the

-

—

ROOTS ORIGINALLY MONOSYLLABIC

93

original meaning of kw, ki, or ge, the sign of the dative, and particle of

direction

The Dravidian dative has, therefore, assumed the character

0

of a real grammatical case ; and in this particular the Dravidian lan-

guages have been brought into harmony with the genius of the Indo-

06

European grammar

h

i

DrAvipIAN RooTs ORIGINALLY MONOSYLLABIC.—It may appear at

of

first sight scarcely credible that the Dravidian roots were originally

f1

monosyllabic, when it is considered that the majority of the words in

ed

every Dravidian sentence are longer than those of (perhaps) any other

(9

language in Asia or Europe (e.g., compare ¢rukkitadu, Tamil, it is, with

Il

the Latin est), and are inferior in length only to the words of the poly-

o

synthetic lanouawes of America.

il

The great length of Dravidian words arises partly from the separa-

)

tion of clashing consonants by the insertion of euphonic vowels, but

hal

chleﬂy from the successive amlutlnamon of formative and inflexional

1y

particles and pronominal fragments.

A cons1derable number of Dra-

b0

vidian verbal themes, prior to the addition of inflexional forms, are

trisyllabic ;

but it will generally be found that the first two syllables

aud

have been expanded out of one by the euphonic insertion or addition

of a vowel ; whilst the last syllable of the apparent base is in reality a

el

formative addition, which appears to have been the sign of a verbal

o

noun 1in its origin, but which now serves to distinguish transitive verbs

\ i

from 1ntra,ns,1t1ves

In some instances the first syllable of the verbal

e

fheme contains the root, whilst the second is a particle anciently added

DIy

to it, and compounded with it for the purpose of expanding or restrict-

nved

ing the sionification

The syllables that are added to the inflexional

ol

il

base are those which denote case, tense, person, and number

Hence, whatever be the length and complication of Dravidian words

o

it

they may invariably be traced up to monosyllabic roots, by a careful

removal of successive accretions

il

ol

Thus, when we analyse perugugir-

adu, Tam. it increases, we find that the final adu represents the pro-

pcé

ol

noun 1it, gur is the sign of the present tense, and 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 neuter signification ; and by

(0n

i

its removal we come to perw, the real root, which is used also as an

adjective or noun of quality, signifying greatness or great

Nor is

] fhe

even this dissyllable peru the ultimate condition of the root; it is an

euphonised form of per, which 1s found in the adjectives per-iya and

Casev

per-um, great ; and an euphonically lengthened but monosyllabic form

71113l

of the same is pér

Thus, by successive agglutinations, a word of six

ot

syllables has been found to grow out of one

In all these forms, and

e

94

ROOTS

under every shape which the word can assume, the radical element

remains unchanged, or -is so slightly changed that it can readily be

pointed out by the least experienced scholax

The root always stands

out in distinct relief, unobscured, unabsorbed, though surrounded by a

large family of auxiliary affixes

This distinctness and prominence of

the radical element in every word is a characteristic feature of all the

whilst in

Scythian tongues (e.g., of the Turkish and.the Hungarian)

the Semitic and Indo-European tongues the root.is frequently so much

altered that it can scarcely be recognised.

Dravidian roots, adds Dr Gundert, arrange themselyes naturally in

two classes, each originally monosyllabic; one class ending in a vowel

generally long—e.g., d, to become ; $d, to die; po, to g

o; or ending in

a consonant, in which case the vowel is short—e.g., ad’, to approach

f

to be in contact

nel, to stand

sel, to go

(Additions to these

(

monosyllabic roots are either formative particles, particles of specialisa-

tion, or helps to enunciation.)

t

It is desirable here to explain in detail the manner in which Dra-

o

vidian roots ongmally monosyllabie, have been lengthened by the

insertion or addition of euphonic vowels, or by formative additions, or

Y0

in both ways

13

0l

EupsoNIc LENGTHENING OF RooTs.*—Crude Dravidian .roots are

T

sometimes lengthened by the addition of an euphonic vowel to the

I

base

This euphonic addition, to the final consonant takes place in

of

grammatical Telugu and Canarese in the case of all words ending in a

Iy

consonant, whatever be the number of syllables they contain

Vowel

hy

additions to roots which contain two syllables and upwards, seem to be

il

made solely for the purpose of helping the enunciation ; but when the

additions which have been made to some monosyllabic roots are

by

th

examined, it will be found that they are intended not so much for

th

vocalisation as for euphonisation

flo

When it is desired merely to help the enunciation of a final con-

Ty

sonant, «-is the vowel that is ordinarily employed for this purpose, and

b}

this « is uniformly elided when it is followed by another vowel ;*but %

Iy

is not the only vowel which is added on to monosyllabic roots, though

0

iy

very

* Dr Gundert considers the “ euphgnie lengthening of Dravidian.xoots

il

doubtful

He prefers to consider the lengthened forms of the roots secondary

verbal themes

On the other hand, the interchangeableness of the added vowels

the

¥y

in the various dialects, as will presently be shown, seems to me to prove the

correctness, on the whole, of the view I have taken

Some of the lengthened

i

forms of Dravidian roots are undoubtedly to be regarded as secondary verbal

y

themes

These will be considered further on

-

e

E?PHONIC LENGTHENING OF ROOTS.

‘

95

i

perhaps it; is mosf frequently met with ; and in some of the instances

b

under congideration, it becomes so intimately blended with the real base

that it will not consent to be elided. Next to u, the vowel which is

s

K]

most commonly employed is 4, then follows a, then e or ei, according

i

to the dialect. Verbal roots borrowed from Sanskrit have generally ¢

added to the final consonants in all the Dravidian languages, to which

the

the _Telugu adds nchu

j 1

» and the Canarese su, formatives which will be

noticed afterwards.

100

Thus, sap, Sans. to curse, is in Tamil sadi, in

Tel. sahinchu, in Ca,

n. sabisu.

On comparing the various Dravidian

3

idioms, it will be found that all these auxiliary or enunciative vowels

el

are interchangeable. Thus, of Tamil verbs in @, mara, to forget, is in

Canarese mare,; of Tamil verbs in v, kadi, to bite, is in Telugu kara-

g1l

chu ; gels, to win, is in Canarese gullu. Of Tamil verbs in e, muler,

i

to sprout, is in Telugu moluchu.

eS¢

These final vowels being thus inter-

changeable equivalents, it appears to me evident that they are intended

13

merely as helps to enunciation, that they are not essential parts of the

D

themes to which they are suffixed, and that they do not add anything

to their meaning.

,1 i

Dr Gundert considers # to be the only enunciative or euphonic

[13) 0

vowel. The other auxiliary vowels a, 1, er, &c., he considers the for-

mative particles of secondary verbal themes. One Canarese dialec‘it,,,v he

observes (the modern), prefers e—e.g., nade, to walk, instead of the

s o

Tamil nada ,; the other (the ancient), 4,—e.g., nadi.

The radical fé)i?m

10 f

he considers to be nad-», a root no longer used in Ta.mil in the sense

el

of to walk, but meaning to plant. He suggests thab mules, to sprout,

ginﬁ

may. be from a lost mul, to come forth, t

.

o protrude, whence mul, a

WW&J

thorn. This also he suggests may be a verbal noun, a derivative of

mu, to be prominent, to be before. The verb ‘kdqla, to walk, adduced

o

0

'

by Dr Gundert, seems to me to prove that in this instance at least, and

b o

therefore probably in somie other instances, the vowel added to the

o

the. root is simply, as I have represented it to be, a help to enuncia-

tion. On comparing Tam.-Mal. nada, anc. Can. nadzs, mod. Can. nade,

L

Tel. nadu—all which forms convey exactly the same meaning—I feel

; il

Qb{iged to conclude that the a, 4, ¢, and « are interchangeable equiva-

i

lents, and therefore merely euphonic. On the other hand, where a

jorg

sei:iévs“-é‘f verbal roots followed by these vowels'is met with in the voca-

/

bula’ryjbf one and the same dialect, and we find that each root so

altered possesses a meaning of its own, I have no hesit

g y \‘.e[j

ation in classing

iy

the added vowels in question with Particles of Speci

alisation (which

see). We may fairly éon_clﬁde this to be the case with

VOWCIS

one of the verbs

oo 182

Ijeferred to by Dr Gundert—viz., padu. In this shape in Tamil it

;theﬂed

appears to mean primarily, to come in contact with, commonly, to He

=

; Veiba}

96

ROOTS.

down, to be caught, to suffer; padi is to settle down, to subside ;

down, to present food, &e. (pades, a layer in a building,

padet, to lay

an army). Compare also padar, to spread, padal, a slab, and padgaw, af #"

a boat.

ForMATIVE ApDITIONS To Roors.—Formative suffixes are appended

to the crude bases of nouns as well as to those of verbs. They 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 last syllable,

generally the third. These particles seem originally to have been the

formatives of verbal nouns, and the verbs to which they are suffixed

seem originally to have had the force of secondary verbs ; but what-

ever may have been the origin of these particles, they now serve to

distinguish transitive verbs from intransitives, and the adjectival form

of nouns from that which stands in an isolated position and is used

as a nominative.

In Tamil, in which these formatives are most largely

used and most fully developed, the initial consonant of the formative

the

is single when it marks the intransitive or neuter signiﬁcation of

verb, or that form of the noun which governs verbs or is governed by

them : when it marks the transitive or active voice of the verb, or the

adjectival form of the noun—viz, that form of the noun which is

assumed by the first of two nouns that stand in a case relation to one

another—the initial consonant of the formative is doubled, and is at

:i

the same time changed from a sonant into a stird.” T,

he single con-

sonant, which is characteristic of the intransitive formative, is often

euphonised by prefixing a nasal, without, however, altering its signifi-

cation or value. The Tamilian formatives are—(1.) gu or ngu, and its

transitive kku, answering to the Telugu chu or nchu ; (2.) $u and its

transitive $su or chu; (3.)

du or ndu, and its transitive ¢fu, with its

equivalent du or ndu, and 1its transit

ive tfu; and (4.) bu or mbu, With

1

its transitive ppu.

Though I call these particles formatives, they are not regarded in

!

this light by native grammarians.

They are generally suffixed even to

the imperative, which is supposed by them to be the crude form of the

verb ; they form a portion of the inflexional base, to which all signs

i

of gender, number, and case, and also of mood and tense, are appended 5

and hence it was natural that native grammarians should regard them

as constituent elements of the root.

I have no doubt, however, of

the propriety of representing them as formatives, seeing that they con-

tribute nothing to the signification of the root, and that it is only by

means of a further change, i.e., by being hardened and doubled, that

,&@,}%

)

FORMATIVE ADDITIONS TO ROOTS,

97

they express a grammatical relation, viz., the difference between the

5

transitive and the intransitive forms of verbs, and between adjectival

and independent nouns.

1, q!”

In this particular, perhaps, more than in any other, the high gram-

matical cultivation of Tamil has developed a tendency to imitate the

el

Indo-European tongues by retaining syllables of which it has lost the

e

original distinctive meaning, and combining such syllables after a time

e

with the radical element of the word, or using them for a new purpose.

0

I proceed to consider the various formatives more particularly, with

examples of their use and force.

il

the

(1.) %u, pronounced gu, with its nasalised equivalent ngu, and. its

transitive kku.

Tamil examples : peru-gu, intrans. to become increased,

el

o

peru-kku, trans. to cause to increase; ada-ngu, to be contained,

ada-kku, to contain.

1

So also in the case of dissyllabic roots—e.g.,

d-gu, to become, d-kku, to make ; ni-ngu, to quit, #é-kku, to put away.

il

el

There is a considerable number of nouns, chiefly trisyllabic, in which

gl

the same formative is employed.

In this case, however, there is no

difference between the isolated shape of the noun and the adjectival

il

i fl

shape.

Whatever particle is used, whether gu, ngu, or kku, it retains

il

its position in all circumstances unchanged. Examples: pada-gu, a

boat, kira-ngu, a root, karu-kku, a sharp edge.

From a comparison of

or e

oh B

the above examples, it is evident that mg is equivalent to ¢, and

euphonised from it; and that ng, equally with g, becomes %% in a

0 0N

transitive connection.

In a few instances, k%, the transitive forma-

o

g (00

tive, is altered in colloquial Tamil usage to ¢k, chu, according to a law

of interchange already noticed—e.g., kdykku, to boil (crude root kdy,

ofl

to be hot), is generally written and pronounced kdychchw. This altered

clkﬂ]‘h

i 8

form of the sign of the transitive, which is the exception in Tamil, is

in Telugu the rule of the language, #ku being regularly replaced in

nd 18

Telugu by chu.

!

In Telugu the intransitive formative gw is not euphonically altered

I it

into 7gu as in Tamil ; but an obscure nasal, the half anusvdra, often

I

precedes the gu, and shows that in both languages the same tendency

I

i

to mnasalisation exists.

It is remarkable, that whilst Tamil often

el

!

v

nasalises the formative of the neuter, and never admits a nasal into the

0

i

transitive formative, Telugu, in a large number 'of cases, nasalises.

il

]

the transitive, and generally leaves the neuter in its primitive, un-

[t

nasalised condition.

Thus in Telugu, whenever the base terminates in

peﬂd

g e

¢ (including a large number of Sanskrit derivatives), chu is converted

i

orely

into nchu ; though neither in this nor in any case does the Zkw of the

6y w

Tamil change into ngku.

L.g., from ratgi, double, Tamil forms

onlf by

ratti-kka (infinitive), to double ; whilst the Telugu form of the same

G

98

ROOTS.

is rettr-ncha

manni-ncha, to forgive, in Telugu, corresponds in the

In some cases in Telugu the

same manner to the Tamil manni-kka

euphonic nasal is prefixed to cZu, not after ¢ only, but after other vowels

besides

Thus, perugu, to increase, neut. is the same in Tamil and in

Telugu, but instead of finding peru-chu to be the transitive or active

(corresponding to the Tamil transitive peru-kku), we find penchu, cor-

rupted from per’-nchu .

so also instead of pagu-kku, Tam. to divide, we

find in Telugu panchu, for pag’-nchu.

The identity of the Tamil % and the Telugu ch appears also from the

circumstance that in many cases vu may optionally be used in Telugu

instead of chu

This use of vu as the equivalent of chu points to a

time when gu was the formative in ordinary use in Telugu as in Tamil

for ¢ has no tendency to be converted into v, b, or p, whilst £ or g

constantly evinces this tendency to change into », not only in Telugu

but also in colloquial Tamil

and v is regularly interchangeable with

b and its surd p. I conclude, therefore, that gu was the original shape

of this formative in the Dravidian languages ; and that its doubled

surd shape, kku, the formative of transitives, was softened in Telugu

into c¢/u, and in Canarese still further softened into $u.

(2.) $u, and its transitive $Su, pronounced chchu.—This formative

is very rare in Tamil, and the examples which Telugu contains

though abundant, are not to the point, inasmuch as they are apparently

altered from the older 4w and kku, by the ordinary softening process

by which % changes into § or ¢k, and %k into chch

A Tamil example

" il

of this formative is seen in adei-$u, to take refuge, of which the transi-

tive is adei-chchu, to enclose, to twine round

(3.) dw or ndu, with its transitive form ¢fu.—There appears to be

no difference whatever between this formative and the other three, gu,

$u, or bu, in meaning or grammatical relation ; and as gu is eupho-

nised in the intransitive to ngw, so is du to ndw ; whilst in the transi-

tive the doubled d (and its equivalent nd) changes by rule into #

The euphonic change of du to ndw has so generally taken place, that

ndw is invariably used instead of du in the formatives of verbs of this

class

and it is only in the formatives of nouns that dw, the more

primitive form, is sometimes found to have survived. The formative

gu remains unaltered in the adjectival form of nouns; but du changes

into ¢tw, when used adjectivally, in the same manner as in the transi-

tive voice of verbs

tiru-ndu, to

Tamil examples of this formative

become correct, teru-titu, to correct

maru-ndw, medicine, adjectival

form of the same, maru-ttu—e.g., maruttu-(p)pei, a medicine bag. The

primitive unnasalised du and its adjectival #fu are found in such words

as eru-du, a bull, an ox, and eru-ttu-(p)pittu, the fastening of an ox’s

=

FORMATIVE ADDITIONS TO ROOTS.

99

traces.

Nearly all the verbs which take du or ndu as a formative are

6

trisyllabic.

Of the few dissyllabic verbs of this class in Tamil, the

)

most interesting is néndu, to swim, of which I am inclined to consider

I

7t as the crude form. Nindu is evidently an euphonised form of n3duw

1e

(du changed into ndu); for the verbal noun derived from it, nittal,

I

swimming, is without the nasal, and Telugu uses 7du for the verb

6

itself, instead of #ndw, Tulu fianda, Can. #$u, #u.

I have little

doubt that the du, ndu, or ju of this word is simply a formative. It

he

is open to question whether the initial # of the Tamil word is a cor-

gl

ruption, owing to the fondness of the Tamil for nasal sounds, so that

)&

the original shape was % or #du, or whether the Tel. and Can. word

had the initial 7 originally, but lost it in course of time.

If

Comparing

the Tamil word with nér, the word for water in all the Dravidian

y

dialects, I am inclined to consider 7% the primitive base, answering to

th

the Greek -, the Latin no, nato, and also to nawu, Sans. a boat, of

-

0

which Sanskrit does not appear to contain the root.

ed,

Derivative nouns formed from verbs which have formative suffixes,

always prefer as their formative the transitive suffix, or that which

i

doubles and hardens the initial consonant.

Thus from #ru-ndu, Tam,

five

to become correct, is formed #iru-ttam, correction ; and from #t-ngu, to

oIS,

sleep, td-kkam, sleep (comp. tuyil, sleep).

In some instances the

il

crude root of a verb is used as the intransitive, whilst the transitive is

formed by the addition of #w to the root.

(0689

E.g., padu, Tam. to lie

m‘ﬂxe

down, padu-ttu, to lay; tdr, to be low, #dr-ttu, to lower ; nil (Tel.

ik

wilw), to stand, niru-ttu (for nilu-ttu), to establish.

In such cases

Canarese uses du instead of the Tamil ttu—e.g., tdl-du, to lower,

t 06

instead of tdr-ttu.

This transitive formative is sometimes represented

1’ 7!«,

as a causal ; but it will be shown in the section on ¢ The Verb ” that

¢ is the only real causal in the Dravidian languages.

In all the cases

I

o

oSt

now mentioned, where ¢ is used as the formative of the transitive by

Tamil, Telugu uses cku or pu.

o f

1ok

i

I class under the head of this formative all those nouns in which the

s

cerebral consonants d, »d, and ¢¢, are used in the same manner and for

the same purpose as the dentals d, nd, and tt—e.g., kuru-du, blindness,

o

{I

adjectival form of the same, kuru-ttu, blind ; ira-ndu, two, adjectival

1 \(4

form, <ra-ttw, double.

Telugu hardens, but does not double, the

final ¢ of such nouns—e.g., dd-u, a leak, 6¢, leaky. In some instances

s

in Tamil the hard rough r, when used as a final, seems to be equiva-

P

I

11

e

lent to du, or du, and is doubled and pronounced with a t—e.g.,

Fina-ru, a well, kina-rru (pronounced kipattru), of a well,

The

'Ords

(4.) bu or mbu, with its transitive ppu.—In Canarese, bu, the

0%

100

ROOTS.

original form of this intransitive suffix, has been softened into vu, and

in Tamil, bz has universally been euphonised into mbu. This Tamilian

formative mbu is in some instances softened in Telugu nouns into mu.

The bu or mbu of Tamil verbs is superseded by vz or gz in Telugu ;

and the forms answering to the Tamil transitive ppu are pu and mpu,

rarely ppu.

Example of the use of this formative by a verb: nira-

mbu, Tam. to be full, nira-ppu, to fill; of which the crude base nar

reappears in the related verbs nir-a, mir-avu, nir-ei, and nir-ei, to be

full, to be level, &c.

Telugu has nipdu instead of nerambu,; but

—

the transitive nimpu answers very nearly to the Tamil nzrappu.

Example of a noun in mbu and ppu: wru-mbu, Tam. iron, adjectival

form, 2ru-ppu, of iron—e.g., wruppu-(k)kdl, an iron rod.

In Telugu

Canarese

wrumbu is softened into znuwmu, adjectival form wnupa.

still adheres to the original form of this suffix, generally softening & into

v, but leaving it always unnasalised—e.g., Canarese %dvu, a snake,

properly pdvu: Tamil pdmbu, nasalised from pdbu; adjectival form

phppu—e.g., pappu-(k)kodr, the serpent banner : Telugu, still further

altered, pdmau.

This example clearly illustrates the progressive

euphonisation of the formative in question.

|;

It has been mentioned that Telugu uses pu or mpu as a forma-

It should be

tive of transitive verbs where Tamil uses ppu.

added that even in those cases where Tamil uses the other forma-

tives previously noticed, viz., Ak and ¢tw, Telugu often prefers pu.

Compare the following infinitives in Tamil and in Telugu—e.g., méykka,

Tam. to feed cattle, mépa, Tel.

P

.

nirutta, Tam. to establish, nilupa,

Tel

Where kkw in Tamil, and pu in Telugu, are preceded by 4, this

formative becomes in Telugu either mpu or nchu—e.g., compare oppuvi-

kka, Tamil, to deliver over, with the corresponding Telugu infinitive,

oppagir-mpa, or oppagi-ncha.

It appears from the various particulars now mentioned, that tran-

sitive verbs and nouns used adjectivally must have been regarded by

The

the primitive Tamilians as possessing some quality in common.

common feature possessed by each is doubtless the quality of transi-

tion ; for it is evident that when nouns are used adjectivally there is a

transition of the quality or aet denoted by the adjectival noun to the

noun substantive to which it is prefixed, which corresponds to the

transition of the action denoted by the transitive verb to the accusative

which it governs.

It is manifest that the various particles which are used as formatives

do not essentially differ from one another either in signification, in the

purpose for which they are used, in the manner in which they are

e

FORMATIVE ADDITIONS TO ROOTS.

101

affixed, or in the manner in which they are doubled and hardened. It

seems to have been euphony only that determined which of the sonants

I

9> $, d, d, or b, should be suffixed as a formative to any particular verb

)

Il

or noun. The only particular in which a grammatical principle appears

to exist, is the doubling of the initial consonant of the formative,

to denote or correspond with the putting forth of energy, which is

f

inherent in the idea of active or transitive verbs, as distinguished

e

from intransitives.

it

Whilst the use of these formatives appears to have originated mainly

1l

in considerations of euphony, Dr Gundert thinks that in some instances

al

traces of a frequentative meaning may be discovered. He adduces

i}

minungu, to glitter, from man, to shine.

This instance seems to carry

lbe

weight. The other instances adduced by him, such as velu-velukka,

to

are properly infinitives of iterative, mimetic verbs.

ke,

From the statements and examples given above; it may be concluded

I

that wherever Dravidian verbs or nouns are found to terminate in any

ther

of the syllables referred to, there is reason to suspect that the first

g7

part of the word alone constitutes or contains the] root. The final

it

syllables gu, ngu, kku; $u, chu duy ndu, ttu; du, ndu, ttw,; bu, mbu,

Jylitt

mpt, pu, ppu 5 mu, v, may as a general rule be rejected as formative

| I

additions.

This rule will be found on examination to throw unex-

i

n\ﬂ

1l

pected light on the derivation and relationship of many nouns which

5/

are commonly supposed to be primitive and independent, but which,

i

when the syllables referred to above are rejected, are found to be

7] I[)ﬂ,

derived from or alljed to verbal roots which are still in use. I adduce,

Rl

as exawples, the following Tamil words :—Fkombu, a branch, a twig

W,m

vémbu, the margosa-tree ; vambu, abuse ; pdmbu, a snake. As soon as

e

the formative final, mbu, is rejected, the verbs from which these nouns

are derived are brought to light.

Thus, ko-mbu, a twig, is plainly

I

derived from %o-y, to pluck off, to cut; vé-mbu, the niargosa-tree, is

I

from vé-y, to screen or shade (the shade of this tree being peculiarly

The

prized) ; va-mbu, abuse, is from vei, properly va-y (corresponding to the

trﬁn\l

Canarese bayyu), to revile; pd-mbu, a snake, is from pd-y, to spring.

R

In these instances, the verbal base which is now in use ends in ¢ L

10

ot

merely euphonic addition, which does not belong to the root, and

f fie

which disappears in the derivatives before the consonants which are

i

added as formatives. The same principle applied to nouns ending in

the other formative syllables will be found to yield similar results—

gfi7e8

e.g., marunda, a medical drug, from maru, to be fragrant ; and

] fhe

kirangu, a root, from ki, to be beneath, the ¢ of which, though long

in the Tamil %ér, is short in the Telugu kinda, below.

e

102

ROOTS.

REDUPLICATION OF THE FINAL CONSONANT OF THE RooT.—The

principle of employing reduplication as a means of producing gramma-

tical expression is recognised by the Dravidian languages as well as

by those of the Indo-European family, though the mode in which the

reduplication is effected and the objects in view are different.

It is in

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

changed from a sonant into a surd. The final consonant of a Tamil

root is doubled—(1.) for the purpose of changing a noun into an

adjective, showing that it qualifies another noun, or of putting it in the

genitive case—e.g., from mddu, an ox, is formed md¢s-u(¢)t6l, ox-hide ;

(2.) for the purpose of converting an intransitive or neuter verb into a

transitive—e.g., from 4d-u, to run, is formed offu, to drive ; (3.) for

the purpose of forming the preterite—e.g., tag-u, to be fit, takk-a, that

was fit; and (4.) for the purpose of forming derivative nouns from

verbal themes—e.g, from erud-u, to write, is formed erutt-u, a letter.

(See this subject further elucidated in the sections on “The Noun”

and “The Verb.”) It is remarkable that whilst the Indo-European

tongues often mark the past tense by the reduplication of the first

syllable, it is by the redupliecation of the last letter that the Dravidian

languages effect this purpose; and also, that whilst the Tibetan con-

verts a noun into a verb by doubling the last consonant, this should be

a Dravidian method of converting a verb into a noun.

The rationale

of the Dravidian reduplication seems to be, that it was felt to be a

natural way to express the idea of ¢ransition both in the act and in the

result.

In Hebrew also the doubling of a consonant is intensitive or

causative.

Up to this point it has been found that all D-ravidian polysyllabic

roots are traceable to a monosyllabic base, lengthened either by

euphonic additions, or by the addition of formative particles. An

important class of dissyllabic bases remains, of which the second

syllable, whatever may have been its origin, is an inseparable particle

of specialisation, into the nature and use of which we shall now inquire.

ParTIcLES OF SPECIALISATION.—The verbs and nouns belonging to

the class of bases which are now under consideration, consist of a

monosyllabic root or stem, containing the generic signification, and a

second syllable, originally perhaps a formative addition, or perhaps the

fragment of a lost root or lost postposition, by which the generic

meaning of the stem is in some manner modified. The second syllable

appears sometimes to expand and sometimes to restrict the significa-

tion, but in some instances, through the absence of synonyms, its force

PARTICLES OF SPECIALISATION.

103

cannot now be ascertained. As this syllable is intended ih some

manner to specialise the meaning of the root, I call it ¢ the particle of

specialisation.”

It is certain in some cases, probable in many, that

these particles of specialisation were originally formatives of verbal

nouns.

This will appear from a comparison of the verbs and nouns

contained in the list of final particles which will be found near the end

of this section.

The principle involved in the use of these particles of specialisation,

and the manner in which it is carried into effect, correspond in a cer-

tain degree to a characteristic feature of the Semitic languages, which

it appears to be desirable to notice here.

As far back as the separate

existence of the Semitic family of languages can be traced, every root

is found to consist of two syllables, comprising generally three conson-

ants.

When Semitic biliteral roots are compared with their synonyms,

or corresponding roots, in the Indo-European languages, and especially

with those which are found in Sanskrit, a simpler and more primitive

root-system has been brought to light.

It has been ascertained in a

considerable number of instances that whilst the first syllable of the

il

Hebrew root corresponds with Sanskrit, the second syllable does

o

not in any manner correspond to any Indo-European synonym.

It is

Al

found also that the second syllable has not any essential connection

O

with the first, and that a considerable number of families of roots exist

1]

in which the first syllable is the same in each case, whilst the second

it

It is therefore inferred that in such cases the first

continually varies.

X

syllable alone (comprising two consonants, the initial and the final,

{hy

together with the vowel used for enunciation) contains the radical base

o0

and generic signification, and that the second syllable, perhaps the

fragment of an obsolete auxiliary verb, has been appended to the first

Al

and afterwards compounded with it, for the purpose of giving the

Iy

generic signification a specific and definite direction.

According to

)

this view, which appears to be in the main correct, Hebrew roots are

ol

to be regarded, not singly and separately, as independent monads, but

s

as arranged generically in clusters or groups, exhibiting general resem-

e

blances and special differences. The family likeness resides in the first

syllable, the radical base ; the individuality, or special peculiarity, in

o f0

the second, the particle of specialisation,

i

It is true that in some instances the second syllable of Semitic roots

i

a

meets with its counterpart in the Indo-European languages, as well as

{he

the first, or even instead of the first ; but the peculiar rule or law now

it

referred to is found to pervade so large a portion of the Hebrew roots,

;ble

that it justly claims to be considered as a characteristic of the language.

10l

Thus, there is a family of Hebrew roots signifying generally to divide,

)i

104

ROOTS.

to cleave, to separate, &c.

The members of this family are pdldh,

padlah, pdlag, pdld, pdlal ; and also (through the dialectic interchange

It cannot be doubted that

of ¢ with ») pdrash, pdras, Chaldee peras.

in all these instances the first syllable pdl or par, or rather p-r, p-l (for

the vowel belongs not to the root, but to the grammatical relation),

L

expresses merely the general idea of division; whilst the second

syllable (which is in some instances a reduplication of the final con-

-

sonant of the biliteral) expresses, or is supposed to express, the parti-

cular mode in which the division or partition is effected. 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 languages,

whilst the second syllable is merely modal.

In this instance we not

only observe a distinct analogy between the Hebrew roots p-», p-/, and

the Greek wiz-w, the Latin par-s, par-tis, and the Sanskrit phal, to

divide, but we also discover the existence of an analogy with the Dra-

f

vidian languages,

Compare with the Hebrew p-r, p-I, the Tamil pirs,

to divide, and pdl, a part ; pila and pdr, to cleave ; as also pagur and

pagu, to portion out, to divide.

See also the ¢ Glossarial Affinities.”

On turning our attention to the root-system of the Dravidian lan-

guages, we are struck with the resemblance which it bears to the

Semitic root-system referred to above.. We find in these languages

groups of related roots, the first syllables of which are nearly or 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 conjoined

.

as to become one indivisible etymon.

The specialising particle, which

was probably a separable suffix, formative, or postposition at first, has

become by degrees a component part of the word ; and this word, so

compounded, constitutes the base to which all formatives, properly so

called, and all inflexional particles are appended.

This root-system exists in all the languages of the Dravidian family,

but its nature and peculiarities are especially apparent in Tamil.

Out

of many such groups of related Tamil roots, I select as illustrations

two groups which commence with the first letter of the alphabet.

1. Roots which radiate from the base syllable ad .—

adu

to come near ; also to cook, to kill, to unite, to belong to.

adangu

adakku

}to be contained, to enclose.

ady

to drive in, commonly to beat. adi, as a noun,>the basis

of any thing, a footstep, a sole.

=

PARTICLES OF SPECIALISATION.

105

ader

to attain, to get in, to roost ; transitive, to enclose.

adei$u

to stuff in.

adar

to be close together, to be crowded, to join battle.

adukku

to place one thing upon another, to pile up. This verb and

adaklw are properly aduk and adak, but final % in Tamil

is always vocalised by the help of %, and often doubled,

as in this instance, before receiving the » and a of the

root.

andu (Tel. antu), to approach. This verb seems to be identical

with adw, the first in the list, and euphonised from it

by the insertion of the nasal.

Compare also the related

verb an.

It is obvious that all these roots are pervaded by a family resem-

blance.

All contain the generic notion of nearness, expressed by the

first or base syllable ad ; whilst each, by means of the second syllable,

or particle of specialisation, denotes some particular species of nearness.

?. Roots which radiate from the base syllable azn :—

l

il

anu, anugu

to approach, to touch.

ant

to put on, to wear.

aner,

to connect, to embrace ; as a noun, a weir, a dam,

\l

anavi

to cleave to.

It

anpu

to resort to, to lean upon.

{From this verb is derived

annal or annan, an elder brother, one to lean upon, a

géi

derivation which has at least the merit of being poet-

i

ical).

The corresponding Telugu verb is dnuta.

106,

anmu

to be near.

o

1

The generic idea signified by the base syllable az is evidently that

of contact; and this group differs from the previous one as actual

) (1

el

contact differs from contiguity or nearness. Probably dni, a nail, a

fastening, is derived from the same verb, and it appears probable also

e

that this is the origin of the Sanskrit an¢ or dzs, the pin of an axle.

i

¥

The illustrations given above prove, that the second syllables of the

various verbs now adduced have not been added merely for purposes

&

of euphony, but have been appended in order to expand, to restrict, or

in some manner to modify and specialise the signification.

It was

nlf

shown in a previous part of this section, that the vowels a, 7, u, ¢, and

(ue

Tt 1S

et are sometimes added euphonically to monosyllabic roots.

fond

obvious, however, that this is not the only purpose for which those

vowel additions are used ; and it is of importance to know that when

they are merely euphonic they are found to be interchangeable with

other vowels, whereas when they are used as particles of specialisation

they retain their individual character more firmly. Probably they had

all a specialising signification at first, which they retain in some in-

sl

stances, but have lost in others.

106

ROOTS.

The examples already given may suffice to illustrate the use of

appended wowels as specialising particles.

Syllables ending in conson-

ants, especially in 7 and 7, are also used very frequently for this pur-

pose ; and it seems desirable here to adduce examples of the use of

particles of this class.

As has already been observed in connection

with ¢ Formative Additions to Roots,” all these syllables seem to have

been originally formatives of verbal nouns, probably each of them with

a specialising signification.

Many of the verbal nouns so formed have

then become secondary verbal themes.

The following examples are

mostly from Tamil, in which / and » may stand as finals.

The other

dialects add w to the final consonant of each of these particles.

Tamil

requires this euphonic addition of % only when a word ends in the hard,

rough r, or in any consonant besides the nasals and semi-vowels.

Each word 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 words, 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 :—

i

FINAL PARTICLES.

VERBS.

Nouns.

ar

valar, to grow.

sudar, lustre.

t

wr

tuler, vto sprout.

ugir, a finger nail.

ur

nudur-u, Tel. the forehead.

ar

pugar, to praise.

iday, a flower petal.

w

magir, to rejoice.

awvir, a grain of rice.

ar-u

tdar-u, to trip.

kenar-u, a well.

l:i

-y

Adyixr-u, the sun.

al

sural, to whirl.

2ral, the liver.

2l

kwyel, to utter a sound.

veyil, sunshine,

2wl

pagul-w, Tel. to break,

al

b

tuval, to bend.

tungal, the moon.

2l

madzl, a fort wall.

I

ul

wrul, to roll.

wrul, darkness.

i

£]

Of all the thirteen specialising particles ending in consonants of

‘1'1

which examples have now been adduced, only one appears occasionally

It

to be used as an equivalent for a vowel addition : ar alternates with

et—e.g., amar, Tam. to rest, and amei, are apparently equivalent.

The verb to grow, also, is in Tamil valar, and in Canarese bale, which

in Tamil would be valer.

§

The original meaning of most of the particles used as formative

(

suffixes or particles of specialisation, is now unknown, but there are two

[§

of which the meaning appears nearly certain ; these are ¢/, which survives

!

as a substantive, meaning here or a house, the particle used as the most

l

PARTICLES OF SPECIALISATION.

107

common case sign of the locative in Tamil-Malayilam, and «/, which is

still used both as a noun and as a verb; as a noun meaning within,

and as a verb, to be.

The force of these particles and their retention

[

of the locative signification will appear in such instances as vdyil, a

I

doorway, literally the mouth house (from »dy, mouth) ; wveyil, the heat

of the sun, literally, that in which heat resides (from wvey, to be hot).

Dr Gundert suggests also porul, wealth, which may come from poru,

{4

to unite ; arul, grace, from aru, to be scarce, precious ; and uru/, dark-

[6

ness, from <7, to be dark, the root of #rd, night.

el

I here subjoin an example of another peculiar and interesting set of

1l

groups of roots found in the Dravidian languages, which are formed

!

upon a plan differing considerably from that which has now been ex-

plained. The roots referred to are dissyllabic, but they contain only one

)

consonant, which is preceded and followed by a vowel.

This conson-

18

ant appears to represent the ultimate or radical base, whilst the initial

ol

and final vowels alter in accordance with the particular shade of signi-

|3

fication which it is desired to convey. When we compare ¢du, Tam.

i

to press or crush, odu, to squeeze, to bring into a smaller compass, and

ide, to bruise, to beat down, as also adi, to drive in, or odz, to break

in two, and ude: (pronounced odez), to break open ; we cannot avoid

the conclusion that the first four roots are closely related members of

the same family or group; that the last two are in like manner

il

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 ¢, and the same generic

signification,

¢

The existence of clusters of roots, like these mentioned above, is not

a peculiarity of the Dravidian languages alone.

Max Miiller (Lec-

tures, ii. 313) observes, “ We find in Sanskrit and in all the Aryan

languages clusters of roots, expressive of one common idea, and differing

from each other merely by one or two additional letters, either at the

end or at the beginning.”

In illustration of this he says, “To go,

would be expressed by sar, to creep by sarp; to shout by nad, to

fi

rejoice by nand ; to join by yu or yuj, to glue together by yawut.”

In

onﬂlﬂ‘f

il

another place (i. 274) he says, “In the secondary roots we can gener-

ally observe that one of the consonants, in the Aryan languages

fld

generally the final, is liable to modification.

The root retains ‘its

whkh

general meaning, which is slightly modified and determined by the

changes of the final consonants.”

“ These secondary roots,” he says,

“stand to the primaries in about the same relation as the triliteral

o ti0

Semitic roots to the more primitive biliteral.”

In the Dravidian

qives

languages the change under consideration is as often in the vowel of

st

108

ROOTS.

the root as in the consonant, and it is hard to say whether the initial

vowel is not even more subject to modification than the final

vowel.

CHANGES IN RooT VowELs.—As a general rule the vowels of Dra-

vidian roots belong as essentially to the radical base as the consonants.

They very rarely pertain, as in the Semitic languages, to the system of

means by which grammatical relations are expressed, and they are still

more rarely modified, as in the Indo-European languages, by the

addition of inflexional forms, or in composition.

In the Semitic languages the radical base’is destitute of vowels, and

by itself unpronounceable.

The insertion of vowels not only vocalises

the consonants of the root, but constitutes it a grammatically inflected

verb or noun, the signification of which varies with the variation of

the interior vowels.

In the Indo-European languages grammatical

modifications are generally produced by additions to the root; and

though in the earliest period of the history of those languages, the

root, generally monosyllabic, is supposed to have remained unaltered by

additions and combinations, yet the existence of that rigidity is scarcely

capable of direct proof ; for on examining thé Sanskrit, Greek, Latin,

and German, the most faithful representatives of the early condition

of those languages, we find: that the root-vowels of a large proportion

of the words have been modified by the addition of the suffixes of case

and tense; and in particular, that the reduplication of the root, by

which the past tense 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 in general it remains unalterable.

It very

rarely happens that the root-vowel sustains any change or modification

on the addition to the root of the signs of gender, number, and case,

or of person, tense, and mood ; which, as a rule, are successively agglu-

tinated to the root, not welded into combination with it.

This

rigidity or persistency is almost equally characteristic of the root-

vowels of the Dravidian languages. 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 nomi-

native, in the preterite and future as in the present tense or in the

imperative. T proceed to point out some noticeable exceptions to this

rule.

Eceptions.—Internal Changes in Roots.

CHANGES IN ROOT-VOWELS

109

1. One class of changes is purely euphonic

It has no relation to

grammatical expression ; but it seems desirable to mention it here in

order to give a complete view of the subject

It is connected with

one of the minor dialectic peculiarities referred to in the chapter on

sounds, and consists in the occasional softening or rejection of the

medial consonant of a dissyllabic root or verbal noun, tocether with

I

the coalescence of the vowels that preceded and followed it

It has

been shown that ¢ has a tendency to be softened into » and then to

disappear, and that § sometimes changes in the same manner into y,

when it sometimes becomes absorbed. When either of these conson-

ants is a medial, it is apt to be thus softened down and rejected

Thus dogal-u, Can. skin, becomes in Tamil ¢4, pear, Can. a name

3

becomes in Tamil first peyar, and then pér

So in Tamil, ¢ogup-pu, a

collection, is softened into ¢6p-pw, which has the restricted meaning of

of

a collection of trees, a tope

In like manner the medial » of the Tamil

Al

il

avan, he, disappears in the personal terminations of verbs, and the

preceding and following vowels coalesce, when avan becomes dn or én

it

So also the length of the demonstrative roots, @ remote, and ¢ proxi-

by

mate, varies in different dialects, and even in different connections in

2l

the same dialect, through considerations of euphony.

dﬂ,

2. The exceptions that follow in this and the following paragraphs

0

are not euphonic merely, but real

fin

They pertain to grammatical

expression

In most of the Dravidian languages the quantity of the

(4%

b

root-vowels of the pronouns of the first and second persons, both sin-

gular and plural, is short in the oblique cases

The nominatives of

il

those pronouns are long—e.g., ndn, Tamil, I, ndm, we ; n3, thou, nir

o

you. But in Tamil, Canarese, Malayalam, and Tulu, in all the oblique

cases the vowels are shortened before receiving the suffixed inflexional

i

particles

Thus, in Canarese, to me is not ndn-a-ge, but ndn-a-ge, to

o]

thee is not nin-a-ge, but nin-a-ge

Telugu, Gond, and Ku generally

ulll

retain the quantity of the vowel of the nominative unaltered—e g., in

()

Telugu we find n4-ku, to thee, as well as #%, thou ; but in the accusa-

ol

tive, mun-u or ninn-u, thee, the quantity is altered.

It is open to us to

Jiln

regard the shorter form of the pronouns as the original, and the longer

ot

as the form that has been altered ; and it will be seen, when the pro-

)nﬂtﬂ

nouns are under discussion, that th1s is the view I prefer.

Singularly

[el' Ji

enough, this exception from the general rigidity of the root-vowels is

I

I

a Scythian exception, as well as a Dravidian one.

In the Scythian

ok

version of the Behistun tablets, whilst the nominative of the pronoun

the

of the second person is #%, thou, as in (the Dravidian languages, the

s

possessive case is uf, thy, and the accusative nin, thee, correspondlng

in quantity to the Dravidian oblique casds—e.g., Telugu nin-u, thee ;

110

ROOTS.

Tulu nin-a, thy, nin-an’, thee; High Tamil nin, thy, and ninnes,

thee.

.,

‘3. Another class of exceptions consists of instances in which the

quantity of a vowel is lengthened when a verbal root is formed, directly

and without any extraneous addition, into a noun.

The alteration

which the root-vowel sustains is prior to any inflexional additions

If any formative particle is added to a verbal root to

being made.

convert it into a noun, the quantity of the root-vowel remains un-

changed. The lengthening of the root-vowel to which I refer takes

place only in (some of) those cases in which the verbal base itself is

used as a noun.

Thus, the verb ked-u, to destroy or to become

destroyed, may become a verbal noun by the addition of the formative

di—e.g., keduds, destruction, in which event the root-vowel remains

unaltered ; but the verbal base may also be used without addition as a

verbal noun, in which case ked-u is lengthened into kéd-u.

The following Tamil examples of the lengthening of each of the five

primary vowels will suffice to illustrate this usage :—

From pad-u, to suffer, is formed pdd-w, a suffering; from min, to

shine, m#n, a star; from $ud-w, to burn, $éd-u, heat; from per-u, to

obtain, pér-u, a benefit obtained ; and from %o, to receive, kdl,

reception.

I am not aware of the existence of a similar rule in any of the

Scythian languages, but it is well known in Sanskrit (e.g., compare

vach, to speak, with vdch, a word; mar (mri), to die, with mdra,

death).

Nevertheless, I can scarcely think it likely that it is from

Sanskrit that the Dravidian languages have derived a usage which

prevails among them to so great an extent, and which has every appear-

ance of being an original feature of their own.

If it is not to be

regarded as an independently developed peculiarity, arising out of the

same mental and lingual habitudes as those out of which the cor-

responding Sanskrit usage was developed, it is probably to be regarded

as a relic of those pre-Sanskrit influences of which many traces seem to

be discoverable in these languagps. In one particular the Dravidian rule

differs from the Sanskrit.

In Sanskrit the root-vowel is often not only

lengthened, but changed, according to certain rules, into another—e.g.,

from vid, to know, comes véda, knowledge, the Veda ; whereas in the

Dravidian languages the rule is that the root-vowel is simply length-

ened—e.g., from vid-u, Tam. to set free, comes vid-u, emancipation, a

house (meaning probably a t

a/x-

free tenement).

Dr Gundert derives vér, T

b

m. a root, from wvir, the radical part of

virt, to expand (compare m'ra/l, a finger). If this derivation be accepted

as correct, as I think it may{, it will furnish an instance of the opera-

CHANGES IN ROOT-VOWELS.

111

tion of the Sanskrit law in question.

Another derivation which I

regard as still more probable is that of nér, Tam. straight, from nira,

to be level.

These very rare exceptions, however, do not nullify the

rule.

I

I must here notice a class of verbal nouns formed after this manner

1y

which are much used adjectivally. All Dravidian adjectives, gramma-

)

tically considered, are nouns, but some of them are used indiscrimi-

nately either as nouns or as adjectives ; some exclusively as adjectives,

some exclusively as nouns.

The three adjectives pér, large, kdr, black,

1§

and dr, precious, furnish good illustrations of the class of verbal nouns

6

to which I refer. pér and dr are used exclusively as adjectives, %dr

]

both as an adjective and as a noun.

As an adjective it means black,

15

as a noun, blackness, a cloud, the rainy season, &c.

The radical forms

of these words are also in use.

)

These are per-u, to be large, kar-u, to

be black, and ar-u, to be precious.

The final # is, as usual, merely

\(4

enunciative ; the roots are per, kar, and ar.

When we find a Dra-

vidian root in two shapes, one with a longer, the other with a shorter

fo

vowel, it may generally be assumed, and can often be proved, that the

f

shorter form is the radical one. Where both forms are in use, as in the

i

case of these three words, the longer form is considered more elegant,

and is much used in combinations, especially before words beginning

with a vowel.

the

It is to the shorter and probably more ancient form

that mes, the formative of abstract nouns, like our English nouns end-

are

|

ing in ness, is suffixed—e.g., aru-mes, preciousness.

The same change

i

o

in the internal vowel of the root is apparent in some of the numerals.

The radical forms of the Tamil numerals one and two seem to be or and

!

oAl

i, and these are often lengthened, when the numeral is used not as a

)b@

substantive but as an adjective, into 4 and %r.

There are also two

forms of the numerals three, six, and seven (mu and md, aru and dru,

{he

(0r

erw and éru), but in these instances it is the shorter forms that are

rdcd

used adjectivally. These shorter forms cannot stand alone, they can

be used only as adjectives, whereas the longer ones are used as numeral

10

substantives.

il

The formation of verbal nouns by means of the length-

olf

ening of the root-vowel throws as much light on the original meaning

of some adjectives, or nouns of quality, as we have seen that it does

4y

(in the previous part of this section) in the case of certain nouns exclu-

it

sively used as substantives. For instance, pdr (Tam.) desolate, is

i

evidently a verbal noun from par-u, to grow old. To grow mature or

by §

ripe is a secondary meaning, from which we have param, a ripe fruit.

Another form used adjectivally is para, old. A verb of the secondary

ol

formation is paragu, to become used to anything.

pted

When the final consonant of the crude root belongs to this class of

;era'

112

ROOTS.

hard letters, it cannot be enunciated by Dravidian organs, whether the

preceding vowel be long or short, without the aid of a final euphonic

U

Thus pasu, Tam. to be green, when lengthened becomes, not pds

(as pér, kdr, &c.), but pdsu, green. A change sometimes takes place in

the internal vowel of this word which has been supposed to accord

1L

with the Sanskrit change of a short vowel into a longer one of a

different order, and of a naturally long vowel into a diphthong, on the

change of a noun or verbal-root into an adjective.

pasum, green

(another form of pasu), is changed in certain conjunctions into peum—

e.g., peim-pon (Tam.) excellent, literally green, gold. This change,

however, is merely euphonic.

It has already been shown that §, when

medial, has a tendency to soften into y, and then to disappear, and

when this takes place the preceding and following vowels coalesce. In

consequence of this tendency, pasum naturally becomes payum, and

this again, by a change which is almost imperceptible in pronunciation,

pesm. We have a parallel instance of this in the noun kasuppw (Tam.),

bitterness, which may optionally be written and pronounced kemppu ;

kasuppu changing first into kayuppu and then into keyppu.

It should

also be observed that pesim has not in the least superseded pasum. The

one may be optionally used instead of the other, and this proves that

both forms are grammatically equivalent.

I should be prepared to

admit that in these and similar instances y may possibly be older than

S

The process, on this supposition, would have to be reversed ; pez,

properly payu, would become pasu, but the result would be the same.

The change in the internal vowel would still be owing merely to the

cuphonic substitution of one consonant for another.

I may here remark that forms like pasum, green, do not appear to

me to be derived, as Beschi, following native grammarians, supposed,

from pasumet, greenness, by the omission of the final ez ; for mez, not

¢i, is the particle by which abstract nouns of quality are formed, and

Pasum is

the initial 7 is the most essential portion of that particle.

evidently derived from pas$, the crude verbal root, with the addition of

wm, the sign of the aoristic future, by means of which it becomes an

aoristic relative participle, a class of participles which the Dravidian

tongues delight to use as adjectives.

4. Another class of internal changes appears in those instances in

which Tamil shortens the quantity of the *root-vowel in the pre-

terite tense of verbs. This shortening is observed in Canarese also,

but the following illustrations are furnished by Ta'mil-—e.g., vé, to burn,

has for its preterite participle, not véndu, but vendu ; nd, to be in pain,

has for its preterite, not néndu, but nondw ; kdn, to see, becomes, not

kandu, but kandu.

Another instance is $d, to die, which takes not

CHANGES IN ROOT-VOWELS.

113

$ditu, but Settu. The Malaydlam and Canarese form of this participle,

Sattu or chattu, represents the root-vowel more accurately than the

Tamil. In some instances Tamil retains in the preterite the long

vowel of the root, whilst Canarese shortens it—e.g., %, to give, has for

its preterite in Tamil #ndu, in Canarese 7¢fw.

&

There are two verbs in Tamil, »d, to come, and #d, to give, which

6

involve peculiarities of which it is difficult to give a satisfactory expla-

1

nation.

Each of them is regularly conjugated, except in the preterite

and imperative, as if from roots in var and tar (eg., varugirén, I

e\

come, tarugirén, I give); each takes the root with the long vowel without

1l

r for its imperative singular, and inserts » between this form of the

root and the personal termination in the imperative plural (e.g., va,

come, ¢d, give ; vdrum, come ye, tdrum, give ye); and each forms its

d

preterite by shortening the vowel without inserting 7, as if from roots

I,

in v4 and ¢d, after the manner described in the previous paragraph

\

(e.9., vandén, I came, tandén, I gave, like nondén, I felt pain, from the

iy

root 7).

Dr Pope, in his ¢ Tamil Handbook,” p. 52, considers the

i

r of these verbs euphonically inserted to prevent hiatus and the whole

The

of the tenses built upon the roots in »4 and ¢@. I should have no

it

objection to this view if the » made its appearance in the plural im-

i

perative only, as in kdrum, protect ye, from kd, to protect, the only other

instance I know of » being used for this purpose in Tamil, and one which

i

Wk

I have already mentioned in the chapter on Prevention of Hiatus.”

g

On the other hand, the appearance of the roots in var and tar, in every

106

part of the verb, except the preterite and the singular imperative alone,

and in all the verbal nouns without exception (e.g., varal, varattu,

P

varuttu, varudal, varavu, varugei, each of them meaning a coming),

]Ed

leads to the conclusion that var and tar (whatever be the origin ‘of

0

their difference from @ and td) are treated in Tamil as verbal themes.

If 7 were not a portion of the root, we should expect to find the pre-

il

i

sent, future, infinitive, negative voice, verbal nouns, &c., formed from

L

vd and ¢d, with the addition of ¢ or v as a formative suffix, as we find

to be the case with the parallel verbs 76, &c. Compare ndga, infinitive ;

sl

novu, nddal, &c., verbal nouns ; ndgd, negative.

The Canarese roots

;«ﬁaﬂ

are bar and tar. In Telugu the imperative singular is vd, the plural

rammu, and this seems to me to confirm the supposition that » is an

& i

essential part of the root. If the Telugu 7 represented only the sup-

p[é‘

posed euphonic 7 of the Tamil, the root-consonant would be left

aISO,

without any representative at all,

Dt

It appears to me improbable,

moreover, because unsupported by usage, that the Tamil » has been

iy

changed into 7 in Telugu.

It seems more in accordance with usage

gt

0t

to recognise here a change similar to.that which has converted the

H

114

ROOTS.

Tamil iladu, there is not, into lédu in Telugu, and ¢rd, night, into »¢é.

Notwith-

See the chapter on ¢ Euphonic Displacement of Vowels.”

standing this, I am not disposed to regard the forms in »d and ¢d as

having found their way into the conjugation of the verbs by mistake.

It is evident that »d and ¢d, not var and far, are the themes from

+

which the preterites vanden and tanden have been formed, and which

we find pure in the imperatives.

We seem therefore driven to adopt

Dr Gundert’s suggestion, that vd¢ and var, and ¢4 and tar, are alterna-

tive roots—perhaps it would be preferable to say, different forms of

the same root.

This supposition need not be relinquished in conse-

quence of its being regarded as probable that ¢4 is identical with the

Indo-European root dd, to give.

The Dravidian far may have sprung

from a related form of the same root, of which possibly a trace may

survive in the Greek odwgov and the Hebrew tan.

I may add that

though the change in the length of the vowel in the preterite has a

grammatical significance, its change of length in the imperative, from

rd, Tel. singular, to rammu, honorific singular (plural), and from wvd,

|

Tam. singular, to High Tam. vammin, plural, appears to be purely

euphonic.

The changes in the internal vowels of Dravidian roots exhibited in the

last three classes of instances mentioned in this section as exceptions

to the ordinary stability of the Dravidian root-vowels, evidently accord,

as far as they go, with usages prevalent in the Indo-European lan-

|

guages, inasmuch as one of the -classes referred to furnishes us with

instances of the lengthening of the root-vowel, when the verb is con-

verted into a noun, whilst the other classes furnish us with examples

of the shortening of the interior vowels of the root on receiving the

addition of inflexional particles, to compensate for the additional

weight thus imposed on the root-vowel, or for the purpose of " distin-

guishing one tense from another.

In regard, however, to changes in

root-vowels, it would be erroneous to suppose the rule of the Scythian

languages essentially and universally dissimilar to the Indo-European.

In the Scythian languages, as in the Dravidian, stability in the root-

vowels is the rule, change the exception.

But exceptions exist (e.g.,

compare olen, Finnish, T am, from the root of, to be, with lzenen, if 1

be ; compare also Hungarian leven, from the same root, being, with

volt, having been, and lenni, to be). In consequence of the existence

[ 8

of such exceptions as these, it is impossible to erect the difference

between the two families of language, in this particular, into a hard

and fast law of distinction.

It would also be unsafe on this ground

alone, to disconnect the Dravidian languages from the languages of the

Scythian group and to connect them with the Indo-European,

GENDER.,.

115

EALT BRI

e Y

THE NOUN.

In this section it will be my endeavour to investigate the nature and

affections of the Dravidian noun, with the view of

ascerfaining its

z

method of expressing the relations of gender and number, and the

principles on which that method proceeds, together with the character-

Il

istics and origin of its case system, or s

ystem of means for expressing

[,

the rel

ationship of nouns with other parts of speech. It will be shown

I

at the close of the section on “ The Verb,”

how'derivative nouns are

formed from verbal roots 3

and the various classes of participial nouns

bt

will then also be investigated.

I

SECTION L—GENDER AN D NUMBER.

(1

il

1. GENDER.

Il

Iy

When the Indo-European laws of gender are compared with thoge

]

of the Scythian group of tongues, it will a

ppear that in this point, as

in many others, the Dravidian lan

4

guages accord more closely with the

I

Scythian than with the Indo-Euro

pean family. In all the more primi-

tive Indo

i

-European languages, not only are words that denote rational

beings and living creatures regarded as m

asculine or feminine, accord-

I

Al

ing to the sex of the objects referred to, b

ut also inanimate objects and

il

even abstract ideas have similar sexual distinctions attributed to them ;

so that many nouns which denote objects naturally destitute of gender,

i

[y

and which ought therefore to be regarded as neuters, are treated by

the grammars of those languages as if the objects they denote were

il

males and females, and are fitted not with neuter, but with masculine

or feminine case terminations, and with

06

genders.

pronouns of corresponding

This peculiar system is a proof of the highly imagin

ative

06

!

and poetical character of the Indo-European mind, by which principles

of resemblance were discerned in the midst of the greatest differences,

d

10

and all things that exist were not only animated, but personified. It

is from this personification that most of the ancient mythologies are

116

THE NOTUN.

supposed to have arisen.

A similar remark applies to the Semitic lan-

guages 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 stand-

ing impediment 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 Scythian group—a

law or usage respecting the gender of nouns universally prevails, which

is generically different from that of the Indo-European and the Semitic

idioms.

In those families, not only are all things which are destitute

of reason and life denoted by neuter nouns, but no nouns whatever—

not even nouns which denote human beings—are regarded as in them-

selves masculine or feminine.

All nouns, as such, are neuter, or

rather are destitute of gender.

In those languages there is no mark of

gender inherent in, or inseparably annexed to, the nominative of any

noun (the crude root being generally the nominative) ; and in nome of

the oblique cases, or postpositions used as case terminations, is the

“»

idea of gender at all involved. The unimaginative Scythians reduced

all things, whether rational or irrational, animate or inanimate, to the

same dead level, and regarded them all as impersonal.

They prefixed

to common nouns, wherever they found it necessary, some word denot-

ing sex, equivalent to male or female, he or she; but they invariably

regarded such nouns as in themselves neuters, and generally they sup-

plied them with neuter pronouns.

The only exceptions to this rule in

the Scythian languages consist in a few words, such as God, man,

woman, husband, wife, which are so highly instinct with personality

MESGEESIR R

that of themselves, and without the addition of any word denoting sex,

they necessarily convey the signification of masculine or feminine.

When our attention is turned to the Dravidian languages we find

that, whilst their rules respecting gender differ widely from those of

the Indo-European group, they are not quite identical with those of the

Scythian.

It seems probable, however, that the particulars in which

the Dravidian rules respecting gender differ from those of the Scythian

languages, and evince a tendency in the Indo-European direction, are

not the result of direct Sanskritic influences, of which no trace is per-

ceptible in this department of Dravidian grammar, but have arisen

either from the progressive mental cultivation of the Dravidians them-

selves, or from an inheritance of pre-Sanskritic elements.

GENDER.

119

Dravidian nouns are divided into two classes, which Tamil gram-

marians denote by the technical terms of high-caste and casteless

nouns, but which are called by Telugu grammarians mahds, majors,

and a-mahdt, minors.

High-caste nouns, or majors, are those which

denote “the celestial and infernal deities and human beings,” or,

§

briefly, all things endowed with reason; and in all the Dravidian

dialects (with a peculiar exception which is found only in Telugu and

)

Gond) nouns of this class are treated in the singular as masculines or

feminines respectively, and in the plural as epicenes, that is, without

I

distinguishing between masculines and feminines, but distinguishing both

4

from the neuter.

The other class of nouns, called casteless, or minors,

h

includes everything which is destitute of reason, whether animate or

10

inanimate. This classification of nouns, though not so imaginative as

f

that of the Indo-European and Semitic tongues, is decidedly more

philosophical ; for the difference between rational beings and beings or

I

things which are destitute of reason is more momentous and essential

o

than any difference that exists between the sexes.

The new Persian,

1

which uses one pluralising particle for nouns that denote animated

Il

beings, and another and different one for things that ave destitute of

/(.

life, is the only non-Dravidian language in which nouns are classified

it

in a manner which is in any degree similar to the Dravidian system.*

ol

The peculiar Dravidian law of gender which has now been described

1

would appear to be a result of progressive intellectual and grammatical

o

cultivation ; for the masculine, feminine, and epicene. suffixes which

0

form the terminations of Dravidian high-caste nouns, are properly frag-

0

ments of pronouns or demonstratives of the third person, as are also

D

most of the neuter formatives.

It may, indeed, be stated as a general

rule that all primitive Dravidian nouns are destitute of gender, and

) 1

that every noun or pronoun in which the idea of gender is formally

iy

expressed, being a compound word, is necessarily of later origin than

o]

the uncompounded primitives.

The technical term by which such

nouns are denoted by Tamil grammarians is pagu-padam, divisible

il

words, e, compounds.

Hence the poetical dialects, which retain

o0

many of the primitive landmarks, are fond of discarding the ordinary

suffixes of gender or rationality, and treating all nouns as far as pos-

sible as abstract neuters.

e

Thus, in poetical Tamil Dév-u, God, a crude

i

hitg

At

* This is not the only particular in which the Dravidian idiom attributes

greater importance than the Indo-European to reason and the mind.

We make

pél

our bodies the seat of personality. When we are suffering from any bodily ail-

'1,911

ment, we say “/ am ill ;” whereas the Dravidians denote the mind—the con-

Tl

scious self or dtman—when they say 7, and therefore prefer to say, more philoso-

phically, “my body is ill.”

118

THE NOTUN.

noun destitute of gender, is reckoned more classical than Dév-an, the

corresponding masculine noun.

This word is a Sanskrit derivative ;

but the same tendency to fall back upon the old Scythian rule appears

in the case of many other words which are primitive Dravidian nouns

—e.¢., iret, a king, a word which is destitute of gender, is more clas-

sical than rei-(v)-an, the commoner form, which possesses the mascu-

line singular termination.

In the modern Tamil spoken by the educated classes, the words

which denote sun and moon (sthrey-an and Sandir-an, derived from the

Sanskrit sd@rya and chandra) are of the masculine gender, in accord-

ance with Sanskrit usage and with the principles of the Brahmanical

mythology ; but in the old Tamil of the poets and the peasants,

fidyiru, the sun, also porudu, and tuigal, the moon, also neld, all pure

Dravidian words, are neuter.

All true Dravidian names of towns,

rivers, &c., are in like manner destitute of every mark of personality

or gender.

In some few instances MalayAlam and Canarese retain

the primitive laws of gender more faithfully than Tamil.

Thus,

in the Tamil word peiyan, a boy, we find the masculine singu-

lar termination an; whereas Malaydlam (with which agrees Canar-

ese) uses the older word peidal, a word (properly a verbal noun)

which is destitute of gender, to which it prefixes in a thoroughly

Scythian manner words that signify respectively male and female, to

form compounds signifying boy and girl—e.g., dn peidal, a boy, pen

peidal, a girl.

The nature and origin of the terminations which are

used to signify gender in the various Dravidian dialects will be

inquired into under the head of “ Number,” with the consideration

of which this subject is inseparably connected.

Under this head I

restrict myself to a statement of the general principles respecting gender

which characterise the Dravidian langunages.

A peculiarity of Telugu, which appears also in Gond, should here be

mentioned. Whilst those dialects agree with the other members of the

Dravidian family in regarding masculines and feminines, and both

combined, as constituting in the plural a common or epicene gender,

they differ from the other dialects in this respect that they are wholly

or virtually destitute of a feminine singular, and instead of the femi-

nine singular use the singular of the neuter.

This rule includes in its

operation pronouns and verbs as well as substantives, and applies to

goddesses and queens, as well as to ordinary women.

The Telugu

possesses, it is true, a few forms which are appropriate to the feminine

singular, but they are rarely used, and that only in certain rare com-

binations and conjunctures.

He and it are the only pronouns of the

third person singular which are ordinarily made use of by fifteen

~

NUMBER—THE MASCULINE SINGULAR.

119

millions of the Telugu people ; and the colloquial dialect does not even

possess any pronoun, equivalent to our pronoun she, which is capable

of being applied 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 are accustomed to speak of very young children (e.g., 4¢ did

so and s0), apparently on the supposition either that women are desti-

tute of reason, or that their reason, like that of infants, lies dormant.

Whilst each woman taken singly is treated by Telugu grammar as a

chattel or as a child, women taken collectively are regarded with as

much respect as by the other Dravidian dialects.

In the plural they

are honoured with the same high-caste or rational suffixes and pronouns

that are applied to men and gods.

Canarese and Malayalam agree in this point with Tamil, and regard

women, not in the plural only but also in the singular, as pertaining

to the class of rationals

7

accordingly in those languages there is a

feminine singular pronoun equivalent to she, which corresponds in the

principle of its formation to the masculine he.

With those languages

agrees Ku, which, though the near neighbour of Telugu and Gond,

pursues in this respect a politer course than either.

In the idioms

5

of the Tudas and Kotas, the rude aborigines of the Nilgherry hills,

1l »

there is, properly speaking, only one pronoun of the third person,

]

and that is without distinction of gender or number.

atham, remote,

utham, proximate, mean indiscriminately he, she, it, they. The pro-

nouns avan, aval, he, she, are also occasionally used, but Dr Pope

f\fJ

thinks they have been recently introduced from the Tamil and Canar-

ese

This usage reminds one of the employment in the old Hebrew

of the same pronoun, %%, to signify both he and she, and still more of

]

the use of the reflexive pronoun of the Latin se, for all genders and

1

numbers.

Compare wuh, Hindustani, he, she.

) [

2. NUMBER.

te

The Dravidian languages recognise only two numbers, the singular

and the plural.

The dual, properly so called, is unknown, and there

(Aerl

Several of the

is no trace extant of its use at any previous period.

)t

languages of this family contain two plurals of the pronoun of the first

)

person, one of which includes the party addressed as well as the party

1

of the speaker, and which may therefore be considered as a species of

)

dual, whilst the other excludes the party addressed. As, however, this

i

peculiarity is restricted to the personal pronouns, it will be examined

i

in that connection.

Under the head of “Number,” we shall inquire

)it

into the Dravidian mode of forming the masculine, feminine, and

the

neuter singular, and the epicene and neuter plural.

ol

1

[5)

~

0

THE NOUN.

(1.) Masculine Singular.—It has already been intimated that the

formatives by which the gender of nouns is occasionally expressed are

From

identical with the terminations of the demonstrative pronouns.

a very early period of the history of these languages, particles or for-

matives of gender were suffixed to the demonstrative bases, by the

-

addition of which suffixes demonstrative pronouns were formed. Those

formatives of gender were not originally appended to or combined with

substantive nouns ; but their use was gradually extended as their utility

was perceived, and nouns which included the idea of gender were made

to express that idea by suffixing the gender terminations of the pro-

nouns, whereby they became appellative nouns.

The manner in which

all these suffixes are added will be sufficiently illustrated by the

;1

instance of the masculine singular. -

An,

The masculine singular suffix of the Tamil is an, dn, or on.

the shorter formative, is that which appears in the demonstrative pro-

noun avan (a-(v)-an), he ; and by suffixing any of these formatives to

an abstract or neuter noun, the noun ceases to be abstract and becomes

a concrete masculine-singular appellative,

Thus mdpp-u, age, by the

addition of an becomes mipp-an, an elder, literally age-he, or age-man ;

These

and from Zamir comes Zamir-an, a Tamilian, a Tamil-man.

and similar nouns are called generically ““ compound or divisible words”

by Tamil grammarians.

They are obviously compounded of a noun—

generally a noun of quality or relation—and a suffix of gender, which

appears also to have been a noun originally.

In the instances which have been adduced, the suffix of gender is

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

the noun to which the case signs are suffixed, and which, when used

‘When the

by itself, has the meaning of the genitive or locative.

inflexion, or oblique case, is employed instead of the nominative in

compounds of this nature, it generally conveys a possessive or locative

signification—e.g., maleiyinan (malei-(y)-in-an), a mountaineer, literally

a man of or on the mountain ; patfinattan (patiin’-att’dn), a citizen,

literally a man of or in the city. Sometimes, however, the inflexional

‘6in

»

is merely added euphonically—e.g., there is no difference in

meaning between villan (vill-an), a bowman, and villinan (vill-in-an),

which is considered a more elegant form. Words of this description

-

are in some grammars called adjectives; but they are never regarded

as such by any native grammarians: they cannot be simply prefixed

for the purpose of qualifying other words, and it is evident from their

construction that they are merely appellative nouns.

A subdivision of appellatives consists of words in which the suffixes

i

-

NUMBER—THE MASCULINE SINGULAR.

1

1)

~

1

of gender are annexed to adjectival forms—e.g., kodiya-n, a cruel man.

I regard words of this class as participial nouns, and they will be

investigated in the part on ““The Verb,” under the head of ¢ Appella-

tive Verbs ;” but whatever be the nature of kodsya (the first part of

the compound), kodiya-n is certainly not an adjective, for before it can

be used adjectivally we must append to it the relative participle dna,

that is—e.g., kodvyan-dna, that is a cruel man ; and as the compound,

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 be prefixed

adjectivally to any substantive ; but kod¢ya, cruel things, the neuter

plural of kodiyan, is not really identical with the adjective kodiya,

cruel.

It is totally distinct from it, though identical in appearance.

The a of the former word is the neuter suffix of plurality ; whereas the

@ of the latter is that of the possessive case and of the relative parti-

ciple, as will be shown at the close of this part (see “ Adjectival For-

matives ’) and in the part on ¢ Verbs.”

Another species of Tamil appellative nouns is said by Beschi to be

formed by annexing suffixes of gender to verbal roots—e.g., dduvdn, a

reader, from 0du, to read; but this, I believe, is an error.

Those

words are to be regarded as participial nouns, and éduvdn is literally

he who will read, 7.e., he who is accustomed to read.

In the same

manner, édinan is the participial noun of the preterite tense, and means

he who read or is accustomed to read : ddugindravan, the correspond-

ing present participial noun, he who reads, belongs to the same class 5

and these forms are not to be confounded with appellative nouns pro-

perly so called.

On the other hand, such words as kdppan, a pro-

tector, are true appellatives ; but kdppan is not formed from the future

tense of the verb (though Zdppdn means he will protect), but from

kappu, protection, a derivative noun, of which the final and formative

ppu is from the same origin as the corresponding final of muppu, old

age.

See the concluding section of the part on ¢ The Verb.”

The suffixes of gender which form the terminal portion of appella-

)

tive nouns vary somewhat in form, but they are one and the same in

|

origin, and their variations are merely euphonic.

It is the vowel only

that varies, never the consonant.

When a neuter noun ends with a

vowel which is essential to it, and is incapable of elision, and also

when a noun happens to be a long monosyllable, dzn, or in poetry on,

is more commonly suffixed than an.

In some cases avan, he, the full

demonstrative pronoun, is suffixed instead of its termination only, and

this mode is thought peculiarly elegant. Thus, from vl or vill-u, a bow,

we may form vill-an, vill-dn, and vill-0n, an archer, a bowman, and also

122

THE NOUN.

wll-avan.

Indeed, dn and én have evidently been formed, not from

an, but from «+ v +n, by the softening of the euphonic », and the

coalescence of the vowels.

This corruption of awan into dn appears

systematically in the third person masculine singular of the colloquial

Tamil verb—e.g., pd-(n)-dn (not pé-(n)-avan), he went.

The Canarese masculine singular suffix anu is identical with the

Tamil an, the addition of u being merely a phonetic necessity of the

modern dialect.

In the older Canarese, the termination which was

used was am, a particle which is to be regarded as the equivalent of

an, n and m being interchangeable nasals.

Malayalam is in this par-

ticular perfectly identical with Tamil.

The corresponding Telugu

masculine singular formative is d-u, ud-u, or ad-u; or rather nd-u,

und-u, or andu, the obscure n being always pronounced, and being pro-

bably an essential part of the original form of the particle, and by

suffixing the same formative to any substantive noun, it becomes a

masculine singular

e.9., mag-andu, a husband, a word which seems to

be identical in origin with the Tamil mag-an, a son (the primitive and

proper meaning of each word being a male).

The masculine singular

suffix of Telugu often takes the shape of umd-u, and in like manner

the epicene plural suffix, which is in Tamil ar-w, is often wr-u in

Telugu ; but in these instances @ changes into % through attraction.

As Tamil forms masculine appellatives by suffixing the demon-

strative pronoun awam, so does Telugu sometimes suffix its full

demonstrative pronoun wvdndu — e.g., chinna-vindu, a boy (Tamil,

$inna-(v)-an), literally he who is little.

It is probable that the Telugu

masculine singular suffix was originally an or an-u, as in Tamil-

(Canarese.

andu, und-u, or ndu, is found only in the nominative in

correct Telugu, and it is replaced in all the oblique cases by ans or nz ;

and that this 7¢ is not rerely an inflexional increment, but the repre-

sentative of an old masculine singular suffix, appears on comparing it

with 74, the corresponding oblique case suffix of the masculine-feminine

plural, which is certainly formed from ar-u.

When vdniki, to him, is

compared with its plural »driki, to them, it is evident that the former

corresponds as closely to the Tamil avanukku as the latter to avarukku ;

and consequently that the 77 of v»dniks must be significant of the mas-

culine singular.

Probably the same termination survives in the demon-

strative, dyana, he, a form which is more rarely used than vdndu.

The Telugu nd being thus found to be identical with the Tamsg Can:

Mal. », and the old Can. m, the masculine suffixes an, am, and andu

are also found to be identical.

It is more difficult to determine the

origin of this suffix an.

an is sometimes used in Tam. and Mal. in-

stead of am as a formative of neuter nouns, as will be shown hereafter

%)

NUMBER—THE MASCULINE SINGULAR.

1

~

3

in the section on the Nominative—e.g., palan (Sans. phala), fruit,

instead of palam, but I cannot see how this can be identical in origin

with the suffix an which denotes the masculine, the Dravidian mascu-

line being a distinctive one—that is, not merely a grammatical term,

but a sign of sex. On looking around for an explanation of the origin

of the masculine suffix, it appears to me that 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 @, the demonstrative

base, to common nouns which signify man and woman. These nouns

are di-u, a man, and d/-u, a woman ; and ddsi-u (compare Tam. a(v)an),

literally that man, is used to signify he, and ddlu (compare Tam. a(v)al)

)

that woman, to signify she.

The Ku d#i-u, a man, seems certainly

identical with the Tam. noun dz, a male, and probably also with @/, a

man, a person.

In the use to which this primitive root is put in the

Ku word d@-dsi-u, we may see, I think, the origin of an, the suffix of

the masculine singular in most of the Dravidian dialects.

The final

u, of the Ku word di-, being merely euphonic, the root appears to be

dn or dn,; and as 7 and % have been shown to be interchangeable, dn

must be regarded as only another form of dn.

7, again, is not only

often euphonised by suffixing du (e.g., pep, Tam. a female, colloqui-

ally and poetically pepd-w), but it is also sometimes directly changed

into ¢, of which we have an instance in the classical Tamil ped-et, a

hen, a word which is derived by this process from, and is identical

with pepn, a female,

Hence, the Telugu suffix and-w might naturally

be derived from an older form in az, if it should appear that that form

existed ; and that it did exist, appears from the vulgar use to the pre-

sent day of 7 instead of # in some of the oblique cases (e.g., vdnni,

him, instead of »dn:), and from the half anusvdra, or obscure nasal,

which precedes du itself—e.g., vdndu, for vddu, he.

A close connec-

tion appears thus to be established between the Tamil-Canarese an and

the Telugu ad-u, through the middle point az.

The only difficulty in the way of the perfect identification of the

formative an with the Ku afiz, a man, and with the Tamil dz, a male,

lies in the length of the vowel of the latter words.

Here again Ku

comes to our assistance; for we find that the vowel was euphoni-

cally shortened in some instances in the very dialect in which the

origin of the word itself was discovered.

In Ku the ¢ of d7i-u is long,

both when it is used as an isolated word and in the demonstratives

ddfi-w, he, and d@dl-u, she; but when the demonstrative promoun is

appended to, and combined with, the relative participle of the verb, so

as to form with it a participial noun, the @ of dii-u is shortened into g,

9

1

~

+

THE NOUN.

and in this shortened form the connection of the Ku formative with

the Tamil-Canarese is seen to be complete.

Compare the Ku partici-

pial noun getdsi-u, he who did, with the corresponding Canarese

geyidan-u ; gutdr-u, Ku, they who did, with ¢géyidar-u, Can., and also

getal-u, Ku, she who did, with géyidal-u, Can.

(2.) Feminine Singular.—Though Telugu and Gond generally use

the neuter singular to supply the place of the feminine singular,

the other Dravidian dialects possess and constantly use a feminine

singular formative which is quite distinct from that of the neuter.

This formative is @/ in Tamil, Malayalam, and old Canarese, and by

suffixing the sign of gender to the demonstrative base, the feminine

singular demonstrative pronoun aval (a(v)al), she, is formed—a word

A numerous class

which perfectly corresponds to avan (a(v)an), he.

of feminine singular appellative nouns is formed by suffixing the same

particle to abstract or neuter nouns in their crude state—e.g., compare

mag-al, Tam. a daughter, with mag-an, a son; #ll-4/, housewife, a

wife, and 4//-dn, a husband, are formed from the addition of the pro-

nouns ava) and avan (euphonised into ¢/ and dn) to ¢/, a home.

Telugu, in some connections, uses a feminine singular formative

which appears to be identical with that of Tamil-Canarese.

That

G

formative is d/-», which is used by Ku more largely than by Telugu ;

and its identity with Tamil-Canarese a/, will be found to furnish us

with a clue to the origin and literal meaning of the latter.

As dn-u,

in Ku, means a man, so d/-z means a woman : ddl-u, she, is literally

that woman.

The same word d/-u, means a woman, a wife, in poetical

and vulgar Telugu also; and in G6nd there is a word which is appar-

ently allied to it, d¢», a woman.,

Even in Sanskrit we meet with dlz, a

oo (5

woman’s female friend.

Tt is evident that dl-« would be shortened

into al as easily as d@@-w into an, and the constant occurrence of

a cerebral / in Tamil and Canarese, where Telugu has the medial /,

fully accounts for the change of the one semi-vowel into the other.

The unchanged form of this suffix appears in Telugu in such words

as manama-(r)-dlu, a granddaughter, compared with manama-ndu, a

grandson.

The abbreviation of the vowel of the feminine suffix,

which is characteristic of Tamil and Canarese, is exemplified in Telugu

also, in the words maradal-u , a niece, and Zddal-u, a daughter-in-law ;

in which words the feminine suffix al-u, is evidently identical both

with Tamil-Canarese af or a/-u, and also with d/-u, the older and more

regular form of this suffix, which is capable of being used by itself as

a noun. Probably the Telugu dd-u, adj. female, though now treated

as a different word, is identical in origin with d@/-u, through the very

common interchange of ¢ and 7, an illustration of which we have in

NUMBER—THE FEMININE SINGULAR.

125

kei-(y)-6lw, Tam. to use, which is converted in the colloquial dialect to

kei-(y)-ddu.*

The feminine singular suffix @/ appears in Tamil and

Canarese in the terminations of verbs as well as in those of pronouns.

Telugu, on the other hand, which uses the neuter demonstrative instead

of the feminine singular, uses the final fragment of the same demon-

strative as the termination of the feminine singular of its verb, It

may be remarked that in some of the Caucasian dialects, % and [ are

used as masculine and feminine terminals, exactly as in Tamil—e.q.,

in Avar, emen, is father, evel, is mother.

There is another mode of forming the feminine singular of appellative

nouns, which is much used in all the Dravidian dialects, and which

may be regarded as especially characteristic of Telugu.

It consists in

suffixing the Telugu neuter singular demonstrative, its termination, or

a modification of it, to any abstract or neuter noun.

The neuter

singular demonstrative being used by Telugu instead of the feminine

singular (it for she), this neuter suffix has naturally in Telugu supplied

the place of a feminine suffix; aiid though in the other dialects the

feminine pronouns are formed by means of feminine suffixes, not by

those of the neuter, yet the less respectful Telugu usage has crept into

the department of their appellative nouns.

In Tamil, this neuter-

feminine suffix is attz or ¢t

This will appear on comparing velld-atti,

a woman of the cultivator caste, with velld/-an, a man of the same

caste ; oru-t¢, one woman, una, with oru-(v)-an, one man, unus,; and

vannd-tti, a washerwoman, with vappd-n, a washerman.

tt, a portion

of this suffix, is sometimes erroneously used in vulgar Tamil as a

component element in the masculine appellative noun oruttan, one man,

P

instead of the classical and correct oruvan. With this exception its use

is exclusively feminine,

The same suffix is #¢2 or # in Canarese—

St

AZA

e.g., arasiti, a queen (corresponding to the Tamil »

ttv), okkalati, a

farmer’s wife.

The Telugu uses adi or di—e.g., kémati-(y)-adi or

* It is more doubtful whether the Tulu @, Goénd-Telugu d@l-u, a woman, is

allied to the Tamil common noun @/, a person ; and yet the existence of some

alliance appears to me probable.

@l appears to mean properly a subject person,

a servant—male or female—a slave. It is derived from @] (Tel. él-u), to rule,

and this seems a 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 said to be 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 al,

one who is subject to rule, a person whose sole duty it is to obey, is as natural

a derivation for a word signifying a woman, a female, as pen ; and perhaps more

likely to come into general use as a suffix of the feminine singular. Dr Gundert

has no doubt of the identity of the Tamil ¢ and the Telugu d¢lu : their identity,

however, is not admitted by Mr C. P. Brown. {;x.m L nan adadm. du f

s

126

THE NOUN.

komati-di, a woman of the Komti caste ; mdla-dz, a Paria woman ;

chinna-di, a girl.

It seems to me evident, not only that all these

suffixes are identical, but that the Telugu form of the demonstrative

neuter singular, viz., ads, it, which is used systematically by Telugu to

signify she, is the root from whence they have all proceeded.

¢

Another feminine singular suffix of appellatives occasionally used in

the Dravidian languages may possibly have been derived from the

imitation of Sanskrit.

It consists in the addition of 7z to the crude

or neuter noun ; and it is only in quantity that this ¢ differs from

the long 7, which is so much used by Sanskrit as a feminine suflix.

In the majority of cases it is only in connection with Sanskrit deriva-

tives that this suffix is used ; but it has also come to be appended to

some pure Dravidian nouns—e.g., falei-(v)-t, Tam. a lady (compare

talei-(v)-an, a lord), from ¢aler, a head ; compare also the Gond perd-

This feminine suffix is not to be con-

gal, a boy, with perdgr, a girl.

founded with ¢, a suffix of agency, which is much used in the formation

of nouns of agency and operation, and which is used by all genders

indiscriminately. See ‘ Verbal Derivatives,” at the elose of the part

on ““ The Verb.”

3. Neuter Singular.—There is but little which is worthy of remark

in the singular forms of neuter Dravidian nouns.

Every Dravidian

noun is naturally neuter, or destitute of gender, and it becomes mas-

culine or feminine solely in virtue of the addition of a masculine or

feminine suffix.

When abstract Sanskrit nouns are adopted by the

Dravidians, the neuter nominative form of those nouns (generally

ending in am) is preferred.

Sanskrit masculines, with the exception

of those which denote rational beings, are made to terminate in am,

being treated as neuters; and there are also some neuter nouns of

pure Dravidian origin which end in am, or take am as their formative.

The Dravidian termination am is not to be regarded, however, as a

sign of the neuter, or a neuter suffix, though such is often its character

in Sanskrit.

It is merely one of a numerous class of formatives, of

which much use is made by the Dravidian dialect, and by the addition

of which verbal roots are transformed into derivative nouns.

Such

formatives are to be regarded as forming a part of the noun itself, not

of the inflexional additions.

See “ Verbal Derivatives,” at the close

of the section on “ The Verb.”

All animated beings destitute of reason are placed by Dravidian

f

grammarians in the caste-less, or neuter class, and the nouns that

denote such animals, both in the singular and in the plural, are uni-

formly regarded as neuter or destitute of gender, irrespective of the

animal’s sex. If it happen to be necessary to distinguish the sex of

~

NUMBER—THE NEUTER SINGULAR.

1

D)

~

7.

any animal that is included in this class, a separate word signifying

male or female, he or she, 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

remains in the caste-less or neuter class.

For this reason, suffixes

expressive of the neuter gender, whether singular or plural, were not

much required by Dravidian nouns.

The only neuter singular suffix

of the Dravidian languages, which is used in the same manner as the

masculine an or adu, and the feminine @/, is that which constitutes

the termination of the neuter singular of demonstrative pronouns and

appellative nouns, This pronoun is in Tamil, Canarese, and Malay4lam,

adu, that, idu, this ; in Telugu adi, idi; in Gond ad, 4d.

In the Tulu pronoun the ¢ has dropped out. The pronoun ¢that’ is

avu. Dr Gundert considers this simply a corruption, and he shows

p

that the language had its neuter singular in d originally, like its sister

languages, by adducing such words as aff, it is not, which was evi-

dently aldu, originally, like the Tamil allaud (old Tam. andru = aldu),

in which the suffix du or d is the formative of the neuter singular.

The same neuter demonstrative, or in some instances its termination

only, is used in the conjugation of Dravidian verbs as the sign of the

neuter singular of each tense, and in Telugu as the sign of the feminine

singular also, The bases of the Dravidian demonstratives being @ and

¢ (¢ remote, ¢ proximate), that part of each pronoun which is found to

be annexed to those demonstrative vowels is evidently a suffix of

number and gender ; and as the final vowels of ad-u, ad-i, id-u, td-:,

are merely euphonic, and have been added only for the purpose of

helping the enunciation, it is evident that & alone constitutes the sign

of the neuter singular. This view is confirmed by the circumstance

that d never appears in the neuter plural of this demonstrative, but is

replaced by ei, u, 14, or short a, with a preceding euphonic v or n—

¢.g., compare adw (a-d-u), Tam. that, with ava (a-(v)-a), Malayalam,

those. It will be shown afterwards that this final is a sign of the

neuter plural.

Appellative nouns which form their masculine singular in Tamil in

an, and their feminine singular in «/, form their neuter singular by

annexing du, with such euphonic changes as the previous consonant

happens to require—e.g., nalla-du, a good thing ; al-du, euphonically

andru, & thing that is not ; periya-du or peri-du, great, a great thing.

This neuter singular suffix ¢ is largely used in all the dialects in the

formation of verbal nouns—e.g., pogira-du, Tam. the act of going,

pona-du, the having gone, péva-du, the being about to go. This form

has been represented by some, but erroneously, as an infinitive : it is

| aé/‘

1

[y)

~

8

THE NOTUN.

a concrete verbal or participial noun bf the neuter gender, which has

gradually come to be used as an abstract.

The affinities of the neuter singular suffix in ¢ appears to be ex-

clusively Indo-European, and they are found especially in the Indo-

European pronouns and pronominals.

We may observe this suffix in

the Sanskrit ¢af, that ; in ¢yat, that ; in adas, a weakened form of adat,

that ; in état, this; and in the relative pronoun yat¢, who, which, what.

We find it also in the Latin ¢llud, id, &ec. (compare the Latin ¢d with

the Tamil ¢d-», this); and in our English demonstrative neuter it

(properly hit), the neuter of he, as also in what, the neuter of who.

Compare also the Vedic it, an indeclinable pronoun, described as ¢a

petrified neuter,” which combines with the negative particle na to form

nét, if not, apparently in the same manner as in Telugu the aoristic

neuter lédu, there is not, is compounded of the negative la for ila, and

the suffix du.

Though the Dravidian languages appear in this point

to be allied to the Sanskrit family, it would be unsafe to suppose that

The analogy

they borrowed this neuter singular suffix from Sanskrit.

of the Dravidian neuter plural in @, which though Indo-European, is

foreign to Sanskrit, and that of the remote and proximate demonstra-

tive vowels @ and 7, which though known to the Indo-European family,

are used more systematically and distinctively by the Dravidian lan-

guages than by any other class of tongues, would lead to the supposi-

tion that these particles were inherited by the Dravidian family, in

common with Sanskrit, from a primitive pre-Sanskrit source.

THE PLURAL: PRINCIPLES OF PLURALISATION.—In the primitive

Indo-European tongues, the plural is carefully distinguished from the

singular ; and with the exception of a few nouns of quantity which

have the form of the singular, but a plural signification, the number of

nouns is always denoted by their inflexional terminations.

Nouns

whose number is indefinite, like our modern English sheep, are un-

known to the older-dialects of this family. In the languages of the

Scythian group a looser principle prevails, and number is generally

left indefinite, so that it is the connection alone which determines

whether a noun is singular or plural

Manchu restricts the use of

its pluralising particle to words which denote animated beings : all

Even the Tartar,

other words are left destitute of signs of number.

or Oriental Turkish, ordinarily pluralises the pronouns alone, and

In Brahui also,

leaves the number of other nouns indeterminate.

the number of nouns is generally left undefined ; and when it is desired

to attach to any noun the idea of plurality, a word signifying many

or several, is prefixed to it. Notwithstanding this rule, Brahui verbs

le

o L 4 i

NUMBER—PLURALISATION,

12.9‘

are regularly pluralised ; and the number of an indeterminate noun

may often be ascertained from the number of the verb with which it

agrees.

I

With respect to principles of pluralisation, most of the Dravidian

tongues differ considerably from the Indo-European family, and accord

The number

on the whole with the languages of the Scythian stock.

of Tamil nouns, especially of neuter nouns, is ordinarily indefinite

i

and it depends upon the connection whether any noun is to be regarded

0

as singular or as plural.

It is true that when more persons than one

4

are referred to, the high-caste or rational pronouns that are used

i

are almost invariably plural; and that even neuter nouns them-

10

selves are sometimes pluralised, especially in polished prose composi-

d

tions : but the poets and the peasants, the most faithful guardians of

]

antique forms of speech, rarely pluralise the neuter, and are fond of

i

using the singular noun in an indefinite singular-plaral sense; without

li

specification of number, except in so far as it is expressed by the con-

text:

This rule is adhered to with especial strictness by the Tamil,

which in this, as in many other particulars, seems to exhibit most

Iy

faithfully the primitive condition of the Dravidian languages.

Thus

all

in Tamil, mddu, ox, means either an ox or oxen, aqcbrding to the con-

nection ; and even when a numeral is prefixed, which necessarily con-

)l

veys the idea of plurality, idiomatic speakers profer to retain the

singular or indefinite form of the noun.

Hence they will rather say,

ndle mddu méygiradu, literally four ox is feeding, than ndlu mddugal

116

méygindrana, four oxen are feeding, which would sound stiff and

pedantic.

Telugu is an exception to thig rule.

In it neuter nouns

(g

are as regularly pluralised as masculines or feminines, and the verbs

In the Tuda, on

with which they agree are pluralised to correspond.

i

s

the other hand, the only words that appear to be ever pluralised are

1

the pronouns and the verbs which have pronouns for their nominatives.

LU

In Coorg neuter nouns have no plural.

We find a similar usage

it

(Iid

occasionally even in English, as Mr C. P. Brown points out, in the

aly

military phrases, a hundred foot, three hundred Aorse.

)

In Tamil, even when a neuter noun is pluralised by the addition of

o (!

a pluralising -particle, the verb is rarely pluralised to correspond ; but

[

the singular form of verb is still used for the plural—the number of

[thv

the neuter singular being naturally indeterminate.

This 1s almost

ald

invariably the practice in the speech of the lower classes; and the

‘;1501

colloquial style of even the best educated classes exhibits a similar

ned

characteristic.

Tamil contains, it is true, a plural form of the third

f

person neuter of the verb; but the use of the neuter plural verb is

[

I

130

THE NOUN.

ordinarily restricted to poetry, and even in poetry the singular number

both of neuter nouns and of the verbs that correspond is much more

commonly used than the plural.

It should be remarked also, that the

third person neuter of the Tamil future, or aorist, is altogether destitute

of a plural.

In this particular, therefore, the Tamil verb is more

decidedly Scythian in character than the noun itself.

Max Miiller

supposes that a Dravidian neuter plural noun, with its suffix of plural-

ity, is felt to be a compound (like animal-mass for animals, or stone-

heap for stones), and that it is on this account that it is followed by a

verb in the singular.

The explanation I have given seems to me pre-

ferable.

The number of all Dravidian nouns, whether high-caste or

casteless, was originally indefinite : the singular, the primitive condi-

tion of every noun, was then the only number which was or could be

recognised by verbal or nominal inflections, and plurality was left to

be inferred from the context.

As civilisation made progress, the plural

made its appearance, and effected a permanent settlement in the de-

partment of high-caste or masculine-feminine nouns and verbs ; whilst

the number of casteless or neuter nouns, whether suffixes of plurality

were used or not, still remained generally unrecognised by the verb in

the Dravidian languages.

Even where the form exists it is little used.

It is curious, that in this point the Greek verb exhibits signs of

Scythian influences, or of the influences of a culture lower than its

own, viz., in the use of the singular verb for the plural neuter.

The Dravidian languages ordinarily express the idea of singularity

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

is still left indeterminate), but by prefixing the numeral adjective one.

Thus, mddu, Tam. ox, does not mean exclusively either an ox or oxen,

but admits of either meaning according to circumstances ; and if we wish

distinctly to specify singularity, we must say oru mddu, one or a certain

ox. HKuropeans in speaking the Dravidian dialects use this prefix of sin-

gularity too frequently, misled by their habitual use of an indefinite

article in their own tongues.

They also make too free a use, in Tamil,

of the distinctively plural form of neuter nouns, when the objects to

which they wish to refer are plural.

Occasionally, when edphony or

usage recommend it, this is done by Tamilians themselves, but as a

general rule the neuter singular is used instead of the neuter plural,

and that not in Tamil only, but also in almost all the languages of the

Scythian group.

Another important particular in which the Indo-European languages

differ from the Scythian is, that in the former the plural bas a different

==,

e

NUMBER—PLURALISATION.

131

set of case-terminations from the singular, by the use of which the idea

of plurality is not separately expressed, but is compounded 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

7y

singular or crude form of the noun and the case-terminations.

T call

|

it a sign of plurality, not a noun denoting plurality, for in many in-

stances only a fraction of a word, perhaps only a single letter, remains.

A

In the Indo-European languages, each inflexion includes the twofold

idea of number and of case.

Thus there is a genitive singular and a

I

genitive plural, each of which is a complex idea ; but there is no in-

flexion which can be called genitive, irrespective of number ; and in

]

many instances (this of the genitive being one) there is no apparent

10

connection between the case termination of the singular and that which

il

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 one,

i

the sign of case seems to have preceded that of number—e.g., the

il

Gothic plural accusative ns, is derived from = or m, the sign of the

i

accusative singular, and s, the sign of plurality. When the Scythian

of

family of languages is examined, it is found that each of their case-

1ts

signs is fixed and unalterable.

It expresses the idea of case and

nothing more, and is the same in the plural as in the singular, with

ltJ

the exception of those few trivial changes which are required by

10

euphony. The sign of plurality also is not only distinct from the

e

case sign, but is one and the same in all the cases.

It is an unalter-

16

able post-position—a fixed quantity ; and it is not post-fixed to the

el

case-sign, much less compounded with it, as in the Indo-European

languages, but is,prefixed to it.

It is attached directly to the root

il

itself, and followed by the signs of the different cases.

1

In the Dravidian languages a similar simplicity and rigidity of

(g

structure characterises the use of the particles of plurality. They are

[]lv

added directly to the crude base of the noun (which is equivalent to

]

the nominative singular), and are the same in each of the oblique cases

i

as in the nominative.

The signs of case are the same in the plural as

0

in the singular, the only real difference being that in the singular they

are suffixed to the crude noun itself, in the plural to the pluralising

i,

It

particle, after the addition of that particle to the crude noun.

The

only exception to this rule is in the Tulu, in which @, the sign of the

)

genitive, keeps its place in the singular, as in the other dialects, but is

ot

weakened to ¢ in the plural.

132

THE NOUN

In Hunearian, Adz, a house, is declined as follows :

SINGULAR

PLURAL

Nom

haz

Nom

hézak

Gen

hdz-nak

Gen

hdz-ak-nak

Dat

hdznak

Dat

hdz-ak-nak

Ace

hdz-at

Acc

hdz-ak-at

In Tamil, maner, a house, is declined as follows:

SINGULAR

PLURAL

Nom

maner

Nom

maner-gal

Ace

manet-(y)-e

Ace

maner-gal-er

Instr

manei-(y)-d

Instr

manet-gal-al

Conj

manei-(y)-0du

Conj

maner-gal-ddu

Dat

manez—klsu

Dat

manet-gal-(w)-kku

Ablat

manet-(y ) il-irund.

Ablat

maner-gal-il-irundu

Gen

Gen.

maner-(y)-inadu

maner-gal-r-nadw

Locat

manet-(y)-cdatt-il

Locat

maner-gal-idatt-al

Voc

manei-(y)-é

Voc

maner-gal-e

(See Paradigm of Nouns.)

We here see that the particular signs which are used to express

plurality and as exponents of case, in Tamil and Hungarian respec-

tively, are taken from the resources of each language

whilst the

manner in which they are used in both languages is precisely the

same.

The neuter of Dravidian nouns bemg identical Wlth th° crude base,

when the pluralising particle is attached to a neuter noun, it is 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

In the case

of masculine and feminine nouns, including pronouns, a somewhat

different method of pluralisation is necessary

The sincular of the

masculine and feminine is formed, as has already been pointed out, by

-

the addition to the root of particles denoting a male or a female

Hence, to pluralise those nouns, it is necessary %a_add (either]a pluralis-

8

ing particle to the masculine and feminine suffixes, or to substitute for

those suffixes an epicene pluralising particle

In all the Dravidian

languages the primitive plan of pluralising these two classes of nouns

seems to have been that of substituting for the masculine and feminine

singular suffixes a suffix of plurality which applied in common to men

and women, without distinction of sex

This is the mode which is

still used in most of the dialects

but in Telugu it retains its place

only in connection with pronouns and verbs, and has disappeared from

substantives, which form their plural by means of a neuter suffix.

=

NUMBER—PLURALISATION.,

133

The classification of Dravidian nouns into rationals and irrationals

has already been explained; it has also been shown that in the

singular, the masculine of rational nouns is distinguished from the

feminine.

In the plural both those genders are combined ; the hfgh~

caste particle of plurality, or plural of rational beings, is the same for

both genders, and includes men and women, gods and goddesses, with-

out distinction of sex.

Irrational or neuter nouns have a particle of

plurality different from this, and in general peculiar to themselves.

Hence the Dravidian languages have one form of the plural which may

be called epicene or masculine-feminine, and another which is ordi-

narily restricted to the neuter; and by means of these pluralisiig

particles, gender and number are conjointly expressed in the plural by

one and the same termination. The masculine-feminine plural expresses

the idea of plurality conjointly with that of rationality; the neuter

plural, the idea of plurality conjointly with that of irrationality.

Arrarigements of this kind for giving combined expression to gender

and number are very commonly observed in the Indo-European family ;

and even the plan of classing masculines and feminines together in

the plural, without distinction of sex, is also very common. Thus, the

I

N

Sanskrit plural in as is masculine-feminine ; so is the Latin plural in

pet

es, and the Greek in ss. The chief difference with respect to this point

fhe

between the Dravidian system and the Indo-European one lies in this,

the

that in the Dravidian languages the masculine-feminine particle of

plurality is carefully restricted to rational beings ; whereas in the Indo-

0,

European languages irrational and even inanimate objects are often

complimented with .inflexional forms and pluralising particles which

chef%

Al

imply the existence, not only of vitality, but even of personality—that

o

13, of self-conscious infelligence.

A still closer anélogy to the Dra-

s

i

vidian system is that which is exhibited by the new Persian. That

dialect possesses two pluralising particles, of which one, dn, is suffixed

[ {6

Al

to nouns denoting living beings,* the other, 2d, to nouns denoting

b /7

it

inanimate objects. The particles employed by the Persian are different

It

from those which are us:a'd in the Dravidian languages, but the prin-

o

g

24

SN

I{Iwn

* Bopp derives an, the new Persian plural of animated beings, from the San-

skrit &n, the masculine-plural accusative.

I am inclined with Sir Henry Rawlin-

oo

son to connect this particle with the Chaldaic and Cuthite plural am, allied to tm

e

and in (e.g., andn, Chald. we) ; the new Persian being undoubtedly tinged with

Chaldao-Assyrian elements, through its connection with the Pehlvi.

One 1is

]I](,‘h

tempted to connect with this suffix our modern En

glish plural suffix en, in

)

brethren. Bopp, however, holds that this en is an ancient formative suffix origi-

]

ce

nally used by the singular as well as the plural. Compare mediwval, Eng. brethren,

o0

with Anglo-Saxon brédhra.

The Dutch use both broeders, the older form, and

?n'ocdm'in, the more modern.

134

THE NOUN.

The Persians specialise life, the Dravi-

ciple is evidently analogous,

dians 7eason; and both of them class the sexes together indiscri»mi—

nately in the plural.

In Telugu some confusion has been introduced between the epicene

sign of plurality ar-u, and the neuter lu. The pronouns pluralise their

masculines and feminines regularly by substituting a»-u for their mas-

culine and feminine singular suffixes, whilst the substantives and some

of the appellative nouns append lu, which is properly the neuter sign

of plurality, instead of the more correct ar-u. Thus the Telugu demon-

strative pronoun vdr-u, they (the plural of vdndw, he), corresponding to

the Canarese avar-u, exhibits the regular epicene plural ; whilst mag-

andv, a husband (in Tamil magan), takes for its plural not magaru, but

magaly ; and some nouns of this class add u to the masculine or femi-

nine singular sufix—e.g., alludu, a son-in-law, makes in the plural not

alluru, nor even allulu, but allundlu, nasalised from allud-lu,; and

instead of wdrw, they, vdndlu is colloquially used, a word which is

formed on the same plan as the low Tamil avangal, they, instead of

avargal, or the higher and purer avar.

One of the few cases in which the irrational pluralising particle is

used in the higher dialect of the Tamil instead of the rational epicene,

is that of makkal (maggal), mankind, people. ~This is not really, how-

ever, an exception to the rule, for makkal is regarded by Tamil gram-

marians as the plural of maga (from mag-u), and the primary meaning

of this seems to be child, a naturally neuter noun.

Another instance

of this anomaly both in Tamil and Canarese, and one to which no

exception can be taken, is that of the masculine noun guru (Sans.), a

teacher.

The plural of this word is in Tam. gurukkal, in Can. guru-

galu.

Tulu also has gurukldu.

Tulu agrees with the other dialects in using er as its sign of plu-

rality in personal nouns, but differs from most of them in using this

form occasionally only, and using gal, or the shape which gal assumes

in Tulu, as its ordinary plural of personal nouns, as well as of neuters.

Thus, the plural pronouns of the third person in ordinary use in Tulu

are dkulu, they (rem.), mokulu, they (prox).

It uses also & (Tam.

avar) for the former, and mér’ (Tam. dwar) for the latter, but rather as

/4

honorific singulars than as plurals. It also uses 72@/cu_lu for you, instead

z

|

AY

of %, the latter having come to be used as a honorific singular.

The Ku rational plural is ngd, which is properly an irrational one,

the pronouns and participial nouns form their rational plural by the

addition of d»u, which is identical with the ar of the other dialects.

Modern colloquial Tamil has been influenced in some degree by the

usage of Telugu, and has adopted the practice of adding the irrational

RS

NUMBER—THE EPICENE PLURAL,

135

plural to the rational one, thereby systematically forming a double

plural ar-gal, instead of the old rational plural ar—e.g., avan, he, and

aval, she, properly take avar, they, as their plural ; but the plural pre-

ferred by the modern Tamil is the double one awvargal,

So- also the

Il

plural of the second person is properly nér.: but the plural which is

most commonly used is ning-gal (from nim, an older form of nér, and

1

gal), which is a double plural like avar-gal. Two forms of the epicene

I

plural being thus placed at the disposal of the Tamil people (the classi-

Il

cal nér and avar, and the colloquial néng-gal and avar-gal), they have

0

converted the former, in colloquial usage and in prose compositions

(]

into an honorific singular, and the same practice is not unknown in

Il

Canarese. This usage, though universally prevalent now, was almost un-

!

known to the poets. I have not observed in the poets, or in any of the

of

old inscriptions in my possession, any instance of the use of the epicene

id

plural as an honorific singular, except in connection with the names and

titles of the divinities, whether those names and titles are applied to

Even

the gods themselves, or are conferred honorifically upon kings.

in those cases, however, the corresponding pronoun follows the ordinary

rule, and is very rarely honorific.

In modern Telugu a double plural,

1Iey

similar to that of the Tamil, has gained a footing—e.g., vdra-lu (for

W

vdr-u), they, and méra-tu (for mér-u), you. In Malayalam, avar is still

[

constantly used for the ordinary epicene plural, and avargal is used

il

more commonly as an honorific singular.

This use of avargal is also

common in Tamil, and the corresponding gdru equally so in Telugu.

11

10

(Taw. durei-avargal = Tel. dora-gdru, the gentlemen, his honour.)

In

Canarese, avarw is commonly used simply as a plural; dtanu is

]‘li

regarded as the honorific singular, though avaru also is sometimes used

f’”«

in this sense. ningal in Tamil and Malayz‘damyis both plural and

honorific singular, like Can. nvw and Tel. miru.

i

Telugu, as has been observed, pluralises masculine and feminine

)

substantive nouns by the addition, not of the rational, but of the

ol

neuter or irrational sign of plurality. By a similar inversion of idiom,

ulr

Gond sometimes uses the rational plural to pluralise neuter nouns—

e.g., kdwdlor, crows. Such usages, however, are evidently exceptions to

il

the general and more distinctively Dravidian rule, according to which

®

the neuter pluralising particle is restricted to neuter nouns, and the

epicene particle to ratiomal or personal nouns, 7., masculines and

feminines.

16,

We shall now consider in detail the pluralising particles themselves.

(4

1. Epicene Pluralising Particle.—This particle is virtually one and

the same in all the dialects, and the different forms it has taken are

10

owing merely to euphonic peculiarities,

In Tamil nouns, pronouns,

\{d

THE NOUN,

1 3 6

and verbs, it assumes the forms of ar, dr, 6r ; or, 2r: in Canarese and

t’f(

Telugu, aru, aru; dre, éru; ri

7

raue: i Pudu,ser

in: Ku, dru :iin

Gond, or.

The lengthened forms contain the assimilated demonstra.

tive vowel of the pronoun. The Brahui also forms the second person

plural of its verb in ere, ure, &c., the third person in w» or ar.

1

regard ar (not simply r) as probably the primitive shape of this plural-

ising particle, from which the other forms have been derived by eupho-

nic mutation.

It is true that =%, thou, forms its plural in modern

Tamil by simply adding », but this does not prove that » alone was

the primitive form of the epicene plural, for an older form of zir, you,

is n4-(v)-ir or ni-(y)-ir, from which nér has evidently been derived. It

might naturally be supposed that in this case ¢ is used instead of ar,

through the attraction of the preceding long vowel 2, but we also find

v used as-a pluralising particle in magalir, high Tam. women, and

also a longer form, 4r, in magalir; consequently ¢r has acquired a posi-

tion of its own in the language, as well as ar.

All that we can cer-

tainly conclude respecting the original shape of this particle is that the

final 7, which is plainly essential, was preceded by a vowel, and that

that vowel was probably a.

May we regard this @ as identical with

the demonstrative « ?

On this supposition, ar would be simply an

older form of a(v)ar, and would mean those persons; ¢ would mean

these persons.

On the other hand, may we identify ¢r and 4r with the

seeond numeral ¢ and %, two ?

nér would on this supposition have

been originally a dual, meaning ye two.

It is not impossible that the

plural may in all languages have been developed out of the dual.

In

Bornu, we, ye, they, mean literally we two, ye two, they two.

The

chief difficulty in the way of accepting this as the origin of the Tamil

or or nir, you, is that the ar of awvar, they, which is the .form of the

epicene plural most commonly used, would have to be regarded as a

corruption and a mistake, which it does not appear to be.

The Cana-

rese rational plural suffix andar—e.g., avandar-u (for avar-w), illi, and

wandar-w (for war-u), hi seems to be identical with the Tel. indefinite

plural andar-u, indar-w, so many, the final ar of which is the ordinary

suffix of the epicene plural.

In old Canarese, ¢» is a plural vocative

of epicenes.

Tamil and Malayalam have another particle of plurality applicable

to rational beings, viz., mdr, or in high Tamil mar, which has a con-

siderable resemblance to ar, and is evidently allied to it. It is suffixed

to the noun which it qualifies in a different manner from ar ;- for

whilst ar is substituted for the masculine and feminine suffixes of the

singular, not added to them, mdyr is generally added to the singular

suffix by idiomatic writers and speakers.

Thus in Tamil, purushan

I

NUMBER—THE EPICENE PLURAL.

13

{

(Sans.) a man, a husband, when pluralised, by suffixing ar becomes

purushar ; but if mdr is used instead of ar, it is not substituted for

an, the masculine singular suffix, but appended to it—e.g., purushan.

mdr, not purusha-mar.

mdr, it is true, is sometimes added to ar—

e.g., purushar-mdr ; but this is considered unidiomatical.

mdr 1s also

sometimes used as an isolated particle of plurality in a peculiarly

Scythian manner—e.g., tdy-tagappan-mdr, Tam. mothers and fathers,

}

parents ; in which both mother and father are in the singular, and mdr

is separately appended to pluralise both.

Probably there was origin_

l

ally no difference in signification between ar and mar.

In modern

Tamil, mdr is suffixed to nouns signifying parents, priests, kings, &ec.,

y

as a plural of honour, but it may be suffixed, if necessary, to any class

i

of nouns denoting rational beings.

In Malayélam it is used with a

i

wider range of application than in Tamil, and in cases in which an

)}

honorific meaning cannot be intended—e.g., kallan-mdr, thieves. The

)

antiquity of many of the forms of the MalayAlam grammar, favours

It

the supposition that in ancient Tamil, which was apparently identical

!

[

with ancient Malayalam, mdr may generally have been used instead of

|

I

ar, as the ordinary pluralising particle of high-caste nouns.

1l

A few traces of the use of the particle mdr, as the ordinary sign of

i

epicene plurality, survive in classical Tamil.

mar, which is evidently

n

equivalent to mdr, forms the epicene plural of a few nouns—e.g.,

\[4

enmar, eight persons. As ar is older than dr (the latter being euphon-

16

ised from avar by the coalescence of the vowels), so in like manner it

i

may be concluded that mar is older than mdsr.

This mar again seems

e

to have been derived from var, or to be an older form of it, m and v

i

being sometimes found to change places. When the Tam. ndlvar,

i

four persons, eivar, five persons, are compared with epmar, eight

g &

persons, it is evident that mar is equivalent to var, and probable that

i

the use of m for vis an euphonic change.

ndlmar would be impossible

gy

n"‘j

i

in classical Tamil ; epmar is not only possible, but euphonie.

e

var is a very common formative of epicene appellative i;o‘ups in Tamil

78

and Malay

a

am, and often appears as avar, in which case we cannot but

u?fj’

170

regard it as the pronominal awar, they, used as a plural formative-—

e.g., vinnavar, Tam. the heavenly ones, from vin, heaven, with ¢var

ble

affixed. Compare this form with participial nouns like $eydagar, Tam.

[V

AOH'

they who did, from $eyd-(u), having done, and avar, they, and the

ol

identity in origin of the avar of vinnavar and that of Seydafar will be

[V

evident. This avar, again, seems to have been abbreviated into var,

(U8

like the Telugn avaru, they, into vdru.

The » of efvar, five persons,

e

might be regarded as simply euphonic, as a soft consonant inserted to

prevent hiatus, but this explanation is inadmissible in the case of

i

138

THE NOUN.

ndlvar, four persons, there being no hiatus here to be provided against.

This war being identical in use with awar, it may safely be concluded

to be identical with it in origin ; and if war is a pronominal form, an

abbreviation of avar, may not mar be the same ?

The example of the

lengthening of ar into dr (v.e., the substitution of the plural pronoun

itself in a euphonised form for the bare particle of plurality) would

naturally lead to the lengthening of war into »dr (the origin of the »

and when once mar had established

being by this time forgotten)

itself instead of var, this alto would naturally be lengthened into mdr.

Thus tagappan-mdr would come to be used instead of fagappan-vdr.

This suffixing of the plural formative to the singular noun, which seems

so irregular, may be compared with the mode in which the singular is

still honorifically pluralised by the addition of the plural pronoun—e.g.,

tagappan-avargal, father, and especially with the still more common

tagappan-dr, forms which, though used as singular, are grammatically

plurals.

tagappan-mdr is invariably used as a plural, but it seems not

improbable that it is identical in origin with tagappan-dr.

In this explanation of mdr I have followed a suggestion of Dr Gun-

dert ; but I find myself unable to follow him also in supposing the

Tamil verbal terminations mar, mdr, mandr, to be identical in origin

with the pluralising particles mar, mdr, though I admit that at first

sight it seems impossible to suppose them to be otherwise.

These are

poetical forms of the future tense only, which do not make their

appearance in any other part of the verb, and the m they contain will

be found, I think, on examination to have a futuric, not a pronominal,

signification. It appears to be identical with & or v, the sign of the

future, and there appears no reason why m should not be used instead

of v or b in this instance, as well as in others that have already been

pointed out.

The impersonal future of en, to say, in classical Tamil is

enba.

When the personal terminations of the third person plural are

suffixed to the root, we find they will say represented indifferently by

enbar, or enmar, enbdr, enmdr, or enmandr.

The force of the future,

according to Tamil grammarians, being conveyed by each of these

forms in m, precisely as by each of the forms in b, I conclude that this

future m must be regarded as independent of the m of the pluralising

particle, and the resemblance between the two, however complete, to

be after all accidental.

Dr Gundert suggests that the final dr of

enmandr, preceded by an, may be explained by a comparison of it with

tagappan-ar, a form already referred to, and here I am disposed to

coincide with him.

We have now to inquire whether ar, dr, mar, and mdr, the Dravi-

dian plurals of rationality, appear to sustain any relation to the plural

s

139

NUMBER—THE EPICENE PLURAL.

o

termina"nigns, or pluralising suffixes, of other languages. It might at

|

first sight be supposed that the formation of the plural by the addition

I

of r to the singular which characterises some of the Teutonic tongues,

In the

is analogous to the use of » or a» in the Dravidian languages.

Icelandic the most common plural is that which terminates in »—some-

Il

ld

times the consonant » alone, sometimes the syllables ar, ¢r, ur—e.g.,

konungur, kings.

A relic of this plural may be traced in the vulgar

English childer, for children.

il

The same plural appears in the old

Latin termination of the masculine plural in o7 which is found in the

i

i

Eugubian tables—e.g., subator for subacts, and screhitor for scripts.

Il

Compare also mas, the termination of the first person plural of verbs

18

in Sanskrit, with mar, the corresponding termination in Irish, answer-

ing to the Doric uss and the ordinary Greek s,

In these cases, how-

[

ol

ever, the resemblance to the Dravidian plural ar is perhaps rather

ly

apparent than real ; for the final » of these forms has been hardened

it

from an older & and the s of the Sanskrit nominative singular is

hardened in some of the Teutonic tongues into 7, equally with the as

il

or s of the plural ; whilst there is no evidence, on which we can rely,

e

of the existence of a tendency in the Dravidian languages to harden s

il

into 7, and therefore no evidence for the supposition that the Dravidian

epicene ar has been derived from, or is connected with, the Sanskrit

st

are

masculine feminine as.

It should also be noted that the Irish mar is

hel

a compound of two forms, ma, the representative of the singular of the

personal pronoun I, and 7, the hardened equivalent of the plural suffix

!

s ; and that, therefore, it has no real resemblance to the Dravidian

&

i

mar, which is entirely and exclusively a plural suffix of the third person.

fead

There is more probability perhaps of the Dravidian plural suffixes

being related to the pluralising particles of some of the Scythian

lbeeﬂ

languages.

The Turkish plural suffix, which is inserted, as in the

il

J

Dravidian languages, between the crude noun and each of the case

terminations, is lar or ler—e.g., Gn-lar, they. Dr Logan says, but on

I i

what authority does not appear, that nar is a plural suffix in Kbl

il

Mongolian nouns which end with a vowel, are pluralised by the addi-

rhﬂ

tion of nar or ner, a particle which is evidently related to, or identical

1

with, the Turkish lar or ler : and the resemblance of this Mongol

18

10

suffix nar to the Dravidian mar, both in the final ar and in the nasal

"

prefix is remarkable.

It is well known that m evinces a tendency to

o

be softened into n (witness the change of the Sanskrit mama, my, into

mtﬂ

mang in Zend) ; and in this manner it may be supposed that the

i

The Tamil

Dravidian mar may be allied to the high Asian nar.

lesiiar (iler-iar), young people, a plural appellative noun, formed from

f{l.Vi‘

1ler, youth, exhibits a form of pluralisation which at first sight seems

i

140

THE NOUN.

very closely to resemble the Mongolian nar.

Nay, nar is actually

used in this very instance instead of 7#ar by some of the poets,

and 1t is certain that # and n often change places

Unfortunately

we find this # or = in the singular, as well as the plural; which

proves it to be inserted merely for euphony in order to prevent hiatus,

and therefore ¢/etiiar must be re-divided, and represented not as ¢fez-

The

dar, but as dlei-(7)-ar or ilei-(n)-ar, equivalent to <lei-(y)-ar.

resemblance of the final syllable ndr, of the Tamil verb .enmcmdr,

already commented on, to the Mongolian plural suffix nar, seems more

reliable, and yet that also seems to disappear on further examination.

The Turkish, besides its ordinary plural lar or ler, uses z as a plural

suffix of the personal pronouns, as may be observed in biz; we, and stz

you ; and the Turkish terminal z corresponds to the » of some other

Scythian languages.

Thus ydz, Turkish, summer, is in Magyar ydr or

fidr (compare the Tamil 7dysur, the sun).

It would almost appear,

therefore, that the Turkish suffix of plurality has undergone a process

of change and comminution similar to that of the Tamil, and that the

Turkish z and the Tamil » are remotely connected, as the lagt réma'm~

ing representatives or relics of mar, nar, and lar.

Though I call attention to these and similar Scythian correspond-

ences, I wish it to be understood that I do so only in the hope ‘that

they will be inquired into more thoroughly, and the existence or other-

wise of a real relationship between them and the Dravidian forms with

which they correspond ascertained.

T attribute much more weight to

the resemblance between the Dravidian languages and those of the

Scythian group in the use they make of these particles of plurality,

and the manner in which they connect them with the case sign than

to any resemblance, however close, that can be traced between the

particles themselves.

We should look, I think, not so much at the

lingual materials used by the Scythian languages and the Dravidian

respectively, as at the use they severally make of those materials.

2. Pluralising Particles of the Neuter.—There are two neuter

pluralising particles used by the Dravidian languages :—

1. The neuter plural suffiz gal, with s varietses.

It has already

been noticed that gal. is occasionally used in Tamil and Canarese as

the plural suffix of rational nouns and pronouns ; and tliat the corre-

sponding Telugu lu is still more systematically used in this manner.

Nevertheless, I have no doubt that it was originally and is essentially

This suffix is in both dialects of the

a suffix of the neuter plural.

Tamil gal—e.g., 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 ga/, is doubled, or preceded without

.

P

N

NUMBER —THE NEUTER PLURAL.

141

an intermediate vowel by another consonant, ga/ is regularly hardened

into kal or kkal.

Thus kal-gal, stones, is changed by rule into Zar-

kal.

gal is occasionally lengthened in Tamil poetry into gdl.

In

Malayalam this particle is generally gal, kal, or Zkal, but sometimes

the initial £ coalesces with a preceding nasal and becomes ng—e.g.,

ning-ngal, you instead of nim-kal, in Tamil néng-gal. In modern Clanar-

ese we have ga/-u, in ancient gal, asin Tamil. The three southern idioms

are in perfect agreement with respect to this particle, but when we

advance further north we shall find its shape considerably modified.

L

In Telugu the corresponding neuter plural suffix is fu, of which the

[ answers, as is usual in Telugu, to the lingual / of the other dialects :

il

l-u, therefore, accords with the final syllable of the Canarese gal-u.

I

The only real difference between the Telugu and. the Tamil-Canarese

by

consists in the omission by the former of the initial consonant % or

g

Traces, however, exist, in Telugn, of the use of a vowel before u,

10

Thus, in gurrdlu, horses, the long @ is derived from the combination

I

of the short final @ of the inflexional base gurrae and a vowel, evidently

@y which must have preceded lu. We thus arrive at al-u as the pri-

\(

mitive form of the Telugu plural ; and it is obvious that al-

% could

easily have been softened from gal-u.

It

Conjecture, however, is scarcely

(¢

needed, for in some nouns ending in n-u, of which the

Tamil equival-

fh

ents end in m, the old Dravidian pluralising

particle in ga/, is exhibited

in Telugu almost as distinctly as in Tamil. Thus, kolan-u, a tank

i

(Tamil kulam), takes as its plural kolan-ful-u, a word cited in this

if

form by Nannaya Bhatta (Tamil kzﬁ ng-gal), and gon-u, the n

ame of a

I

species of tree, forms its plural in gon-gui-u. When Zulw and gul-u

are compared with the Tamil-Canarese forms kal, gal,

and gal-u, it is

fhe

obvious that they are not only equivalent but identic

al.

An illustra-

all

tion of the manner in which the Telugu u has been softened from

gal-w, may be taken also from colloquial Tamil, in which - avar-gal,

11

they, is commonly pronounced avil, Pirdmanargul, Brahmins, Pird-

mandl.

¢ or g is dropped or elided in a similar manner in m

any lan-

guages of the Scythian family.

d

Tu]u, though locally remote from the

Telugu, follows its example in

many points, and amongst others in

this. It often rejects the % or g of the plural, and

uses merely Ju, like

rmt'&’g"” A

el

the TeluguJ It uses the full form kulu more rarel

y. 7./4 TRAT a gy he

m,»:'»4

The same form of the pluralising particle

ajgpin®

Il

appears in the languages of

/;V";‘/‘V‘,

6

some of the tribes of the north-eastern frontier—langu

ages which pos-

e/l

sibly form a link

of connection between the Dravidian and the Tibetan

ol

families,

v ity

In the Miri or Abor-Miri di

alect, nd, thou, forms its plaral

YA ¢

i

in nélu, you ; and in the Dhimal, ¢, t

hou, is pluralised into nyél, you.

Ve ol LCaad

The pronoun of the Mikir is plural

A/ U

ised by adding ti—e.g., :na-hf, you,

A

[y

14

~

THE NOUN.

whilst substantives have no plural form.

In the Dhimél, substantive

nouns are pluralised by the addition of galas, which is possibly the

origin of the pronominal plural /, though this particle or word, galaz,

is not compounded with, or agglutinated to, the noun, but placed after

1t"separately.

Though it is used as a separate word, it does not seem

to retain any signification of its own independent of its use as a post-

position.

The resemblance of galas to the Tamil-Canarese gal or

galu, is distinct and remarkable.

The 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, there-

fore, that the Telugu has adopted the latter portion of the particle Za/,

gal, or galu, and omitted the initial ka, ga, or &, we may expect to find

this & used as a pluralising particle in some other Dravidian dialect,

and the final /u or / omitted. Accordingly, in Gond we find that the

plural neuter is commonly formed by the addition of % alone—e.g., naz,

The

a dog, natk, dogs (compare Tamil ndykal, pronounced ndygal).

Seoni-Gond forms its plural by adding nk—e.g., nels, a field, nelnk,

fields.

The Ku dialect uses ngd, and also skd, of all which forms % or

g constitutes the basis.

k is sometimes found to interchange with ¢, especially in the lan-

guages of high Asia.

This interchange appears also in the Gond plu-

ralising particle; for whilst % is the particle in general use, the

pronouns of the first and second persons form their plurals, or double

plurals, by the addition of ¢ to the nominative—e.g., amat, we, tmat,

you.

The same interchange between % and ¢ appears in the Brahul.

Though a separate word is usually employed by the Brahui to denote

plurality, a suffix in % is also sometimes used ; but this % is found only

in the nominative plural, and is replaced by ¢ 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 Dravidian forms noticed above the

Magyar plural in % or ak, the Lappish in &, ch, or 2. also the ¢ by

which % is replaced in almost all the other dialects of the Finnish

family ; and observe the reappearance of the sound of /in the Ostiak

plural suffix #/.

In Ostiak, the dual suffix is kan or gan, in Samoied-

Ostiak, ga or ka, in Kamass, gas.

Castren supposes these suffixes to

be derived from the conjunctive particle Za or ke, also; but their

resemblance to the Dravidian signs of plurality is worth noticing.

Even the Armenian forms its plural in k—e.g., tw, thou, tuk, you;

swrem, I love ; siremk, we love.

In the Turkish also, & is the sign of

e,

X

NUMBER—THE NEUTER PLURAL,

143

Ive

plurality in some forms of the first person plural of the verb—e.g.,

tdum, I was, {duk, we were.

the

¢, on the other hand, is the sign of the

)

plural in Mongolian, and in the Calmuck is softened into &. Even in

fter

Zend, though a language of a different family, there is a neuter plural

Tk

ol

Thus, for smdne (Sans.), these things, the Zend has smat.

In those instances of the interchange of ¢ and %, in which it can be

0

M)

1

ascertained with tolerable clearness which consonant was the one origi-

%

nally used and which was the corruption, ¢ sometimes appears to be

older than Z.

Thus, the Doric r7vo¢ is in better accordance with related

words, and therefore probably older, than the Zolian xfvog, the origin

b

thar

of e-x3 swoc.

The Semitic pronoun or pronominal fragment ta, thou

[y

(preserved in attd and antd), is also, I doubt not, a more accurate and

older form than the equivalent or auxiliary suffix %a.

In several of

bl

the Polynesian dialects, & is found instead of an apparently earlier

ind

Sanskrit or pree-Sanskrit ¢.

On the other hand, as Dr Gundert points

Jct

f

out that £ sometimes appears to be older than ¢, particularly in Greek

—e¢.g., compare Gr. s with Sans. kas.

If, in accordance with a por-

i

tion of these precedents, where % and ¢ are found to be interchanged,

The

¢ is to be regarded as older than £, it would follow that 4a/, the Dravi-

i

dian plural suffix now under consideration, may originally have been

bor

tal

I cannot think that the Dravidian ga/ has been derived, as

Dr Stevenson supposes, from the Sanskrit sakala (in Tamil sagala)

b

Lan

all

kal; the base of sa-kala, has been connected with 0A-0g 5 but el,

!

the root, signifying all—which is found in all the Dravidian languages

—Tel. ellu, Tam.-Mal. elld, elldm, elldvum (the conjunction wm inten-

b

sifies the meaning), if it were related to any Indo-European word at

i

all, which is doubtful, would be connected, not with the Gr. éA, Heb.

!

kol, Sans. sar-va, &c., but with the Germanic alla, Eng. all.* The

0%

Dravidian tala, one of the meanings of which is a heap, a quantity,

oulf

would suit very well ; but even this derivation of kal is destitute of

evidence.

The supposititious Dravidian ¢a/ may be compared with the

o

Ostiak plural suffix ¢/, but in the absence of evidence it is useless to

ikl

proceed with conjectural analogies.

fhe

The new Persian neuter plural, or plural of inanimate objects, which

th

corresponds generally to the Dravidian neuter plural, is hd, a form

gl

* Dr Gundert is right, I think, in deriving this word from e/, a boundary (Tam.:

|lr.‘d

el-vei, el-get, ellei, Tel. ella) ; but I am unable to follow him in adding to el a

negative a, so as to give.elld, all, the idea of boundless,

10

The Tamil ellavar, all

el

(persons), compared with ellavan, the sun, from el, time, and several related words

denoting measure, end, &c., lead me to the conclusion that the word ella or ellaz,

I

all, is used affirmatively, in its natural sense, to signify whatever is included

il

within the measure or limits of the thing referred to.

0

o

j

J

144

THE NOUN.

which Bopp derives with much probability from the Zend.

It may

here be mentioned, though I do not attach any importance to a resem-

blance which is certainly accidental, that the Tamil plural gal some-

times resembles za in the pronunciation of the peasantry—e.g., wruk-

kirdrgal, they are, is vulgarly pronounced irukkirdha.

(2.) Neuter Plural Suffiz tn a.—In addition to the neuter plural in

gal, with its varieties, we find in nearly all the Dravidian languages a

neuter plural in short @, or traces of the use of it at some former

period.

gal, though a neuter plural suffix, is occasionally used, espe-

cially in the modern dialects, as the plural suffix of rationals; but in

those dialects in which « is used, its use is invariably restricted to

neuters, and it seems therefore to be a more essentially neuter form

than gal itself.

We shall first examine the traces of the existence and use of this

sufix which are contained in the Tamil.

gal is invariably used in

Tamil as the plural suffix of uncompounded neuter nouns; but a is

preferred in the classical dialect for pluralising neuter compounds, that

!

is, appellative nouns, or those which are compounded of a base and a

/

suffix of gender, together with demonstrative pronouns, pronominal

W

adjectives, and participial nouns.

Even in the ordinary dialect, @ 1is

generally used as the suffix of the neuter plural in the conjugafci(?n

of verbs.

The second line in one of the distichs of 'Firu*¢a}g1i}’wra1"s % Kuz‘al,”/

contains two instances of the use of « as a neuter plural of appellative

nouns—e.g., dgula néra pira, vain shows (are all) other (things). The

first of these three words is used adjectivally ; and in that case the

final ¢ is merely that which remains of the neuter termination am,

after the regular rejection of m,; but the next two words, nére and

pira, are undoubted instances of the use of @ as a suffix of the neuter

Q

The much-used Tamil words pala, several, or

{

plural of appellatives.

b

many (things), and sila, some, or some (things), (from pal and sil),

il

though commonly considered as adjectives, are in reality neuter plurals

—e.g., pint pala, diseases (are) many ; pala-(v)-in-pdl, the neuter plural

f

This is the case also

[

gender, literally the gender of the many (things).

in poetry in Malayilam. The use of these words adjectivally, and with

{l

the signification, not of the collective, but of the distributive plural,

i

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

\l‘

plural appellative: it is formed from the root @/, not, by the addition

d

1

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, lite-

rally a thing flmt is not. In the higher dialect qf the Tamil, all nouns

AR,

S

9 /// % //\/ { «

NUMBEE—THE NEUTRR PLURAL,

145

)

of quality and relation may be, and very frequently are, converted into

16

appellatives and pluralised by the addition of a—e.g., ariya (Kural),

l‘l.

things that are difficult, difficilia.

We have some instances in high

Tamil of the use of @ as the plural suffix even of substantive nouns—

e.g., porula, substances, things that are real, realities (from the singular

g

porul, a thing, a substance) ; also porulana and pcrulavei,—with the

et

addifﬁvion of ana and awes (for awa), the plural neuters of the demonstra-

tive pronouns.

P

The neuter plural of the third person of the Tamil verb, a form

b1

[lt

which is used occasionally in ordinary prose as well as in the classical

dialect, ends in ana—e.g, trukkindrana, they (neut.) are. ana is

undoubtedly identical with ava (now awei), the neuter plural of the

I

demonstrative pronoun, and is possibly an older form than ava.

s

derived from the demonstrative base @, with the addition of dpithe

A “J

neuter plural suffix; and an euphonic consonant (n or v) to preven,

Sometimes in classical Tamil this «

hiatusj_—e_._g., a-(n)-a or a-(v)-a

and

the sign of the neuter plural, is added directly to the temporal suffix

4

{ Lo

of the g}erﬁ, without the addition of the demonstrative base of the pro

Il

noun—e.g., minda, they (neut.) returned, instead of mindana. This

{

final @ is evidently a sign of the neuter plural, and of that alone.

;;mon

Possibly we should also regard as a sign of the neuter plural the

final @ of the high Tamil possessive adjectives ena, my (things), mea ,

i

nama, our (things), nostra.

The final @ of ena would, on this supposi-

i

tion, be not only equivalent to the final @ of the Latin mea, but really

2

identical with it.

These possessive adjectives are regarded by Tamil

it

I

grammarians as genitives; and it will be shown hereafter that « is

on "

1

L/

undoubtedly the most essential sign of the genitive in the Dravidian

(}&f

[anguages. The real nature of ena and nama will be discussed when

lite

the genitive case terminations are inquired into.

It should be stated,

however, under this head, that Tamil grammarians admit that ena and

d

|

it i

nama, though, as they say, genitives, must be followed by nouns in

gl

the neuter plural

il

e

e.g., ena keigal, my hands; and this, so far as it

1]

goes, constitutes the principal argument in favour of regarding the final

a of these words, not ds a genitive, but as the ordinary neuter plaral

i

i

suffix of the high dialect.

) 'l‘l

In Malayilam, the oldestudaughter of Tamil, and a faithful preser-

¢ pik I

ol

ver 6f many old forms, the neuter plurals of the demonstrative pronouns

UD

are ava, those (tlings), and <va, these (things).

The existence, there-

i

i

‘L\

fore, in Tamil and Malaydlam of a neuter plurad in short a, answering

i

i

to a neuter singular in d, is clearly established.

In addition to ava

Il

i

and va, avattrugal and wattrugal arve regularly used in Malayélam

I

like the double plural aveigal, weigal, in Tamil.

K

146

THE NOUN.

The Canarese appears to have origiﬁally agreed with the Tamil in

all the particulars and instances mentioned above: but the neuter

plural in @ is now generally hidden in that dialect by the addition of

euphonic u, or the addition of avu, they, neuter (corresponding to the

Tamil aver) to the base.

Thus pira, Tam. other (things), is in Cana-

rese heravu.

The neuter plural of the demonstrative pronoun is not

ava, as it is in Malayslam, and as it must have been in primitive

Tamil, but ave. Though, however, the nominative is awu, all the

oblique cases in the ancient Canarese reject the final » before receiving

t

the case suffixes, and must have been formed from the base of an older

X

ava—e.q., avara (ava-ra), of those things.

0

The Telugu plural neuters of the demonstratives are avi, those, vz,

1l

these, answering to the singular neuters adi and ids. The oblique

forms of the same demonstratives (or rather the bases of those oblique

forms), to which the case-terminations are suffixed, are vd remote, and

)i

v% proximate (vdfe, vite), which are evidently formed (by that process

q

of displacement peculiar to the Telugu) from the primitive bases ava

The neuter

and dva, like vdru, from avarw, and viru, from warw.

plural of the Telugu verb is formed by suffixing ave or vi.

W

Dr Gundert calls my attention here to the natural and easy transi-

tU

tion from one vowel to another apparent on comparing the Malayalam

and old Tamil ava with the modern Tamil aves, and finally with the

1§

g

Telugu ave.

So also Malayalam and old Tamil ¢lla, none, is tller in

hy

modern Tamil.

Final @ constantly lapses in the Dravidian languages

into a weaker sound.

1o

it

In Go6nd the singular demonstratives are ad and ¢d ; the correspond-

the

ing pluralsTaw and . If Telugu and Gond were the only extant

D

lu

dialects of the Dravidian family, we should naturally conclude that as

d is the sign of the neuter singular, so v is the sign of the neuter

fe

the

plural.

When the other extant dialects, however (Tamil, Malayalam,

g

and Canarese), are examined, we perceive that this v is not a sign of

plurality, nor a sign of anything but of abhorrence of hiatus ; and that

(V(IT[

l

it is merely an euphonic link between the preceding and succeeding

gy

vowels. Telugu and Gdnd must therefore yield to the overpowering

weight of evidence which is adducible in proof of this point from their

711%‘13

o]

sister dialects.

Nor is there anything opposed to analogy in the sup-

By

position that the Telugu has changed the @, which was the sign of the

neuter plural of its pronouns and verbs, into ¢, and then adopted to

]«?111

U

represent the idea of plurality a.consonant which was used originally

&

merely to prevent hiatus.

In the case of awaru, they, 3lli, converted

into vdru, and <waru, they, hz, converted into véru, v, though only

th

ly

e,

E}l})honic in its origin, has become an initial and apparently a radical ;

p

NUMBER—-THF

NEUTER PLURAL

14

{

and the old initial and essentially demonstrative vowels @ and ¢, have

i

e

been thrust into a secondary place

The conversion, therefore, of ava

| o[

into vd, and of wwa into v% (vdfe, vife), the oblique forms of the Telugn

ite

plural demonstratives, is directly in accordance with this analogy ; and

Al

thus the Telugu cannot be considered as opposed to the concurrent

10

testimony of the other dialects, which is to the effect that » is merely

euphouic, and that « is the sign of the neuter plural of the demonstra-

e

tive pronouns,

16

ving

I remarked it as a curious irregularity, that in Tulu » had become

1d

the sign of the neuter singular instead of d—e g., avu, it. Dr Gundert

u;h(‘f/if

Gpe 17574

says that the v is not written

The word is written cua-w, and he

ai (= m/l %)

) 1l

considers it merely a softened pronunciation of adw, so that there is

/ MﬂMw

e

no irregularity here after all

It is written avu, however, in ¢ Brigel’

Grammar

(e ad M‘LL]

il

If short @ be, as it has been shown to be, a sign of the neuter plural

, Al

inherent in the Dravidian lancuages, and most used by the oldest

006

q (il

dialects, we have now to inquire into the relationship which it appar-

It

ently sustains to the neuter plural suffix of some of the Indo-European

languages

I know of no plural in any of the Scythian tongues with

which it can be compared ; and we appear to be obliged to attribute

Tans

to 1t, as well as to d, the suffix of the neuter singular, an origin which

M]

is allied to that of the corresponding Indo-European forms.

In the

b

]

use of @ as a neuter plural suffix, it ig evident that the

> Dravidian fa,mﬂjy

v”'“

(

has not 1n11bated or been influenced by, the Sanskrit

ndv1

t

(&N

U

that/ was

not through the medium of the Sanskrit that Indo- Europem influences

made their way into this department of the Dravidian languages ; for

,\[ﬂl]l)

the Dravidian neuter plural «, differs widely from the Sanskrit neuter

g1l

plural dné, and it is as certainly unconnected with the masculine-

ha‘ ®

feminine plural as (softened in modern Sanskrit into ah).

It 1s with

el

the short @, which constitutes the neuter plural of the Zend, the Latin,

i ,.lm

and the Gothic, that the Dravidian neuter plural « appears to be allied.

bl g U

Compare also the old Persian neuter plural &.

b

1

i

It will be evident on recapitulating the various particulars tlmt have

Ceedlﬂ

been mentioned in this section, that grammatical gender has been more

fully and systematically developed in the Dravidian languages than in

i

fel

perhaps any other language, or family of languages, in the world.

o 8l

il

Properly speaking there is no such thing as gender in the Scythian

UI m

mefuafre%

Gender appears in the Indo-Furopean languages in the

o

pL

pronouns and pronominals, but not in the verb

In the Semitic lan-

vmﬂﬂf

guages the verb distinguishes between the masculine and feminine in

“erf“d

the singular ; but in the plural, as in the verb of the Indo-European

g o

languages,

gender is ignored

In the Dravidian languages, on the

THE NOUN.

148

the other hand, not only is there a full equipment’ of sex-denoting pro-

nouns, but there is the same development of gender in the verb also.

We have verbal forms—without the necessity of using the separate pro-

nouns as nominatives—for expressing ke s, she is, it 1s, they (persons)

are, they (things) are. This is a refinement of expressiveness in which

the Dravidian languages appear to stand alone.

Sanskrit 1s far less

highly developed in this particular, so that if there were any borrowing,

the Dravidian family must have been the lender, not the borrower.

Probably, however, neither borrowed from the other, but both inherited

elements of greater antiquity than either, which the Dravidian family

has best preserved, and turned to best account.

See ¢ Introduction,”

P

SECTION IL—FORMATION OF CASES.

Principles of Case Formation.—The Indo-European and the Scythian

families of tongues originally agreed in the principle of expressing the

reciprocal relations of nouns by means of post-positions or auxiliary

words.

The difference between those families with respect to this

point consists chiefly in the degree\of faithfulness with which they have

retained this principle.

In the Scythian tongues, post-positions, that is, appended. auxiliary

words, have generally held fast their individuality and separate exist-

ence.

In the Indo-European tongues, en the contrary, the old post-

positions or suffixes have been welded into combination with the roots

to which they were appended, and converted into mere technical case

signs or inflexional terminations; whilst in the later corruptions to

which those languages have been subjected, most of the case termina-

tions have been abandoned altogether, and prepositions, as in: the

Semitic tongues, have generally come to be employed instead of the

older case signs.

It cannot reasonably be doubted that the case termi-

nations of the primitive dialects of the Indo-European family: were

originally post-positional words, which were added on to the root to

i

express relation, and at length blended into an inseparable uniow with

)

it, through that love of composition by which every member of the

I

family was characterised.

In most instances the root and the original

signification of those post-positions are now unknown, or they are ascer-

tained with difficulty by means of analogy and comparison.

Both in Greek and in Latin we find some post-positions still used in

a manner 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 dygds, in the country ; arals, to the sea; and évgavédew, from

heaven.

The post-positional auxiliary words used in these instances

=

-

!

CASE FORMATION

145

are appended to their bases in a truly primitive manner.

If there is

)

any difference between them and the usage of the Scythian post-

il

positions, it consists in this—that in most of the Scythian tongues 0: 5:,

sy, would be written as separate words.

i

One of the Greek post-positions quoted above, &, signifying direction

1?

to a place, has been supposed to be allied to de, the dative of the

Manchu ; and the Greek dev has been conjectured to be allied to the

el

Tartar ablative din or den

One may well be doubtful whether any

el

such connection can be established : but in the manner in which the

Iy

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

1s distinctively Scythian

All case relations are expressed by means

1Al

of post-positions, or post-positional suffixes

Most of the post-positions

the

are, in reality, separate words

and in all the Dravidian dialects the

Ay

post-positions retain traces of their original character as auxiliary nouns

hi

Several case signs, especially in the more cultivated dialects, have lost

ave

the faculty of separate existence, and can only be treated now as case

terminations ; but there is no reason to doubt that they were all post-

1]

positional nouns originally. The dialect of the Tudas shows its want

§f

There is no

of literary cultivation in the paucity of its case signs

Dat

difference in it between the nominative, genitive, and accusative

0ts

There is another point in which the Scythian principles of case

(A%

In the Indo-

formation differ materially from the Indo European

g t0

European family the case endings of the plural differ from those of the

Y

singular

It is true, that on comparing the case terminations of all the

the

members of the family, some traces have been discovered of the exist-

the

ence of an original connection between the singular and the plural

o\ il

terminations of some of the cases

but in several instances—e.g

“e‘e

the instrumental case—no such connection between the sincular and

of t«)

the plural has been brought to light by any amount of investigation

\ uh

and it may be stated as a general rule that the languages of this

i i

family appear to have acted from the beginning upon the principle of

ﬂlﬂﬂ

expressing the case relations of the singular by one set of forms, and

150e!

the case relations of the plural by another set

On the other hand

in all the languages of the Scythian group, the same case signs are

ud 10

employed both in the singular and in the plural, without alteration, or

5§ of

with only such alterations as euphony is supposed to require

In the

singular, the case post-positions are appended directly to the nomina_

ront

tive, which is identical with the base ;

in the plural they are appended,

1ceo

not to the nominative or base, but to the particle of pluralisation whlch

s

P

1

J

0

THE NOUN;

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, espe-

cially in the languages of the Finnish family, the included vowel of the

case sign differs in the two numbers: it is generally @ in the singular

and ¢ in the plural—a change which arises from the ¢ law of harmonic

sequences ” by which th

ose tongues are characterised, and which re-

appears, but little modified, in the Telugu and Tuln. It has already

beon remarked that in Tulu the @ of the singular becomes e in the

plural.

When the Dravidian languages are examined, it is found that they

differ from those of the Indo-European family, and are, in general, 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 exceptions are

the truly Scythian one apparent in the Tulu, in the change in the case

sign vowel, mentioned above, from a in the singular to e in the plural,

and the equally Scythian exception apparent in the Telugu, in which

the dative case sign is either £z or ku, according to the nature of the

vowel by which it is preceded or influgnced ; in consequence of which

it is generally ¢ in the singular and %u in the plural. This identity of

the singular and plural case endings in the lang&

ages of the Scythian

GQ/?

group, as well as in those of the Dravidian family, will be found

él

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, I conceive,

properly so called, in the Dravidian languages, as in the Scythian

family generally.

Those varieties of inflexional increments which have been

called

declensions by some scholars, both native and TFuropean, especially

with reference to the Canarese, Tulu, and Telugu, appear to me to

constitute but one declension ; for there is no difference bet

ween one

so-called declension and another with respect to the signs of case.

ame in all: the difference which exists

Those signs are precisely the s

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 fthe case formation o

f the Dravidian

arranged

languages, we shall follow the order in which they have been

of the Sanskrit.

by Dravidian grammarians, which is the same as that

tainly an error;

The imitation of the Sanskrit in this particular was cer

for whilst in Sanskrit there are eight cases only, the number of cases in

Tamil, Telugu, &e., is almost indefinite. Every post-position annexed

—

gy

THE NOMINATIVE.,

151

to a noun constitutes, properly speaking, a new case; and therefore

(I

the number of such cases depends upon the requirements of the speaker

al

and the different shades of meaning he wishes to express.

In particu-

C\Pe

ot e

lar, the ““inflexion” or inflected form of the base, or oblique case, as it

is sometimes called, which has sometimes a possessive, sometimes a

I]"Uh

locative, and sometimes an adjectival signification, ought to have had a

ot

)

Al

place of its own. So also the social and conjunctive casg. (See the

/4

Il

Inferior and the Instrumental Case.) Notwithstanding this, the usage

of Dravidian grammarians has restricted the number of cases to eight ;

n {0

and though there are not a few disadvantages in this arrangement, it

b the

it will conduce to perspicuity to adhere to the ordinary usage in the

analysis on which we are about to enter.

Tamil grammarians, in fol-

opal

lowing the order of the Sanskrit cases, have also adopted or imitated

0 Sl

the Sanskrit mode of denominating them—not by descriptive appella-

Jos

tions, as dative or ablative, but by numbers.

They have affixed a

tLa (

number to each case in the same order as in Sanskrit—e.g., first case,

! o

second case, dc., to eighth case.

Though a nominative, or first case,

p 1

stands at the head of the Dravidian list of cases, the only cases, pro-

11

perly so called, which are used by these languages, are the oblique

f vl

cases.

Il

The Nominative—Absence of Nominative C’aée Terminations.—In the

Scythian languages in which nouns are inflected, as in the Dravidian,

the nominative is not provided with a case termination.

With regard

to Japanese, this is expressed by saying that the noun has no nomina-

tive. The Dravidian nominative singular is simply peyar-¢, the noun

(O

g

itself—the inflexional base of the noun—without addition or altera-

tion ; but it necessarily includes the formative, if there be one.

The

nominative plural differs from the nominative singular only by the

addition to it of the pluralising particle.

There are three apparent

A

exceptions to this rule, or instances in which the nominative might

Iy

appear to have terminations peculiar to itself, which it is desirable

here to inquire into.

gt

(1.) The neuter termination am might at firs sight be supposed to

be a nominative case sign. In Sanskrit, am is the most common sign

of the nominative neuter ; and in Tamil also, all nouns ending in am

(in Telugu am-u), whether Sanskrit derivatives or pure Dravidian words,

ad i

are neuter abstracts.

In Sanskrit the accusative of-the neuter is iden-

Dmﬁdﬁ‘%

tical with the nominative, but in the other cases am disappears. In

Tamil, am is discarded by all the oblique cases of the singular without

ﬁrrang%d

el

(] <

exception : every case retains it in the plural, but in the singular it is

20 EITG?"

used by the nominative alone.

This comprises the sum total of the

f o ?

reasons for regarding am as a termination of the nominative. On the

i

)

K¢

THE NOUN

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 sion of the nominativ

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 par-

ticle of plurality

Ancient Clanarese uses am in the nominative and accusative singular

In that dialect a

of nouns ending in «, and discards it in the plural

tree is maram, as in Tamil ; but the plural nominative, trees, 1s not

maranggal (maram-gal), but maragal

Modern Canarese appears to

make no usée of ‘am whatever, eithér in the singular or the plural, but

it is evident that the final vx of many Canarese nouns is a softened

Can. maravu

form of m. Compare Tam. maram, a tree

Neuter nouns borrowed from the Sanskrit by the Tamil ordinarily

retain (in the nominative alone, in the singular) the am of the Sanskrit

nominative singular :

this am is used in every one of the cases in the

plul al

so that even in-Sanskrit derivatives am is regarded in Tamil,

not as a case sizn, 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, not as a nominative case sign, 1t does

not appear to have been borrowed from Sanskrit, in which it is used

and I believe it springs from a source

for so different a purpose ;

We find it added to many of the

altogether independent of Sanskrit.

purest Dravidian roots, and by the addition of it many verbs of that

class are converted into nouns.

Thus 7nil- am, Tam. the ground is

from nil, to stand, dram, Tam. depth, is from dy, to be deep. See

in the section on ¢ The Verb.”

The best ex-

“ Derivative Nouns,”

planation of the origin of this am is probably that suggested by Dr

Gundert, viz., that it is an obsolete demonstrative pronoun meaning it.

I am doubtful whether the Tamil demonstrative adjectives anda, that,

inda, this, &c., and the demonstrative adverbs angw, there, &c., have

originated in this supposed demonstrative pronoun am, because of the

existence of equivalent forms (dndu, tndu, &c.), in which the nasal m

or n is evidently an euphonic insertion ; and also because the Tulu

demonstrative pronoun, proximate ¢ndu or wundu, it, can clearly be

identified with the unnasalised sduw proximate, and udu intermediate

of the Tamil and Canarese

(See section on “ Euphonic Nomination.”)

In the case, however, of am, the suffix of so many Dravidian neuter

nouns, the supposition that this was an ancient form of the demonstra-

e

THE- NOMINATIVE.

163

tive pronoun, regularly formed from the demonstrative root «, that,

I

appears best to suit the use to which it is applied.

It cannot indeed

e

be regarded as a perfectly satisfactory explanation of the particle ; for

a supposed demonstrative am, formed from the demonstrative base a, it

or

cannot fail to be asked, What then is the origin of the m of this suppo-

sitious am ?

il

Still, without being able to answer this question, we may

e

readily suppose that a demonstrative am, it, was at one time current

al

as an equivalent to ad-u.

A parallel instance will then enable us to

see how it came to be used as a suffix to nouns.

In Tamil poetry ad,

lar

it, 1s frequently appended to neuter nouns as a sort of suffix of em-

¢ 0

4

phasis—e.g., we may either say pon, gold, or ponnadu (pon, gold, adu,

it).

The only difference is that adw is separable from the word to

1ot

(]

which it is affixed, whereas wherever am was affixed, it seems to have

adhered.

bt

The oblique cases of the Tamil reflexive pronouns, ¢dn, tdm,

gnel

‘\

are also suffixed to nouns in Tamil poetry instead of the oblique cases

of those nouns themselves—e.g., marandanei (instead of marattes),

kkandén, 1 saw the tree (accus).

The reflexive seems here to be used

il

in a demonstrative sense.

Though we do not now find a neuter de.

il

monstrative pronoun in am or an holding an independent position of

i

its own in any of the Dravidian languages (as is the case with the

il

neuter demonstrative ad-u), yet we may pretty safely conclude that

such a form once existed. An evident trace of this ancient demonstra-

15

e

i

6

tive am (or an, which would be quite equivalent to it) is found in the

(50l

existence of the interrogative particles, or rather nouns, Tam. en, én,

y i

Tel. émi, what, why.

If the interrogative edw, what, leads us neces-

g

{ tno

sarily to adu, that, may it not be regarded as almost equally certain

I

that the interrogative em or en, what, points to a demonstrative am or

I t,

an, that.

Whatever be the origin of the neuter formative am, we

i,

must assign the same origin to the an which is sometimes substituted

N

for it.

Thus we may say in Tamil either kadam or kadan, debt ; uram

i

or uran, strength.

When adw is appended to neuter nouns in Tamil

I D

as a separable formative, it can keep its place, if euphony is supposed

to require it, in the oblique cases as well as in the nominative, and to it

| {ify

il

the case signs may be affixed. This is also the case with the formative

b

an, and herein it differs in use, if not in origin, from am. Thus

it

kadam in Tamil loses am in the accusative, takes atfw instead, and

gl

thus forms its accusative kadattes ; whereas kadan retains an, and has

, Tl

kadaner for its accusative.

In Malaydlam an sometimes alternates

srf_? t

with ar as a formative of nouns—e.g., wlan or wlar, being, equivalent

it

to the more common wlava ; ?flcm-dgu, to be born. I find a corrobora-

|

tion of this supposition of the original identity of am and adu in the

et

use of attu, Tam., ad, Can., and ¢, Tel.,/as inflexional increments or

4

THE NOUN.

signs of the oblique cases of nouns, all these increments being, as it

appears to me, only the different shapes which adu or ad: takes in

construction.

In the inflexion of singular nouns in Tamil, aétu, as in

the example given above, is regularly used instead of the am of the

nominative, from which we may conclude the identity of both am and

attw (adw) in signification, and probably in origin, as different forms

of the same demonstrative.

(2.) In Canarese the crude form of the personal pronouns is occa-

sionally used instead of the nominative—e.g., nd, instead of ndnu, I,

and ¢d, instead of ¢d@nu, self ; and hence it might be supposed that the

final = or nw of those pronouns constitutes a nominative termination.

This supposition, however, is inadmissible ; for in all the oblique cases,

without exception, the final » or nw 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 com-

pounded 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, Malayilam, and Canarese in all the oblique cases), differs from

the quantity of the same vowels in the nominative. In the nominative

aY [w* the vowel is invariably long, in the oblique cases generally short—e.g.,

in Canarese we find ndnu, I, nanna, my ; ninu, thou, ninna, thy ;

,?’1»5& ‘

tdnu, self, tanna, of one’s self.

This is the only instance in these lan-

guages in which there is a difference between the nominative and the

oblique cases of such a nature as almost to constitute the nominative a

case by itself.

In this instance, however, it is uncertain whether the

nominative has been lengthened for the sake of emphasis, and we are

to seek the true form of the root in the oblique cases, or whether the

nominative is the true base, and the shortening of the quantity of the

. vowel in the oblique cases, prior to the addition of post-positions, has

arisen from the euphonic tendencies of the language.

The 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 n4n, thou—a usage which is in accord-

ance with the ordinary Dravidian rule that the inflected form of every

noun, or the basis of the oblique cases, is to be regarded as of itself a

possessive or adjective.

See ‘“ Roots : Internal Changes,” pp.

Before proceeding to consider the oblique case signs sercatim, it is

necessary to inquire into the changes which the base sustains prior to

receiving the suffixes.

Inflexion or inflexional base of the oblique cases.—In a very large

P

THE NOMINATIVE.

15

Il

number of instances that form of the Dravidian noun which constitutes

il

i

the crude base, and which is used as the nominative, constitutes also

the inflexional base.

The nominative of this class of nouns and the

he

base of the oblique cases are identical ; and the case signs are added

ud

to the base or nominative without any link of connection, whether

Il

inflexional or euphonic, beyond the ordinary » or y, which is inserted

In a smaller number of

i

to prevent hiatus between concurrent vowels.

instances (a number which constitutes, however, a very large minority),

the base or nominative undergoes some alteration before receiving the

(e

addition of the terminations, or case signs of the oblique cases.

i)

In the solitary instance of the personal pronouns, as pointed out

under the preceding head, the nominative sustains a curtailment (viz.,

0“

by the shortening of the quantity of the included vowel) on becoming

([t

the inflexional base, or base of the oblique cases: but in all other

il

instances the alteration which the base sustains consists in an augmen-

bl

tation, which is sometimes optional and sometimes necessary ; and it

is to this augmented form (augmented by the addition of some in-

el

flexional increment) that the case signs are attached. This Dravidian

rule may be illustrated by the Hebrew.

In Hebrew the personal and

Idiu

[0

other suffixes of substantives and verbal nouns are attached, not to the

e

base or nominative, but to the construct state—z.e., the state in which

0y

a noun stands when it is qualified by a subsequent noun.

Just so in

hy

the Dravidian languages, in that large class of nouns in which the

Jae

inflexional base of the noun, or its adjectival form, differs from the

le

crude form or nominative, the signs of case are attached not to the

med

crude, natural form of the noun, but to the altered, inflected form—

{le

viz., to that form which a Dravidian noun assumes when it qualifies or

o 416

is qualified by a subsequent noun, or when it stands to such noun

3l

in the relation of an adjective.

This inflected form of the noun is

fpe

frequently used by itself, without the addition of any case termination,

and when so used it has sometimes a locative, sometimes a possessive

11[];L1

or adjectival force.

Tamil grammarians hold that the inflexion is not

tll*’-l

a case sign, though they cannot but admit that for almest every pur-

6~

pose for which the possessive or locative case signs are used, the

ot

oblique case, or inflected form of the noun, may be used instead.

o

They admit that it is used adjectivally‘: but it appearsito me that its

4

use as an adjectival formative is a secondary one, and that it was

originally, like many other adjectival formatives in various languages,

§ B

a sign of the possessive or locative.

Its use eventually as the in-

rtO

flexional 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

g

language whgxx each of the post-positions of case was known and felt

THE NOUN.

156

to be a substantive, which required to be united to its base by a sign

of localisation or relationship. At present, however, it is our object to

seek out and arrange the various increments which are used for form-

ing the inflexional base of the oblique cases, without reference to the

other uses to which those increments are put.

(1.) The enflexional increment ‘wn’ with its dialectic varieties.—The

particle 7n constitutes the inflexion of certain classes of nouns in Tamil-

All

Canarese ; and the corresponding Telugu particles are nz and na.

The Tamil

these particles are, I believe, virtually one and the same.

uses #n in the singular and in the plural alike; and its original signifi-

cation has been forgotten to such a degree that it is now often used

merely as an euphonic link of connection between the base and its

case-signs.

For this reason its use both in Tamil and in Canarese is

optional.

In Telugu the corresponding particles are used only in the

singular ; and where they are used, their use is not eaphonic merely,

The Ku, which in this

but is intended to constitute the ¢nflexion.

respect is more nearly allied than the Telugu is to the Tamil, and more

regular, uses n¢ as the inflexion of the plural as well as of the singular

of all classes of nouns.

When #n is used in Tamil as the inflexion of ‘the neut. sing. demon-

stratives adu, that, 7du, this, it is apt to be confounded with an, a

termination which those pronouns often take, especially in the oblique

cases, instead of .

Instead of adu and idu, we may say in Tamil

adan and idan.

In the nominative these forms are very rarely used ;

but the accusative, adan-ez, is more common, and the dative, adarku

(adan-ku), still more so-

1d-en-@l, through this, ad-in-dl, through that,

and cases similarly formed, must therefore be carefully distinguished

from ¢dan-dl and adan-dl.

The an of the latter is a formative, which

is probably of the same origin as the am of many neuter nouns (that

am being often convertible into an) ; whereas #» is an inflexional incre-

ment, and was probably a case-sign of the locative originally.

The use of 7z as an inflexional increment effects no alteration in the

meaning of the case sign which is suffixed to it.

‘Where it is not fol-

lowed by a case sign, it is generally found to be used as 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-dl (kei-(y)-in-dl); either kdldl,

with the foot, or kdlindl (kdl-in-al).

In the first of these instances

(kei-(y)-in-dl), y is used to keep the initial vowel of ¢z pure, in'accord-

ance with the ordinary rule of the language ; from the use of which, in

this instance, it is evident that n, ‘though- merély euphonic in its

—

3

A

INFLEXIONAL INCREMENTS

157

present application, was in its origin something more than a mere

euphonic expletive.

@ 1s not only attached as an 1nﬂex1onctl increment t6 the crude base

of Tamil nouns, but it-is appended also to other inflexional increments,

to attu, and to the doubled final d and r of certain classes of

nouns

Thus, by the addition of attw to mara-m, a tree, we form

marattu, the inflexional base of the oblique cases, by suffixing to which

dl, the sign of the instrumental case, we form marattdl, by a tree ; but

we may also attach i to attu, forming attin (att-in), a doubled and

As wn when

euphonised increment—e.g. , marattindl (mara-attu-in-al)

standing alone, without the suffix of any case sign, has acquired the

force of the genitive, so also has the double increment, attin—e.g.,

marattin signifies of a tree

In Tamil, 2 is the inflexion of- all nouns

except those which end in am, or in d-u or r-

in Canarese 7n 1s

17

much more rarely used than in Tamil

but where it is used, its use is

M

rather euphonic and optional than inflexional, and it cannot be used

1§

i

by itself to express the force of the genitive

As in Tamil guruvil, in

i

a priest, and guruvinil are identical, so we may say in Canarese either

quruvally or quruvenalls

In Malayadlam the use of - before ¢/, as in

the last instance now adduced, is found, Dr Gundert says, only in

I

pedantic poetry. Before the other inflexional increments 11: is common

enough.

I

In Telugu the corresponding particles ni and na constitute the

I

inflexion, or natural genitive of certain classes of nouns, and are also

attached as inflexional increments to the base before suffixine the case-

|

signs—e.g., dineki (di-ni-ke), to it, tammunik: (tammu-ni-kr), to a

younger brother, guruva-na-ku, to a spiritual teacher

These incre-

14

;L

ments are attached only to the singular in Telugu.

They constitute

[

the singular inflexion—i.e.,

the genitival or adjectival base of - the

I

noun ; and though their use is now in many connections optional and

Jv

merely cuphouic, they doubtless contributed at the outset to gramma-

tical expression

nor are they to be regarded as the inflexion of

il

masculine nouns and pronouns alone, though they are chiefly used by

[ﬂl

them, for ddneke, to that, dinike, to this, are neuters

The Telugu nz,

Ol

and the Tamil-Canarese in, are doubtless identical in origin

The

f

change in the position of the vowel is in accordance with the change of

r11]

@, Tam. the negative particle, into /¢, in Telugu, and of %l Tam

within, into /6, in Teluou

[y

It also corresponds to the ¢ iange of the

\ea

position of the vowel which is apparent when #n, the Latin preposition

1s compared with the corresponding Sanskrit preposition 7:

d

il

It will be seen that ¢ is used not only as an inflexional increment

ifs

but as a genitive, an ablative, and a locative

We cannot be in error

158

THE NOUN.

therefore, I think, in regarding ¢» in all these instances as one and the

same particle, though in different connections it is used for different

purposes, nor in concluding that originally it had only one meaning,

and was used for only one purpose.

A comparison of the various case

signs or increments appears to show that » was originally an equiva-

lent form for ¢/, and as ¢/ means”house (e.g., k6-v-i/, Tam. God’s house,

a temple), it seems evident that the first use of ¢/ in the inflexion of

nouns must have been as a sign of the locative.

It appears probable

therefore that its equivalent 77 must also have had at first a locative

signification.

Dr Gundert says, “ The oblique cases would all seem to

be modified forms of the locative, as expressing something happening

in or about the noun, whilst the nominative pronounces its totality.”

tn being used in so many connections and in so general a way, in

course of time it came to be regarded in some connections as merely

an inflexional increment, that is, as an optional suffix to the base, and

lastly, as little better than an euphonic expletive, which might be pre-

fixed (its original meaning now having become obscured) to any case-

sign, and even to ¢/, its own earliest shape.

(2.) The inflexional increments ‘ad’ and ¢ ar’—The particles ad and

ar are extensively used by the Canarese as inflexional increments.

Their use exactly resembles that of ¢n in the same language, though

each is restricted to a particular class of words.

wn 1s used as an incre-

ment of the base in connection with nouns which end in w—e.g., guru,

a priest ; and ad and ar are used in connection with neuter nouns and

demonstratives, and with those alone.

In the Canarese genitive case-

endings, ara, ada, 1na, and a, it will be seen that the real and only

sign of the genitive is @, the final vowel of each; and therefore Dr

Stevenson erred in comparing ara or 7 (properly ar-a or ad-a) withj

the new Persian rd.

ad and ar are prefixed to the signs of case, not

by the genitive only, but by three cases besides—viz., by the accusa-

tive, the instrumental, and the locative.

Thus we may say not only

idara (¢d-ar-a), of this, and marada (mar-a-da) of a tree, but also

idaralli (id-ar-alli), in this, and maradinda (mar-ad-inda), by a tree.

Consequently ad and ar, whatever be their origin, do not appear to beé

signs of case, in so far as their use is concerned, but are used merely

as increments of the base, or inflexional bounds of conjunction between

the base and the case-signs, like un, n2, &c.

Moreover, the Canarese

differs 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 adjec-

tival formatives.

ad and ar are evidently related. Are the}‘: also identical? Both

o,

e

INFLEXTONAL INCREMENTS.

159

are increments of the neuter alone ; and where the Canarese uses ar,

the Tulu uses ¢.

d and r are known to change places dialectically, as

in the southern provinces of the Tamil country, in which ad, it, is

pronounced aru, and the Canarese increment ad is certainly, and ar

probably, identical with that very word—viz.,, with the Tamil-Cana-

rese demonstrative adu or ad, it.

Dr Gundert thinks ar derived not

from adu, but from an; the equivalent of aru. 1 do not feel sure of

this ; but it is certain that = changes into r before %

e.9., adarku, 1

am, to that—and that » and r are sometimes found to change places—

e.g., pir-agu, afterwards, with pen, afterwards.

Though Tamil has not regularly adopted the unchanged form of this

demonstrative, adwu, 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, as I have already mentioned in discussing the origin of the

increment am, the neuter demonstrative may optionally be added to

any neuter noun in the singular, not for the purpose of altering 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, etymologically gold-that—a.e.,

that (which is) gold. It is much more common, however, and more in

accordance also with the Canarese usage, to use ad-u, in the oblique

cases ; in which event it is inserted between the base and the case sign,

s0 as to become virtually (yet without losing its proper character) an

[

inflexional increment—e.g., instead of ponne:, the accusative of pon,

I

gold, we may write ponnadet ( ponn-ad-¢z).

We may possibly connect with the Canarese ar, and therefore with

I

ad, and ultimately with the neuter demonstrative itself, the euphonic

consonant 7, which is used by the Telugu in certain instances to

¥

separate between a noun of quality used as an adjective and the

feminine suffix dlu—e.g., sogasu-r-élu, a handsome woman.

This

would be quite in accordance with the peculiar Telugu usage of em-

b

ploying the neuter demonstrative singular in place of the feminine

|

singular. I should prefer, however, to regard this » as used simply to

I

prevent hiatus.

(3.) The inflexional increment ¢ ti’—In Telugu ¢ or ¢ is the most

i

common and characteristic inflexional increment of neuter singular

nouns, and it is used in Telugu, like the corresponding attw in Tamil,

14

not merely as an increment of the base, but as the inflexion, with the

b

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

|

4

I

160

THE NOUN.

suffice out of the Ver:y numerous class of neuter nouns which form

their singular inflexion by the addition of # or ¢ (or rather by the

combination of that particle with their last syllable)—e.g., vdkile, a

doorway, inflexion wvdkifi, nuduru, the forehead, inflexion nuduti

In these iristances of the use of ¢ or #, the inflexional increment

appears to be substituted for the last syllable ; but it is certainly to be

considered as 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 ¢, not ¢s—the dental, not

L

the lingual.

This would account for the circumstance that ¢ alone

Tl

= ZL'."

follows words of which the final consonant is 7 or /; for on the addi-

tion of the dental ¢ to # or / both consonants dialectically coalesce and

become ¢, the hard cerebral being regarded as euphonically equivalent

to the two soft letters.

In no case in Telugu is there a double ¢ in

the: inflexional increment.

tolli, antiquity, forms its inflexion not in

tolts or tollinti, as might have been expected, but in topfe.

Here,

however, it is not the increment that is euphonised, but the final /

.

the base:

ie

Compare the Tamil fondru, antiquity, from the root ¢ol.

of

is evidently the equivalent of the Tamil dru, an euphonised form

dau.

of

The dental ¢z is used instead of the cerebral ¢7, as the inflexion

nouns ending in a pure vowel or in yu after a pure vowel—e.g., vdyu,

This circum-

the mouth, inflexion vd(z, ché, the hand, inflexion chétr.

stance proves that it was the dental & which was originally used in

all cases.

The dental 7, on being appended to consonants,. changes

naturally into the lingual ; whereas the lingual rarely, if ever, changes

into the dental.

If we now conclude, as I think we undoubtedly may,

that the Telugu inflexion was originally ¢, not ¢¢, this inflexional in-

crement may at once be-connected with the Telugu neuter demonstra-

tive, adi, in the same manner as the Canarese ad and the Tamil (cit-zc

are counnected with the Tamil-Canarese

neuter

demonstrative adu.

Though the identification of the inflexion and the neuter singular

demonstrative 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 the dialects has great force.

An important

link of evidence is furnished by the inflexion which follows.—

(4.) The wnflectional increment ‘ attu’ or < atiru’ (arru).—All Tamil

nouns which end in am, whether Sanskrit derivatives or pure Tamil

roots, reject @m in the obl'que cases in the singular, and take atf-u,

instead ; and it is to this increment that the various case signs

are suffixed—e.g., the locative case sign ¢/ is not added to dram

PN

| 5 ///Z/ 7[4'0

161

TT’\ /

INFLE#IONAL INCREMENTS.

depth, but to the inflexional base dr-attd, so that in the depth is

i

not dram-vl, but dr-ati-l.

This rule admits of no exception in the

ordinary dialect of the Tamil ; but in the poetical dialect, which

represents more or less distinctly an older condition of the lan-

guage, atiu is sometimes left unused, and the case sign is added

directly to the crude base—e.g., instead of kay-attw-kku, to the depth

{from kayam, depth), kaya-kku is used in the Chintdmani.

Whe;n the

increment aftu is not followed by any sign of case, but by another

noun, like the other inflection ¢n, and like the corresponding Telugu

inflection ¢4, it has ordinarily the force either of the genitive or of an

adjective, sometimes that of a locative, which is perhaps the first use

to which it was put—e.g., kul-attu min, may mean ewitire, the fish of

the tank, as a locative, the fish in the tank, or as an adjective, tank

fish. This inflexion, like ad and ar in Canarese, and ¢ or # in Telugu,

i

is used in connection with the singular alone.

am, the formative of the

base, which is used only by the nominative in the singular, is retained

in the plural, net 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 (maramgal-il), in trees.

0l

There are in Tamil a few naturally plural (neuter) pronominals and

f

nouns of relation (e.g., aves, those (things); sila, few ; pala, many ;

L

elld, all ; compare Mal. silava, palava, elldva), which receive in their

0(-

oblique cases the inflexional increment arru, pronounced aftru.

Thus,

I

from elldm, all, which is properly elld-v-um or elld-wm (wm being the

I

conjunctive and intensitive particle even, and elld-wm or elldm, signify-

1

ing even all, all together), the locative which is formed by the Tamil

(4

is elldvattrilum (elld-(v)-attr’-il-wm), in all, literally, even in all.

So

(¢

also avei, they (neuter), forms its accusative not by adding ei, the

accusative case sign, to aves, but by inserting attru, and adding ez thereto

|l

—e.g., avattres (av-attr-er), them ; in which instance e: (for @), the sign

of the plural, is rejected, and its place is supplied by attru, the in-

flexional increment of this class of plurals.

Al

[l

It is evident that the Tamil increments, attw and attru, are virtually

(t

identical. The difference in use is slight, and in pronunciation still

lD

slighter ; and in general attru is pronounced exactly like attw by the

vulgar.

We may, therefore, conclude that they are one and the same,

ol

JIb

and on examining the Telugu we find additional confirmation of their

identity. In Telugu, awi, they (neuter), answering to the Tamil aves,

forms its inflection in wdte (for awarr).

This Telugu (suppositious)

)i

i

avaty is evidently identical with the Tamil avatiru.

The # of this

| 6 0,

ly

inflexion is certainly the same as the sz of Telugu nouns substantive :

and if there is no difference in Telugu between the ¢ which forms the

15

1A

i

-

162

THE NOUN

inflexional increment of neuter singular nouns and demonstratives and

the plural inflexion #2 of such words as vdf7, we may also conclude that

there is no real difference between the singular attu and the plural

attru of the Tamil

Whence did the r which is included in arru or attr-u take its rise ?

We see its origin, I think, in Canarese

for in the ancient dialeet ar

or » forms the inflexional increment of every one of the plural prono-

minals which take arrw in Tamil—e.g., avara (corresponding Tam

avarrwy), of those things

ellavara (Tam. elldvarrw), of all things

kelowara (Tam. stlavarru), of some (things)

The Canarese 7 is pro-

bably, as we have seen, derived from, and originally identical with, d

or ¢

and. hence the Tamil in doubling r gives it the sound ér

Thus

not onlyfthefTamil incrementatt-w, but also arr-u, scems to be derived

from the same origin as the Canarese ad or ar, and the Telugu fo—

from the neuter sinoular demonstrativ

Both these inflexions

have been 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

It is a recoonised rule of the

Tamil that when a noun ending in d-» is used adjectivally, the d-u

ay either becomre d-in or tt-u—e.g., from erud-w, an' ox, is formed

either erud-in or erutt-u

of an ox

So also ad-u, it, which- is now

generally inflected by the addition of ¢n, seems to have been inflected

formerly as até-u. adu is vulgarly pronounced in the oblique cases as atiu

by the bulk of the northern Tamilians

The majority of the natives

of Madras, for instance, use attei (attu-er) as the accusative of adu

that, instead of ade¢,; and in the neuter singular pronominal suffixes

W

to the verb the same pronunciation is not only commonly heard, but is

nmf

often written—e.g., instead of wrukkivadukku, to its being (the dative

of wru-kkir-adu, it is, the being, or that which is),

adras Tamilians

write rukkirattuklku

in which ‘compound aifu is evidently used as

the neuter demonstrative singular instead of adu

It 1s also deserving

of notice, that the feminine singular suffix of a large class of appella-

tive nouns, which is dz or ads in Telugu, and which has been shown to

be identical with the neuter demonstrative, is in Tamil ¢ or atts. -1

explain in this way the Tamil neuter singular preterites in #7u, like

dyittru (dyirru), it becomes.

This was dyudadu, which was abbreviated

into dyiddu-ayittu (compare the correspondnw chanae in Canarese),

and this was euphonised into dyittru.

Two instances will suffice to illustrate’ the 1dent1’fy of the Tamll atte

and the Canarese ad, and thus supply the only link that is Wa,ntmcr to

the perfect 1dont1ﬁcahon of attu with the Telugu #, and of both with

P

INFLEXIONAL INCREMENTS

163

adu

The Tamil pdro-até-il, in ancient times, is compounded of pary

am (Sans. deriv.), antiquity, att-w, the inflexional increment, and ¢

the sign of the locative

Compare this with the corresponding Canar-

ese purv-ad=ally, in which it is evident that ad is used in the same

manner as att-u, and perfectly agrees with it in signification,

Again,

the Tamil dyirattondru, a thousand and one, is formed from dyirams

a thousand (the inflexion of which is dyir-attu), and ondru, one

When this is compared with the corresponding Canarese word sdvirad-

ondu, from sdvira, a thousand (equivalent to the Tamil dyira)—inflex-

tonal form sdvir-ad—to which ondu, identical with ondru, is appended

1t 13 evident that the Canarese increment ad’ and the Tamil atf’ are

one and. the same

and also that in this instance the Canarese ad’ is

used for precisely the same purpose as the Tamil atf, viz, as an

inflexional increment with an adjectival sienification

Dr Gundert takes Tam. arre (attr u) to arise from the combination

of an-ttw, and thinks this supposition in favour<of his derivation of

7 30,40

Can. iar from an. {See ““ Inflexional Increments,” ad and ar.) He also ,

(]

T still

B

. thinks Tal. #7 agrees with it, as originally representing rr (¢¢r).

thmk the viewl have taken preferable. an = am being probably a neuter

)/

lar demonstrative, and #u = du = adu being the same, an-ttu would

(l/

ada

od

be a doubling of two particles having precisely the same force, and there-

Al

fore abnormal. © The union of attw and 4n, attin, would not be abnor-

")

qr'b

el

“F

p (N

|

WA

mal, the particles having originally a different meaning (attew, demon-

z{“

{

A

)

strative pronoun ; 4n, probably sign of locative)

Besides

I doubt

w

es

It

v

whether an-dw would ever become an-ttw and then arru (attru)

e

i

seems contrary to the euphonic laws of the languace

These particles

7%

&)

[kt

A

would naturally coalesce into andu

In Telugu we have a particle

b}

)

W\,

formed apparently in this very manner from the union of @n with ‘du

~

| ™

i\

viz., the sign of the locative

but this is not «ttrwu or fe, as accordlno to

AN

als

Dr Gundert’s theory it ought to be, but andu.

B

(See ¢ The Locative.”) V"M

,(L |

(6.) The formation of the inflexion by means of doubling g and hard-

vhr”"

105

emng the final consonant.—Tamil nouns ending in d-» and ru form

¢

it

the basis of their oblique cases by doubling the final d and r: and the

10

doubled ¢ becomes by rule ¢#, and the doubled x, ¢ (though spelled

rr)-——eg from kdd-u, a jungle, is formed kd¢¢-(u)-klu, to a jungle ;

ke

from di-u, a river, dttr-il (drr-il), in a river,

This inflexion, like all

fed

others, is supposed by Dr Gundert to have been originally a locative.

g)

I am doubtful of the propriety of this theory in this instance, and pre-

fer the following explana’mon

b

This doubling of the final consonants of such nouns is to be regarded,

f0

I think, as a Q10*n of the transition of the meaning of the noun to the

it

succeeding one, just as when intransitive or neuter verbs ending in d-x

164

THE NOUN.

or r-u, acquire by doubling their vowels a transitive signification—e.g.,

from Od-u, to run, is formed Off-u, to drive; from tér-u, to become

clear, comes téttr-u (téxrr-u), to clarify, to comfort.

Properly speaking,

therefore, this doubling of the final is an adjectival formative, rather

than an inflexional or case-sign basis; but in this, as in many other

cases, the same form appears to be used in two different connections,

in consequence of the case sign which is appended to the doubled

final having originally been a noun, and still retaining in compounds

the force of a noun.

In Telugu the final consonant of nouns of this class is hardened, but

not doubled, to form the inflexion or basis of the oblique cases—e.g.,

the inflexion of ér-u, a river, is not éff¢ (érre), but ¢, of a river; and

that of nddu, a country, is ndte, 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 rt—eg., orru, the neck;

inflexion of the same arti. If we regarded the Telugu alone, we

shonld consider these examples, not as instances of the doubling of a

final d or r, but rather as instances of the incorporation of ¢z, the usual

inflexional suffix with those finals; and we should suppose this view

to be confirmed by the circumstance that the Telugu does not, like the

Tamil, double the final d-= or r-u of intransitive verbs on converting

them into transitives, but adds a formative chu.

Nevertheless, the

Tamil rule is so clear and express, and so evidently founded upon

grammatical reasons, and the Telugu words in question, nads, &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 pdd-w, Tam. and Tel. to sing, the Tamil forms

patt-u, a song, the Telugu pd¢-a. The final ¢ of such Telugu inflexions

as ndti, of a country (from ndd-w), instead of ndf-u, which the Tamil

would lead us to expect, is owing, I have no doubt, to the influence of

#¢, which is the ordinary suffix of the inflexion of neuter nouns.

(7.) The inflexional increment ‘1.’—The inflexion of the plural of the

Telugu epicene demonstrative pronoun consists in i—e.g., 2dru (from

The final % of

avarw), those persons ; inflexion vdré, of them, their.

vdr-u is merely euphonic, but the ¢ of ‘vdr¢ is certainly an inflexional

increment ; and possibly the final ¢ of the singular masculine demon-

strative inflexional vdn7 is not to be regarded as a portion of 2z, the

ordinary inflexional increment of Telugu masculine nouns, but is

identical with the final ¢ of vdre.

A small class of Telugu nouns form

their singular inflexion also in i—e.g., kdl-, of a foot, tér-i, of a car.

What is the origin of this 2? I think we are guided to a true idea of

ey,

INFLEXIONAL INCREMENTS.

165

its origin by comparing it with the possessive pronoun vdride, Tel. that

which is theirs, which in Ku alsois évdrida.

When vdridz is compared

with the Tamil possessive avarady, the meaning of which is exactly the

same, we see that in each language the termination is that of the neuter

demonstrative pronoun, which is adw in Tamil, adé in Telugu ; and we

)

also see that the penultimate ¢ of wvdridi is derived by attraction,

according to Telugn usage, from the succeeding 7, which is that of the

neuter demonstrative singular ade.

The final ¢ of vdr¢ may therefore

be regarded as an abbreviation of ads, or at least as derived from it.

(8.) Telugu plural inflexional increment in ‘a.’—In Telugu a con-

stitutes the plural inflexion of most colloquial pronominals, and of all

substantive nouns without exception.

l-u, properly /, is the pluralising

4

particle of all neuter nouns in Telugu, and of the majority of rational

Il

ones : the inflexion is effected by changing this -« into la, or to speak

more correctly, by suffixing a to —the final vowel of u being merely

YJ

euphonic ; and it is to this incremental a, as to i and ¢4, the singular

&

inflexions, that all the case signs are appended—e.g., kattulu, knives ;

I have no

il

inflexion kattula; instrumental kattwla-chéta, by knives.

doubt that this inflexional increment a is identical with «, one of the

Al

Tamil-Canarese signs of the genitive, and of the use of which as a

I

1

genitive, in the singular as well as in the plural, we have an illustration

Il

even in Telugu, in the reflexive pronouns tan-a, of self, tam-a, of selves.

i

This increment also, therefore, is to be regarded as a genitive in origin,

though in actual use merely an inflexion; and I have no doubt that

50

3l

each of the Dravidian inflexions proceeds from some case sign.

In

Before leaving this subject, I should briefly refer to one which bears

10

some relation to it, viz. :—

8

Euphonic links of conmection between the base and the inflexion, the

base and the case signs, or the inflexion and the case signs.

ond

il

In Tamil the dative case sign ku is generally preceded by an

o 0

euphonic u, and through the influence of this w the % is doubled.

Thus, from awan, he, is formed not avankw, to him, but avanwkku

(avan-u-kku).

The personal pronouns, both in the singular and in the

e

plural, make use of an euphonic @ in this connection, instead of u—

[0y

| Of

e.g., from ndn (or rather from a weakened form, én), 7, is formed the

inflexion en ; and this takes as its dative not enku or enukku, to me,

)n'tll

but enakku (en-a-kkw),

In the higher dialect of the Tamil the dative

(0

case sign ku is often directly attached to the noun, especially in those

fhe

B

instances in which the noun terminates in a liquid or semi-vowel—e.g.,

we find in that dialect not avarukku (avar-u-kku), to them, but avarku.

il

In ancient Clanarese also, the dative case sign was invariably attached

ol

in this manner.

In Malayalam the personal pronouns require the

o

0

>

§

l

THE NOUN

insertion of an euphonie vowel, as in Tamil, between the inflected base

and the case sion

Thus, to thee, is entkk’, tnikk’, enakk’. ninakl'. or

nanakl

To us, namukkuw, namakku

Some of these forms are rarely

used

Whenever concurrent vowels meet in Tamil » and y are 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

\I

which begin with vowels—e.g., naduvil (nadu- (v)-il), in the middle ;

varvyil (vari-(y)-il), in the way. Compare this with the use of v for a

similar purpose in Magyar—e.g.

, from 76, a horse, and at, the. swn of

the objective case, is formed not loat, but lévat, precisely as Would be

done in Tamil.

v and g are used by the Canarese in the same manner

as by the Tamil ; but in Telugu, as has a,lvea.dy been shown, % is used

as a preventive of hiatus instead of .

The way has now been prepared for the mvestlcra,tlon of the Dra-

vidian oblique cases, and of the signs of case properly so called.

The accusative or < second’ case.—In the Indo-European lanﬂuages

the case sign of the accusative of neuter nouns is identical with that of

the nominative case.

This identity -has arisen, I conceive, not from

the nominative being used as an accus atlve but vice versd from the

accusative being used as a nominative

The accusative case-suffix is a

:}'

1gn of passivity, or of being acted upon; and it appears to have been

suffixed to masculine and feminine nouns to denote that in that instance

they 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

came to be used as the nomlnatlve, or normal case-ending of nouns of

that class.

In the Dravidian lanﬂua@es, on the other hand, that which was in

its origin a formative termination of abstract neuter nouns, seems to

have been adopted as an accusative -case sign,

The old Canarese

accusative case sign am seems to be identical with, and is probably

derived from, the am which is so largely used as a formative by Dra-

vidian neuters.

Notwithstanding this, the use of-the nonnnatlve, OF

rather of the simple, unformed base, as the accusative of neuter nouns,

is the ordinary and almost universal colloquial usage of the Tamil-

Malayalam, and is often found even in elassical compositions

The

accusative case termination may be suffixed whenever it appears to

be desirable to do so, either for the sake of euphony or to prevent

ambiguity ; but it is rarely employed except when it is required for

those purposes.

When this case termination is used without necessity,

it sounds stiff and unidiomatic ; and this is one of the peculiarities by

P N

INFLEXIONAL-INCREMENTS.

16

{

Tam,-Mal.

masculine

which the Tamil of foreigners is marked.

and feminine nouns and their eorresponding pronouns invariably take

the accusative case suffix when they are governed by active verbs.

This probably proceeds from the principle that it is more natural for

)

rational beings to act than to be acted upon ; and hence when th.&y—&o*\a/

happen' to be acted upon—when the mnouns by’ which they are denoted ~

1§

are to be taken objectively—it becomes necessary, i

o avold

misapprehension, to suffix to them the objective case sign. " On the

other hand, the difference between the nominative and the accusative

of neuter nouns is often allowed to pass unnoticed, beceriSe such nouns,

whether they act or are acted upon, are alike destitute of personality

i\

and inert.

Whether the accusative is used as the nominative, as in

A

the Indo-European languages, or whether, as is often the case in the

Scythian tongues, the nominative is used for the accusative, the

f

principle involved appears to be one-and the same.

In Telugu the use

of the nominative for the accusative is confined to things without life.

fe]

In the case of irrational animals, as in that of rational beings, the

0

acousative must be expressed. As far as things without life are con-

)i

cerned, Telugu adheres to the ordinary Dravidian rules. The dialect of

i

the Tudas uses the nominative for the accusative and genitive in the

The use of the

case of all nouns, except the personal pronouns.

Il

nominative of neuter nouns for the accusative is not unknown to the

(6

North Indian vernaculars, and is one of those particulars in which

those vernaculars appear to have participated in Dravidian or non-

i

Aryan influences.

nl

§0

(1.) Accusative case signs ei, ¢) and (@—The only sign of the

of

accusative which the Tamil recognises is er, which is suffixed to both

numbers and to all genders ; though, as has been mentioned, the accu-

sative of neuter nouns is often identical with the nominative or base.

1

The accusative case

o

Examples, avan-ei, him, aval-ei, her, ad-er, it.

A

sign’ of the Malayalam is

€

)

which evidently represents the Tamil e.

(4

In ancient Mal.,, Dr Gundert says, a is often used instead.

The

i

Canarese ordinarily uses either a or amnu, as its accusative case sign ;

)i

but in some instances (e.g., nanna, me, ninna, thee), ¢ seems to have

i 0F

been converted into na.

This « seems to be equivalent to the Malaya-

i

&

lam ¢ and the Tamil ¢7, into which the Canarese short « is often found

[1111

[he

to change by rule.

0

The Tamil-Malaydlam accusative case sign é or @, may be com-

pared with 2¢ or ¢, the dative accusative of Hindi pronouns; with the

el

Gujarathi dative accusative singular ¢, and with the preponderance of

for

the vowel & which is observed in the dative accusatives of the Bengali

i

and Sindhi.

Compare also the Brahui dative accusative ne or e, and

by

168

THE NOTUN.

the Malay e.

On pushing the comparison amongst the Scythian

tongues, not a few of their accusative case signs are found to resemble

the Tamil accusative.

Thus the Wotlak accusative is formed by

e

The Turkish accu-

adding @ to the root—e.g., ton, thou, ton-d, thee.

A

A

sative is

v

or y¢ the Mongolian

K

after a consonant : dj%, instead of

the Turkish #%, after a vowel.

The Turkish 7 is doubtless a softened

form of the Oriental Turkish accusative case sign »?, from which it has

been derived, by the same process by which the Turkish dative case

sign eh or yeh, is undoubtedly derived from the old Oriental Turkish

ga or ghdh.

It would therefore appear that the Scythian accusative

originally contained a nasal ; and in accordance with this supposition

we find in the Calmuck pronouns an accusative case sign corresponding

to the Oriental Turkish ni—e.g., bida-ns, us, from bida, we, and also

na-mai, me, and dzi-mai, thee, from the bases na and dz.

With this

we may again compare the Brahui dative accusative ne or e.

n% being

evidently the basis of the Turkish and Mongolian sign of the accusa-

A

tive, if the Dravidian ez or

(4

is allied to it, though this can hardly be

A

regarded as probable, this ez or

€

must originally have been preceded

or followed by a nasal; and in investigating the other Dravidian accu-

sative case signs we shall discover some reasons for surmising this to

have been actually the case.

(2.) Accusotive case signs am, annu, anna, nu, &c.—am is the cha-

racteristic sign of the ancient Canarese accusative, and is used in

connectlon with nouns and pronouns alike—e.g., aval-am, her.

The

more modern form of the Canarese accusative is annu—e.g., aval-annu,

am has

her; and this annwu is evidently identical with the older am.

in other instances besides this evinced a tendency to change into an ;

for he is avam in ancient Canarese, though avan in Tamil. The change

of the old Indo-European m, the sign of the accusative in Latin and

The ancient Canar-

Sanskrit, into the Greek v is also a parallel case.

ese case sign am no sooner changed into an, than it would irresistibly

be impelled to euphonise an by the addition of nw.

Even in Tamil,

man, earth, is commonly pronounced mannpu, and the corresponding

%

Telugu word is mannw by rule.

Hence we seem to be quite safe in

deriving annu directly from an, and an from am.

Another form of

the Canarese accusative case sign is anna, instead of annu, or simply

nna or na—e.g., na-nna, me.

The final » has in this instance been

ii‘

changed into a, through the attractive force of the primitive an ; or

perhaps the entire euphonic appendage nu has been rejected, and the

original case sign an been softened to @, whilst the final » of the base

has been doubled to augment or express the objectivity of the signi-

fication.

THE ACCUSATIVE.

169

The Tulu accusative case sign is nu or #/, which is evidently iden-

tical with the case signs of the Telugu and Canarese.

Compare the

various accusatives of ¢ this”—old Can. ¢dam, mod. Can. sdannu;

Tulu wnden ; Tel. dins.

Probably the whole of these case signs are

altered forms of the old Can. am, and this particle, as has already

been suggested, under the head of the nominative, appears to have

been originally a sing. neut. demonstrative pronoun.

When the Goénd

accusative differs from the dative it is denoted by #n.

In Telugu the neuter accusative is often the same as the nominative,

as in the other Dravidian dialects ; but when the noun denotes animals,

or things possessed of life, whether rational or irrational, the accusa-

tive must be expressed by the addition of a sign of case.

The accu-

sative case sign may optionally be suffixed, as in Tamil, to nouns

denoting things without life; but whether the noun denote a thing

without life, or a being possessed of life, whether it be singular or

plural, the sign of case must be suffixed to the inflexion, genitive, or

oblique-case basis, not to the nominative.

When the inflexion is the

same as the nominative, the noun to which the case sign is attached is

still regarded as the inflexion, so that in theory the rule admits of no

exceptions.

The sign of the accusative in Telugu is nu or ni.

When

preceded by ¢ it is ni—e.g., tnti-ni, dom-um ; where it is preceded by

any other vowel it is pu—e.g., bidda-nu, puer-um. A similar ni or na

is used in Telugu (but not so systematically as the corresponding ¢ in

Tamil) as an euphonic inflexional increment ; and na or =4 is also a

sign of the locative in Telugu.

Probably those locative and genitive

i

suffixes were originally, and are still to be regarded, as one and the

same ; but the sign of the accusativegthough nearly identical in sound,

proceeds apparently from a differen

!

source.

4

I

Comparing it with the

Canarese, and especially with the Tulu accusative nw or #’, we can

d

[

scarcely avoid the conclusion that, though in sound it is identical with

|

the ordinary inflexional augment, it is to be regarded as a relic of the

Canarese accusative case sign annu or am.

The suffixes of the accusa-

l

tive of the Telugu personal pronouns can be explained on this supposi-

3

Ul

tion alene. The inflexions of those pronouns are essentially different

o

from their accusatives, and incapable of being confounded with them S

and the accusatives of those pronouns take of necessity, and not merely

If

al

for euphony, the nasal suffixes nu or nnu in the singular, and mu or

0

mmu in the plural. Thus, whilst #d, of me, is the inflexion of nénu,

I, its accusative is nanu or mannw, me; the accusative of the second

16

person is menu or minnu, thee, and their plurals are mamu or mammaus

86

i}

us, mumu or mimmu, you, whilst the inflexions of those plurals are md

and mz.

When these accusatives are cdmpared with the Canarese and

170

THE NOTUN.

Tulu, especially with yanmz me, and m'na;: thee, in the latter, their

virtual identity, and therefore the origin of them all from the ancient

Canarese am can scarcely be doubted.

We may now proceed to compare this accusative case sign am, an,

anpw, nu, or na, with the Gujarathi dative-accusative né, with the

Panjabi 7 or num, and also with the Brahui né or ¢, and the Turkish

and Mongolian 7% or 7.

In the Finnish tongues the greater number of

singular accusatives are formed by suffixing en, an, &c., which are also

used as signs of the genitive: in the plural there is rarely any fiffer- )

ence between the nominative and the accusative.

Ascending further

towards the source of the Scythian tongues, we find in the language of

the Scythian tablets at Behistun an unquestionable link of connection

with the Dravidian.

The pronoun of the second person singular in

that language is i, thou, of which nin is the accusative ; and when

this is compared with the Tulu nen-ag, thee, we cannot fail to be struck /7

with the closeness of the resemblance.

We should also notice the extensive use of m or = as an accusative

case sign in the languages of the Indo-European family.

In Sangkrit,

Latin, and Gothic, m predominates, in Greek # ; but these consonants

are virtually: identical, like the m of the ancient Canarese, and the » of

the modern.

A similar form of the accusative being extensively pre-

valent, as we have seen, in the Scythian tongues, it would be unreason-

In

able to derive the Dravidian case sign from the Indo-European.

this instance it would be safer to conclude that both families have

retained a relic of their original oneness.

If, as appears highly probable, the old Dravidian accusative in am

is identical in origin with the am which is used as a sort of nominative

neuter, or rather neuter formative, and if this am was originally a

demonstrative pronoun, formed from the demonstrative base @, we

seem to find in the Dravidian languages, not only a relic of their

original relationship with other families of tongues now widely diver-

gent, but an index to the ‘origimxl meaning of the neuter accusative case

sign m or », wherever found, and an explziuation of the identity of the

singular neuter accusative case sign in so many Indo-European languages

with the singular nominative case sign am, being a formative of neuter

nouns, a class of nouns which-more commonly denote things that are

acted upon than things that act, it would naturally come to be used as

an accusative case sign—that is, as a sign of objectivity.

It only remains to inquire whether the Tamil-Malayalam accusative

case sign ez, e, or @, cannot be connected with the Canarese am, annu,

and na.

On comparing the ancient Canarese accusative ninnam, thee,

with the more modern ninna, it can scarcely be doubted that the

A

THE INSTRUMENTAL

171

latter is derived from the former by the ordinary process of the soften-

i

ing away of the final nasal

Through this very process the final am of

many substantive nouns has been softened to a—e.g:, maram, ancient

}

Can, a tree, mara or mara-vu, modern Can.

If then the sign of the

4

accusative in ninna, thee, is not na, but a (instead of am), as is pro-

Il

bably the case, there cannot be any difficulty in. deriving from it, the

0l

Tamil accusative case sign ez, for the change of @ into-es takes place

so frequently that it may almost be considered as a dialéctic one-—e. G

compare old Tamil ¢/a, not, with the modern Tamil 4//e;

i

(1.) The instrumental, or third case, properly so-called.—Different

particles are used by different Dravidian dialects as suffixes of the

Z

Il

1nstrumental case.

In Telugu the most classical instrumental is iden-

tical with the inflexional locative, and consists in changing ¢z or te, the

il

inflexion, into fa or ta—e.g., rd-ta, with a stone, from 7d-yz, a stone,

the mﬁeXlon of which is rd-ta.

This form of the mstrumental was

tk b

probably a locative in its original signification, and at all events it is

\[4

identical with an old form of the locative—e. ¢ g., inta, in a house, from

llu, a house, of which the inflexion is .

il

The more commonly used

instrumental of the Telugu is formed by the addition to the inflexion

118

of

of any noun:of ché or chéta, which is itself the instrumental form . i

{7

ché-y, the hand, signifying.by the hand (of)—e.g., nippu-chéta, by fire,

literally by the hand, of fire.

The inflexion, or genitive, without the

)i

addition of any spemal suffix, is also oncaswnaﬂy used in Telugu, as

In

Al

in high Tamil, to denote the instrumental case, as well as the ablative

of motion, and the locative.

The particle na is also sometlmes sufﬁxed

i 5

to neuter nouns to denote all three ablatives.

i

I\

The old Canarese instrumental suffix m, is evidently 1den’g1cal in

origin with ¢», the suffix of the Tamil ablatlve of motion, orlﬂlnally a

locative.

It has already been seen how easﬂy m changes into » - and

(4

both in Canarese and in Tamil there is so close a connection between

hel

the ablative of motion and the instrumental, that the case sign of the

\[§

(a0

one is very often used for the other, especially by the poets—e.g., vdl-in

dya vadu, Tam. a wound inflicted by a sword, not from a sword.

In

il

Canarese also the ablative of motion is denoted more frequently by the

)

suffix of the instrumental than by its own suffix.

Throucrh a similar

nfer

tendency to confound these cases, the case sign of the instrumental has

e

dls@ppemed from the Latin, Greek, &c., and the sign of the ablative

13

has come to be used instead.

Even in English, by, originally a loca-

tive (e 743 close by) is used at present to form the ablative, or more

10

properly the instrumental.

ll

The instrumental case sign in modern Canarese is inda, evidently an

166

euphonised form of <\m as are also the old Canarese suffixes endam and

{

{10

I}

1

{

2

THE NOUN

2

The instrumental suffix of the Tuda is edd

Dr Pope connects

wnde

this with erd, past tense of er, to be ; but as he states that end is some-

times used instead of edd, I should prefer to consider edd derived from

end by the same process by which ondu, one, in the other dialects, has

become odd in Tuda, and end, identical with the Canarese ¢nda used

by the Tudas’ Badaya neighbours

The instrumental case sign of the

AY

Tulu is ¢’dw, which Dr Gundert derives from a locative noun ede=

ides, Tam. a place, to which the oblique case sign or inflexion du,

7

answering to the Canarese du, is added. I suspect the Tulu d'du has

the same connection with the Canarese snda as the Tuda edd appears

to have.

»

In Tamil and Malayilam the suffix of the instrumental is @/,

2

% high Tamil dnr also

4l is the case sign of the ablative or instru-

/v mental in Gond, though in Telugu, which is spoken between the Tamil

country and the country of the Gonds, a different case sign 1s used

This suffix @/ is possibly derived from, or allied to, %d/, Tam. a

In some dialects channel is a compound word (Tam. kdl-

channel.

iy ; Tel. kdlava ; Can. kdlive), and the only meaning of kal is a foot.

This meaning is contained in Tamil, but that of a channel, which

Tamil contains also, suits better the supposed use which is made of

kal, as a sign of the instrumental case.

kal may have lost its initial

% in the same manner as ka/, the neuter sign of plurality, is known to

have done in Telugu and Tulu, in which it has become {-u, by corrup-

tion from %al-w or gal-u. Compare also the corruption of avargal to al

in the colloquial Tamil avd/, they. Here both % and r have disap-

peared. Compare also the disappearance ‘of & from the Canarese

Lammdrany in karmakdranu.

Dr Gundert’s theory respecting the origin of dl or dn, as a sign of

the instrumental, is that it is a verbal noun from d-gu, to become, with

the meaning, he supposes, of, being also there, or, being along with it.

dgal is the shape this supposed verbal noun takes in Tamil, but as the

root of the verb is simply d, we may suppose d/ to be an earlier form

4l would readily change to dn, as the ¢/ of dgel, Tan, if it

of dgal.

become, is changed poetically into dyen, and as 4/, the sign of the

lécative, becomes in the ablative of motion either ¢/ or ¢n. Dr Gundert

considers this @/ identical with the Tulu /d, which serves as a conjunc-

In both

tive particle in all the significations of the Tamil um, and

Tamil and Malayalam %d/, meaning a place, is used as a locative case

sign, for which purpose in the latter it is sometimes shortened into

kal

It would therefore appear that d! was originally different from

kal

If ¢ is identical with the Tulu /4, it would appear to have had

originally the meaning of a social or conjunctive, rather than that of

P

THE INSTRUMENTAL.,

173

In Sanskrit the instrumental has the force also of a

an instrumental.

social, but this is not so in the Dravidian languages, in which the

.

social case signs differ from those of the instrumental.

Perhaps the

Tamil-Malayalam particle ¢/ has the force of a social or conjunctive

when used as the formative particle of the subjunctive mood ; but if

the instrumental @/ of Tamil and Malayalam nouns be really identical

with dgal, I should prefer to explain it, in this connection, as having

the force of, arising from, in consequence of ; which is a meaning dgal

would naturally acquire.

May it be supposed that @/ is a lengthened

form of the demonstrative base al, that, there, and that its use as a

sign of the instrumental is to be illustrated by the parallel case of the

use of ¢/, here, as a sign of the locative? A shortening or lengthening

of the included vowel (especially the latter) is not unusual.

Thus kal

and kdl are alternative signs of the locative in Malay4lam.

In the Indo-European family of languages there are no signs of the

instrumental case which at all resemble those that we have noticed

in the Dravidian family. The only analogies which I have noticed

(and probably they are illusory) are those which exist between the

case sign of the Tamil-Malayalam and the corresponding case signs of

f

the Finnish tongues.

Compare -4/ with the instrumental suffix of

the Magyar, which is @/ in the singular, e/ in the plural ; and with

ol

alla, ella, &c., the instrumental suffixes of the Finnish proper, and

which are euphonically augmented forms of a/ and el.

A secondary or periphrastic mode of forming the instrumental case,

[;V

which obtains in the Dravidian languages, as also in the northern

0

vernaculars, is by means of the preterite verbal participle of the verb

to take, and the accusative or abstract nominative of any noun—

e.g., kattryer (k) kondu, Tam., with a knife, literally having taken a

ol

knife : compare the corresponding Bengali churi diyd, with (z.e., hav-

th

ing taken) a knife.

Various participles besides kondw are used instead

Il

of the instrumental in Tamil and Malay4lam, as knowing, doing, seeing,

i

considering, putting, saying, &c. ; but kondw, taking, is the one most

il

commonly used. This has arisen from the repugnance of the Dravi-

l#

dian (as of the Scythian) languages to continue to make use of any

he

inflexional form after it has ceased to express its original meaning, and

ot

has become a mere technical sign.

When that has taken place, as in

Il

the instance of the Tamil d/, those languages are often found to

fh

abandon the old form, or let it fall gradually into disuse, and to adopt

56

some word or phrase instead which has a distinct meaning of its own,

t0

and the use of which recommends itself at once to the intelligence

’ v p Al oiitosn

7 A

)il

of the speaker.

/4

ad

fl

o }\.7 ”wu/ s [Jﬂf’tﬂ/ /"?1‘4/:%} /},’/ursz A

s -

of

174

THE NOTUN.

(2)) TJw conjunctiwe or soctal case. — Dravidian grammarians have

arranged the case system of their nouns in the Sanskrit order, and in

doing so have done violence to the genius of their own grammar. The

Dravidian ablative of motion and the locative are evidently one and

the same case, though represented as different by grammarians, in

deference to Sanskrit precedents; and the Dravidian social ablative, as

some have called it, or rather, as it should be termed, the conjunctive

case, though it takes an important position in the Dravidian, languages,

has been omitted in each dialect from the list of cases, or added on to

the instrumental case, simply because the Sanskrit knows nothing of it

as separate from the instrumental.

The conjunctive, or social, stands

in greater need of a place of its own in the list of cases il these lan-

guages than in Sanskrit, seeing that it has seveéral case signs of its

own, whilst the Sanskrit has nofne.

o

The instrumental is best rendered in English

by the preposﬁ%@g by,

by means of ; the force of the conjunctive is that of the preposiﬁg'tion

with, in the sense of the Latin cum, or together with. Somefimes the

English preposition with is used in either sense— e.g., I cut it with a

knife, I went with him ; but in the Dravidian languages the former

with would be represented by the sign of the instrumental case, the

latter by that of the conjunctive—e.g., katti-(y)-al, Tam. by a knife,

avan-6gw, with him. Though Sanskrit and the Indo-European lan-

guages generally are destitute of this case, Latin evinces a tendency

towards it in such forms, as zobiscum ; 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 compared (though doubtless the resemblance is accidental)

with the Tamil conjunctive case sign udan.

The Tamil and Malayalam conjunctive case signs are odu and odu

(when emphasised, 4dé); also udan.

6du 1s evidently a lengthened

form, probably a verbal noun, from ode ; and the root meaning of odu,

as is apparent from its derivative offu, adhesion, is to touch, or rather

to touch so as to adhere.

The particle odu, or ddu, thus denotes the

closest kind of junction, and is appropriately used as the sign.of the

conjunctive case. Udan or udané, the other sign of the case in Tamil,

is pronounced odan ; and in the Canarese odané, the initial o is written

as well as heard. The final an being one of thé ordinary formative

particles of Tamil nouns, it appears probable that the root is od’ ; and

if s0, udan and odane are identical in origin, as in use, with odwu and

odu.

Udan is still used poetically as a noun signifying conjunction,

and cor;nmonly as an adjective with the meaning of joint—e.q., udan-

e N

~

THE INSTRUMENTAL.

()

pungdly, Tam. a joint sharer ; as an adverb, udané ﬁleans i‘x‘nmediately,

The Tamil verb todu, to touch, with its derivative todor, to follow,

seems to me to be closely allied to odu, to adhere to.

The Telugu conjunctive case sign is tddu, of which ¢4 is an abbre-

viated form.

This ¢6dw appears to resemble the Tamil ddu, and the

Tel. adverb tédanu, todené, at once ; it still more closely resembles the

Tam.-Can. odané.

The resemblance, however, does not amount to

identity ; for if the Telugu words into which ¢du enters in various

shapes are compared, it will be found that the Tel. todu 1s identical,

not with the Tamil (‘n_ir@, but with ¢dra (as in téramez, corﬁpanionship')’

é’id. / 4

the radical form of which is doubtless tor-u, a verb, of which the

<=, ‘/7

original meaning, probably to be together with, survives in Tamil only

in the verbal nouns torudi, a collection, and foru, a cow-stall.

I quite

agree with Dr Gundert in thinking that odu and toru cannot be iden-

P

tified ; but I still think them allied, through their common point fodu.

The Tamil ddw and the Tel. tddu, the lengthened forms of odu and

pu—Se

todu = foru, are certainly not identical, and yet it is difficult to suppose

the resemblance between them altogether accidental. I admit, how-

‘ever, that different post-positions for the different signs of case may be

freely selected for use in the various dialects, just as Tamil and Malay-

alam use 7/, house, as the sign of the locative

» whilst Tel. prefers

ul = (8, within. (an. fas yok M care )

The Tulu has a case, which Brigel, in his ¢ Tulu Grammar,”i calls

the communicative, which is used with some of the meanings of a

dative, but which on the whole seems to have more of the force of a

conjunctive. The case sign is da or fa, and this particle seems natu-

rally to connect itself, both in sound and signification, with oduw, the

Tam.-Mal. sign of the conj{mctiv_e.

The datwve or ‘fourth’ case.—In the North-Indian dialects one and

the same post-position or suffix is used more or less regularly as a sign

of case both by the dative and by the accusative.

In the Dravidian

languages, with the exception of the Gond, not only is the difference

between theﬂative and the accusative essential and strongly marked,

but there xis‘ less discrepancy amongst-the various Dravidian dialects

with respect to the particular suffix used to denote the dative, than

with respect to any other case sig11." The accusatives, instrumentals,

ablatives, and genitives, of the various dialects, exhibit material differ-

ences ; but in all the dialects of this family—in the rudest as well as

in the most polished—there is but one suffix of the dative.

The dative is formed in Tamil by suffixing &w (in construction ic/cu). 3

in Malayalam Zkw,; in Telugu ku or %3, according to the nature of the

preceding vowel—u.e., %2 after a word ending in 5, ku in all other con-

176

THE NOUN.

nections; in old Canarese ge or ke, in the modern dialect ge or ffke

and in construction 4ge; Tulu, &u, gu, ', ¢’ ; Tuda, & or g, generally

From a comparison of these forms it is obvious that the

,the; latter.

guftural k or g (generally followed by a vowel) constitutes the most

essential part of this suffix ; and that, as the vowel seems to have been

added chiefly for the purpose of helping ‘the enunciation, it is of little

moment what vowel in particular is used for this purpose.

In the primitive Indo-European tongues we discover no trace of any

such dative, suffix, or case sign as the Dravidian ku; but %4, the

dative-accusative of the Hindi (in Bengali Ze, in Sindhi &fke), resembles

the Dravidian k» so much that it seemed to me highly probable that

some relationship existed between them. Two recent writers, however,

seem to have proved that the Gaurian %6 has been derived from San-

skrit ; and if this be the case, its relationship to the Dravidian kx

cannot be maintained. Dr Trumpp, in his Sindhi grammar, derives

the Sindhi %#2é and the Bengali %é from the Sanskrit locative £r’¢é, for

the sake of, in regard to.

This form became in Prakrit first £¢¢é, then

ké.

Tt was then contracted into %é, which in Sindhi, by reason of the

elided r, became ZAé.

He derives the Hindi and Hindustani form of

this post-position %4 by a similar process from the Sanskrit kr'tam,

which is used adverbially with the same signification as the locative

kr'te.

In Prakrit, and still more in the modern dialects, the neuter is

In accordance with this rule, we have

|

changed into the masculine.

first %it6, then %i6, and then the more modern contracted form %o.

He

~3G

thinks %om and kawm formed from %é by the addition of an euphonic

anuswdra, to which the modern tongues have taken a great fancy,

Dr Trumpp argues also that the fact that the Arian vernaculars, which

border immediately on the Dravidian idioms, have not adopted the use

of %6 as a sign of the dative, shows that it is improbable that the

dialects more to the north have been indebted for this form to the

Dravidian idioms.

Mr Beames, in his ¢ Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan

Languages of India ” (Introduction p. 48), attributes to the %4 of the

Hindi, &c., a different origin, but the origin he assigns to it is as dis-

tinctively Sanskritic, and equally far removed from relationship to the

Dravidian case sign. He says, “ It is demonstrable from actual written

documents that the modern Hindu %6 is a pure accusative or objective,

and was in old Hindu kaun, which is the usual and regular form of

the Sanskrit kam, the accusative of nouns in %kah, so that there does

not appear to be the slightest reason for connecting it with anything

but the cognate forms in its own group of languages.”

Though the

derivation of the Hindi %4 from the Dravidian Zu cannot now be main-

T,

THE DATIVE,

.1’77

tained, it does not follow that the Dravidian form must be supposed

to be derived from the Hindi one.

The Dravidian kw, being found in

every dialect of the family, however cultivated or however rude, has

an antiquity of its own, greatly surpassing that of the change of kaun

into k6 in Hindi.

Probably none of the written documents referred to

b

by Mr Beames can pretend to an antiquity equalling that of the Syrian

I

Christian inscription, in the Tamil of the period, on the Malabar

coast, which has been ascertained to have been written in 774 A.D.,

and in which we find ku used as a dative (e.g., nagarattuxxuv, to the

city) precisely as it would be at the present day. All that can be said

6

is that this resemblance of %4 to %u is one of those cases of remarkably

A

close resemblance which do not amount to, but which might readily

1

be mistaken for, relationship.

The Singhalese dative is ghaz, in the Oraon, a Dravidian dialect

I\

strongly tinctured with Kolarian elements, it is gas; in Tibetan gya ;

}h

in the language of the Bodos, a Bhutan hill tribe, it is o, nearly

identical with the Hindi.

(]

The suffix of the dative in the various lan-

o

guages of the Turkish family seems closely to correspond to the Dra-

o)

vidian dative.

The forms of this suffix found in the Oriental Turkish

ihe

are ke, ka, ge, ga, ghah, and also a.

The Osmanli Turkish dative is

o

yeh or ek, the initial £ or g of the older dialect having been softened

i

into g, and then discarded. The Manchu de and the Mongolian dox

\

are possibly allied to the Tatar ke ; for it has already been remarked

18

that the change of % into ¢ or d, or vice versd, is not an uncommon one in

x>

A

this group of tongues, and that even amongst sister dialects belonging

He

to the same family or sub-genus, the pluralising particle in one dialect

)OI0

is ek, and in another et.

In the Finnish family of languages the

0

Turko-Dravidian dative re-appears ; though the Finnish proper has e,

not Ze.

itk

In the Irtish and Surgutish dialects of the Ostiak the suffix

|15

of the dative is ga, corresponding to the Oriental Turkish ga or ge.

{16

The ordinary Ostiak has also a, softened, as in the Oriental Turkish

fid

itself, from ga. Compare also the Mordvin adessive suffix va or ga.

The Cheremiss illative, which denotes motion into a place, is $kq,

Iy)ll

ske, &c., but in adverbs and certain postpositions this is replaced by

{he

ke, ka, &c., signifying direction.

The origin of this particle is con-

05

sidered identical with that of the particle Ze or ge, which is used to

form a social ablative.

e

The syllable ka or % is also a part of the case-

sign of the ordinary ablative and the superlative.

The Japanese sign

fed

fivey

of direction is ve, ke, ye, e—e.g., Yedo-ve, Yedo-wards.

yof

Interesting and remarkable analogies have been brought to light by

joes

the Scythian tablets of Behistun.

We learn from those tablets that a

il

dative suffix which is almost identical with the Dravidian, and also

M

the

lk

o

THE NOUN.

1

{

8

with the Turkish and Ostiak, was used by the oldest Scythian dialect

of Central Asia of which any remains are extant. The dative case sign

or suffix which is most largely used in the Scythic tablets is ki or

vkka.

Mr Norris noticed the resemblance of this suffix to the Magyar

genitive-dative nek and the Telugu genitive postposition yokka but

its resemblance to the dative suffix of the Telugu and of the other

Dravidian dialects is still closer.

The Tamil ku becomes, as we

have seen, akkw or wkkw in construction; the Canarese ge becomes

ige; and the Malayalam w/kkw or kku becomes ekku ; * which last form

of the suffix is identical with the Scythian of Behistun.

Compare,

e.g., the cuneiform Scythian ni-tkka or ni-ikki, to thee, with the

corresponding Malayalam nina-kkw, the Telugu ni-ku, and the Tulu

ne-kk.

It has thus been shown that the principal languages of the Scythian

family accord very exactly with the Dravidian languages in the use of

ka, kv, ku, or some related particle, as the suffix of the dative.

It may

be noticed also, that in the language of the Malays there is a prefix, ka,

which signifies ‘towards.’

‘To a place,” however, in Malay, is datan.

It 1s difficult to determine whether the Finnish dative suffix e has any

connection with Ze.

It certainly seems to resemble much more closely

the Tibetan, Pushtu, and Mardthi dative suffix /d—which /4 is evi-

dently equivalent to the New Persian ra.

Compare, e.g., the Marathi

tu-la, to thee, thee, with the corresponding Persian ¢o-ra.

Malayalam alone of all the Dravidian dialects appears to possess

two suffixes of the dative, viz.,, kku, which is the suffix most largely

used, and wnnu, nu, or w, which is occasionally used in the dative

singular only. This ¢nnu is evidently a compound form, and seems to

be euphonised and softened from sn-ku.

Tamil is fond of adding to

the base of nouns which are to be declined the euphonic increment @n

(originally a locative), before suffixing the signs of case.

The same

practice prevails in Malayailam also.

Consequently, this exceptional

Malayilam dative is not ¢nna, but nu, or simply «, and the doubled

n which sometimes precedes it (e.g., avannw, to him) may only be an

euphonic compensation for the loss of the Z The % or g of ka or ga

has been softened away in some dialects of the Turkish and Ostiak,

precisely as I suppose it has been in Malayalam.

Dr Gundert prefers

to derive this peculiar dative case-sign snnu from the possessive case-sign

nadu.

The Malayalam endre, my, is, I doubt not, to be resolved into

* The final vowel of such forms in Malayilam is extremely short. Dr Gundert

always uses an apostrophe instead—e.g., A%’

In poetry the final vowel is

written w.

1~

THE ABLATIVE OF MOTION.

1

(

9

enadu, and therefore marattendre, of a tree, into marattinadu. This mar-

attindre again may have been softened into maratéinu, just as the Mal.

mmnu, standing, innu, to-day, are softened from the Tam. nindrw and

wndra.

Dr Gundert supposes, therefore, that in this form of the dative

we have a relic of the possessive.

He is doubtful, however, himself of

the validity of this explanation, as nu is as common in old Malayalam

as nnu—e.g., avanu, to him, as well as avannu.

Here he thinks it

most probable that the £« has been simply dropped. If the expression

“softened away ” were used instead of dropped, this explanation would

be equivalent to mine, which is that ¢nnu, being a dative, is more

likely to be a softened form of ¢nkw, which is in itself a true dative,

than that it should be a softened form of #madw, which is in itself a

possessive.

Can a purely Dravidian origin be discovered for the Dravidian

dative case-suffix £u ? The locative suffixes ¢/ and ¢» can be explained

ab wntra; but I doubt whether ku is capable of an ab ¢ntra explana-

tion.

The only suggestion I can offer is as follows :—Looking at such

nouns of direction as vadakku, north, and kirakkuw, east, we find the final

ku, though a dative or directive in signification, indistinguishable in

form from the Zu which is one of the commonest formatives of verbal

nouns, and from the Zu, possibly the same Zw, which is a sign of

futurity in the oldest form of the Tamil verb. Can it be that in all

three connections the Z» is the same, and that the root idea in each

case was transition ?

This does not explain how 4w came to mean

transition ; but it may indicate the direction in which inquiry may

be made.

The Ablative of Motion or ¢ Fuifth’ Case.—This case appears to have

been included in the list of cases by Dravidian grammarians out of

deference to the grammatical principles of the Sanskrit.

It is true

that if we look at the construction and meaning of a Dravidian sen-

tence, the signification of an ablative of motion will be found to exist,

and 1t will be found to be expressed much more clearly even than in

3

Sanskrit ; but a distinetion is to be drawn between the existence of a

case and the existence of a case-sign, or regular technical suffix of

case.

The Dravidian languages have undoubtedly an ablative of

')

motion, and a great many other ablatives besides; but I doubt

whether they have any case-suffix which belongs exclusively to the

I

ablative of motion.

0

On comparing the suffixes of the ablatives of motion (which are also

used sometimes in an instrumental sense) with those of the locatives

in the various dialects of this family, no real difference is apparent

between the one class and the other, or at least no adequate reason

THE NOUN.

180

appears for regarding them as distinct and independent suffixes; for

whatever difference does exist is to be attributed, not to the signs of

case, but to the verbs or verbal participles which are annexed to them.

The object of the ablative of motion is to furnish an answer to the

question, whence ? and this answer is obtained in the Dravidian tongues,

—9

by suffixing to a noun of place the sign of the locative, and annexing

to that sign a verb of motion.

By this means the locative is converted

into what is called the ablative, without changing its case-suffixes, and

f

the idea of change of place is thus naturally and necessarily educed.

Native Tamil grammarians appear to hold that ¢/, the ordinary suffix

of the ablative, and ¢/, the most largely used sign of the locative in the

colloquial dialect, though written and pronounced alike, are different

particles with different significations.

I am persuaded, however, that

this view is erroneous ; and that a natural system of case classification

would determine that the Dravidian languages have no ablative, pro-

perly so called, but only a variety of locative and instrumental suf-

fixes, which are capable of becoming ablatives by the addition of

appropriate verbs.

In Tamil, the suffixes which are used in forming the ¢ fifth’ case, or

ablative of motion, are ¢/ and wn.

¢l (Tel. 4llu) signifies by itself a

house, a place—e.g., k6-(v)-i/, a temple, God’s house; its primitive

meaning, however, appears to have been ¢ here,” ¢in this place ;’ and it

Accord-

is therefore well suited for becoming a sign of the locative.

ingly it has a place in the list of locative suffixes, as well as in those

of the ablative ; and in the colloquial dialect it is used as a sign of the

The other suffix,

locative far more frequently than any other particle.

in, is identical, I conceive, with 7m, the old Canarese sign of the instru-

mental : it is used as an instrumental in Tamil also; but probably

In old Canarese the

both ¢m and n were previously locative suffixes.

proper suffix of the ablative is attantm (other forms of which are attan-

indam and attaninde), which is itself formed from the demonstrative

adverb attane (identical with attal-u or atta, there, or attal, that side),

by the addition of 7m, the old instrumental suffix, meaning originally

¢ here,” from which ¢nda, the more modern suffix, is derived; and this

inda, though the ordinary sign of the instrumental, is also ordinarily

used, with the addition of a verb of motion, as the sign of the

ablative.

Whilst I think that not only <7, but also ¢n and 4m were originally

locative suffixes, it is more difficult to determine ‘whether ¢/ and n were

originally identical in sound and signification, as well as in application.

In every instance in which 4/ is used in Tamil, ¢z may be substituted

for it poetically ; and it is almost exclusively by the poets that ¢n is

THE ABLATIVE OF MOTION,

181

used.

Moreover, in Telugu, #//u, a house, identical with </, is eupho-

nised into un, in the inflexion ¢n¢7, of a house.

On the other hand, if

we regard ¢n as originally a locative, it will be found to have a far

wider range of analogies than ¢/, and may therefore be surmised to

have sprung from a different root.

In Finnish and Magyar we find

an, en, and still more frequently ¢z, used as signs of the locative.

Even in Sanskrit we find ¢» used as a locative case-sign of pronouns of

the third person—e.g., tasmin, in him ; and though this ¢ is supposed

to have been euphonised from ¢, yet in the Latin locative preposition

wn and the Greek ¢, corresponding to the Sanskrit ns, we find the

existence of a remarkable analogy.

i/, on the other hand, has no

apparent affinities out of the pale of the Dravidian family.

It seems probable that ¢», one of the signs of the locative in Tamil,

is identical with i», a sign of the genitive, or inflexional increment, in

Tamil-Canarese ; and if so, a new and very wide range of affinities is

disclosed, as will be seen when the case-signs of the genitive are

inquired into.

The Tamil «/ and #n agree in this, that when they are used as suffixes

of the ablative, they both require to be followed by verbs of motion.

In the spoken dialect of the Tamil, the verb of motion is preceded by

the verbal participles nindru, standing, or srundu, being. The use of

these participles strengthens the supposition that ¢/ and ¢n are properly

to be regarded as locatives.

In the higher dialect, however, they are

ordinarily dispensed with, and </ or ¢n is followed by a verb of motion

16

alone—e.g., malei-(y)-in virum aruvi, the cataract which falls from the

5

mountain.

In this expression the idea of “motion from a place” is

(i

plainly implied in the aoristic relative participle wirum, which falls ;

ly

and hence vn, whatever it may have been in origin, acquires the force

e

of a sign of the ablative of motion.

(i

In Canarese the compound ablative suffixes aitan?}m and deseyinda

1\

are not so commonly used as ¢nda, the terminal member of the second

)

compound suffix ; and though inda is described to be the sign of the

ly

instrumental, I have no doubt that it'is identical with ¢m and dn,

and a locative in origin.

Ji

The first member of the Can. compound

Wil

dese, means a point of the compass (Sans. d¢§, Tam. #der).

wnda

1l

is not only used by itself to form the ablative, but is also allied to allz

or ¢llz, the sign of the locative, for the purpose of denoting the ablative.

y

Compare the Canarese allinda or «llinda, from, with the corresponding

Tamil compound ¢l-srundu or il-nindru.

qere

In Telugu the particle na,

which corresponds to the Tamil ¢z and the old Canarese ¢m, is more

o,

el

distinctively a locative than an ablative of motion.

This particle is ne

after 7, and if this is its normal form it may at once be identified with

) »

182

THE NOTUN.

the Tamil 7n.

The Telugu ablative of motion is ordinarily formed by

means of the verbal participle nunde or nusichi alone, without the aid

of any such suffix as na or =i, ¢/ or @n,; consequently this ablative

seems to have still less of the character of an independent case than in

Tamil.

On further examination, however, it comes into accordance

with the Tamil ablative. nundi or nuiichi is regarded by Mr Clay, and

I think correctly, as formed from wndz, having been, the past participle

of undu, to be, to which is prefixed the » of the locative case-sign, the

full form of which is na or nz.

Thus paralokamu-nunds vachchenu, he

came from heaven, should be divided paralékamu-v’-undi vachchenw ,

literally, ¢he, having been in heaven, came.”

wficht 1s not found in

the classics in this connection, and being the past participle of a transi-

tive verb derived from the same root (meaning to place), its use as the

suffix of the ablative of motion would be somewhat inappropriate.

On

the other hand, the use of und¢ in this connection is perfectly in accord-

ance with the use in the Tamil ablative of motion of the corresponding

form ¢rundu, having been, or neéndru, having stood, to which also #x,

the true case-sign, originally a case-sign of the locative, must be prefixed.

The Tulu ablative of motion, which is also used as an instrumental,

is d'du or d'd.

The corresponding form of the Tuda is edd, which

is also pronounced end,; and as this is probably identical with the

Canarese tnda, it seems possible that the Tulu ¢’d’ may have had the

same origin.

The Genitwve or ¢ Suxth’ Case.—The genitix}e or possessive case is

formed in the Dravidian languages in various ways, and by means of

various suffixes, each of which requires to be examined separately.

The Tuda dialect uses the nominative for the genitive, as for the

accusative.

(1.) The abbreviated pronominal gemitive.—The personal pronouns

of the Tamil form their inflexion, or ordinary genitive, by shortening

the included vowel of the root—e.g., n (properly nin), thou, nin, thy ;

This shortened form has the force of a genitive

ndm, we, ndm, Our.

in Tamil without any suffix or addition whatever, though it is often

strengthened by the addition of a suffix in the other dialects—e.g., in

Canarese it requires to have a genitive suffix appended to it, and of

itself it is merely an inflexional basis.

In the Scythian of the Behis-

tun tablets the nominative of the pronoun of the second person is long

—viz., n%, whilst the inflexional form and enclitic possessive 7% is

short, precisely as in Tamil-Canarese.

We shall best, I think, understand the origin and force of this

peculiar form of the genitive of personal pronouns, by considering it

as a pronominal adjective.

Every Dravidian noun of quality or rela-

==,

THE GENITIVE.

183

tion becomes an adjective on being prefixed to a noun-substantive for

the purpose of qualifying it ; and ordinarily the only changes which it

undergoes on becoming an adjective are such petty euphonic changes

as are intended to facilitate the combined enunciation of the two

words.

The change in the quantity of the personal pronoun to which

I have now referred, appears to have this origin.

I regard it as simply

euphonic, and euphony 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 substantive.

We find apparently a similar

euphonic shortening of the quantity of the vowel of the root, on the

See the section on

conversion of the abstract noun into an adjective.

“ Numerals ”—e.g., d@ru, Tam. six, dfubadu, sixty ; éru, seven, &ru-

badu, seventy.

There is room, however, as we shall see, for supposing

that the process which has actually taken place may have been the

reverse of this—viz., that the shorter form of these numerals is the

radical one, and that the longer has been euphonically lengthened.

(2.) The neuter inflexional genitive—The neuter inflexions attu,

attru, tv, ti, &c., are largely used in forming the genitive in Tamil and

i

Telugu.

The various suffixes which are used to form the inflexion were

i

originally, I conceive, signs of the locative case : but in process of time

they have come to convey more commonly either a possessive or an

adjectival signification, according to the connection; and in many

cases, as has been shown, they have shrunk into inflexional increments

of the base, or have become mere euphonic links of connection between

[

the base and the case-suffix.

Dr Trumpp considers the inflexion or

The

0

formative of the North Indian vernaculars originally a genitive.

inflexion which is now under consideration is in Tamil attw, and is

used by the singular of neuter nouns alone.

arru, pronounced attru,

1§

is occasionally used by neuter pronominal plurals.

The same inflexion

]'r

—for I believe I have shown it to be the same—is in Telugu ¢¢ or ¢.

I

{4

The inflexional suffixes being, as I conceive, first locative then pos-

sessive suffixes in their origin, their adjectival use naturally flowed

il

from their use in forming possessives.

There is sometimes little dif-

10

ference in signification between the locative, the genitive, and the

I8

adjective ; and in several languages besides the Dravidian the adjec-

]\

tival formative either appears to have been derived from the possessive

¢

suffix, or to be identical with it.

Thus, as we have already shown, in

15

Tamil, it matters little whether kulattw min (from kulam, a tank, and

min, fish) be translated adjectivally tank fish, or genitivally the fish of

15

the tank, or locatively the fish in the tank. The adjectival rendering

1l

is ordinarily the more natural one, but if a few words be added to the

184

THE NOUN.

compound expression, so as to bring out the full force of the inflexional

suffixes, it will be evident that those suffixes must have been signs of

case originally, and that their adjectival use is secondary to their use

as signs of the possessive or locative.

Thus, when we say in Tamil,

o-(k)-kulattu mién perugiltru, to render the sentence, this tank fish has

increased, would not only be barbarous, but would partly fail to ex-

press the meaning, which is, the fish of this tank have increased.

In

this instance it is evident that the suffix atfw is used as a sign of the

genitive, though capable of acquiring in certain connections the force

of an adjectival formative.

This same suffix affw has sometimes in

Tamil and Malayalam the force of a sign of the locative, properly so

called, like the corresponding inflexional suffixes in Telugu ; and when

used as a suffix of the locative, it is governed by a verb, not by a noun ;

from which it is certain that it must be regarded as a case-suffix in

origin.

It is here to be noted that though aftw may have had at first

a locative signification, yet, in such phrases as those given above, it is

clear that it is not used as a locative.

It has a locative signification

only when the governing word is a verb.

In these instances the

governing word is a noun ; attu is therefore used as a possessive.

Max Miiller appears to derive the genitive from the adjective, not

the adjective from the genitive.

He says (“ Lectures,” p. 110), “ It

can be proved etymologically that the termination of the genitive is, in

most cases, identical with those derivative suﬁix'es by which substan-

tives are changed into adjectives.”

T have already mentioned the connection which subsists between the

inflexional suffix aftw and adu, it, the neuter singular demonstrative

pronoun.

Tt is deserving of notice in this place that adu (the very

same demonstrative, I doubt not) is one of the recognised 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, a branch), the branch of a

maramady, may also be

tree, or marattinadu koppu (mar-attvn-adu).

used, though not in ordinary use, because ineuphonic ; but the posses-

sive case-sign adw is quite as frequently suffixed to the crude form of

\

the noun, or the nominative, as to the oblique form—e.g., vdrei-(y)-adu

param, the fruit of the plantain, is as common as wdrei-(y)-in-adu

param, and is even more elegant.

I have no doubt of the identity of the adu of vdrei-(y)-adu and the

attw of marattu in origin.

The old crude base of maram, a tree, is

mara, as found in Canarese, the final am or m being a formative ; and

}

on adu, the sign of the possessive (originally a demonstrative), being

added to mara, we shall have maradu, of a tree (in Canarese marada) ;

’lHE GENITIVE.

185

ofv which the d has only to be doubled (as it is colloquially by the

Tamil people, many of whom say attu for adu), when the word becomes

maratty, the very form in which we now find it,

In old Canarese we

es of

find this form attu alternating with adu and atu in the possessiv

the personal pronouns—e.g

., instead of minnadu, thine, we sometimes

find ninatu or ninattu. In Telugu, the inflexional suffixes t¢ and t

are used without any additional particle as signs of the possessive or

genitive even more frequently than in Tamil.

The postposition yokka

is but seldom added to it, and needs not ever be added. In Telugu

also the connection subsisting between this suffix and the neuter

demonstrative pronoun is still more obvious than in Tamil.

ade, it, is

systematically suffixed in Telugu to nouns and pronouns, to convert

them into possessives (e.g., wdrids, their or theirs), and the relation

subsisting between ads (or ds, as it is in some instances) and ¢z or ¢z

is very close. In Canarese the corresponding particles ad and ar,

though used as inflexional increments of the base, prior to the addition

of several of the signs of case to certain classes of nouns, have not now

of themselves a possessive signification.

Their present use is purely

euphonic, and does not contribute to grammatical expression. Nouns

in which ad and ar are introduced form their possessives in ada and

ara, and in these forms the final ¢ is that which contains and conveys

I

the possessive signification. ad and ar have only the same incremental

or euphonic force in ad-w and ar-a, that n has in wn-a, which is a

corresponding Canarese possessive,

4

(3.) The neuter demonstrative genitives.—adu, it, and its euphoni-

{4

cally lengthened equivalent ddu, are often used, especially in classical

i

Tamil, as signs of the possessive, and they are ranked by native gram-

0

marians amongst genitive case-signs.

adw is the neuter singular

(4

demonstrative (derived from e, the remote demonstrative base, and d,

the sign of the neuter singular). Its meaning when standing alone

Tl

1s invariably that of a demonstrative pronoun, but by usage it has

acquired the signification of a genitive or possessive, when annexed to

5

any noun as a suflix. avan-adu is literally ¢ he + that,” that is, “he + that

0

which belongs to him,” but by usage it means ¢his property,” his. This

I I

use of adu, as a possessive suffix, is derived from its use as the forma.

tive of nouns of possession.

(i

By the addition of this demonstrative to any noun or pronoun

generally it is added to the inflexion—in the case of pronouns it is

e

always to the inflexion that it is added) a compound noun of posses-

B

sion or relation is formed, which, like all Dravidian nouns of relation,

d

is capable of being used as an adjective; and it seems to have been

1

the use of nouns with this termination as possessive adjectives which

'Z) )

18

¢}

e

THE NOUN.

has led to adu and its equivalents being regarded as signs of the

possessive case.

The noun to which adu is appended may be used,

and often is used, without any addition or modification, as the nomi-

native of a verb or of a sentence.

Thus, enadu, Tam. (from en, my,

and adu, that), signifies properly that (which is) mine ; and this com-

pound possessive may either be used adjectivally— e.g., enadu ke, my

hand, literally the hand that is mine (in which instance adw is called

by grammarians a genitive case-sign) ; or it may be used as a possessive

noun, and as such it becomes the nominative of a verb—e.g., enadu

pbyttiru, mine (or my property) is gone. Thus adv, which at first meant

‘ that,” became secondly the formative of a possessive noun (avan-adu,

that which is his, literally he + that), thirdly the formative of a pos-

sessive adjective (avan-adu, his), and lastly a sign of the possessive case

generally, signifying ¢ of ” or ‘belonging to.” Another reason for regard-

ing the genitive case-sign adw as originally and properly the formative

of a noun or adjective of possession, is that it cannot be followed indis-

criminately by any kind of noun, but by neuter nouns alone, and

properly by the neuter singular alone. Thus we may say enadu ket,

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—t.e., mea, instead of meunt.

adw is not only a for-

mative, therefore, but is distinctively a neuter singular formative,

employed to give a possessive signification to the noun fto 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

This explanation seems to account

regarded as a possessive case-sign.

for all the phenomena, and therefore is probably the true explanation. In

Malayalam, this use of adu as a possessive case-sign, though common

in the ancient poetry, has nearly disappeared from the popular dialect.

Tt is scarcely discernible except in tanadu, enadu (from which come

tandre and endre, its, my).

The old Canarese possessive pronouns,

answering to the Tamil enadu, &c., are ennadv, ninnadu, tannadu, mine,

thine, its. These take also the shape of ninatu, &c., and also ninattu, &c.

A similar use of the neuter singular of the demonstrative as a pos-

i

sessive suffix obtains in Telugu also—e.g., ndd?, mine, literally that

(which is) mine, from =d, my, and adi, that, a form which is exactly

equivalent to the Tamil enadu. Telugu uses a similar suffix to form a

plural possessive to correspond with enadu or nddi, viz., vi, which bears

the same relation to avi, those (things), which di does to adi, that

THE GENITIVE.

187

(thing)—e.g., vdrive, theirs or the (things which are) theirs, In this

respect Telugn acts more systematically than spoken Tamil. It is not

so fond, however, of using these possessive nouns adjectivally as the

Tamil, and therefore d¢ and v have not in Telugu come to be regarded

as case-signs of the genitive.

The Canarese and the Tamil not only

form neuter possessive nouns and adjectives by adding to them the

neuter demonstrative, but they form also masculine and feminine pos-

sessives, or possessive appellatives, of both numbers, by adding the

masculine and feminine formatives to the genitive case or inflexion of

nouns and pronouns. In the Tuda dialect, ad, the demonstrative base,

appears sometimes to be added to the first of two nouns, when it is

used adjectivally. All the Dravidian dialects agree in appending the

demonstrative possessive suffixes to the inflexion, not to the nominative,

as a general rule, wherever the nominative differs considerably from the

inflexion.

\lf

When nouns receive in Tamil a double inflexional inecre-

ment—e.g., attu and ¢» (in combination attin), the possessive suffix is

il

added to this double increment—e.g., mar-attin-adu koppu, the branch

of a tree,

Wy

(4.) The possessive suffix “in, and its varieties—in in Tamil and

tl

ni in Telugu, and corresponding particles in the other dialects, are not

e

only used as inflexional augments of the base and euphonic bonds of

Al

connection between the base and the case-signs, but also as suffixes of

the possessive and as adjectival formatives.

I have no doubt that

1 |

3,\1v

and nz, of themselves and originally, were locative suffixes, and that every

other use to which they have been applied grew out of their use as

B

It

signs of the locative. As Max Miiller says (p. 229), “ A special case,

I

such as the locative, may be generalised into the more general geni-

l

tive, but not vice versd.”

1ol

Native Tamil grammarians do not include in

amongst their case-signs,

ool

but describe it as a formative augment or

adjectival increment alone :

but on comparing its use in Tamil with its

R

use in the other dialects, I

am convinced that it was originally a sign

itk

of the locative, then adopted as a sign of the genitive, and that it is

A

still to be reg

il

arded, notwithstanding its other uses, and its probable

) 0

origin, as one of the most characteristic of the genitive suffixes.

m(]{h )

i

In Tamil, of all

genitive suffixes, 4» is that which is most frequently

I

10,

used. aftw is used in the neuter singul

ar alone, and arru (attru) in

'”;v (W

the neuter plural alone ;

but 7n is used in connection with both num-

™

bers and with all genders.

tl[

A similar use of in appears in the Malaya-

i

lam

In Canarese, on the other hand, 4 is used only as an inflexional

gsit

augment, not as a sign of case.

One of the so-called declensions of the -

o

Canarese is said by grammari

ans to take ina as its genitive case-sign ;

e

but in this instance the final @ is the real sign of the genitive, as it

I f

o

THE NOUN

18

o)

invariably is in Canarese ; and this genitive a is found to be preceded

by various euphonic increments—in, ad, ar, or », according to circum-

stances. Doubtless the én of in-a, like the Tamil in, was a sign of the

locative originally, then of the possessive; but it has long ceased to

contribute to grammatical expression, and therefore cannot now be

regarded as a sign of case. In Telugu, na or ni, the dialectic equiva-

lent of ¢n, is used as a possessive suffix, as in Tamil, though not so

frequently. The only difference in principle is that »s is used in

Telugu in connection with the singular alone, and might be called a

genitive singular case-sign, if the Telugu stood in an isolated position ;

whereas in Tamil it is used in connection with plural nouns as-fre-

quently as with the singular. In Ku, which has special resemblances

to the Telugu, 74 constitutes the inflexion (in reality the genitive) of all

classes of nouns, whether singular or plural, precisely like the Tamil n.

The Gond uses as genitive case-signs na and nd, da and d—iforms

which are probably allied one to another, as well as to the Brahui zd,

and to the Telugu and Gond z¢ and the Tamil .

Though ¢ is not regarded by Tamil grammarians as a sign of the

genitive, yet when those particles which are regarded as genitive case-

signs are suffixed to any noun, in is ordinarily inserted between the

noun and those case-signs ; so that all auxiliary or additional particles

are appended to this incremental in, not to the noun itself—e.g., from

adu, it, is formed not ad’-udeiya, but ad’-in-udetya, of it ; from tambr,

a younger brother, is formed not tambi-(y)-adu, but more commonly

tambe-(y

)-in-adu, of a younger brother : and this rule seems to indicate

that ¢, whatever its origin, has acquired more of the force of a genitive

case-sign than the genitive particles which have subsequently been

The same inference is still more clearly deducible from

suffixed to it.

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 .

These case-suffixes are not mere postpositional fragments, but were, or

are still, nouns of relation; and ¢n, the particle by which they are

united to the base, serves as a bond of connection, in virtue, as I con-

ceive, of its signification as a suffix of the genitive. Thus, in the

colloquial Tamil kallinidattil (kal(l)-in-idattil), in a stone, vdattil, the

? and this

local ablative or locative suffix, literally means ¢in the place ;

suffix evidently requires, or at least desives, the possessive i (with the

signification of’) to connect it with the base.

Hence ]cal(l)—i-n—iqlattil

literally signifies ¢in the place of (or occupied by) a stone.’

The adjectival meaning of 4n, though not its only or original mean-

ing, is one which is recognised by native grammarians, and which they

o~

THE GENITIVE.

189

prove by examples—e.g., ponrnin (pon(n)-in) kudam, a golden vessel.

This adjectival use of n is not only allied to, but is derived from, its

use as a suffix of the genitive, and in the illustration which has now

been adduced it is evident that ponnin kudam, might be rendered with

equal propriety, a vessel of gold.

It will be found also in the Indo-

European analogies which will presently be adduced, that the similarity

or identity of the adjectival formative and the genitive case-sign

which is apparent in this instance, has a wider range than that of the

Dravidian languages. There is another particle resembling n—rviz.,

am, with its equivalent an, which is occasionally used in Tamil for

both those purposes, and, like ¢x, it is sometimes appended to the

noun itself, and sometimes to the neuter inflexion.

We see this fusion

of the adjectival and the genitive signification of am in such forms as

dlam (40-am) pa, the banyan flower, or the flower of the banyan, and

dttran karei (dttru, the inflexion of dru, a river), the river-bank, or

N

the bank of the river.

The same adjectival formative is much used in

)

Malayélam also—e.g., mal-am puli (mala-am puli), a mountain tiger,

b

or a tiger of the mountain, a royal tiger. The final m of am changes by

rule into the nasal which corresponds to the first consonant of the word

I3

which follows it and with which it is compounded. Hence it changes

into » when followed‘by a dental—e.g., panan-déppu ( paner-am-tdppu),

\#)

a palmyra tope.

It must not be supposed, however, that we have here

)i}

I

to deal with an, the formative suffix of many Tamil nouns.

In such

words as adarku, Tam. to it, for adan-ku, am is not considered a sign

)]

W

of case or even as an inflexional increment, but (as we have already

seen in the section on “ The Inflexional Increment ”) as a formative

i

suffix, found in the nominative (though rarely), as well as in the

il

oblique cases.

am and an agree in this, that both are used as forma-

(i}

tive particles of nouns.

am, however, is also used as a genitival or

adjectival suffix in Tamil, whereas an is not.

:'1%6

am and an are, I

) B

believe, identical in origin ; so also another pair of particles ¢ and im

(the latter the Canarese form).

am and an I regard as demonstrative

()

pronouns ; v and 7m as related to or derived from ¢/, here, a house,

?\"

the locative case-sign.

il

We have now to inquire whether any trace of the genitive case-sign

|he

or adjectival formative in ¢n, 4, am, or any related form, can be found

{he

beyond the circle of the Dravidian dialects.

Of all the North Indian

3

vernaculars the Gujarathi is the only one which contains a form of the

il

genitive resembling that which we have been examining. That lan-

(ﬁf ll

guage has a genitive suffix in » (76, n3, nun), which somewhat resembles

the Telugu n7, nu, &e. In the language of the Bodos, a Himalayan

ol

tribe, the pronominal genitive is regularly formed by suffixing ni—e.g.,

i)

190

THE NOUN.

In Sanskrit the =

an-ni, of mé, nan-ni, of thee, bi-ng, of him.

which precedes the ak or as, of certain genitives, is undoubtedly

euphonic ; but both in Sanskrit and in other members of the Indo-

European family, we may observe distinet traces of the adjectival or

genitival use of a particle of which the consonant n is the most essen-

tial element.

With the Dravidian particle compare an-a, the Sanskrit

T

adjectival formative, and an, the suffix of appellatives; the Greek

possessive suffix wv; the adjectival use of » in Greek words like Aid-

w-e¢, and of en, in the Germanic wooden, and also e, the Sanskrit

suffix of agency, which is preserved in the adjectives of the New

Persian.

These forms look as if they were reciprocally related ; and

possibly also there may be some ulterior relationship between them

and the Tamilian en.

There are traces in the Indo-European family

of languages themselves of the use of ¢n as a distinctively genitival

suffix.

The Celtic forms its genitive systematically by means of n, an,

en, &c.

nor is it the genitive plural only of the Celtic dialects which

uses this case-sign (as in the Sanskrit family), but it is employed to

Tt should be noticed too that in the

form the genitive singular also.

ancient Egyptian » (alternating with m) was used to express all case

relations, but particularly that of the genitive.

Compare also the

Sanskrit genitive or possessive mama (mia-ma), of me, my, with the

Zend mana, the Old Persian mand, and the Gothic meina, mine, theina,

thine, setna, his ; in each of which examples the final na, or its San-

skrit equivalent ma, resembles the Dravidian in or n¢, not only in

sound, but also in the union of an adjectival signification with that of

the possessive or genitive case.

The Lithuanian goes further than any

other Indo-European tongue in resemblance to the Tamil in this point,

for it not only uses » as a sign of the pronominal possessive (of the

first person), but it adopts this genitival man as the inflexional base

of all the rest of the oblique cases of the same pronoun.

In the languages of the Scythian stock we find a large number of

still more essential analogies with the Dravidian genitival suffix ¢ or

n

Compare both with the Dravidian and with the Indo-European

possessives the Mongolian and Manchu mini (mi-ni), of me, my ; and

In

the Mongolian t¢chini and the Manchu sine (si-n<), of thee, thy.

the languages of the Finnish family, the prevailing form of the genitive

is that which corresponds to the Dravidian : it is =, an, en, un, &c.,

not only in pronominal inflexions, but universally. Thus in Mordvin

and Cheremiss, the genitive is formed by suffixing » or en—e.g., kudo,

a house, Ludo-n, of a house.

The genitive plural of the Mordvin is

nen, possibly a reduplication of n, intended to symbolise the plural—

e.9., kudot-nen, of houses,

The Lappish genitive takes n or en in the

v,

THE GENITIVE.

191

singular, and ¢ in the plural.

¢ forms the ordinary possessive sufix of

the Magyar. The Finnish proper forms the genitive by suffixing #»,

un, un, an, &e.—e.g., mind (min-d), I, min-un, of me, my.

The prevailing form of the genitive in the Tatar or High Asian

families, corresponds to nen, the reduplicated suffix of the Mordvin

plural, and to-its equivalent reduplication in the old Scythian of the

Behistun tablets ; but whilst the reduplicated suffix is very frequently

used, it systematically alternates with the simpler suffix un or in.

The

Oriental Turkish forms its genitive by suffixing ning or nin, or ning or

nin. In the Ottoman Turkish the initial nasal is only occasionally

used : the genitive plural is uniformly wa ; the singular takes un or

nun, according as the noun to which it is suffixed ends in a consonant

or 1n a vowel,

In the Mongolian, the sign of the genitive is 4 after

the consonant n, after every other consonant, #n,; and after a vowel

b

m or yin.

The personal pronouns, as has already been observed, form

their possessive by suffixing nu or ni—e.g., mi-mu, or mi-ny, my.

)

Compare the Mongolian %6l-dn, of the foot, with the ordinary Tamil

genitive of the corresponding noun kdl-in, of the foot.

The Calmuck

dialect of the Mongolian forms its genitive by suffixing » or ¢ to nouns

Il

ending in %, and ¢n or yin to all other nouns.

The Tibetan postfixes

It

in like manner % or yin.

The Manchu makes much use of a possessive

!‘Tl

relative suffix ngge, or ningge, signifying ¢ which has ;” but it also forms

i

genitives, properly so called, by suffixing #s or s.

In Japanese s is

used generally as a sign of relation, with a still wider variety of mean-

ings than the Tam. ¢n.

no, however, is the ordinary sign of the pos-

0

sessive, and is also used in the formation of adjectives.

I

In the language of the Scythian tablets of Behistun, the genitive was

ordinarily formed by suffixing na : the first personal pronoun formed

g

its genitive by suffixing a reduplicated form of this particle, ne-na—

e.9., hu-ni-na, of me ; whilst the genitive plural was generally formed

i

by means of the addition of nna, probably softened from nz-na. The

O

nearest direct resemblance to the Behistun-Scythian genitival na, is the

Brahui nd, and the Goénd nd or d.

This interesting record of the

i

2

speech of the ancient Scythians, furnishes us, I think, with a clue to

I

the origin of num or nim, the Tatar genitive suffix.

In the Tatar

tongues nuzn is interchangeable with and equivalent, to un ; and un or

it

i is also interchangeable with 2s or 7w, in Mongolian, yin and un are

suffixed to substantives, n to the personal pronouns,

It appears from

|l

the Behistun tablets that na, the ordinary genitive suffix, was some-

1}

times euphonically changed into ni-na, and that this again was softened

B8

into énna. I conceive that the Tatar un was in this same manner, by

=

the reduplication of the nasal, converted into num,; which in Manchu

{6

Ity

e

192

THE NOUN.

became ngge or mingge.

Possibly also #¢ or nw was nasalised by the

addition of a final = or ng, of the use of which we have an instance in

point in the final euphonic » of the first and second personal pronouns

in most of the Scythian languages.

A parallel instance of the redupli-

cation of a nasal is apparent in Telugu itself, in the conjunctive or

copulative particle.

This particle is wm in Tamil, @ in Canarese, and

w in Telugu; but this Telugu = becomes euphonically nu, and by

reduplication nunnu in particular instances.

(5.) The genitival sufiiz a.'—This sign of the genitive or possessive

claims to be regarded not only as the most distinctively Dravidian

Tt is little used in modern Tamil,

suffix, but as the sole original one.

though placed first in the list of genitive case-signs by Tamil gram-

marians ; but if we take all the Dravidian idioms into consideration,

in several of which it is the only sign in use, we shall find 1t more

largely used than any other suffix of the genitive—a proof of the accu-

racy of the Tamil classification.

I conceive this suffix to be identical with a, the formative of the

most frequently used Dravidian relative participle (see “The Verb s

but totally distinct in origin from «, the neuter particle of pluralisation

which has already been investigated.

In Canarese « is the only sign of the genitive which is ever used.

Tt is sometimes euphonically lengthened to ¢, as the Tamil adu, of

which the same @ forms the most essential part, is sometimes length-

ened to ddu.

a is sometimes preceded by an euphonic consonant,

which is inserted between it and the base, to form a link of connection

between them, viz., by v or g, the use of which is purely of an euphonic

nature, and by 4n, ad, or ar, which are inflexional increments of the

base, and old petrified locatives or genitives—e.g., guru-(v)-a, of a

priest ; kuri-(y)-a, of a sheep ; kus-tn-a, of a child ; mar-ad-a, of a tree;

ad-ar-a, of that (thing), or of it.

When this genitive « is added to the

abbreviated inflexional form of the Canarese personal pronouns, the

final nasal of those pronouns is doubled—e.g., ndnnq, (from ndn, I), of

me ; namma (from ndm, we), of us. A comparison of these forms with

the Tamil and Tulu nama, of us, our, proves that the doubling of the

final nasal arises from an euphonic source.

a forms the genitive suffix

not only of the singular of Canarese 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 (epicene), avugal-a, of them (neuter).

These examples prove that @ is the true Canarese genitive case-sign:

and it is also to be noted that this case-sign is never used, like in in

Tamil, as the common fulcrum of the suffixes of all the oblique cases,

but is used solely as a case-sign of the genitive.

3 ]

4 v/ﬂ

THE GENITIVE.

193

In Tulu « is the only sign of the genitive, as in Canarese. The only

difference is that in the plural @ is weakened to e.

In many instances

i

in singular nouns « is preceded by & or ¢, but this consonant is

r

merely the equivalent of the Canarese ad or d, which has already been

I}

referred to ; and in the genitive of the personal pronouns @ is pre-

)

served purer in Tulu than in Canarese.

Thus, instead of the Canarese

nanna, of me, the Tulu has yan-a ( =nan-a), and instead of ninna, of

\(g

thee, it has nn-a.

The language of the Kotas of the Nilgherry Hills

Il

forms all its genitives by suffixing a.

Il

In Telugu @ forms the plural inflexion or genitive of all substantive

alll:

nouns without exception.

lu, the pluralising particle, is changed into

on,

la ; and as the » of lu is added merely to facilitate enunciation, and

\0r

I alone constitutes the suffix of the plural, it is evident that the @ of

la 1s a suffix of case.

As the plural inflexion, ¢ constitutes the ful-

crum to which the other case-signs, or suffixes of the oblique cases, are

added ; and as the genitive plural, it expresses the signification of the

genitive, without any auxiliary or additional particle.

The Telugu

personal pronouns use their crude bases adjectivally as their inflexion

and genitive.

The pronouns of the third person, or the demonstra-

tives, generally form their genitives, both in the singular and in the

plural, by adding ¢ to the root : in the singular a few of them suffix

])/J \

nrq[]

1, as is done by the greater number of nouns in the singular.

One

It nT

of the Telugu pronouns uses @, both in the singular and in the plural,

as the sign of the genitive, in complete accordance with the Canarese

ecf‘“

pho

and Tulu.

The genitive of the reflexive pronouns tdn-u, self, tdm-w,

selves, is formed in Telugu by shortening the quantity of the radical

ot ¢

vowel and suffixing @, as in Canarese—e.g., tan-a, of self, tam-a, of

1, 0t

selves,

ol

The adjectival @ of some Telugu substantives is evidently

identical with this genitival a—e.g., @r-a kavi, a village poet, or a poet

gl

of the village.

i

In Tamil, though « is placed first in the list of genitive suffixes, it

is now less used than any other sign of the genitive, and indeed is used

i il

only as the classical genitive of the personal and reflexive pronouns—

gl

e.g., nam-a, our (from ndm, we), like the Sanskrit mama, my, and

I

tava, thy.

It is difficult, indeed, to determine whether this suffix has

l*'l“\

Whether it be

(e

retained in Tamil any genitival signification whatever.

e

attached to a singular or to a plural pronoun, it must be followed by,

and be in agreement with, a neuter plural noun ; and this circumstance

would lead to the conclusion that in Tamil it is used as a suffix of

plurality, not a sign of the genitive.

On this supposition, in the

N[ A%

words ena keirgal, my hands, ena would signify not me:, of me, but

mea, (the things that are) mine. It would be a pronominal adjective

N

194

THE NOTUN.

or possessive 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, literally

a few things ; pala, many, literally many things), shows that this sup-

position would be a very natural one.

On the other hand, a was classed with genitive suffixes by the most

ancient Tamil grammarians, and those grammarians, who were remark-

ably well acquainted with the principles of their own language, were

perfectly aware that @ was also a sign of the plural of ¢irrationals.”

Moreover, though it is stated by Tamil grammarians that the genitive

in @ must alway be in agreement with a plural noun, yet they admit

that the noun with which it agrees is sometimes singular in form

though plural in signification—e.g., the expression nun-a $tr’ade, thy

small foot, occurs in the ChintAmani.

They say that foot is here used

for feet, and this is certainly true ; but it does not follow that nun-a

is determined thereby to be a plural, for the use of the singular with a

plural signification, yet with the declensional and conjugational forms

of the singular, is a fixed usage of these languages. I think, therefore,

that we may confidently regard this nun-a as an illustration of the use

of @, even in Tamil, in connection with the singular. In Tamil, it is

true, o is ordinarily followed by the neuter plural' alone ; but in

Canarese and Telugu it may be followed by any gender or: nuinber ;

and the ¢ of the Tamil tan-a, of self, is evidently identical with that

of the corresponding Telugu fan-a ; whilst the @ of nam-a, of us, our,

is evidently identical with the Canarese namm-a.

Hence, as the one

a is unquestionably a genitive, so must the other have been originally;

and thus we are led to the supposition that the Tamil rule which

requires @ to be followed by the neuter plural is merely a secondary,

recent, dialectic peculiarity, which has arisen from the influence of its

accidental resemblance to the sign of the plural of irrationals. This

peculiarity of the genitival @ in Tamil may be compared with the

somewhat parallel case of the use in Hindustani of one possessive

suffix rather than another, according to the gender of the noun which

follows ‘and governs that to which it ig-suffixed. Though in gramma-

tical Tamil « is always followed by the plural, yet: the vulgar in the

rural districts commonly use it without discrimination of number, as

in Canarese and Telugu.

Thus, they will say nama (or:more com-

monly, as in Canarese; namma) dr, our village ; and this confirms the

supposition that in Tamil, as in the other dialects, the original use of

In the Ho, a Kol

this @ was simply that of a suffix of the genitive.

dialect, @ is a common possessive suffix ; and it is also, as.in Tamil, an

&

adjectival formative.

We have now to inquire wh

ether th‘ere is Wan’y other language or

THE GENITIVE.

195

family of Ianguages with which this genitive suffix appears to be affili-

ated. There is no direct Scythian analogy for it, and the only affinities

The most direct and

which I have observed are Indo-European.

reliable Indo-European analogy is that which is presented by the per-

i

sonal pronouns, which in some of the Indo-European dialects have a

If we

(]

possessive in a strongly resembling this Dravidian possessive.

look only at the Gothic mena, my, theina, thy, seina, his or its, we

should naturally conclude the sign of the possessive in these words to

\l3

nif

be, not a, but na (answering to the old Scythian and Brahui ne, and

to the Telugu #z) ; but on comparing the forms which this sign of the

I

possessive assumes in various languages, it appears probable that a

Iy

alone conveys the signification of the possessive ; and that the nasal

sed

which precedes it in the Sanskrit mama, the Zend mana, aﬁd the

I

Gothic meina, may merely have been inserted euphonically for the

jif]

purpose of keeping the contiguous vowels pure. Compare mama, Sans.

ms

my (from ma, I), with ¢ave, thy (from fva, thou) ; and especially com-

it

pare the Gothic theina, seina, with the corresponding Lithuanian pos-

150

sessives fawva-s, sava-s. In these instances » euphonic is used as the

b8

equivalent. of 2. The Indo-European pronominal possessive in a is

{10

exceptional ; for the primitive languages of that family evince an

et

almost perfect agreement in the use of as, or some closely related form,

hat

ha

as the sign of the genitive singular, and of sdm or dm as the sign of

QU

the genitive plural. In the later Teutonic dialects, however, a genitive

) 6

case-sign in ¢ becomes exceedingly common, and is found in the plural

all;

as well as in the singular.

Thus in the Frisian all plural substantives

Wlnch

and such singulars as end in a vowel form their possessive by suffix-

du

ing @ ; in the Icelandic all plurals and all masculine and neuter sin-

of 18

gulars use ¢ as their case-sign ; and in the Anglo-Saxon all plurals.

Ths

Though the oldest Gothic possessives accorded with the ordinary

[h 1l

Sanskrit forms as and dm, yet the resemblance between the posses-

0p sﬂe

sives of some of the Teutonic vernaculars and the Dravidian possessive

i

is deserving of notice.

The use of @ as a sign of the possessive by all

plural substantives in Telugu is especially remarkable.

Has the Dra-

gk

1 ﬂlﬂ

vidian ¢ under consideration been softened from as (of which, however,

W

be

)

there is not the smallest trace or analogical probability), or has it

o O

been softened from na, the old Scythian suffix ?

The latter supposi-

ma the

tion, though unsupported by evidence, is not an improbable one in

itself ; for we have seen that the Gond nd alternates with d, the

L

J

Scythian ni-na with inna, the Turkish nun with unw.

¥

(6.) The Malaydlam genitive singular swffiz ¢ re’ or ¢ de’—In most

cases this MalayAlam genitive takes the shape of indre or snde, of

laﬂe o

196

THE NOUN

which 7 is the genitival suffix and inflexional increment, which has

already been described

In en-de, my, the inflexional base is of itself

a genitive, and the addition of s is not required ; hence it appears

that de or dre is an auxiliary genitive suffix, like the adu which is so

often added to ¢»n in Tamil, and is probably from the same origin

This suffix is written re; but it is always added to », and when it is

thus added, the compound is regularly pronounced, not as nre, but as

ndre or nde

Neither the Tamil nor the Malay&lam possesses any

othér method of producing the sound which is indicated by these

letters (a peculiarly euphonic nd), but that of conjoining the final % of

those languages and the hard r ; which, when pronounced in combina-

tion, have the sound of ndr, or, as some pronounce it, ndz, or more

commonly still, 2d.

Thus, from en, to say, and du, the regular forma=

tive of the preterite participle, the Canarese’ forms ‘endu, saying or

having said ; and this in Tamil is written enrw; but it would be

erroneous to suppose ru to be the sign of the preterite in Tamil instead

of du, for enru is intended to be, and is pronounced, endu or endru

nearly as in Canarese

Hence some analogies to the Malayidlam re (in reality de), which

might be suggested, appear at once to be illusory. The Malayalam re

was connected by Dr Stevenson with the Canarese genitive 7«

It has

been shown that a, not ra, is the genitive suffix of the Canarese, and

that the » which precedes it is properly ar, an inflexional increment

(like ad and #n), which is inserted between the root and the case-signs

of three cases, besides the genitive, of certain classes of nouns

The

Malayalam re (de), on the other hand, is suffixed exclusively to the

Never-

genitive, and no other suffix of case is ever appended to it

theless, as I connect de with the Tamil adu, it, and as with this I

connect also the Canarese ad and its hardened form ar, it may be

admitted that in this modified and remote manner the Malay&lam and

the Canarese forms are allied

Still more illusory is the apparent resemblance of this Malayilam re

or de to the adjectival possessive suffixes of the Hindustani personal

pronouns 7d and 2% (e.g., mérd, meus, méré, mea), to the correspond-

ing New Persian inflexion 74 (e.g., to-rd, thy, thee), and to ra, the

Gothic genitive plural suffix of the personal pronouns (e.g., unsara,

our, gzvara, your), from which the final » of our English our and your

has been derived. The Hindustani » is supposed by Bopp to be

derived from d; mérd, meus, being derived from the Sanskrit madiya,

my ; but I cannot suppose that the Malayalam form has any connection

whatever with the Hindustani and the Persian, except on the supposi-

o

THE GENITIVE.

197

Ith

ol

tion that the @ of the Tamil demonstrative neuter singular, ady, is

remotely connected with the formative d of the Sanskrit possessive

s

adjective.

§0

The Malayalam de, like the Tamil adu, is used as a genitive suffix of

i

the singular alone, a confirmation of the opinion that it is derived from

1

adu, which in its original signification is the neuter singular of the

o8

demonstrative.

In the genitive plural, the MalayAlam uses ude,

]

(@4

answering to the colloquial Tamil udeiya (from uder), belonging to, of.

Compare the Malayilam enre, endre, or ende, of me, with the corre-

0l

sponding Tamil enadu, of me, that which is mine.

The Malayilam

I

possessive noun mine, or that which is mine, is endredu, from en-de,

e

my, and aduy, it, corresponding to the Tamil enada.

This latter enadu,

i

however, is not the genitive exadu, my, with which I have compared

(r

en-dre, but a possessive noun in the nominative case ; and though I

suppose the Malaydlam de to be itself a corruption from adw, it, yet

al

the demonstrative suffix would be appended a second time, on the

i

origin and true meaning of de being forgotten. We see illustrations of

this repetition of an ancient suffix in many languages—e.g., malei-(y)-

th

@n-in, High Tam. from a mountain ; and this very demonstrative adu,

[

it, is twice used in the Tamil negative participial noun sllddadu, the

13

thing which is not ; in which the first d, though a representative origin-

il

ally of the neuter singular demonstrative, has lost its proper significa-

)nt

tion, and become a mere euphonic link of connection, or technical sign,

gﬂS

in consequence of which d requires to be repeated.

[he

(7.) Auziliary sufiizes of the genitive in- Telugu and Tamal.

the

() In Telugu, yokka, or yoka, is sometimes appended to the in-

fer

flexion, or natural genitive, as an auxiliary suffix of case—e.g., from

5]

the ordinary possessive nd, my, is formed optionally the equivalent

ybe

form nd-yokka, my, of me.

This suffix is rarely used, and seems

al

foreign to the idiom of the language ; no other pure Dravidian dialect

possesses any suffix resembling it.

A suffix somewhat resembling

18

yokka is found in the Ré4jmahal and Uron languages, which contain

;onﬂl

an overwhelming preponderance of Kol elements, though formed pro-

bably upon a Dravidian basis.

ot

The possessive suffix of the Ré&jmahal

is &7, that of the Uréon ghe. If these particles are at all connected

i

ity

with the Telugu yoka, which seems doubtful, we should be warranted

in connecting the whole with the ordinary possessive or adjectival suffix

yow'

)

of the Hindustani, the feminine of which is 4% (masculine %d), and

ity

through that suffix with the formative ka of the Sanskrit possessive

fio

adjectives mdmaka, my, tdvaka, thy, asmdkam, of us, our, &e. A

pOSi‘

closer analogy to yoka is that of the dative postfix of the Mikir, which

is yok or ayok.

*

1

98

THE NOT

(ii.) In Tamil, udeiya is commonly appended 4o the inflexion of

“udesya (udes-

nouzs and pronouns as an auxiliary possessive suffix..

(9)-a), means belonging to, or, literally, which is the property of, and is

derived from the noun udez, property, possession, by the addition of a,

the sign of the relative participle, on the addition of which fo any

noun it is converted into an adjective.

Thus, enudeiya kes, my hand,

means literally the hand which is my property, for en of itself signifies

L

Throuch usace. however, there is no difference in signification

or even in emphasis, between en and en-udei-(y)-a

The Malayalam

dispenses with ya or @, the sign of the relative participle, and uses ude

(in Tamil wder), the uninflected noun itself, as its auxiliary suffix of

This suffix is still further mutilated in modern Malayé-

the genitive.

lam into de—e.g., putri-de, of a daughter

udetya is very largely used

as an auxiliary genitival suffix in colloquial Tamil, and in some gram-

mars written by foreigners it is classed with the signs of the genitive;

but, properly speaking, it is not a case-sign, or suffix of case at all

but the relative participle of an appellative verb used adjectivally, and

it is to be compared not with our prep051t10n of, but with the phrase

belonging to.

Locative or ¢ Seventh’ Case.—Dravidian grammarians state that any

In

word which signifies a place may be used ‘to-express the locative.

each dialect, however, some words or postpositions are so frequently

and systematically used for this purpose that they may be regarded as

dlstmctlvely locative suffixes.

In Tamil, kan, an eye, which has also the signification of a place, is

"As

given in the grammars as the characteristic suffix of the locative.

averbal root, kan means to see: its secondary signification was look ;

its third, there;

its fourth, a place:

and in consequence of the last

It is very rarely

meaning it came to be used as-a sign of the locative.

used, and the use of 44l (in Malayilam %al), which stands next in the

list in the Nannul, is still more rare.

I have no hesitation in saying

that the most distinctive sign of the Tamil locative is </, a house, a

place—literally, this place, here.

In colloquial Tamil the most com-

monly used sign of the locative is idattil, a compound suffix; which is

derived from ¢dam, the ordinary word for a place, attu, the inflexion

or basis of the oblique cases (¢d-attu), and ¢, an older, purer word for

a place, which is added to ¢d-attu (id-att’-il), as the real sign of the

locative, with the meaning of our preposition un

The sionification of

the whole suffix is literally, in the place of, or in the place occupied by ;

but it is evident that what really distinguishes the locative in this

compound is 4/, in—the suffix of a suffix ; and that the meaning which

the entire compound receives in actual use is simply

In the lowest

o,

THE LOCATIVE.

199

patois of colloquial Tamil, the locative suffix which is most used is

kitta, near, the infinitive of a verb.*

The higher dialect of the Tamil

useés also u/ and wuyi, within, among, as signs of the locative.

The ancient Canarese generally used ¢/, corresponding to the Tamil

ul, as its locative suffix ; whilst the modern dialect uses alli or illi, a

form which answers to the Tamil /.

ally is properly a noun of place,

formed from the remote demonstrative @, and its fellow is ¢/Z, formed

from 4, the proximate demonstrative,

These words mean literally that

place and this place, or there and here, and their use as locative suffixes

¢

appears to betoken a later state of the language than the use of ¢/ and

»! in Tamil, and of 4/ in Canarese.

The locative suffix of the Tuda

is wlch or orzh, which seems to be simply the Tamil »/ rudely pro-

nounced.

r and [ seem generally to become 2% in this dialect.

In Telugu the sign of the locative most commonly used is 76 ; another

form frequently employed is andu.

[6 is more intensely locative in its

signification than andu; it means within, and is obviously identical

with the Canarese ¢/ and the Tamil ul.

andw means simply in, and,

like the Canarese alls, is properly a noun of place. I consider andu,

the adverbial noun, there, identical with andu, the sign of the locative.

It is evidently formed from «, the remote demonstrative, with the

addition of a formative d, whilst sndu, the correlative adverb of place,

is derived from ¢, the proximate demonstrative.

The Canarese also

possesses adverbs corresponding to these, viz., anta and dnta, antalu

and enlalu, but uses them chiefly to express comparison, like our adverb

than. The Telugu locative suffix andu (meaning on or in) bears some

apparent resemblance to the Sanskrit amtar, among, but this resem-

blance is illusory ; for andu is derived from a, that, by the addition of

the neuter formative dw, which becomes euphonically ndu, and corre-

i

sponds not to the Sanskrit, but rather to anda, that, the demonstrative

i

adjective of the Tamil. The Tulu locative suffix is’idu/;or dtujor ¢,

Ll teg

o

14

* I cannot forbear noticing the remarkable (though probably accidental) resem-

blance between the double meaning of 7/ in Tamil and of ¢n in Latin.

Each is

used as a locative suffix with the meaning of in; and each is used also as a par-

Ih)

ticle of negation.

The Latin in not only means in, but has also the additional

o

meaning of not in such compounds as tndoctus (like the Gothic un and the Greek

(s

and Sanskrit @ or an privative) ; and in like manner the Tamil 4/ means not only

in, but also not. Moreover, as the Latin 4n privative is an, un, in some other

i

dialects, so the Tamil ¢/, not, takes also the shape of al, with a very slight differ-

of

ence, not, in the meaning, but only in the application.

Dr Gundert suggests that

possibly ¢/ is merely the equivalent of u/, meaning existence, and that the nega-

J)

tive power of illa rests in the final a.

s

I have shown, however, that this ¢ is the

,h

pluralising particle of the neuter plural.

See ‘‘ Neuter plural suffix in @.”

The

o

neuter singular is ¢/-du, indr‘a, the thing that is not.

st

200

THE NOUN.,

which Dr Gundert conjectures may be derived from udu, equivalent to

wl, Tam. within, 6/, old Canarese, or from ede, equivalent to Tam. idez

The nature of the initial vowel of the Tulu suffix

or sdam, place.

seems difficult to ascertain.

The ¢ is sometimes preceded by o, some-

h]

times by @ or e; and sometimes it is obliterated, as in keit, in the

hand, a form which suggests Telugu analogies.

On the whole it seems

to me most likely that the Tulu locative du or tu has sprung from the

)

same origin as the Can. allé and the Tel. andu, viz, the adverb of

1. 57930

place there, one form of which in Tulu is ade, thither (corresponding

to ide, hither, and ode, whither).

In Telugu the postposition na, which becomes ¢ after 4, is used as

a locative suffix in connection with neuter nouns.

n% (and hence its

equivalent na also) is evidently identical with n, the sign of ‘the

ablative of motion in High Tamil, which I have supposed to be pro-

perly a sign of the locative ; and probably this in is the origin of un,

the Tamil, and #i and =a, the Telugu, genitival or inflexional suffixes.

The genitive is more likely to be derived from the locative than the

locative from the genitive.

With this Telugu locative na we may

compare the Ostiak locative na, ne, the Finnish and Magyar an and

en, and especially the ‘Japanese locative ni—e.g., yedo-nz, in, or at-

yedo.

In Telugu, and in the higher dialect of the Tamil, the inflexion or

basis of the oblique cases, which has generally the force of a genitive,

is sometimes used to ‘denote the locative also.

This is the case in

Tamil only in those ‘connections in which it is governed by a verb,

expressed or implied.

In Tamil the inflexion which is chiefly used in

this manner is attu—e.g., nilatty, upon the earth.

The Malayalam

uses afty in a similar manner ; and in Telugu a corresponding change

from # to ta converts the inflexion or obsolete genitive into a locative

—e.g., i1, of a house, 7nfa, in a house.

The same inflexion in 7o

denotes the instrumental in Telugu, as well as the locative—e.g., com-

pare chéts, of a hand, with ckéta, by a hand; but this form seems to

have been a locative originally. This fusion of the meaning of the

genitive and locative suffixes corresponds to a similar fusion of the

signs of those cases which a comparison of the various Indo-European

tongues brings to light. The genitive and locative case-signs are often

identical in the Finnish family of languages also. Bearing this in

mind, we may conclude that 7% or =7, one of the most common in-

flexional increments in all the dialects ; 4n, one of the Tamil possessive

and adjectival suffixes ; un, the sign of the Tamil ablative of motion ;

and ¢m, the Canarese sign of the instruméntzﬂl,l with the various shapes

they take, were all originally locatives, and identical with ¢/, which we

S

-

THE VOCATIVE

201

have seen to be so exceedingly common as a locative suffix, with the

original meaning of /Aere.*

In all the Dravidian idioms the locative suffixes are used like our

than, to express comparison

Sometimes the locative alone is used for

this purpose

oftener the conjunctive particle is added to it—eg.,

el-wm, in Tamil, /6-nu, in Telugu, which compound has the signification

of our eve

Ju

than

The Vocatwe or ¢ Eighih’ Case.—In the Dravidian languages there is

nothing which properly deserves to be styled a suffix or case-sign of the

vocative

The vocative is formed merely by affixing or suffixing some

sign of emphasis, or in certain instances by suffixing fragments of the

personal pronouns

The most common vocative in Tamil is the em-

phatic &, which is simply appended to the noun

Sometimes, also, the

vocative is formed by substituting ¢ for the formative of gender—e.g.,

from kartan, Lord, is formed kartd, O Lord ; by converting the final

vowel into dy (a fragment of the old pronoun of the second person

singular)—e.g., from tange:, sister, is formed tangdy, O sister ; or by

lengthening the vowel of the pluralising particle—e.g., from pdvigal

sinners, is formed pdvigdl, O sinners

Sometimes, again, especially in

poetry, rational plurals are put in the vocative by appending to them

or, a fragment of 2fr, you—e.g., ellér, literally ell-ir, all ye

Both in

Tamil and Malayalam the vocative is often formed by lengthening the

final vowel of the nominative—e.g., ¢4y7, female friend, voc, tore

This usage prevails also in Japanese.

In the Indo-European languages the nominative is often used for

the vocative, and what appears to be a vocative case-ending is often

onl

tened form of the final syllable.

In the Dravidian lan-

guag

es,fin_like manner, the crude root, deprived of all increments, is

often ised as the vocative.

¥

(4

i

In Telugu the vocative singular is ordinarily formed by lengthening

the final vowel of the nominative (and all Telugu words end in some

vowel), or by changing the final « into a or 4

ara or ard, from the

0

same root as the Tamil pronominal fragment i (viz., #ér, ye), is post-

i

he

* Can. and Tel. agree in using al as the base of a remote demonstrative.

_Can.

0

uses the corresponding ¢l (:llz), here, as a proximate demonstrative, but does not

fel

give to it the meaning of house.

Tel. gives to il the meaning of house (clu,

tlu), but does not use it as a proximate demonstrative,

i

The demonstrative

meaning of ¢/, which has disappeared from the Tel. 7l-u, house, is retained, how-

i

ever, in the longer form %/dgu, in this manner.

The radical element in il, here,

I\

is the proximate demonstrative root ¢, this, and this would seem to be the origin

also of the Indo-European locative z.

“This short ,’

(/%]

says Max Miiller (p. 227),

speaking of the Sanskrit locative 7 in hrid-7, in the heart, “is a demonstrative

e

root, and in all probability the same root which produced the preposition zn.”

AL

THE NOUN.

ﬁxed as the vocative of masculine-féminine plurals. In addition to

these suffixes, various unimportant vocative particles, or particles of ex-

clamation, are prefixed to nouns ; some to one number only, some to

both.

In Canarese the vocative is ordinarily formed by appending &,

by lengthening the final vowel of the nominative, or by adding e or é.

Masculine-feminine plurals form their vocative not only by means of e

or é, but also by suffixing ¢ra or ¢rd, from the same source as the

Telugu ard—viz., the old nir or %r, 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 Eastern islands, so in

Dravidian, two or more case-signs are occasionally compounded to-

gether into one.

We have already noticed the custom of annexing the

SIS SNBSS T LS A

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-

kkul), colloquial Tam. within the house, in which the locative «/ is

combined with the dative or directive kkw, for the purpose of intensi-

=

fying ¢n, and educing the meaning of within.

The higher dialect

would in this instance prefer vitful, the simple locative ; but vétfu-

kkul is also idiomatic.

The ablative of motion in each of the Dra-

|

vidian dialects is generally a compound case, being formed of the

locative and a verbal participle, or even of two locatives—e.g., mane-

(y)-fll-inda, Can. out of the house, from 4lli or alli, the sign of the

locative, and inda, a sign of the instrumental, which is used also as a

sign of the ablative, but which was, I conceive, a locative originally,

and identical with ¢m, the Canarese form of the Tamil .

Such compounds may indeed be formed in these languages ab

pleasure, and almost ad enfinitum.

Another imstance of them in

Tamil is seen in the addition of the dative to the locative (e.g., #é-ku,

idattil-ku, or kag-ku), to constitute the locative-directive, which is

required to be used in such expressions as, I sent fo him.

The

Malayalam nikkulla (in-i-kk and «lla), my, is a compound of the

dative of the personal pronoun (which is itself a compound), and a

relative participial form of w«/, within ; in colloquial Tamil, also, &

similar form is used as a possessive.

Possessive Compounds.—The Dravidian languages are destitute of

that remarkable and very convenient compound of mouns and prono-

minal suffixes with a possessive signification which is so characteristic

of the Turkish, Finnish, and other Scythian families.

See Castren’s

“ Dissertation de Affixis Personalibus Linguarum Altaicarum.”

o

ADJECTIVES.

203

In Hungarian they form the following compounds of ur, master,

with the pronominal frag@gnt& gsed as posse§sives —

ur-am,

my masters,

my master

wUr-aum,

ur-ad,

thy master

wr-ad,

thy masters.

ur-a,

his master

ur-az,

his masters.

ur-un-k,

our nlasfef

ur-ain-k,

our masters.

ur-at-ok,

your master.

ur-aut-ok,

your masters.

ur-ok,

their master.

ur-qf"—k,

their masters.

~

These compounds are regularly declined like uncompounded nouns,

in the usual way : e.g.—

wramnak (ur-am-nak), to my master.

wrunknak (wr-un-k-nak), to our master.

wraimnak (wr-avm-nak), to my masters.

wragnknak (ur-ain-k-nak), to our masters.

The absence of possessive compounds of this nature in the Dravidian

languages, notwithstanding their agreement with the Scythian group in

so many other points, is remarkable : it is the only point in which any

structural difference of a generic or class type appears to exist. In

all the Dravidian languages' the possessive® pronouns are prefixed to

nouns, as in the Indo-European tongues, never postfixed as in the

Scythian. There is a olass of words in the Dravidian languages com-

pounded of a noun and a personal suffix, called conjugated nouns, or

appellative verbs. See the section in which these are explained. This

[

class of words, though it resembles, is not identical with, the Scythian

possessive compounds.

It is identical, however, with the predicative

compounds of the Scythian languages.

ab

10

SECTION IIL—ADJECTIVES OR NOUNS USED

fu

I

ADJECTIVALLY.

The difference between the Indo-European danguages and those of

the

the Scythian group, with respect to the formation and use of adjectives,

is very considerable.

K

R

The agreement of adjectives with the substantives which they

qualify, in gender, number, and case, forms an invariable characteristic

of the languages of the Indo-European family ; whilst in the Scythian

e("{

ol

languages adjectives have neither number, gender, nor case, but are

mere nouns of relation or quality, which are prefixed without alteration

il

to substantive nouns.

In this particular the Dravidian languages pre-

1ol

sent no resemblance to the Sanskrit, or to any other member of the

204

THE NOUN.,

Indo-European stock, but are decidedly Scythian in character.

Dra-

vidian adjectives, properly so called, like those of the Scythian tongues,

are nouns of quality or relation, which acquire the signification of

adjectives merely by being prefixed to substantive nouns without

declensional change ; and, in virtue of that acquired signification, they

are called by Tamil grammarians wi% chol, qualitative words.

Parti-

ciples of verbs, and nouns with the addition of participial formatives,

are also largely used as adjectives in the Dravidian, as in the Scythian,

family. Such being the simplicity of the construction of Dravidian

adjectives, it will not be necessary to occupy much time in the investi-

gation of this department of grammar. It may suffice to state, seriatim,

the various modes in which nouns or verbs are used as adjectives, and

the formative or euphonic modifications which they undergo on being

prefixed to the substantives which they qualify : nor will it be neces-

sary to state al/ the modifications which are discoverable in each

dialect, but only those which appear to be most characteristic, or which

are peculiarly worthy of remark.

1. The majority of adjectives in all the Dravidian dialects are nouns

of quality or relation, which become adjectives by position alone, with-

out any structural change whatever, and without ceasing to be, in

themselves, nouns of quality. Thus, in the Tamil phrases pon aridu,

gold (is) scarce, and pon mudi, a golden crown, pon, gold, is precisely

the same in both instances, whether used as a substantive in the first,

or as an adjective in the second.

In a similar manner, in English and

the other modern Indo-European dialects, the same word is often used

as a noun in one connection, and as an adjective, without addition or

change, in another connection—e.g., gold is more ductile than silver ;

a gold watch. Whilst adjectival nouns of this class undergo in the

Dravidian languages no structural change, their combination with the

nouns to which they are prefixed is facilitated in certain instances by

unimportant euphonic changes, such as the assimilation of the final

consonant of the adjective and the initial consonant of the substantive,

in accordance with the requirements of Dravidian phonetics (e.g., por

chiler (for pon $ilei), a golden image) ; the softening, hardening, or

doubling of the initial of the substantive ; or the optional lengthening

of the included vowel of the adjectival noun, to compensate for the

abandonment of the euphonic final u—e.g., kdr, black, in place of karu,

or vice versd. These changes are purely euphonic ; they differ in the

different dialects, and they contribute to grammatical expression only

in so far as they serve to indicate the words which are to be construed

together as adjective and substantive.

It is only on the ground of the

repugnance of the Dravidian ear to certain classes of concurrent sounds

Ly

FORMATION OF ADJECTIVES.

205

that. the changes referred to are required by Dravidian rules ; and in

the majority of instances nouns sustain no change whatever on being

used adjectivally.

In the poetical dialects, adjectival formatives are less nsed than even

in the colloquial dialects ; and it is generally the crude ultimate form

of the noun of quality which performs the functions of the adjective

in classical compositions.

Thus, whilst nalla, good, and pala, many,

are commonly used in spoken Tamil, the higher. idiom prefers, and

almost invariably uses, the crude nouns of quality and relation nal

and pal-—e.g., nal vard, the good way, and pan (for pal) malar, many

flowers.

2. Sanskrit 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—e.g., subam, goodness,

and dinam, a day, become suba denam, a good day. This, however,

is in imitation of a Sanskrit rule, and it flows from the circumstance

that when two Sanskrit nouns are formed into a compound, the crude

form of the first of the two nouns is used instead of the nominative—

subha instead of sublamn.

Pure Dravidian nouns ending in am or amu rarely become adjec-

tives in this manner ; and when they do, it may be suspected that it

is through imitation of Sanskrit derivatives.

In Telugu, final amw

is sometimes hardened into ampu—e.g., from andamu, beauty, is

formed andapw or andampu, beautiful.

In Tamil, when a noun of

this class is used as an adjective, am is generally rejected, and attu,

the inflexion, suffixed instead—e.g., from puram, externality, is formed

puratiu, external.

Sometimes also the Tamil deals in this manner

with Sanskrit derivatives, converting them into adjectives by means

of the inflexional aftw ; but in all instances of nouns ending in am or

amu, the most common method of using them adjectivally is that of

appending to them the relative participle of the verb to become (dna,

|

Tam., ayana, Tel., or dda, Can.), without any change, whether struc-

tural or euphonic, in the nouns themselves.

I

3. Many Tamil nouns ending in $-u, d-w, nd-u, or r-u, double their

)

g

final consonants when they are used as adjectives, or when case-signs

are suffixed to them—e.g., compare ndd-u, Tam. the country, with

o

natt-u varakkam, the custom of the country, or ndfs-i, in the country.

Iy

(See the “Inflexional Increments.”) From the corresponding Telugu

16

ndd-u, the country, is formed ndfs, of the country. In these instances

J

A

the final consonant of the root is doubled and hardened (or in Telugu

hardened only), for the purpose of conveying the signification of an

8

THE NOUN.

206

adjective ; but in another class of instances the root remains unchanged,

and it is the consonant of the formative addition that is doubled.

When Tamil nouns ending in the formative mbu are used adjec-

tivally, mbu changes into ppu—e.g., from érumbu, iron, and kdl, a rod,

is formed ¢ruppu (k)kol, an iron rod. A similar change sometimes

takes place in Telugu, in which snwmu, iron,’ becomes nupa—e.g.,

inupa pettey an iron box.

Tamil nouns ending in: the formative ndw

and du change in the same manner to ¢/z on being used as adjectives—

e.g., compare marundu, medicine, and erudu, an ox, with marutiv

(p)pei, a medicine-bag, and eruttu (p)podi, an ox-load. More rarely

nouns ending in the formative ngw change into %ku both in Tamil

Ly

and Malayilam—e.g, kurakkuppader, a 1nonkey,.§coming from kurangu,

a monkey. These changes precisely resemble those which neuter or

intransitive verbs ending in d-« or -« (or with the formative additions

of mb-u, ng-u, nd-u, &c.) undergo on becoming active or transitive,

and a similar principle isin each instance apparent in the change ; for

when nouns of qualivtywarpe" prefixed to other nouns adjectivally, there

is a transition of their signification to the nouns which they are

intended to qualify, which is analogous to the transition of the action

of a transitive verb to the object which it governs. (See “Roots,”

and also “The Verb.”): ..

4. Faoh' of' the inflexional increments, or petrified case-signs, is

These are

used for the conversion of substantives into adjectives.

in in’ Tamil and n¢ in Telugy, atty in Tamil and ¢e or £z in Telugu.

In those instances in which ¢» in Tamil and n¢ in Telugu are used

as adjectival-formatives, their use is optional—e.g., in Telugu we can

say either tella, white, or tella-ni; and in Tamil either niral, shady

(literally shade, a noun used adjectivally), or (but in the poetical

So also we may say either mara (k)koppu,

dialect only) neral-in.

Tam. the branch of a tree, or mara-ttu (k)koppu.

In Tamil, am, an

inflexional increment which is apparently equivalent to ¢n, is often

used as an adjectival formative—e.g.,: panan toppu (panei-am toppw),

a palmyra tope.

The same formative is used in Malayalam also—e.g.,

malam pdmbu. (mala-am pdmbu), a rock-snake,

It has been shown that the inflexions or inflexional augments attu

and ¢ are in reality locative or possessive case-signs, and that they

are used to convert substantives into adjectives through the relation

subsisting between possessives—e.g., of gold—and adjectives—e.g.,

golden.

In consequence of the frequency of their use in this con-

nection, they have come to be appended even to adverbial forms for

the purpose of giving to them an adjectival meaning. Thus, from

FORMATION OF ADJECTIVES

297

monna, Tel. before, is formed the adjective monna-ti (e.g., monna-ti

1,

tirpu, the former decision); and in Tamil

from wvadakkw, mnorth

(perhaps originally a dative), is formed the adjective wvadakk -att-

northern (e.g., vadakkattiydn, a northern man)

In these and similar

b

4

instances it is plain that the so-called adverbs are in reality only

nouns used adverbially.

)

i

5. Relative participles of verbs, and nouns of quality convexted into

relative participles by the addition of participial formatives, are largely

used as adjectives in all the Dravidian languages

Much uge is made

(]

of relative participles as adjectives by the languages of High Asia ;

i

and in Japanese also participial forms of the verb are used as adjectives

il

It often happens that the same root is used, or at least is capable

|

of being used, both as a verb and as a noun; and hence, in many

r

instances of this kind in the Dravidian languages, two methods of

I

forming adjectives are practicable, viz., either by prefixing the noun

to the substantive which we wish to qualify, or by using one of the

or

relative participles of the related and equivalent verb. The colloquial

1

dialect of the Tamil prefers the latter method : the former is preferred

(4

by the poets on account of its greater simplicity and brevity. Thus

]

in Tamil either wyar, height (adjectivally high), or the relative par-

ticiple wyarnda, high, literally that was high (from wyar, considered

as a verb signifying to be high), may be used to express high or

1§

lofty—e.g., uyar maler or uyarnda malet, a lofty hill

but uyar would

16

be preferred in poetical compositions, whilst uyarnda is better suited

to prose and colloquial purposes, and is consequently the form which

ol

is commonly used by the Tamil people.

\au

6. The past verbal participle of Telugu verbs is sometimes used

dy

adjectivally in Telugu ;

hence: Wh’—*n Sanskrit neuter nouns in am are

ol

used as adjectives, ayi, having- become (the verbal participle), is often

’pll‘

annexed to them instead of ayi-na (Tam. dia, Can. dda, that became,

i

that is (the relative participle)

It seems evident, therefore, that the

el

final 4 of many Telugu adjectives may be explained as identical with

pl’)y

the ¢+ by which the past participles of. verbs are formed—e.g., kinds,

il

low, from Zinda, below—e.g., kindi illu; the lower part of the house

The addition of the same-¢ (if .it be the same) converts substantives

al{n

also into adjectives—e.g., fromi"%én-u, a hump, is formed Zune, hump-

backed. (See ‘““Inflexional Increments,” 7, ¢, and “The Verb: Nouns

i}

fi

o

of Agency.”)

4l

7. A very numerous class of Dravidian adjectives is formed by

ol

the addition to crude nouns of quality of the suffixes of the relative

o

participles, more or less modified

Uyarnda is a perfectly-formed

preterite relative participle, comprising, in addition to the verbal root

b

&

203

THE NOUN.

nd, the sign of the preterite tense, and «, the sign of the relative ;

and though the idea of time is in this connection practically lost sight

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

or rejected to correspond with their use as adjectives, and the idea of

It is words of this class

time is entirely merged in that of relation.

which are commonly adduced by grammarians as specimens of quali-

tative words, or adjectives,; and, if the name can correctly be used at

all in the Dravidian family of tongues, it is to this class that it is

applicable.

T am convinced, however, that it is more correct to regard

these words simply as relative participles; and I class them under

this head, immediately after the investigation of the noun, because in

most instances the root to which the relative signs are suffixed is used

by itself, not as a verb, but only as a noun of quality or relation, or as

an appellative.

(1.) Many Tamil adjectives of this class are formed by the addition

The roots of

of sya to the root—e.g., periya, great, siriya, small

those words are per-w and sir-u; and as w is merely a help to enun-

ciation, I do not say that » is changed into ¢, but prefer to say that

I have no doubt that we shall be able to

wya is added to the root.

explain each part of this addition grammatically, without having

recourse to arbitrary mutations.

These adjectives are simply the

relative participles of “conjugated nouns.” Iya (i-y-a)is compounded

of 4, a sign of the preterite tense, and «, the sign of the relative

participle.

In Telugu, the past-participle alone is often used adjec-

tivally without the suffix of the relative, as we have already seen;

and the ¢ with which that participle terminates explains the ¢ which

¢ is the

precedes the final « of such Tamil adjectives as peri-(y)-a.

sign of the verbal participle, and the addition of & or ya, transforms

it into a relative participle.

In classical Tamil compositions, ¢ya 18

generally used instead of 4na, as the sign of the preterite relative

participle of ordinary verbs —e.g., panniya, instead of panpnmina, that

made.

When the same suffix is added to a noun of quality like per-u,

great, it converts it into a relative participle, which, with the form of

the preterite, contains in it no reference to time, and which may

therefore be called an adjective.

The suffix <ya being somewhat

archaic, readily loses the idea of time, whereas that idea is firmly

retained by ida, ina, and the other preterite relative suffixes which are

in ordinary use.

A good illustration of the adjectival use of ¢ya is furnished by the

very roots to which we have referred, viz, peru, great, sirw, small.

When these roots are regarded as verbs, their preterite relative parti

g

/ 5;/} 'y 53

FORMATION OF ADJECTIVES.

209

ciplcs are perutta, that was or became great, sirutta, that was or became

small ; in which participles the ide

as of time and change are always

included :

whereas, when peru and siru are regarded as nouns of

quality, they are adapted for general use as adjectives by having iya

suffixed to them—e.yg., periya, siwiya (per-iya, sir’tya). In this

shape they mean simply great and small, without any reference to

time :

J

and in consequence of iya being so purely aoristic, adjectives

4

of this mode of formation are largely used. periya, great, kodiya,

cruel, may properly be styled adjectives, seeing that they are used

1§

as such; but it is a mistake to regard periya-

(v)-an, or periyan, a

1

great man, kodiya-n, a cruel man, and similar words, as adjectives,

)

They are compounds of adjectives and suffixes of gender ; and are

Il

properly appellative nouns, as has been shown under the head of

el

“Gender,” and as appears from the manner in which they are used.

bl

It is remarkable that @ or sa is postfixed in Kol also to many adjec-

tives ; and that the same participle is a sign of the possessive, as « is

I

in Dravidian.

0l

(2.) Some adjectives are formed by simply suffixing a, the sign of

Il

the relative participle, without the preterite ¢, or any other sign of

i

tense whatever—e.g., nalla, Tam.

Tel

good ; dodda, Can., great; pedda,

fo

great. The examples here given may be, and doubtless are,

14

derived from preterite relative participles (ralla* from the High Tamil L g

g

nalgiya, and dodda from the ancient Canarese dod

.

dida) ; but in some cedling

el

instances, a,

the sign of the relative participle, is appended directly to

176

nouns, without borrowin

g Vird

7

/

We have an inst

g any portion of the sign of the preterite.

v/

Jot

U 1D

[JEL

ance of this even in colloquial Tamil, viz., udeiya

o8l

(udei-(y)-a), the ordinary colloquial suffix of the genitive, which liter-

ally signifies that belongs to, that is the

e

property of, from udez, pro-

perty, to which «, the sign of the rel

s e

ative participle, is simply suffixed.

(O

This mode of forming

adjectives from substantives by directly suffixing

@ is very common in the classical dialect of the Tamil, especially in

ly1 I}

]

(i

1{“3

connection with substantives ending in e or f—e.g., from maler, a hill,

i

comes malei-(y)-a, adj., hilly; or of a hill; from sunei

B

, & Spring, comes

sunei-(y)-a, that relates to a spring. So also from t3, evil, is formed

i

—_—

ot

j i

iy

=

* Nalla is generally considered to be a

primitive word, and a bond Jide adjec- 17

tive ; but if kegta, bad, is admitted to be

At

i

become bad, it is reasonable to suppose t

a relative participle, from ked-u, to

yva

hat nalla, good, has also some such

i

origin. Accordingly we find a root, nal, go

odness, whic

h is capable of being used

m &

T

fiid

adjectivally, a

nd then signifies good, and the verb naly-

P

el

u, to be bountiful, to be

good. The preterite relative participle of this verb i

8 nalgiya, that was or is

bountiful ; and from this,

by {ie

been derived,

I believe, the much-used adjective nalla, good, has

j, S

(o)

4 part

“B10

~THE NOUN.

The circumstance that in most of these examples

t2-(y)-a, adj., evil,

the signification of the genitive is as natural as that of the adjective,

shows how intimately the genitive and the adjective are allied. Never-

theless, as used in these examples, I regard @ as an adjectival termina-

tion, rather than as a sign of the genitive, and as acquiring this force

Indeed, I would

from its being the sign of the relative participle.

define these qualitative words (malei-(y)-a, &c.) to be the relative par-

i

See that class of words investigated in

ticiples of appellative verbs.

the section on “ The Verb.”

This usage, perhaps, explains the origin of the Tamil adjectives

pala, many, and sila, few, viz., from the roots pal and suf (which are

used in their crude state in the poets), and «, the sign of the ‘relative

It is true that these words are also regarded as neuters

participle.

plural ; and that in some instances they are correctly so regarded

appears from the phrase palavin-(pala-v-in) pdl, the Tamil designation

of the neuter plural, literally the gender of the many (things). But

when e look also at such phrases as pala ara$ar, many kings—

phrases of constant occurrence, not only in the colloquial dialect, but

in the classics—the « of this latter pala appe’ar;i 'to be used, not as a

suffix of the neuter plural, or as a sign of plurality of any sort, but as

a sign of the relative participle, by the use of which pal-a becomes an

adjective.

& (3.) Many adjectives of this class are formed by the addition to

nouns of quality of the sign of the relative participle of the future or

Native gram-

aorist, which is wm in Tamil — e.g., perum, great.

marians suppose this adjective to be derived from the abstract noun

perumet, greatness, by the rejection of the final e, and to all other

adjectives of this class they attribute a similar origin. _met, however,

not es, is the suffix by which abstract nouns are formed (vide ¢ The

Verb”), and as such it is one and indivisible. It is much better to

derive perum from per’, the uneuphonised form of the root: pery,

greatness, great, and wm, the ‘ordinary relative participle of the aorist,

in the same manner as periya has been seen to be derived from per

and dya, the relative participle of the preterite. um is ordinarily

called the relative participle of the future, but this future will be

shown, in the part on ¢The Verb,” to be properly an aorist, and as

such to be used very indeterminately with respect to time.

Vinnil

minang-um $udar, Tam., means, not the stars that will shine in the

sky, but the stars that shine in the sky, this “tense being especially

fitted to denote continued existence ; and in consequence of this loose-

ness of reference to time, wm, the sign of the relative participle of this

tense, is better fitted even than iya to be suffixed to nouns' of quality

% :

|

ey

COMPARISON OF' ADJECTIVES.

211

8§ 'an édjectival formative. Hence perum, ﬁtémlly that is, was, or will

be great, is a more expressive and more classical word for great than

periya.

It has already been shown, in the part on ‘“Sounds,” that

pevm, Tam. green, is not a distinet form of adjective, but is softened

from pasum (puyum) by a dialectic rule, whilst pasum is derived

regularly from pas-u, greenness, green, and wm, the partigle which is

now under consideration.

7. Dravidian nouns of every description may be used adjectivally

by appending to them the relative participles of the verb signifying

to become, which are in Tamil dna and dgum (also wlla, an equivalent

word), in Telugu agu and ayina (pronounced aina), in Canarese dda—

€.9., uyarvina (uyarv-dna), Tam. lofty, literally that was or has

become high or a height. This mode of forming adjectives is especially

used in connection with-Sanskrit derivatives, on account of their greater

Il

length and. foreign origin,

Such adjectives, however, are phrases, not

I

-words ; but -they were at one time incorrectly classed amongst adjec-

tives by Europeans who treated of Dravidian grammar.

i

I may here also again remark, that certain words have been styled

adjectives by some European writers, which in reality are appellative

43

nouns, not adjectives, and which acquire the force of adjectives merely

il

from the addition of the relative participles of the verb to become,

which -have been referred to above. Thus, the Tamil words nallavan,

& good (man), nallaval, a good (woman), nalladu, a good (thing), are

OF

appellative nouns formed by the suffix to a noun of quality of the

formatives of the.three genders ; and the addition of dna, that has

i

become, to any of these words, though it constitutes them adjectives

et

in effect, leaves them in grammatical form precisely what they were

e

before. Bonus may either qualify another noun—e.g., bonus vir, when

Tho

it is an adjective, or it may stand alone and act as nominative to a

o b

verb, when it is a qualitative noun—e.g., bonus virtutem amat. The

¥

Tamil nallavan, a good (man), can only be used in the latter sense, and

01

therefore is not an adjective at all.

0 pil

Comparison of Adjectives.—In all the Dravidian dialects, comparison

is effected, not as in the Indo-European family, by means of compara-

ol

qll ¥

It

tive or superlative particles suffixed to, and combined with, the positive

pd &

form of the adjective, but by a method closely resembling that in

which adjectives are compared in the Semitic languages, or by the

fis

simpler means which are generally used in the languages of the Scythian

group. When the first of these methods is adopted, the noun of qua-

510

I8

lity or adjective to be compared is placed in the nominative, and the

noun or nouns with which it is to be compared are put in the locative

0 t

and prefixed. It is generally stated in Tamil grammars that it is the

o

THE NOUN.

212

ablative of motion which is thus used; but I am persuaded that even

when the case-sign is that of the ablative of motion, the signification is

U

purely that of the locative, and that in Tamil 4z and ¢ have in this

connection the meaning of in (i.c., are locatives), rather than that of

from—e.g., avattr'-il idu nalladwv, Tam. this is better than those,

literally in those things this is good.

The conjunctive particle wm, and, even, is often added, especially in

the colloquial dialect, as an intensitive—e.g., avattr’-il wm idw nalladu,

Tam. this is better than those, literally even in those this is good.

Very frequently the noun with which comparison is to be made is put

in the dative instead of the locative.

Sometimes, again, comparison is

effected by means of an auxiliary verb. The noun with which com-

parison is to be made is put in the accusative ; it is followed and

governed by the subjunctive or infinitive of a verb signifying to see, to

show, or to leave ; and the phrase is concluded by the subject of the

proposition, with the adjective to be compared. Thus, in Tamil we

may say adei-(p)-pdrkkilum idv nalladu, literally even though looking

at that this (is) good, or adei vida idu nalladu, quitting that this (is)

good, 4.e., this is so good as to induce one to abandon that. Such

modes of comparison, however, are stiff, cumbrous, and little used

except by Europeans ; and in the Dravidian dialects, as in those of the

Scythian group, direct comparison of one thing with another is

ordinarily left to be understood, not expressed. The effect which is

aimed at is secured in a very simple manner by prefixing to the

positive form of the adjective some word signifying much or very, or

by appending to the subject of the proposition a sign of emphasis, or

a word signifying indeed—e.g.,

id-¢ (or tdu tdn) nalladw, Tam. THIS

indeed is good. In Telugu and Canarese the conjunctive particles

and 14 are not necessarily required to help forward the former method

of comparison, like the Tamil wm, nor is this particle generally used in

the higher dialect of the Tamil itself. The Canarese makes use also

of the particles anta and dnta, antalu and <ntaly (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

of prefixed adverbs signifying much or very, or by the very primitive

plan of doubling of the adjective itself—e.g., periya-periya; very great,

literally great-great. If greater explicitness is required, the method by

which it is effected is that of putting the objects with which compari-

son is made in the plural and in the locative case.

Thus, the phrase,

the tiger is the fiercest animal, would be expressed in Tamil as follows:

—vilangugalil véngei kodidu, amongst animals (literally in animals) the

POSTPOSITIONS,

213

tiger is the cruel one. Sometimes, for the purpose of increasing the

!

intensity of the superlative signification, the adjectival noun elld, all, is

f

prefixed to the plaral noun which denotes the objects compared—e.g.,

in (i.e., amongst) all animals the tiger is cruel.

It is evident that the modes of forming the comparative and super-

i

lative degrees of adjectives which have now been described, differ

I

greatly and essentially from those which characterise the Indo-European

family of tongues. If Dravidian adjectives had ever been compared

I

like those of the Sanskrit, it is inconceivable that so convenient and

1§

expressive a plan should so completely have been abandoned. The

Dravidian modes of comparison agree, up to a certain poins, with those

1

of the Semitic tongues ; but they are in most perfect accordance with

W

the Turkish method, and with the modes of comparison which are

e

employed in the languages of Tartary generally.

it

Robert de Nobilibus and the Jesuit writers endeavoured to naturalise

I

in Tamil the Sanskrit superlative particle tama, but the Tamil adhered

B

resolutely to its own idiom, and the attempt failed.

[0

\9[[

Posrrositions.—It has already been stated that all the Dravidian

I

postpositions are, or have been, nouns.

When suffixed to other nouns

1§

a8 postpositions, they are supposed to be in the locative case ; but they

13

are generally suffixed in their uninflected form, or in the nominative ;

he

and the locative case-sign, though understood, is rarely expressed. It

or

seems quite unneccessary to enter into an investigation of the post-

positions in a work of this kind, inasmuch as they are sufficiently

o

IS

explained in the ordinary grammars, and are to be regarded simply as

nouns of relation.

s

3th0d

ol b

o 190

PI

i

, mg?ﬂls

it

h

i

:

o

p‘ul'ﬁ:ie“

fold

¥

| |

COMPARATIVE PARADIGM OF A NEUTER DRAVIDIAN NOUN.

Tam. maram, tree ; Mal. maram ; Tel. gurramu, a horse ; Oag. mara; Tulu, mara,; Coorg, mara.

TAMIL.

MALAYALAM.

OLD CANARESE.

TuLu.

CooRra.

TELUGU.

SINGULAR.

Nom.

a tree

maram.

maram.

maranm.

mara.

mara.

gurTamu, gurram.

marattine,

ma-

gurramunw, ~gur-

MaAramany, marae-

marat’na.

Ace

a tree

maratte, marattines.

ratte.

vanm, maranom.

} maronu.

rdnnz, gurram.

marod du

Instr.

ma‘m’ttdé, marattindt,

ﬁarattdl.

gurmmuna; gur-

maradim, mara-"

(also «conj

marating

by a tree {

marattandn.

{

rdna.

dindam.

and-ablat.)

Cony.

with a tree

5 maramodu,marattodu,

marattodu.

qurramuto.

—

do

\

marattinodu.

%

gurramunalku, gur-

marakk’ .

Dat

to a tree

marattirku.

rdnaku.

marattinnu. {

} marake, marakke.| maraku.

-Com

to or with a

tree

(:;;%zara‘g,‘_qyf

}

ﬁdrod’du

from a tree

marattiininna.

gurramununds.

(also imstr

A blat.

mamttin, marattinddu.

m(a_mdattam'm.

mam;tinadu (before a

marattindre,

Glen.

of a tree

singular).

gurramu, gurra-

marada, maradd.

marato,

marattina, (before a

marattinude.

m@yokka;

f

mam;’m.

b

plural).

Loc

in a tree

marattinkan, marattil, |

marattil.

gurramandu, gur-

maradol, maraddél. | marotw

marattinil.

{

marat’l.

:

mmunandu.

Voc

O tree!

MATrame.

marame.

gurramd.

mara, mard, ma-

{

mme.

} mard.

O tree )

\ TrecLr e -

\,a,w X s

AIIE .

£

\ Ve

PLURAL.

gurramulu,

gur-

Nom.

trees

.

marangal.

marannal.

" rdlu.

marggq&, Mmaran-

i

Neuter

{

gal. '

} marokulu.

nouns have

marangaler,marangal-

gurrumulanw,

Ace

trees

net.

maragulam.

marokuler’. | no plural in

J

{

|

maraMiaZc. {

- gurrdlanu.

j

this dialect.

Maran-

maro]cu.led’. d

marangaldl,

marannaldl,

gurramulandu.

Instr. by trees

{

galindl (dn).

}

maragalim.

(also con.

marangalddu, marai- |

gurramulato,

ané- ablafc.)

do

2o

Conj. = with trees. {

galinodu.

J

marannaliodu. {

gurrdlato.

|

\

gurramulaku,

9

\

Dat

to trees

.

marangalixku.

maragalge.

marokuleg

.

H

marannalkku. {

gurrdlaku.

j

Com.

to or with trees

N

m

}

arokuleda.

marokuled d

Ablat. from trees

marangalin.

marannalilninnu gurramulonunds.

(also instr.

mamga,la;?azzim.

marangalinadw (be-

Gen

of trees

fore a singular).

marannalude.

maragala.

marokule.

marangalina (before

a plural).

Loc

in a tree

.

maranialil.

maragalol,mara-

marangalinkan.

gurramulendu. {

galol.

} marokuled

Voe

O trees !

.

marannalé.

maragalir,mara-

marangalé.

gurramuldra. {

} marokulé.

———

gaﬁrd.

The noun mdnu, properly mrdnu, a tree, is 80 irregular:in Telugu that I have been obliged to select another word.

216

THE NUMERALS

PAR-T

1

THE NUMERALS

IN the Dravidian languages, each of the cardinal numbers presents

itself to us in a twofold shape

The first and probably the more pri-

mitive form is that of numeral adjectives

the second and more largely

ased is that of numeral substantives, or neuter nouns of number

The

numeral adverbs (twice, thrice, &c.), and also the distributive numerals

(by twos, by threes, &c.), are formed from the numeral adjectives ;

whilst the ordinal numbers (second, third, &c.) are formed from the

abstract numeral nouns,

In the colloquial dialects the neuter nouns of number are often used,

without change, as numeral adjectives—e.g, in Tamil, we may say

srandu pér, two persons, though sru pér, or the still more classical

appellatlve noun rwvar, might have been expected to be used. This

use of the numeral substantive instead of the numeral adjective is not

ungrammatical, but is in accoxdance with the characteristic Drav1dla,n

rule that every noun of quality or relation, though in itself neuter and

abstmct becomes an adjective by being prefixed to a substantive noun

The numeral noun ondru, Tam., okate, Tel., one,

in direct opposition.

is the only numeral which is never used in this manner, even in the

colloquial dialects, except in Canarese ; the adjectival numerals oru,

oka, &c., being invariably prefixed to substantive nouns as numeral

adjectives : the same forms are employed also as indefinite articles. In

"

L’“

Canarese alone the abstract neuters are used freely as numeral adjec-

tives—e.g., ondu her, one hand.

The abstract or neuter nouns of

Jﬁr

o

number are sometimes elegantly postfixed, instead of being prefixed, to

"”}‘ * the substantive nouns which they are intended to qumhfy-——e g., instead

[}

i of ndl erudu, Tam. four oxen, we may say not only ndng’ erudu (using

“4

the noun of number ndngu, instead of the numeral adjective ndlx), but

also erudu ndngu, a phrase which literally means a quaternion of oxen

This phrase affords an illustration of the statement that the Dravidian

nouns of number are properly abstract neuters

The primitive radical forms of the Dravidian numerals will be

ONE

217

found to be those of the numeral adjectives, corresponding to the

oblique case or inflexion of ordinary nouns,

In investigating the

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, or by the lengthening of the root vowel.

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, &c.), 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

briefest, purest, and most ancient shape.

It is the adjectival form of the numerals which is used in forming

appellative nouns of number, such as wrwvar (¢ru-(v)-ar), Tam. two

persons.

The basis of this word is not #randu, the noun of number

two, but the numeral adjective 77w, with the addition of ar, the usual

suffix of the epicene or masculine-feminine plural.

In the colloquial

dialects, adjectival or appellative nouns of number are formed in this

manner from the first three numeral adjectives alone—e.g., oruvan,

Tam. one person (wmasc.), unus,; orutti, one person (fem.), una ;

wruvar, two persons ; mavar, three persons (both epicene) ; but in the

higher or poetical dialects, almost all the numeral adjectives are con-

From these circum-

verted in this manner into appellative nouns.

stances it is evident that the Dravidian numeral adjectives are to be

q

10

regarded as the only essential portion of the roots of the numeral

substantives, and probably as the very roots themselves.

16

One.—Two forms of the numeral substantive one are found in the

ho

1Ly

Dravidian languages, which will appear, I think, to be allied. The

first, oru, is that which is used in all the dialects except the Telugu ;

il

the latter, oka, is used as a numeral in the Telugu alone.

In

1. The basis of the first and most commonly used form of this

Uec

numeral is or, to which » is added for euphonisation ; and this con-

o

stitutes the numeral adjective one, in all the dialects which make use

0

>t,ead

of this base. o7, in colloquial Tamil, becomes 6 in the poetical

dialect ; the essential vowel o being lengthened to 4 to compensate for

By

the rejection of the euphonic addition .

or is also known.

The

| ut

adjectival form used in Tulu is or (orz, one person, ora, once), in Ku,

e

ra ; with which the Behistun numeral adjective ¢rra or ra may be

it

compared.

The Canarese numeral adjective is identical with the

Tamil, though its true character is somewhat concealed,

Instead of

| b

218

THE NUMERALS

oruvan, Tam., unus, the Canarese has obban-u, and instead of oruval

una, obbal-u.,

The ancient Canarese, however, uses also orbam for the

former, and orbal for the latter

the base of which, 6r, is the numeral

root, and is identical with the Tamil or-u or ér

The abstract neuter

noun one, meaning literally, one thing, or unity, is in Canarese and

Coorg ondu ; in grammatical Tamil, onru (pronounced ondrw or ondu,

and in vulgar Tamil, opnu) ; in l‘elugu ondu ; m Malayalam, onn oA

oita

Tulu, onjz; in Gond, undt; in Tuda odd ;

in Uraon, Antd.

or being

the adjectival form of this numeral, it claims by rule to be the repre-

sentative of the crude root, as well as the basis of the abstract or

neuter nouns of number signifying one or unity, which are used in the

various dialects.

It remains to be seen whether the derivation of each

of those nouns of number from or can be clearly made out.

At first sight the Tamil ondru and the Canarese ondu, and especially

the Malayilam onn’, appear to resemble the most common form of the

Indo-European numeral one, which is in Latin wn-us (in an older form,

In the Koibal, a Samoiede

oin-0s) ; in Greek, & ; in Gothic, aun’-s

dialect, there is a similar word for one—viz., unem

and we find in

the Tungusian wm, in the Manchu emu

Even in Sanskrit, though

éka is invariably used for one, a form has been noticed which appears

to be allied to the first numeral of the Western languages—viz., #na-s

less, which is prefixed to some of the higher numerals to express

diminution by one (e.g., @navinshati, nineteen), like the corresponding

1

prefix un in the Latin undevigeni

It would be an interesting cir-

cumstance if the Malayalam onn’ and the Latin un-us were found to

§

be allied ; but the resemblance is, I believe, altogether illusory, and

It is

vanishes on the derivation of onn’ from or being ascertained

reasonable to suppose that the numeral adjective of the Tamil, oru

and its numeral noun onrw, must be closely related

Now, whilst 1t

is impossible, I think, on Dravidian principles to derive oru from onru,

l(tl

it will be shown that the derivation of onru from orw is in perfect

accordance with Dravidian rules ; and if the Malayalam onn’ be simply

an euphonised form of the Tamil onru, as it certainly is, every idea of

the existence of a connection between any of these forms and the Latin

un-us will have to be abandoned

It was shown in the section on ¢ Sounds ” that the Dravidian lan-

guages delight to euphonise certain conspnants by prefixing nasals to

them

If the » of oru is found to have been converted in this manner

into n7, the point under discussion will be settled

What analogy,

then

is there for this conversion ?

muru

Can

three, has through

this very process become in Tamil mdnrw (pronounced mindru, minduw

or munw) ; in Malayalam, munn

Again, kiru, the verbal suffix de-

ONE

219

|

noting present time in Tamil, has become in the poetical dialect kinru,

Ie

pronounced kindru ;

and this, in the Malayalam present tense is found

ol

In these in-

et

to be still further softened into kunnwu, and even unnw.

stances we perceive that very euphonic alteration by which oru has become

i

progressively onru, ondru, ondw, onnu, and onn

and thus the derivation

it

i

of onn’ from oru is found to be strictly in accordance with analogy

It may be objected that the illustrations which have been given

1ng

above exhibit a change of the hard r into ndr, whereas the » of oru

It

o

is the soft medial; and that, therefore, the analogy, though very

remarkable, is not complete

I answer that, though the » of our

tho

present Tamil oru is certainly the medial semi-vowel, not the hard r,

jch

yeb originally the hard r must have been the very r employed

This

appears "from the Tamil adjective, odd, single

That adjective is

lly

orrei (pronounced otéres) ; and it is derived from the numeral adjec-

e

tive, one

It has been derived, however, by the usual process of

i

doubling the final consonant, not from or-u, but from or—evidently a

e

more ancient form of the word, in which the 7 was the hard rough r—

1

that very r which is usually euphonised into ndr.

It is not an un-

i

common thing for r and 7 to be thus interchanged—-¢,g., there are two

|8

words for black, Zarw and karw

They differ slightly in some of their

)

meanings, but there can be no doubt that they are identical in origin

9

It appears, therefore, that the origin which I have ascribed to onru

is in complete accordance with analogy. Moreovér, if the n of ondru,

;5

ondu, or onn’, were part of the root of this numeral, the du which is

f0

suffixed to it could only be a neuter formative ; ‘and in that event on

nd

should be found'to be used as the numeral adjective

on, however, is

B

nowhere so used

and therefore both the use of or-u, instead of on, as

il

the numeral adjective, and the existence of the derivative or(r)et

bl

(ottr-er), single, seem to me to" prove that the root of this numeral must

1y

have been or, not on.

fo

It may be said that the instances I adduced of the euphonisation of

1 ‘1)

r into ndr are capable of two explanations

I shall, therefore, adduce

some examples to which this objection cannot be made

2 0

Can. karu, a

i

calf, becomes in Tamil kanrw, pronounced kandru

This is vulearised

in colloquial Tamil to kannu, and in Malayilam becomes kann

Yet

it is certain that the root was kar and that there was no nasal in it

Jon

I f0

originally, because the Tamil adjectival form, which is always the

i

oldest, rejects the nasal and goes back to the original r, which it

doubles by rule

Thus kandru becomes adjectivally kattr-u—e.g.,

\O(’\

el

kattr-d, a cow which has a calf.

Compare this with dzfed, annual

from dndw (ydndei, when), a year, from which it is clear that dndu was

I i

e

originally d-du

(See ““ Euphonic Nunation.”)

Tamil itself also fur-

THE NUMERALS.

220

nishes us with instances of the euphonic change of r into ndr, with

respect to which it cannot be doubted which was the original form,

and which the derived. Compare Zkuru-gu, to become small, and

kundru, the same, also a small hill.

It is evident that kuru was the

older form, from the circumstance that it is from it that all the verbal

nouns are derived—e.g., kures, deficiency ; kurram (kuttram), a fault ;

Furil, a short letter, kure, a mark,

I do not think it can be proved

that ndr, from n or m, ever changes in Tamil into r.

ondru, one,

may therefore be derived from oy-u, but orw cannot, I think, be derived

from ondru.

Dr Gundert considers ondru an euphonised form of on,

with the addition of du, the neuter formative, and that on and or are

equivalents, being both verbal nouns from o, to be one.

It is quite

true that such a verb as o exists, that n or an, alternating with am, is

used as a formative by many nouns, and that » sometimes changes

into or alternates with » or r—eg., Mal. wlan =ular, being, birth ;

also Tam. pin, after, another shape of which is pir, in piragu, after.

I think it also quite possible that the reason why oru was nasalised

into ondru, and miiru, three, into mandru, was that du, the formative

neuter particle, had been affixed to them, in consequence of which or-du

became ondru, and murudu, mindru, just as we see that ¢r, two, by

the addition of the neuter formative du, became ¢radw and then wrandu.

On the other hand, whilst I admit that each step of this process would

be a natural and easy one, it appears to me that a comparison of the

various forms of the numeral one, found in different connections in the

different dialects, and of the uses to which they are put, show that the

view I have taken is in better accordance with the process that has

actually taken place.

ondru is used as a verb also in Tamil, meaning to unite, neuter,

the transitive form of which is orru (ottru).

ondri is an adjectival

form meaning single.

After the above was written I found the same view of the origin of

ondu stated in a paper by Mr Kittle in the Jndian Antiquary for

January 1873.

Mr Kittel says, “ When the affix du is joined to a

short monosyllabic root with final », the root in this case being or, this

liquid is sometimes changed into the bindw (m or n); n or du thus

becomes on-du, or in Tamil on-dru, in the manner I have stated.”

Though o7, in its primitive, unnasalised shape, is not now found in

the cultivated Dravidian dialects as the first abstract neuter noun of

number for one or unity ; yet it appears in one of the ruder dialects of

the family—viz.,, in the RajmahAl ; in which the numeral noun one

is ort, which is evidently formed directly from ar or or, If it is true,

as has been asserted, that the Rajmahal o7t is appropriated to human

Whasn or<

ONE

221

beings, it must be identical with the Tamil orutt-an, one man, oruti-,

h

one woman ; the ¢¢ of which is a formative, and is derived from the

I

pronoun of the third person ; ondong (answering to the Dravidian

i

neuter noun ondru) is said to be another Rajmahal word for one.

he

Compare also the Brahui asit, one, of which as, the crude root, seems

il

to bear as close an analogy to or-u as mus, the crude root of musit, the

Brahui for three, undoubtedly does to the Canarese mair-u.

If in the

latter case the s and » are mutually convertible, it cannot be consi-

I

dered improbable that asit and art, and consequently as and or, bear a

dl

similar relation one to the other,

I

2. Telugu makes use of two numerals signifying one.

One of

e

these, ondu, is identical with the ondru, ondu, onw’, &c., of the other

lte

dialects.

From ondu is formed also an adjectival numeral, onts, iden-

v O

tical with the Tamil ondr: (vulgarly onde), single.

Compare Tel.

e

ontrgddu, a single man, with the corresponding Tam. ondrikkdran. The

b

other numeral, which is much more largely used in Telugu, is okatz

£l

(oka-ti). The basis of this numeral seems at first sight to be essentially

)ttl

different from that which is used in the other Dravidian dialects,

\(

There would be nothing extraordinary in the discovery in any language

/lu

or family of languages of two roots for one.

This would naturally

Iy

arise from the very concrete character of this numeral, and the variety

U

of uses to which it is put.

Even in Sanskrit we find both 8%k and

prathama:

Two is also represented in Latin by duo, ambo, and the

16

participial secundus. The Telugu neuter noun of number for one,

he

okatr, means literally one thing, of which the adjectival form is oka,

e

sometimes okka.

okati is formed from oka by the addition of the

has

neuter and inflexional formative, ¢2, and by annexing the usual mas-

culine and feminine suffixes, the Telugus form okandw or okadu, one

1

man, and okate, oné woman.

oka being found to be the crude root of

this numeral, we have now to inquire into its affinities.

vl

Is the Telugu

oka derived, as has sometimes been supposed, from the Sanskrit éka,

one? It seems not improbable that the Telugu word has some ulterior

connection with the Sanskrit one, to which it bears so great a resem-

J ¥

e

blance ; but it is impossible to suppose it to have been directly derived

, fI

from the Sanskrit, like the Bengali ¢k, or even the Persian yaf ; for

Cr

the Telugu has borrowed, and occasionally uses, the Sanskrit numeral

!, fos

!

éka, in addition to its own oka ; and it never confounds oke with éka,

;nd ill

which Telugu grammarians regard as altogether independent one of

another. It will be seen also that the root of oka is probably Dra-

i i

ectS Oi

vidian, and that words closely analogous to it are used in the Finnish

languages, by which they cannot be supposed to have been borrowed

p 0

from the Sanskrit. Thus the nurieral one is in Votiak og, odyg ; in'

gt

humﬂll

2

THE NUMERALS

Samoiede, okur, ockur, ookur

in Vogul, ak, aku

in Magyar, egy,

Lappish, akt

in Finnish, yA¢ and also yae (yk-st) ; in Tcheremiss, &

vktd

In the sub-Himalayan languages, we find ako in Miri, akhet in

Naga, and katka in Kuki

In the Scythian of the Behistun tablets, in

which we find the oldest extant specimen of the Scythian languages

the numeral for one is k¢r, and the numeral adjective derived from it

wra or ra

These analogies to the Telugu oka, combined with an-

alogies to the ordinary Dravidian or, show that oka has not necessarily,

or even probably, been derived from the Sanskrit éka ; and if the two

roots oka and éka are allied, as they appear to be, it must be in conse-

quence of the relation of the Sanskrit, the Drav1d1an and the Scythian

fam111es to an earher form of speech

1% deserves notice that ra, the

Behlstun numeral adjectlve is 1dentlca1 with 7a, the numeral adjective of

the Ku, a Drcwldlan dialect.

In the Turkish, one is represented by

bzr, which’ seems ‘to be allied rather to the Persian bdr in bdri, once

The

(and ulterlorly to the Sanskrit vdr, tlme), than to the Tamil or.

(Caucasian numerals for one exhibit a closer resemblance to the Dra-

vidian—viz., Lazian ar, Mingrelian arts, Georgian erths,; and it may

be noticed that as in the Dravidian or, one, 7, two, so in those Cau-

casian dialects, » forms an essential part of both those numerals

Are the Tamil or and the Telugu oka related ?

I think there can

be little doubt of their relatlonshlp, though there are several links in

There is a

the chain which cannot be made out to my satisfaction.

verbal root in Tamil, o, which has been supposed to mean, to be one.

on an8 or (ondrw and orw) are supposed by Dr Gundert to be verbal

nouns from this o

An undoubted derivative of o in Tamil and Malay-

4lam is okka, which in MalayAlam and the Tamil of the extreme south

means altogether, all (compare Mordwm wok, all) ; and this is supposed

by Dr Gundert to be identical Wlth the Telugu oka, one.

Every step

It

in this process, with one excéeption, is encumbered with difficulties.

.4 1s not clear to me that o, the Tamil verbal root, ever means to be one

o

o

s /zits ordinary meaning is to be like or suitable—e.g., okkum, it will be

o7

like

It is also not clear to me that on and or are derived from the

verbal root o

On the contrary, the verbal root o may have been

softened from the noun or

The word used for one must surely in

every language have been a noun from the very first, not a derivative

from a verbal root of wider meaning

okka, the infinitive, means not

one, but altogether.

A

My chief difficulty, however, is that the kka of

"%

okka is the formative of the Tamil infinitive, the root being o, not ok

i

so that it is very difficult to see how this Tamil infinitive got turned 2

into an adjectival noun in Telugu without losing or changing its

@7L

formative.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, we can scarcely avoid

TWO

223

10

concluding that the Tamil okka and the Telugu oke must somehow be

it

allied. If we suppose okka to have been taken to mean all in one, which

Al

no doubt is a meaning it sometimes has, we may see how the Telugu

It would then con-

Bl

may havé selected its root for use as a numeral.

i3

:)

vert the verbal root o into a noun by the addition of ke, an ordinary

J

b

adjectival formative.

o-ka, the Telugu adjectival noun, would then

all

resemble o-kka, the Tamil infinitive, in sound, though it would be differ-

1y,

ently derived.

It is especially noticeable that Telugu had already at its

tmo

disposal the ordinary numeral ondu ; it is probable, therefore, that ok

I

was used at first with a slightly different meaning. The root o seems

1

gometimes to be used instead of ondw or or# in Canarese, in such a

manner as seems at first sight to confirm the supposition that o meant

0!

thi

originally to be one—e.g., okkannanu, a one-eyed man.

On the other

by

hand, when we compare this with Can. obbanu, one person, which is

clearly a softened form of orbanw (Tam. oruvan), it appears that we

ncé

The

have here to deal merely with thé ordinary numeral or-2.

It is notice-

)i

able here, too, that this o doublés the following consonant, from which

it appears that it was originally followed by a consonant, evidently 7.

18]

il

' Dravidian Indefinite Article.—The Dravidian numeral adjectives oru

and oka atre used, like similar numerals in most Ianguhges‘,ﬁr as a sort of

indefinite article.

The Turkish uses bir, one, in a similat manner;

an

1n

and a corresponding usage prevails in the modern Europesan languages,

as well as in the colloquial dialects of Northern India.

The only thing

which may be considered as distinctive or peculiar in the use of the

\

Tl

Dravidian numeral adjective one, as an indefinite article, is the cir-

cumstance that it is not used in the loose general way in which in

\

)

English we speak of a man, or a tree, but only in those cases in which

oufl

10 ed

the singularity of the object requires to be emphasised, when it takes

the meaning of a certain man, a particular kind of tree, or a single tree.

D

i

Europeans in speaking the native languages make in general too large

Yi)i)

and indiscriminate a use of this prefixed numeral, forgetting that the

Dravidian neuter noun, without prefix or addition, becomes singular or

il

plural, definite or indefinite, according as the connection requires.

)m the

Two.—The abstract or neuter noun of number signifying two or

) Oten

duality is in Canarese erddu, in Tamil drandu, in Telugu rendu, in

rlf B

Tulw radd’, in Malaydlam’ rend-u, in old Malayalam, as in Tamil

allt

wrandu, commonly pronounced repdu, in’ Coorg dandu, in Gond rend

s I

or rany, in Seoni Gond rund, in Tuda edd. The Singhalese word for

i

R

i

double is wrunptata. The change of the ¢randu of the Tamil and the

0609 40

eradu of the Canarese into rendu in Telugu is analogous to the change

fune

of the Tam. ¢rd, night, into Tel. ré.

g I

In all the Dravidian dialects the

105

il

corresponding numeral adjective is ¢, with such minor modifications

-

Y 3\’0‘.

19}

‘/

Py

S

¥

g

[4

-

N

24

THE NUMERALS.

as euphony dictates. This numeral adjective is in Tamil iruy in the

higher dialect 7, the increase in the quantity of the radical ¢ compen-

sating perhaps for the rejection of the final euphonic %, #r is also found.

[

9

/

The » which constitutes the radical consonant of 2 is the soft medial

\

semi-vowel, and it evinces, in consequence of its softness, a tendency to

coalesce with the succeeding consonant, especially in Canarese and

Telugu. Thus, for ¢ruvar, Tam. two persons (Tualu, ¢rvar), the modern

Canarese uses tbbar-u (ancient dialect, vrvar), and the Telugu vddar-u.

Instead, also, of the correct irunuru, two hundred, of the Tamil, both

the Telugu and the Canarese have inndiru ; and the Canarese word for

twenty is eppattu, instead of erupatiu, which would be in correspon-

dence with the Tamil ¢rubadu and the Telugu ruved.

In the Canarese neuter noun of number eradu, two, e is used instead

of ¢ as the initial vowel; but in this point the Canarese stands alone,

and in all the compound numerals, even in the Canarese, the ¢ reap-

pears.

Were it not for the existence of the numeral adjective vr-u or

wr, we might naturally suppose the ¢ of the Tamil ¢randuv and of the

obsolete Canarese vradw to be, not a component element of the root,

but an euphonic prefix, intended to facilitate pronunciation. t is very

A =

w3t

commonly so prefixed in Tamil—e.g., the Sanskrit rdjd becomes in

W or N

14—1/“

Tamil zrdéd.

This supposition with respect to the euphonic character

of the ¢ of srandu might appear to be confirmed by the circumstance

that it disappears altogether from the numeral nouns of the Telugu, the

Malayalam, and several other dialects.

The existence, however, of the

numeral adjective 4ru or 4r, in every one of the Dravidian dialects, and

its use in all the compound numbers (such as twenty and two hundred),

suffice to prove that the 4 of the Tamil-Canarese numeral noun ¢radu is

not merely euphonic, but is a part of the root itself, and that wradu, the

neuter noun of number, has been formed from ¢r by the addition of a

formative suffix.

A comparison of the various forms shows clearly that

¢r, euphonised into iru, was the primitive form of the numeral adjec-

tive two ; and we have now only to inquire into the characteristics of

the numeral noun.

The Canarese eradu (or rather iradw, as it must have been origin-

ally) appears to be the earliest extant form of the noun of number.

The Tamil is drandw, d having been euphonically changed to 72d.

Though there is a nasal in the Tamil word which is now in use, the

Tamil noun-adjective double bears witness to the existence of an earlier

form, which was destitute of the nasal, and which must have been

identical with the Canarese.

The Tamil word ¢raft-u, double, is formed

directly from srad-w, by the doubling of the ¢, as is usually done when

a noun is converted into an adjective

?

and the euphonic change of dd

o

/ V)75,

TWO

R25

into ¢# is aécb‘i“dfng to rule. du or du is a very common termination of

neuter nouns, especially of appellative neuters, in all the Dravidian

f,

languages. Thus, from the root kira, Tam. old, is formed kiradu, that

which is old. The 2 which is inserted before ¢ in the Tamil wrandu is

|

evidently euphonic, and is in perfect accordance with the ordinary

phonetic usages of the Dravidian languages.

In Telugu every word

ending in du receives in pronunciation an obscure nasal, whether it

has a place in the written language or not; and there are many

instances in Tamil also of the insertion of this nasal before a final du

i

for the sake of euphonisation, when it is quite certain that there was

no such nasal originally in the word in which it is found—e.g., dndu,

there, 2pdu, here, and ydndu, where, are euphonised forms of ddu,

du, and yddu. Compare also karandi, a spoon, Tam., with the more )/« 68

primitive Telugu garite.

The Tamil noun of number signifying two

must, therefore, have been iradu originally.

In the Gond ranu, the d

of srandu has disappeared altogether, a change which is in accordance

I}

(&

¢

with the MalayAlam corruption of onduw, one, into onn’. The [AIréign e

;6

word for two, enotan, is probably Dravidian. In ﬁréon, otan (from the a< .

[

Hindi gotan) is a suffix of each of the first three numerals ; conse-

quently en is to be regarded as the Urdon root ; and this seems to be

I

analogous to the Dravidian er.

I

I have little doubt that the root of the Dravidian word is native, not

foreign, though it is difficult now to identify it with certainty. I can

scarcely agree with Dr Gundert in connecting it with the root of wrul,

darkness, ird, night, a root which also, he thinks, appears in %r, to saw.

If we consider the latter verb, with its derivatives, apart from its sup-

),

posed connection with 4rul, darkness, it may be found to supply us

I

with the true root.

¢r means not merely to saw, but still more fre-

ho

quently to pull asunder, to split;; and from division into two by the act

14

of pulling asunder, ¢, 4, the word for two, may have been derived.

b

The radical form of #r, two, was doubtless short, r; but the earliest

i

shape of #r, to pull asunder, may also have been short, as monosylla-

3 i

bles ending in consonants seem generally to have been. There is

another root common to all the Dravidian languages, @r, to be ; but

joll

this seems to be quite independent both of 4, dark, and o, two.

1067

I find that Mr Kettel, also, in the ®Indian Antiquary ®for January

o

o

r

1873, derives the Dravidian word for two from @r, to split, especially

nil

to split off a branch; whilst or, one, he considers to mean a unit

/)

)

et

without a branch. It seems to me, as I have already mentioned, pro-

heed

bable that the word for one was originally a noun, and that the verbal

meaning to coalesce, to resemble, was a secondary development. The

)1!)19d

“heu

case, however, does not seem to me quite so clear with respect to the

P

0} il

2

26

THE NUMERALS.

origin’of the'word for:two. On the whole, the concrete seems to me

likely to have been older than the abstract ; ‘that is, the noun or adjec-

tive two' would, I think, naturally come into use .earl:ie‘r than the verb

to separate into two, to split..

-uropean lan-

There ate no analogies to ¢, two, in any of the Indo-E

guages, and I am doubtful whether any real analogies to it are dis-

coverable even-in the Scythiangroup, except perhaps in the Caucasian.

The Brahui vindicates its claim to be regarded as in part Dravidian,

or at least “as the inheritor of an ancient Dravidian element, by the

close affinity of its second and third numerals to those of the Dravidian

tongues.

In Brahui, two is ¢rat,; and when this word is compared

with the Brahui asit, one, and musit, three, it is evident that in each

of these'instances the final 7 or at is a formative suffix which has been

Consequently », the root of #r-at, is absolutely

appended to the root.

identical with the Dravidian 7.

Even the Brahui formative evinces

il

Dravidian affinities—e.g., compare 4rat with the Canarese noun of

W

number eradu, and especially with the Tamil derivative tratt-u,

double.

The nearest analogies to the Dravidian ¢» which I have noticed in

other families of tongues are in the Caucasian dialects—e.g., in the

Georgian ori, in the Suanian (a dialect of the Greorgian) erw or eru ;

in the Lazian zur ; and in the -Mingrelian . shéri: compare also the

Armenian ergov; the Chinese arh-or dr. In.the Samoiede family of

tongues, several words are found which bear at first sight some resem-

blance to the Dravidian 4.~ These are sit, side, and especially sire or

siri. It seems improbable, however, that the Dravidian ur arose from

the softening off of the initial s of these words; for in the Finnish

family this same s appears as k£, whence two is in some dialects of that

family %it; in Magyar ket, ketto; and in Lappish quekt. It has also

been shown that an initial % is a radical element in the majority of the

Scythian words for two; and hence, though the Mongolian kur-in

(for kugar-in), twenty, becomes in Manchu or-in, in Turkish igir-na,

we cannot venture to compare this Manchu or with the Dravidian

or ery for it is certain that the latter was never preceded by %, or

any other consonant, so far back as the Dravidian:‘languages can be

traced.

¥

Three.—The neuter noun of number signifying three or a triad is

in Canarese mflru,; in Telugu mdduy in Tamil mdnru (pronounced

madndru, midndu, and mdnw) ; in Coorg mindu ; in Malayalam malnn’;

in Tulu mdji (f in Tulu regularly represents r; com. dji, SiX, with

%« aru in the other dialects); in Génd it is mdad, in:Tuda mad, in

5

Urfon 972%)2-oiaf7a. . | jﬁ wab ok ff,}ﬂ ;L_:.?“i&f n

4

W

J

=

THREE.

7

" The numeral adjective three, whi

ch is employed in three persons,

thirty, three hundred, and similar

compounds, is either m or may.

The long ma is found in the Tamil,

Tulu, and Canarese epicene nouns

midvar, mdvar-u, three persons, and

in the Can

arese mavattu, thirty.

The shorter form, mu, is used in three hundre

d, which in every one

of the Dravidian dialects is munndry (Tulu m

unnddu) ; and we see

it also in the Tamil muppattu,

the Telugu mugguru,

and the Telugu muppher, thirty, and in

three persons.

The primitive and most char-

acteristic form of the neuter noun of 1

1umber is evidently that of the

Canarese midr-w, from which it seem

s clear to me that the Tamil

mdnr-u (mundr-u) has been derived,

as that by which oz,

by the same nasalising process

0ne, .was converted into onpu,

I do not think

1t probable, with Dr Gundert, that mure was

altered from mundru,

|

It was shown in the section on ¢

Sounds,” that the Tamil » is often

mun

igd v

f

A st

changed into d in Telugu :

hence mads-q

and madd-u are identical ;

and it is more probable that maig-

Mj

M

)

that madr-u was

w has been alte

red from mr-u, than

altered from mid-u,

§ and 7 evince in many

languages a tendency to interchange, gen

s into #,; consequentl

erally by the hardening of

¥ the Brahui mus (ma

LS-

@), three, is closely allied

to the Canarese iy,

‘and still more closely tc

» the Tulu magys,

The vowel of. midr-w was, I h

is doubtful whether the 7 of mair

=

ave -no doubt, originally short, but it

© should be congidered as

a formative

Or a8 a part of the ancient root,

On the whole, it seems probable

N

that the » is radical. The final o

nsonants of dru, Tam., six, and of

N

éru, seven, belong un

questionably to the roots of

Moreover,

those numerals,

d

when we compare mun-niru,

three hundred (the same in

all the dialects), with tn-nipu,

100

two hundred, in Telugu

and Canarese,

ls0

and when it is remembered th

at the latter has cert

from ir-ndru (in Tamil gy

ainly been softened

the

niru)

, 1t seems to be probable that mausn-

ndruw has been formed in a s

Al

milar manner from mur-niru,

and

consequently that nur,

not mu, was the ori

il

The same conclusion i

ginal oot of this numeral,

L If

S indicated by

iddaru, two. persons, an

a comparison of the Telugu

l», o

d mugguru, thre

e persons,

therefore, that mu ori

It seems probable,

b

softening off of this

ginally was followed by

a consonant ; and the

consonant w

sional lengthening of mu into m,

ould naturally account for the occa-

8

I have not been able to discover

mced

any analogy to this numers] either

in the Scythian or in the Indo

-European tongues.

s

Indian resemblance to it is thg

The only extra-

i

this circumstance is a striking

t which is found in the Brahui ;

and

al

illustration of the ex

4

istence in the

Brahui of 3 Dravidian element,

The tot

al absenc;e of analogy to the

Dravidian mupr in other families ot

anguages ‘leads me to concluge

228

THE NUMERALS.

cctly from some Dravidian verbal

that it must have been derived dir

The Latin secundus is undoubtedly derived from sequor; and

root.

Bopp connects the Indo-Furopean {ri, three, with the Sanskrit root

to go beyond, signifying that which goes beyond

tr’, to pass over,

two.

If this derivation of ¢+ be not regarded as too fanciful, a some-

what similar derivation of mur from a Dravidian verbal root may

easily be discovered. There are two verbal roots which present some

miru, to go beyond, to pass, and mdru,

points of resemblance—viz.,

The nearest root, however, is mura (murugu, Tam.), to

to change.

turn, from which comes the verbal noun mures, a turn, a succession,

repetition.

Dr Gundert derives madndru from mu, the radical portion of mun,

before.

The root mw appears in various compounds with the meaning

of before, ancient ; as also m, a lengthened form of the same root.

Both mu and m# mean before, and both mu and md mean three.

The identity of the two words seems therefore very probable. Tt is

not clear to me, however, how a word meaning before, came to be

used for the numeral three.

This word is used in its proper sense

as the basis of the Dravidian ordinal number first, which is mu-dal in

Tam., mo-dalw in Tel., mo-dal in Can. ; and it is difficult to suppose

that the same root should be used also in an improper sense to denote

another numeral.

Mr Kittel derives méndru from mu, but interprets

T

m

Y V

muw as meaning to advance, grow, a further advance.

This is ingenious,

but I cannot find any authority for this meanin

g. mudu means not

A secondary

growth, as, he represents, but priority, age, ripeness.

He considers mdru, Can., a

\

SO

word, muttru, means completeness.

frequently

secondary form of the root smuw or mi; ru, he says, being

On the contrary, a final T, which is

{ D

used to produce such forms.

v

¢

aff)‘?

X

not radical, seems to me very rare, if not unknown.

The neuter formative du seems to be conta

ined in various shapes in

the first three numbers, ondru, wandw, mind

ru, and also, as will be

e addition of

seen, in eindu, five. du is equivalent to du, and with th

the nasal becomes ndu.

ondrw points to an older or-du; wrandu to

ir(a)-du; and midndru to mirdu, or, as the scholars whose opinions

are mentioned above think, to mai-du.

Four.—The Dravidian noun of number signifying four, or a quater-

nion, is in Canarese ndlku, in Coorg ndlu, in Telugu ndlugu; M

Talu 74P ; in Tamil ndn-gu,; in Tuda ndnku; in Gond ndlw; 1n

Uréon ndkhotan.(aby. nadh )

The adjectival or crude form of this numeral is ndl or nal. In

Tamil it is #dl-, in some Telugu compounds nal, and this adjectival

In

form is often used as a noun of number, instead of ndlku, &c.

F s

p—

FOUR.

229

composition ndl undergoes some changes. The quantity of the included

vowel, which is long in all the rest of the dialects, is short in Telugu

compound numbers—e.g., compare the Tamil ndrpadu, the Canarese

n@lvattu, and the Malayilam ndlpadu, forty, with the Telugu ndlubher,

and the Tamil ndn-ndrw and the Canarese ndl-ndrw, four hundred,

with the Telugu ndn-ndru.

The final 7 also is subject to change.

In Tamil it is changed into r

before p, as in ndrpuda, forty ; and before » it is assimilated and

becomes %, in both Tamil and Telugu—e.g., ndnndry (in the one), and

nanndrw (in the other), four hundred; in Coorg, nd. These changes

of /, however, are purely euphonic.

It is evident from a comparison

of the above forms, that nd/ (or, as the Telugu seems to prefer it, nd/)

was the primitive shape of this numeral ; to which Z» or gu was sub-

sequently added as a formative, in order to constitute it a neuter noun

of number.

This formative ku (pronounced gu) is a very common one

in the Dravidian languages—e.g., kadu-gu, Tam. mustard, from kadu,

pungent.

The only numeral to which Zu or gu is appended is ndl-

The g which appears in Telugu in the rational plurals, such as dru-

guru, six persons, is not to be confounded with this formative gw. In

such connections the Tamil uses » euphonic instead of ¢ (eg.,

a¥u-(v)-ar), which proves that ¢ does not add to the grammatical

expression, but is merely euphoniec,

Even in Telugu druvur-uw may be

Vv

used instead of drugur-u.

The change of , in Tamil, into n, before the % of this appended

formative, ku, is an euphonic peculiarity which requires to be noticed.

In modern Tamil, { in this conjunction would be changed into r; but

the change of [ into », before £ or ¢, which we find in the Tamil noun

of number ndn-gu, is one which, though now obsolete, appears to

,5;@‘33

have been usual at an earlier period of the history of the language-—

e.g., compare Pang-guns, the Tamil name of the month March—April,

)

with the Sanskrit name of that month, Phalguna, from which it is

known to have been derived.

if

This change of [ into 2, in ndn-gu»

f0

must have been made at a very early period, seeing that we find it

>

also in the Tuda nank.

nangw in Tam. (from nal) means goodness, beauty ; nasig, in Mal.

beauty.

In Can. nal is good ; naly, pleasure, as a verb, to love.

This

(i

is the meaning of na/ in Tam., doubtless another form of nal—e.yg.,

nanbu, love; Tel. naluvu, beauty.

Ui

One of the meanings of nal in

poetical Tamil is liberal, plentiful, abundant.

Comparing this with the

use of ndl, four, for many, general, &c., we may perhaps assume that

we have here the origin of the name of this numeral.

il

Mr Kittel says

that ““the idea of evenness seems to have guided the Dravidians in"the

In

<30

THE NUMERALS

formation of this word.”

I cannot find ‘even,” however, amongst the

meanings of nal in any of the dialects

If this meaning existed, it

would suit very well the purpose for which it is used

In the entire family of the Indo-European languages there is not

one langnage which contains a numeral signifying four, which in the

smallest degree resembles the Dravidian ndl

Here the Brahui also

fails us

for it is only in the first three Brahui numerals that we find

traces of Dravidian influences, and the rest of the numerals of that

language, from jfour to ten inclusive, are derived from the Sanskrit

Though other analogies fail us, in this instance Ugrian affinities are

more than usually distinct

The resemblance between the Finnish

tongues and the Dravidian, with respect to the numeral four, amounts

almost to identity, and can scarcely have been accidental

Compare

with the Dravidian nal, the Tcheremiss 74, the Mordvin. nile nilen ,

the Vogul nile,

the Ostiak nel, nil, njedla, nieda, njeda ; the Finnish

proper neljd,; the Lappish nzely, nelje, nelld; the Magyar négy (pro-

nounced netdj.). The root ofall these numerals is evidently nsl or nel,

the analogy of which to the Dravidian-nd/ or nal is very remarkable

The Magyar negy has lost the original /, through the tendency, inhe-

The

rent in the Finnish idioms, to regard / and d as interchangeable

Ostiak njedia or nedla,in which d and I form but one letter, a cere-

bral, constitutes the middle point of agreement

Fwe.—The Dravidian numeral noun five is in Canarese eid-uw or

ayd-u ,

in Telugu eid-u

in Tamil ordinarily eznd-u, occasionally, espe-

cml]y in the colloquial dialect, aiij-u

in Coorg ami; in Malayilam

cquﬁ)‘ in Tulu e2’ ; in Tuda <itsh or .

The Gond has seighan or

seryan, a word which is derived like sdrdn, six, from the use of s as an

euphomc prefix ; esyan is to be regarded as the correct form ofthe Génd

numeral.

The Uxaon

and other rude dialects of the North Dravidian

family, exhibit no analogy to any of the Dravidian numerals above

four

In Telugu compounds, the word for five is not eid-u, but én-u—

e.g., padihén-u, fifteen

In this case the medial % is purely euphonic

and used for the prevention of hiatus, as in the parallel instances of

pada(h)dru, sixteen, and padi(h)édu, seventeen.

The Telugu possesses,

therefore, two forms of five, eid-w and én-u.; zmd the Tamil ewndu

shows how eiduw may have been converted into énu, viz., by the

insertion of an euphomc nasal and the subsequent assnmla,tlon to it

of the dental.

The numeral adjective five is in most of the Dravidian dialects e,

in Telugu and Tuda ¢

In Tamil, and also occasionally in Canarese

e 13 in combination converted into ein or eim (in Coorg em) by the

addition of an euphonic nasal

Thus fifty (five tens) is in Canarese

(&4

FlVE;

23

v

b

ewatt-u, in Tamil esmbad-u (evm-pad-w), in Telugu -ébhei (é-bher), in

Tulu ewa.

Five hundred is in Canarese em-ndr-u, in Tamil eis-

ndru, in Telugn é-ndr-w, in Tulu emddu.

We see the numeral

adjective five, and the noun of number five, in juxtaposition in‘the

Tamil ei-(y)-eind-u, five times five.

ev remains. also in its pure, un-

nasalised form in the Tamil etvar (ei-(v)-ar), five persons. The nasal

% or m, which follows e in the compounds eimbad-u, fifty, and

eviigdr-u, five hundred, is not, I believe, to be confounded with the

n of the Tamil eind-u, or the Telugu én-u, but proceeds from a different

source.

It is an adjectival increment ; and is added by rule, not only

to this numeral adjective ez, five, but to many similar words which

consist of a single syllable, of which the final is a long open vowel,

when such words are used adjectivally. Thus we find in Tamil not

only such compounds as eintinei (ei-n-tipes), the five conditions, and

exmpulan (ei-m-pulan), the five senses; but also keinnods (kei-n-mods),

a snap of the finger, and keimpen (kei-m-per), a widow. This adjec-

tival euphonic addition is an abbreviation of am or an, and is pro-

bably identical with the inflexional increment.

See the section on

“ Nouns: Inflexion.”

What appears to me to prove that eim is not

the root of ezndu, but only an euphonic form of ez, is the circumstance

that it is found only before words beginning with hard consonants

and nasals.

Before vowels and semi-vowels it is invariably es.

It

may be doubted whether the Tamil-Canarese ¢ or the Telugu & is

the better representative of the original numeral; but the evidence

of the various dialects preponderates in favour of es.

A remarkable resemblance must have been noticed between the

Sanskrit panchan, five (in Tamil panja) and the Tamil and Malayilam

aiigu,

It has already been mentioned that ez or eindu is the ordinary

form of this word in Tamil,

The shape in which the word is perhaps

most commonly used in the colloquial dialect is a#iju, and this form

of the word is occasionally, but rarely, used in the classics.. So rare

is its use in correct Tamil, that it is not given at all in the ¢ Nanntl,”

the classical Tamil grammar, or in any of the classical Tamil diction-

aries. It is found, however, in the “Kurai,” which is a clear proof

of its right to a place in the language. The ordinary use of asiju or

afichw in Malayilam and colloquial Tamil, and its occasional use in

poetical Tamil, have naturally led some to supposé that amju, not

eindu, eidu, ei, was the original form of this numeral, and that it was

an

derived from the Sanskrit panchan by the easy process of the soften-

iwwh

ing away of the first consonant.

Instead, however, of this supposition

being confirmed by a comparison of the various Dravidian idioms, and

of the varions forms under which this numeral appears, as would be

232

THE NUMERALS

the case if the analogy were real, it appears to me to be dissipated by

comparison, like the apparent analogy which has already been observed

between the Malayalam onn’, one, and the English one.

The primitive radical form of the Dravidian numeral five is, as

we have seen, e: or &, as appears from its use as a numeral a.dJGCth“

The abstract or neuter noun of number is generally formed from the

numeral adjective by the addition of some formative

The formative

suffix which is added to #r-u, two, is du; and by the addition of d-u,

a still more common shape of the formative, e becomes ei-du, five, or

five things;

which is in itself a neuter noun, though, like all such

nouns, it is capable of being used without change as an adjective.

This suffix d-» is an exceedingly common formatwe of neuter appel—

lative nouns in the Dravidian languages, paltlcularly in the Tamil;

———— —

and is doubtless borrowed from, or allied to, the final d-u of the ad-v, it,

ezd-u the numeral

the neuter singular of the demonstrative pronoun.

noun of both the Canarese and the Telugu, is evidently the original

and most regular form of this word.

etd-u could not, I believe, have

been corrupted from anj-u, or even from ewnd-u, but the corruptlon of

eind-w and afij-w from an original eid-u will be shown to be in perfect

accordance with usage.

The first change was from eid-w to eind-u, by the insertion of an

euphonic nasal, as in the former instances of ¢rad-u, two, changed

into wrand-uw

This euphonic insertion of 7 after certain vowels is

so common in Tamil, that it may almost be regarded as a rule of

the language ; and hence preterite participles which end in Canarese

in ed-u, always end in Tamil in n-du—e.g., compare aled-u, Can

having wandered, with aleind-u, Tam

When eidu had been changed

into esnd-u, Tamil usages of pronunciation facilitated a further optional

change into eimj-u, or anj-u

It is a rule of colloquial Tamil that

when #nd is preceded by ez o i, it is changed in pronunciation into

7

This change is systematically and uniformly practised in the

colloquial dialect, and it has found its way into the classical and

poetical dialect also

Moreover, in changing eind into einj, there is a further change of

the vowel from ¢z to a, in consequence of which einj becomes am

This change almost always takes place in Malayalam, and also in the

|

pronunciation of the mass of the people in Tamil

Thus, pareindu,

Tam. having spoken, becomes in Malayilam paradifiv,; and in this

instance we see illustrated the change both of e into «, and of nd

into 7%

consequently the perfect regularity of the change of eind-u,

five, into afij-u, is established. Where the Malayalam does not change

nd into 7, it changes it into nn—e.g., nadandu, Tam. having walked;

e

FIVE.

233

is in Malayalam nadanni.

This illustrates the process by which

eind-u. became ein-w in Tulu, and én-w in the Telugu compound

Tt is thus evident that the apparent resemblance

padi(h)én-u, fifteen.

0

of the Dravidian amju to the Sanskrit panchan is illusory.

It dis-

appears on examination, and the slight resemblance which does exist

is found to arise from the operation of Dravidian principles of sound.

Consequently e; or &, must be regarded as the sole representative of

]

the Dravidian numeral, and with this it is evident that neither pan-

I

chan, nor any other Indo-European form has any analogy whafever.

The Sanskrit panche is used in the Dravidian languages in Sanskrit

compounds. It is never confounded with eindu or amju by native

scholars.

In some of the Finnish tongues the word for five has some slight

resemblance to the neuter Dravidian numeral eid-u.

The Vogoul is

at ; the Ostiak wut or wet; the Magyar &t (pronounced somewhat

]

like &f).

This resemblance, however, seems purely accidental, for the

final ¢ of the Ugrian word for five appears to be radical, whereas

B

i

the final d of the Dravidian noun of number eid-u is simply a neuter

formative.

|

The Chinese « may perhaps be compared with the

Dravidian numeral adjective e.

Dr Gundert, in his private communication to me, and more fully in

the Journal of the German Oriental Soctety for 1869, advocates the

derivation of the Dravidian word for five from the Sanskrit pancha.

i

After arguing that the Dravidian pads, ten, is derived from the Sanskrit

pankti, a row, a row of fives, ten, he proceeds to say——¢If now the

7

Sanskrit root panch serves, by means of the word pankti, derived from

ol

it, for denoting ten, it is very probable that five also is derived from the

same word.

In Canarese an initial p is regularly changed into %, which

il

the other dialects readily reject. The Canarese hanchu, to divide, seems

o

il

thus to show that the Tam. and Mal. anju (five) is only a far-advanced

tadbhara of pancha.

One feels further inclined to derive the Sanskrit

ths

am$éa, a portion, from the aforesaid panchu, anju, as a Sanskritising of

il

a popular word.”

I confess I do not feel convinced. I have gone

over each step of the ground again, and can find no flaw in the

g0l

evidence from which I conclude that ez is the oldest form of the Dra-

(

L)

vidian numeral ; and as that is the form we are always brought back

to, it seems to me safest to accept it as the point from which we

ally

should start.

i

What appears to be the radical meaning of ¢z? In some languages

i

the word used to signify five properly means a hand, or is derived from

-

a word which has that meaning,—the number of fingers in each hand

L

being five. In Lepsius’s opinion, the word for ten, which is used in all

e

9

~

34

THE NUMERALS.

the Indo-European dialects, had its origin in the Maeso-Gothic tar-hun,

two hands. Applying this principle to the Dravidian languages, e:

)

five, might be presumed to be derived from /es, Tam. a hand, by the

§

process of the softening away of the initial consonant.

On the other

g

hand, there is no evidence of this process haying ‘taken place in this

instance, or of ez having ever been preceded by % or any other conson-

ant

Though this ‘origin of the word fails us, we need not go out of

the Dravidian languages for a derivation ; and it is increasingly pro-

bable, after the first. two numerals have been left in the mystery in

which they were fou'nd, ‘that each higher numeral in succession has

been derived from a Dravidian root.

It is admitted that the roots of

six, seven, eig:*ht, and nine are Dravidian ; why should we have to look

%

to Sanskrit for the root of five alone?

The Tamil root ez, which is

identical in form with that of the numeral for five

, gives a meaning

which is as appropriate as we could wish. The abstract noun formed

i

from this root is eimei, another form of which is evdu, the' meaning of

% which is close juxtaposition without contact, separation by slight

0]

£ {’,f;;‘finterven‘ing spaces, like growing stalks of corn or the laths on a roof,

{

& (ﬁ@ or like the fingers of the hand held up and expanded for the purpose

z P of denoting the number five by signs. This word eidu is formed from

§

" ev by the addition of the neuter form

il

ative du, precisely as the Tel.-

o

Can. eidu, five, appears to me to have been formed ; and the identity-

1

S

of the two words in composition and shape, and their close resemblance.

al

in meaning, are certainly remarkable.

3

I find that Mr Kittel ({ndian Antiguary for January 1873) agrees,

1

with me in considering the Dravidian word for five independent of the

th

f

Sanskrit panchan. He says—¢ aydu 18 ay + du, ayndu is ay + bindu +

du. afiju t00 ai + bindu + du, the du having become ju. Conf. ¢ One.»"”

I(

€0

Mr Kittel writes the word ay, this being one of the ways in which the

word is written in Canarese. e is more common even in Canarese, and

1

the only form wused in the other dialects, He goes on to say—* The

th\

rule is, that when to certain long roots, for instance miy (m7) and bey

i

(bé), du is joined, the root is shortened and the bindu put - between

(mindu, bendw).” This rule ‘may also explain the short w in this case

D

{y

before the bindu in aiiju. Wherever the du is again dropped, and at

the same time the bindy is ret

ained, the theme is optionally a7 or ayn,

i

ayn, aym.” Mr Kittel’s illustrations are from Clanarese, but the same

b

tendency has been shown to exist in T

et

I

amil also, in connection with the

formation of the preterites of verbs, (

See Roots, p. gm=.) In Tam. ¢,

1l

to be burned, becomes by this rule vendu, having been. burnt. mi, to

bathe, Can., is not in T

to swim.

amil, except perhaps under the shape of nindu,

The derivation of eidu, five, from aydu, Can. to obtain,

SIX.

235

given by Mr Kittel, does not appear to me satisfactory.

This Word

ayduw is in classical Tamil eydw, with the same meaning, to arrive at,

to obtain.

ey in Tam., like 4s% in Can.,

means to throw :

but I do not

find in either of these words any trace of the meaning which is neces-

sary for Mr Kittle’s explanation, viz., ¢ the counting of the fingers of

one hand, forming a going or one turn, a turn

Ste.—In all the Dravidian dialects, the difference found to exist

i

between the neuter noun of number six and the numeral adjective is

extremely small

The numeral noun ie dru in Tamil, Telugu, and

Canarese ;

dra in Malaydlam, and d» in Tuda; in Génd s-dradn.

In

Tulu it is dyz, a form which bears the same relation to dru that maiy,

Tulu three, does to the Canarese maru.

Thenumeral adjective differs from the noun of number with respect

to the quantity of the initial vowel alone, and in some cases even that

difference does not exist,

In all Tamil compounds in which dr-w is

i

used adjectivally, it is shmtened to dr-u—e.g., arubadu, sixty. The

vowel 1§ short in the Canarese artwattzc, the Tulu djipd,’ and the Telugu

aruver, smty ; whilst it is long in the higher compound: drunnru, Can.,

ajiniidu; Tulu and dradru, Tel., six hundred.

In Tawil it is short i in

six hundred, but lone, as in the other dialects, in six thousand. The

adjectival form of the numerals may, as I have already said, be regarded

as the original, and the form of the abstract noun of number, where

any difference exists between it and the adjectival numeral, as a

secondary form

aru, therefore, not dru, seems to me the primitive

shape of the Dravidian word for six

The numbers two and five take

the formative du

one also probably takes the same formative

four

takes Au

Six and seven, on the other hand, formi nouns of number

not by means of the -addition of a formative particle, but by the length-

ening of the included vowel

Mr Kittel notices that one of the mean-

mgs of dzu in old Canarese is to be strong, or to strengthen, and infers

that “the numeral seems; “therefore, to convey the idea of addition ;

14

a further addition.”

I

This is one of the meanings given to dru in the

“ Sabdamanidarpara ” (Klttel’s edition), the other being the common

)u

Dravidian one of drying up.

This dru, however, like the numeral

4

dru, seems to point back to an older aru, and aru gives no meaning

o

like this in any of the Dravidian dialects.

Its root meanine seems to

ly

be to break off as a string

Hence as a verbal noun it would most

)6

aturally mean severance, a section

The connection between this

26

meaning and that of six is not very clear, but still a connection must

1

’

exist somehow, for it seems to me certain that this ey« is the root

f0

The idea of the old Dravidians may perhaps have been, that with the

ly

Il

THE NUMERALS.

236

number six, which was the first of the numbers requiring to be reckoned

on the second hand, a new section of numerals commenced.

No analogy whatever can be traced between this Dravidian numeral

and any word for six that is contained in the Indo-European languages ;

and no trustworthy Scythian analogies are discoverable.

In Magyar

six is Aat, in the Turkish languages dity, dlte, &c.

It may be sup-

posed to be possible that the first syllable of the latter word, d/, is

allied to the Dravidian dr, in virtue of that interchange of / and r

which is so common in the Scythian tongues.

It may be conceived,

I have no

also, that the Turkish al/¢ and the Magyar hat are allied.

faith, however, in these indistinct resemblances of sound; for the

Magyar at seems originally to have had an initial consonant.

kot 1is

the corresponding numeral in Lappish, and &#si in Finnish, in Tchere-

miss kut,; whereas there is no reason to suppose that the Dravidian dr

ever commenced with a consonant ; nor do I suppose it very likely that

in the rude Scythian tongues, in which even the numerals of cognate

dialects differ from one another so widely, any real analogy with the

Dravidian numerals above four would be discoverable.

As I have

already remarked in the introduction, ¢ Affiliation of Dravidian Lan-

guages,” the numerals of every Scythian family differ so widely from

every other as to present few points of resemblance.

Even the nume-

rals of any two dialects of the same family are found to differ widely.

Whilst the Sanskrit and the Welsh agree in nine numerals out of ten,

the Magyar and the Finnish, though almost as closely allied in point

of grammatical structure as the Welsh and the Irish, have now only

the first four numerals in common, and perfectly coincide in two nume-

rals only, one and four.

Seven.—The Dravidian noun of number seven is ér-u in Tamil and

These differ-

Malayalam, 8/-w in Canarese, ¢’ in Tulu, éd-u in Telugu.

ences are in accordance with the rule that the Tamil deep, liquid, semi-

vowel 7 becomes ¢ in Telugu, and / in Canarese.

In the Tuda this

numeral is 8%z ; in Mahadeo Gond, y-énil or y-éti, in Seoni Gond, éro.

A Tamil poetical form is erumes.

The numeral adjective seven, which is used in the compound num-

bers seventy, seven hundred, &c., exhibits a few trivial differences from

the noun of number.

In Tamil, é-u is shortened to er-u when used

In

adjectivally, like dr-w, six, which is similarly shortened to ar-u.

Tulu, seventy is elpa, seven hundred é/'nidu.

In Canarese, seventy is

eppattu, in which not only is & shortened to e, but the radical consonant

{, answering to the Tamil 7, has been assimilated to the initial consonant

of the succeeding word.

In élniru, Can. seven hundred, this assimila-

R37

SEVEN—EIGHT.

e

tion has not taken place.

In Telugu, the ¢ of éd-u does not appear to

be very persistent.

Tn 8lndlru, seven hundred, d becomes [ as in the

el

Canarese ; and in debhei, seventy (for edubhed), the initial vowel e has

e

been displaced, as that of rendu, two, according to a peculiar usage of

vl

the Telugu, which was explained in the section on “Sounds.” This

\I}‘

displacement of the initial vowel shows that the e of the suppositious

I 1

edubhei was short, as in the corresponding Tamil and Canarese com-

Ull

pounds.

As in the case of the other numerals, the short form erw is

il

to be regarded as the original : this in Tamil means to rise. éru, its

verbal noun, would mean a rising or increase—an appropriate meaning

(2

th

for the second numeral in the new section of five fingers.

ot

Tt cannot be determined with perfect certainty which of the three

hcr

¢onsonants 7, d, or | was the primitive one in this numeral ; but as

the Tamil » changes more easily into { or d than either of those con-

1 o

sonants into 7, and could also be changed more easily than they into

i

the n of the Gond, possibly 7, as in Tamil, is to be regarded as the

:;mte

e

primitive form of this consonant, from which d and ! were derived.

It is more probable, however, that /, d, and 7 are to be regarded

have

merely as different modes of representing in writing one and the same

[

fron

primitive sound.

No resemblance to this Dravidian numeral is to be found in any of

il

the Indo-European languages; and the slight apparent resemblances

Ely

which may perhaps be traced in some of the Scythian tongues are not

e,

\()hf(

trustworthy. Compare with the Telugu éd-u, the Turkish geds, the

Turkish of Yarkand yettah (the root of which appears in the Ottoman

ol

Turkish yet-mish, seventy) ; and the Magyar Aet.

In Armenian, seven

!

is yotn, in Tahitian hetu.

The 4 of the Magyar numeral and the y of

the Turkish seem to be identical ; but both have been derived from a

and

harder sound, as will appear on comparing the Magyar het with the

il

Lappish kietya, and with the corresponding Finnish sett in sevtzemdn.

Al

Fight:—The Tamil numeral noun effu, eight, bears a remarkable

resemblance to the corresponding numeral of the Indo-European family,

i

which is in Latin octo, in Gothic aktau, and especially to affa, the

manner in which ash¢an, Sans. eight, is written and pronounced in

|

classical Tamil, in which it is occasionally used in compounds; hence

il

it has naturally been supposed by some that the Tamil effu has been

I i il

It

derived from, or is identical with, this Sanskrit derivative afta.

)

will be found, however, that this resemblance, though so close as to

()

o)

amount almost to identity of sound, is accidental, and that it disap-

g

pedrs on investigation and comparison, even more completely than the

i

(!

rescmblance between o7’ and one, anju and pancha.

s

The.DraVidian noun of number eight is in Tamil ef¢%, in Malayilam

238

THE NUMERALS.

ett-a, in Canarese en¢-u, in Telugu enimidi or enmade,

in Tulu epma, in

Gond anumdr or armur, in Tuda eft, in M

adi ermads,

The corre-

sponding numeral adjectiv

e, which should by rule exhibit the primitive

form of the word, is en.

In Tamil e is used adjectiv

ally for eight in

all compound numerals—e.g., en-badu, eighty,

en-niru, eight hundred,

as also in miscellaneous compounds, sach as e

eyes, Brahma.

-kanan, he who has eight

The same form is used adverbially in ep-

times seven.

éru, eight

In Canarese, in which the nume

ral noun is eptu, ep is

used as the numeral adjective in envar-u, ei

ght persons (Tam. enmar) ;

whilst in embattu, eighty, » is ch

anged into m through the influence

of the labi

al initial of the second member of the compound.

In entu-

niiru, eight hundred, the numeral noun is u

sed adjectivally instead of

the numeral adjective.

The Tulu numeral substantive is epma. The

—

adjectival form of this numeral, as app

arent in enpa, eighty, is simply

en, a3 in Tam., Can.

—

, Mal., from which it is evident that ma is not a

part. of ‘the root, but

SH

me, the formative &f abstr

addition to it, which from 1ts resemblance to

act ‘n("ni'ns_ in 'Tqu and ¢

anarese (me7 in Tam.),

and. especially to ma, the same form

ative in Mal., may be concluded

to be identical ‘withi it

foutd ‘in Tamil, but onl

enma would thus mean eight-ness,

enmer is

y with the meaning o

f poverty, from e/, poor.

I am indebted for this derivation to Mr K

ittel.

I had previously

been inclined to connect ma with »a, ba, &c., cont

ractions of patta,

ten, in consequence of the resembl

ance of the Tulu epma to the Telugu

ent midi, the midi of which must

be from pads, ten.

The Telugu noun of number ens midz, though it closely resembles

the Tulu enma, appears to differ considerably from the T

amil effu, and

the Canarese entw,; but the difference diminishes whe

n the numeral

adjectives are compared.

The Telugn numeral adjective used in

enabadz or enabher, eighty, is ena, which is

almost identical with the

Tamil-Canarese .

There is a poetical form of this word, enb’adi, the

en of which seems quite identical.

It is no objection to this that the

Tel. » is dental,

whilst that of the Tamil-Canarese is lingual, for this

is of very common occurrence :

comp. Tel. ennw, to count, with the

Tam. enpu.

In enamandru or enamandugur-

u, eight persons, and

enamannitu,

eight hundred, the m of envmidi, eight, evinces a ten-

dency to assume the place of an essential part of the root. It will be

shown, however, that mid; is not

a part of the root of this numeral,

but an addition to it ;

of m, may be conclude

and consequently ep or en, without the addition

d to be the true num

eral adjective, an_d also the

root itself.

Thus, the app

arent resemblance of the Tarnj'lA é?tu to the

Sanskrit derivative atta

as the various forms unde

(euphonised from ashia) disapﬁéars as soon

r Which'it is found are compared.

EIGHT.

239

The primitive form of the neuter noun of number derived from ez

y 1l

(3

is evidently that which the Canarese has retained, viz., enfu, which is

directly formed from en by the addition of fu, the phonetic equivalent

iy

of du or du

a common formative of neuter nouns, and one of which

il

The

we have already seen a specimen in eradu, two, and andu, three.

Tamil effu has been derived from enfu by a process which is in accord-

i

ance with many precedents.

It is true that in general the Tamil

:

B

) 1§

refrains from assimilating the nasal of such words as epfu, and often-

1),

times it inserts a nasal where there is none in Canarese—e.g., trandu,

Tam. two, compared with the Canarese eradw ; still this rule, though

108

general, is not universal, and is sometimes reversed.

Thus, pente,

f

[of

Can. a hen (in modern Canarese fenfeyu), has in Tamil become petger

—a change exactly parallel tothat of enfu into effw.

e

Much:difficulty is involved in the explanation of enintide; the Telugu

Ui

noun of number whieh' corresponds to entuw.

enr, enw,- ena Or en

4

0

(enabadi, enubadi, enbadri, eighty) is evidently identical with: the

Tamil-Canarese en - but what is the origin of the suffix midi 2 This

|

mads becomes ma in some instances—e.g., enama-ndru, eight persons ;

cd

enamannury, eight hundred ; and the Tulu noun of number eight is

1§

enma.

Shall we consider mide to be synonomous with padi, ten,

I

and enimidi, eight, to be a compound word, which was meant to signify

l

two from ten ?

It will be shown under the next head that in the

Telugu tommade, nine, mede is without doubt identical with padi, ten.

If 5o, there would seem to be a valid reason for supposing that the

made of enemadi, eight, is also derived -from -the same source, and ap-

S

It will be shown:in our examina-

pended to en with the same intent.

i

tion of the Dravidian numeral ten that pad: has become greatly. cor-

ul

rupted in compounds, especially in Telugu; in which the second

1

syllable has disappeared in compounds above twenty.

If medi, iden-

o

tical with padé, were liable to a similar corruption, as is probable

o

enough, we may see how enimide would be softened into enama (in

18

enamandru, enamanniiry), and also into epma in Tulu,

It is a charac-

teristic of the Scythian languages that they use for eight and nine

iy

compounds which signify ten minus two and ten minus one.

In some

ol

instances an original uncompounded word is used for eight ; but nine

il

is always a compound.

The Dravidian word for nine is, I have no

e

doubt, formed in this very manner; and this seems to be also a

il

rational explanation of the origin of the Telugu word for eight.

On

10

the other hand, in the Tamil-Canarese idioms, e by itself is used to

signify eight, without any trace of the use in conjunction with it of the

the

fhe

word pattw or pade,. ten.

It is also deserving of notice that in the

ol

Telugu enabhes, eighty, the second member of enimids has disappeared.

240

THE N

MERALS

enabhes is of course for enabadz, but if envmads is eight, eighty ought to

be envmidibady.

The use of ena or en alone in the eighty shows that

ena or en alone, without midi, means eight.

It is difficult to determine whether the disuse of ten as a component

element in the numeral eight of the Tamil and Canarese is to be

regarded as a corruption, or whether the use of ten by the Telugu in

the construction of eight is itself a corruption, arising from the influ-

ence and attraction of the principle which was adopted in the formation

of the next numeral, nine

On the whole, I consider the latter sup-

position the more probable, and therefore regard the Tamil-Canarese

ep (in Telugu en or ena) as the primitive shape of this Dravidian

numeral

Max Miiller supposed en to be identical with er, properly ¢, two

Mr Clay’s theory respecting the origin of the Telugu enimids is almost

identical with this

He supposes the en: of this word to be derived

from el, in elli, Tel. to-morrow, or next day, and this he supposes to be

an old word for two

In this way he would bring out the meaning

which is apparently required by enimidi—viz., two from ten

This

derivation seems very plausible, but unfortunately I can find no trace

of el having ever meant tw

ellv is evidently identical with the Tulu

elle, to-morrow, and apparently identical also with e/, Tam. a day

(root meaning a limit, a term), so that its use in Telugu and Tulu to

denote to-morrow seems analogous to the use of ndles in Tamil, which

is used to mean to-morrow, but of which the real meaning is simply a

day. Compare the formation of ellundi, Tel. the day after to-morrow

with that of the Tamil naleinindru, the same, literally, waiting over

to-morrow

I have already shown that the midi of enimide disappears

altogether in ena-bads, eighty, and that the en or ema, which in that

word represents eight, must be identical with the Tam.-Can. en

It

feel constrained therefore to adhere to the explanation I have given

en has no resemblance to any numeral belonging to any other lan-

guage, whether Indo-European or Scythian ; and it cannot, I think

be doubted, that it was first adopted into the list of numerals by the

Dravidian people themselves

We have not to go far to seek for a

derivation

en 13 a primitive and very common Dravidian root, signi-

fying either to reckon or a number, according as it is used as a verb or

as a noun

As a verb, it is in Tamil ep (vulgarly eppu), in Telugu

enn-u, in Canarese en-usu

We have an instance of its use as a noun

in ep-suvady, Tam. a book of arithmetic, literally a number book

After the Dravidians of the first age had learned to count seven, they

found they requlred a higher numeral, which they placed immediately

above seven and called en, the number—an appropriate enough term

—

71 /75

-

NINE.

241

for perhaps the highest .number which they were "then aecustomed. to

reckon.: - A similar mode of seizing upon a word which denotes pro-

perly a number or any number, and using it restrictively to denote

some one number in particular—generally a newly-invented, high

number—is found in other languages besides the Dravidian.

Thus,

in Lappish, lokke, ten, means literally a number, from lokket, to count.

Compare the origin of the Aryan word for -nine, navan, literally the

E

new (number),

Nine.—1In all the Dravidi@n idioms the nurﬁeral ﬁine is a compound

word, which is used indifferently, and without change, as a noun of

number and as a numeral adjective.

The second member of the compound numeral nine is identical with,

or evidently derived from, the numeral ten, the differences between it

and that numeral being such as can be accounted for by the phonetic

tendencies of the various Dravidian dialects.

The principal forms which this numeral assumes are the following :—

in Tamil it is onbad-u, in Malayalam ombadu, in Canarese ombhatt-u,

in Coorg. ogzmbadu, - in Telugu tommidi, in Tula ormba, in Tuda

onpatl’, in Kota ormpatw ; in each of which instances the second mem-

ber of the compound plainly represents ten.

In Gond, nine is said to

be anma. A word for nine in poetical Tamil is fondw ; this means

also old. It is a curious circumstance that the Sanskrit word for nine

should mean the new (number), and one of the Dravidian words the

old (number). Another word for nine in poetical Tamil is onbdn, in

1

which pdn represents ten.

In ordinary Tamil, ten is patt-u; nine is onbad-u (on-pad-u, eupho-

lw

nically on-badu) ; and not only is it evident that patt-w and pad-u are

allied, but the resemblance becomes identity when pad-u, the second

member of onbad-w, is compared with the representative of ten in

i

wrubad-u, twenty—literally twice ten—and similar compound nume-

}

rals. Moreover onbad-u itself becomes onbatt-u when used adverbially

16

—e.g., onbatt' —ér-u, nine times seven.

In ancient Canarese, ten was

patt-u, as in Tamil

8

In modern Canarese it changes by rule into

hatt-u ; nevertheless the original labial retains its place in the com-

1l

pounds ombhatt-u, nine, and embati-u, eighty ; from which it is evident

)

i

that in Canarese nine is formed from ten, by means of an auxiliary

prefix, as in Tamil,

jul

In Telugu alone there is some difference between

the word which separately signifies ten and the second member of

ok

tommads, the compound numeral nine. Ten is in Telugu pade, whilst

1ef

nine is not tompadi or tombadi, but tommids -

iy

J

and nine persons is

tommandugur-w. It cannot be doubted, however, that tommids

has

|I‘m

been euphonised from tombads, which is the usual form in books. T

n

Q

242

THE NUMERALS.

the other compound numerals of the Telugu (twenty, thirty, &e.), in

which padi forms of necessity the second member, the corruption of

padi into bher or ver is still greater than in the instances now before

us

Tt may be regarded, consequently, as certain that the second

member of the Dravidian word for nine is identical with ten. We

have, therefore, now to inquire only into the origin and signification of

the first member of the compound.

In the Tamil onbadw, on is the auxiliary prefix by which padu is

specialised, and we have the same prefix in the poetical form, onbdn.

on is in Malayalam and Canarese om, in Coorg oytm. This on has

been supposed to be identical with the first portion of the Tamil ondru,

one (in Canarese and Coorg ondu, in Telugu ondwu, in Malayélam onn’,

in Tulu onj¢) ; and Dr Gundert (in his private communication to me)

expresses himself in favour of this supposition. In Tulu, nine i3

ormba, in the Kota dialect ormpatea, in each of which forms we can-

not but recognise a development of the ordinary Dravidian or, one,

from which the compound word for nine will take the very appropriate

meaning of one from ten. The supposition that the on and om of

the Tam.-Can. words for nine has the same origin as the Tulu, &ec.,

and is used to express the same meaning, has certainly much to recom-

mend it. As padin ondru, Tam. eleven, means one added to ten, so

onbadu, nine, might naturally be taken to mean one from ten, or one

before ten. There are some difficulties, however, in the way of this

supposition. I can find no distinet trace of the syllable on, standing

The form we always find, or to

alone, having ever stood for one.

But another

which we are always obliged to come back, is or or or.

the Tamil

and greater difficulty comes to view when we compare

on’-badw with the Telugu tom-mids.

We have here a prefix beginning

1 on having origi-

s

with ¢, which points to the possibility of the Tami

What is still

ginally been fon, and the Canarese om having been Zom.

more worthy of notice is, that in the higher numbers, even in Tamil,

into which nine enters, on is represented by ton (or its equivalent

nine hundred. In Telugu we find Zom

tol)—e.g., tonnidru, tolldyram,

not only in ¢om-midi, nine, but in tom-bade

or tom-bhei, ninety, and

In Canarese we find the same prefix in

tomma-midru, nine hundred.

tom-bhattw, ninety, though nine is ombhattu, and nine

hundred is

nety, ttondra,

ombhasyi-ndgru. In Coorg, nine is oytm-badu, whilst ni

follows the Tamil, and nine hundred, ombei-niiru, the Canarese.

The

the

Tulu word for ninety is $ompa, in which Son evidently stands for

The

tom or to] of the other dialects: nine hundred is ormba nidu.

Tuda word is énpath. Even in Tamil a poetical form for nine has an

initial ¢. This is fondw, of which we cannot doubt that the first

e,

NINE.

243

|

iﬁortidn, ~1'50@, is allied to the fom of the other dialects,

The original

f

shape of this prefix must have been tol. The final { is changed into a

nasal, according to a well-recognised Dravidian 1

aw of sounds, not only

d

when followed by a nasal, but even when followed by certain hard

consonants.

el + ney, sesame oil, becomes ¢

ey, kal + males, stony

f

hill, kanmales,

So also $el + du, having gone, becomes Sendru ; and

kol + du, having taken, kondu (the latter becomes more completely

i

nasalised in the Tulu equivalent Zon and the Telugu konu). Hence from

lh

tol, old, before, with the neuter formative du,

comes tondru, antiquity ;

3

and from #o/, an al

ternative form of the same root, comes fondu, the

Il

word under consideration, meaning also antiquity,

priority, but contain-

ing amongst its many meanings that of nine,

The Telugu tom appears

e)

to have been derived from ¢ol, not tol, though

both forms were doubt-

I

less identical originally ; and in Telugu the meaning

, first, before, is

more distinctly developed than in

Tamil—e.g., toli-varamu, the first

1

day of the week ;

tol-nddu, the day before.

This gives us a satis-

k

factory explanation of the prefix by which in

Telugu nine, in Tamil

and Malaydlam ninety and nine hundred, in

)

formed.

Canarese ninety, are

It properly means the number standing next in order before

the number to which it is prefixed.

Thus in Telugu nine means the

number before ten ; in Malayalam,

Tamil, and Coorg, ninety means

the number before a hundred ;

and in MalayAlam and Tamil nine

hundred means the number befo

re a thousand.

The word for nine

sometimes found (

3

as has been mentioned) in poetical Tamil, tondu,

means properly before ; but, as used, it si

for nine, the number before ten.

gnifies, like the Telugu word

e

When the Telugu, Tulu, and Canarese

numbers for ninety

!

Coorg,

are compared with the Tamil, Malayalam, and

DY

we are struck with the greater regularity of the latter com-

pounds. The Telugu tom-bhes and the Can

9l

arese tom-bhattu are meant to

denote nine teng §

f

but tom, the prefix used to denote nine, does not

ik

properly mean nine at all, but is only the

first part of the numeral

Fi

nine, which is itself a compound. The Telug

u and Canarese compounds

for nine hundred, zom-

manndra and ombhayi-nuru, are formed on the

ol

same plan, but with a fuller representation of both parts of the

ah{

Q.

number nine, which they adopt as their first member. The Tulu

/

word for ninety, Sonpa, is very curiously constructed.

B

Comparing it 7

with e/pa, seventy, and enpa, eighty,

it seems evident that Pa means

i

ten; but $on, the first part of the wo

T

rd, finds no place, as the corre-

sponding Telugu and Canarese p

articles do, in the Tulu word for nine.

e

It appe

ars to be the equivalent of the ¢/, ton, and tom of the other

Ty

dialects, the meaning of which is before ;

but in order to bring out

] ﬂ?

the meaning of ninety,

this particle should have been prefixed to a

fi

244

THE NUMERALS.

hundred, like the Tam.-Mal., not to fen.

In Tamil and Malayilam,

on the other hand, the composite numeral nine is altogether lost

sight of in the construction of the compounds ninety and mnine

hundred, and these compounds are formed in perfect accordance with

rule by prefixing o/, before, to the word a hundred, to form ninety,

and the same fol to a thousand, in order to form nine hundred. In

these instances tol is used in its proper original signification of before,

without any reference to the use of the same prefix (if indeed it be

the same that is used in Tamil, as it certainly is in Telugu), to form

nine. We should naturally expect to find the Tamil-Canarese word for

nine formed in the same manner, and by means of the same prefix, as

the Tamil-and- Malayilam words for ninety and nine hundred ; and if

we could suppose the oldest form of the Tamil nine to have been

ton-badu, and that of the Canarese tom-bhattu, corresponding to the

Telugu tom-midi, this would have been the case. As it is, we must

consider it possible that the prefix of the Tamil-Canarese word for

nine may be a representative of the word for one; though the reasons

why we should prefer to derive the Tamil on and the Canarese om,

like the Telugu tom, from ol or tof, before, with the initial ¢ softened

.

away, seem to me still weightier.

The native Tamil grammarians derive the prefix fo, in the words

for ninety and nine hundred, directly from onbadu, the word for nine,

First, they say, the badu of onbadu is lost; then on becomes ton ; then

this becomes tol. (See “Nannfil”) The plan of deriving anything

from anything was evidently not unknown to the ancient grammarians

of the Tamil country.

It seems scarcely necessary now to add, that there is no affinity

whatever, as some have surmised, between the initial portion of the

Tamil onbadu and the Greek #wéw, the Sanskrit form of which is

navan. The Manchu onyan, nine, has not only some resemblance to

the Dravidian word, but seems to be a compound formed on similar

principles.

Nevertheless the ultimate component elements of the

Manchu word—emw, one, and juan, ten—have no resemblance what-

ever to the Dravidian.

Ten.—In all the Dravidian languages the words used for ten are

virtually the same; in Tamil patt-u, in modern Canarese hatt-u, in

the ancient dialect patt-u, in Tulu patf, in Telugu padi, in Tuda

pattu, in Gond pudth.

In those Tamil compound numerals in which

ten is the second member—e.g., irubadu, twenty, pattw becomes padu,

(euphonically ppadu or badw), which is in close agreement with the

Telugu pade. In Tamil poetry we sometimes find pdn (euphonically

ban), instead of pattu, as the second member of such compounds—e.g-,

aeia

—

i

TEN

245"

onbdn, nine, wrubdn, twenty. This may possibly be an-euphonically

lengthened-form of pan, equivalent to pad-u

In the Tamil compound numerals under twenty, in which ten con-

stitutes the first number, nineteen is patton-badu, the first portion of

which, when compared with-the last, appears to be an adjectival form

of padu, seeing that the word used for ten in all-the other compounds

1s certainly adJectlval

Twelve is, pannirandu, the first portion of

which, pan, is either an abbreviation of paden, the adjectival form of

ten in general use, or is identical with pan, the suppositious radical

form of pdn, the poetical word for ten mentioned above

In all the

other compound numerals in Tamil, the first portion representing ten is

padin, which is formed from pad-w, the radical form, and ¢n, the

adjectival formative—a particle which is much used, as we have seen,

as a locative and ablative case-sign, as a sign of the possessive, and

still more frequently as an inflexional increment

The addition of in

converts a noun into an adjective

(See “Nouns.”) padin is the

form of the word for ten which enters most commonly into other com-

pounds—e.g., padinmar, ten persons, padinmadangu, tenfold

The

Malayalam forms. are identical- with those of the Tamil, with the

exception of the word for twelve, pandirendu or pandrendu, in which

the pan of Tamil and the other dialects is represented by pand

The Telugu simple numeral padi, ten, is evidently identical with

the Tamil padw (the root form of pattw), just as adi, Tel. it, is evi-

dently identieal with-adw, Tam.

In the compounds under twenty,

pade undergoes more changes than the corresponding Tamil word.

In

eight and nine it becomes mude; in the numbers above ten, padi, pada,

pad, or pacld with the exception of twelve, which is pannendu (pan-

nendu) ;

‘eompare panniddara, twelve persons, and nineteen, which is

pandommids (pan-tommids)

The pan of the Tamil compound here

appears twice

In the compounds from twenty upwards, in which ten

1s the second member of the compound, and is a numeral noun pade

1s materially changed

In twenty and sixty it is altered to wes, in

thirty to phes, in seventy to bbhes, and in the other numbers to ble:

This change is effected by the softening of the d of padt, after which

pa-v or ba- would naturally become bez, and then wveq

I

b

In Canarese, ten is hattu, by the change of p into %, which is usual

in the modern dialect ;

in the ancient dialect, as in Tamil and Malay-

alam, it is pattu.

In the compound forms between ten and twenty, in

i

which ten is used adjectivally, and is the first portion of the word,

pattu is generally represented by padin, as in Tamil

The exceptions

j

are eleven and twelve, in which pad is replaced by pan—e.g., pan-

i

nondu, panneradu

Before one thousand in old Canarese we find

46

THE NUMERALS.

payin instead of pan or padin.

In the compounds above twenty, in

which ten holds the second place, pattu (hattu) becomes bhattu or

vottu, or remains pattu, according as euphony requires.

The difference

between Canarese and Coorg, with respect to ten and the numerals

into which ten enters, are so slight, that only one need be mentioned.

In the numbers from thirteen to eighteen inclusive, patéu is represented

in Coorg, not by padin, but by padun, which is evidently an equiva-

lent form.

The Tulu uses patt’ for the noun of number, and pat?,

pad, pad'n, and pdd'n, as the numeral adjective.

In twenty and up-

wards, patt’ becomes pa, va. In compounds like ¢rvatonjz, twenty-one,

the ¢’ of patt’ is represented by ¢.

In pdd'nél, seventeen, we find an

euphonic lengthening of the vowel of patt, the only thing resembling

which, in any of the dialects, is the poetical Tamil pdn.

Dr Gundert (in his private communication to me) suggested the

possibility of the Dravidian word for ten, padu or padi, being directly

derived from the Sanskrit pankti, and more recently (in the German

Oriental Society’s Journal for 1869) he has advocated this derivation

in more decided terms.

“The word for ten,” he says, “ which Cald-

well derives from a Dravidian root, pad, is nothing but a tadbhara

from pankts (Sans.), a row of fives, ten.

From this first we have the

tadbhara pandi (Tam.), a row of guests, then pandu, ten (still retained

in the Mal. pand-iru, twelve). It bears also further abbreviation in

padu, padt, pei (in Tamil also pant, properly panni), whilst it is found

lengthened again by the suffix of the neuter termination tu (Tam.

pattu, from pad-tw).”

It seems, I admit, more reasonable that the Dravidians should have

borrowed their word for ten from their Aryan neighbours than that

they should have borrowed from them their word for five.

Ten being

not only a higher number, but one that could not fail soon to acquire

a special value in calculation, it would not surprise us to find the word

for this number borrowed by a less cultured people from a more cul-

tured. On the other hand, the word used in all the Dravidian lan-

guages for a hundred is native; one of the Telugu words for a

thousand is native ; and it is only the words for the high abstract

numbers, a lakkh and a crone, that are invariably borrowed from the

Sanskrit.

If so, the possibility of the Dravidian word for ten having

been borrowed from the Sanskrit is met by the improbability of this

being done by people who could invent words of their own for a hun-

dred and a thousand. Besides, if the Dravidians felt any temptation

to borrow from the Sanskrit its word for ten, they would naturally, as

it seems to me, have chosen dagan, the word which they found in con-

stant use, instead of pankiz, a derivative from pancha, five, denoting

—

TEN.

247

ten in certain compounds only (e.g., pankts griva, one who has ten

necks, rdvana), but generally meaning merely a row. pankts is some-

times used in Telugu without alteration in fatsamae compounds with

the meaning of ten ; but the tadbhara panti, which is somewhat nearer

the Dravidian word in appearance, has never this meaning, but only

means a row.

In Tamil, the tatsama panktz is unknown ; but there

are two tadbharas, pandi and patte, both signifying a row, of which

the former generally means a row of guests.

No trace of the meaning

of ten adheres to either of these words, nor are padu or padi ever

supposed by native scholars to be derived from pankti, or connected

with its tadbharas, pandi or patti, notwithstanding the fondness of

native scholars for deriving everything they can from Sanskrit.

The

two words are kept carefully separate in pronunciation and usage, and,

as far as appears, it was only in its secondary meaning of a row that

the old Dravidians thought fit to borrow the Sanskrit word.

Dr

Gundert’s strongest point is the use of pand for ten in pandirendu,

the Malayalam word for twelve.

The strength of this point seems to

me, however, a good deal diminished when we compare the word he

refers to, pandirendw, Mal., with pmmi{andu, Tam., pannendu, Tel.,

panneradu, Can., and especially with the Tulu pad&idd’ (for pad’v{&dd’),

in which latter word the » of the other dialects has altogether disap-

peared.

Compare also the Canarese pannondu, eleven, with the padin-

ondru, or padenonn’ of the Tamil and Malayilam, and especially with

the pattonyz of the Tulu.

When we find the pan which represents ten

in the word for eleven in one of these dialects resolving itself in two

other dialects into padin (from padw and ¢r), and in one coming back

bodily to patt, it is but reasonable to suppose that the pan of the

word for twelve has also originated in this way ; and if this explana-

tion holds good for pam, it will also, as appears, hold good also for

pand, which is, after all, a little nearer padin than pan itself is, Even

on the supposition of pan being, not a corrupted form of padin, but an

old equivalent of pad-w (surviving in Tam. vrupdn, twenty, possibly

lengthened from pan *), it would not be necessary for us to look to the

Sanskrit pankti for an explanation of it, for pan might very well be

supposed to have the same relation to padw or pads that am or an, the

obsolete demonstrative pronoun, has to adu or ade, the forms now in

use in Tamil and Telugu respectively.

I prefer, notwithstanding this,

* Native Tamil grammarians consider the final dn of the poetical irupdn (pro-

nounced #rubdn), twenty, &c., as a poetical expletive.

I should prefer calling it

a poetical formative. The fact, however, that they consider p the only represen-

tative of ten in such words, shows that the supposition that pdn sometimes stood

for padu or pattw at an ancient period, must be advocated with caution.

248

THE NUMERALS.

deriving the pan of the various words for .eleven and twelve from

padin, and would give the same expldnation to the pm@ of the

Malayalam word.

Though I am not prepared to accept the derivation of the Dravidian

padu or padi from pankti, yet T admit the difficulty of deriving this

word satisfactorily from a Dravidian root.

It is to be remembered,

however, that it is equally, if not more, difficult-to determine the root

of the Sanskrit dadan. . If the final du or di of padu or padi is a

neuter formative, as it may be concluded to be-from the analogy of so

many other numerals, we have to lock for a verbal root like pa, from

which padu or pad: would naturally be derived. pa is not now found

standing alone as a verbal root, even in Tamil, but there is a large

number of roots extant of which pa is the base (pad, pan, .pam, pay,

par, pal, with lengthened, specialised forms of the same), the generic

meaning of which is extension, increase, multiplicationi; and possibly

pa-du (or pa-n) may be derived from this base.

I may suggest also

an alternative derivation—viz., from pag-u, to divide.- The classical

Tamil grammars teach that pattu may, in certain connections, be

written pahdu—e.g., oru pahdu, one ten, ¢ru pahdu, two tens.* The

use of this %, which is the peculiar Tamil letter called dydom,and a

=

sort of guttural, is generally considered pedantic (see ‘Sounds :

Alphabet.”), but in this instance it may be supposed to represent an

original guttural consonant, which could only have been % or g. This

would give us pag-u, to divide, as the root of pakdu, and pahdu would

then correspond to the ordinary derivative from this root pagudi, a

portion (classical Tam. pdl, pdtinu, pdnmet), a division.

The meaning

the word would convey would suit the purpose to which the numeral

i

ten is put exceedingly well.

Another and very common: derivative of

pagudi, a division, is pdds, half.

Since the above was written I have seen Mr Kittel’s paper on the

Dravidian numerals, in the /Indian Antiquary for January 1873.

His remarks are as follows :—

“10. pattu, pandu, pannu, padin, padu, padi, paywm, pay, pa [root],

pattu [Can.], parru, pronounce pattu [Tam. to be pronounced pattru],

to come together, join; a joining or combination of all the ten

fingers.”

To this he appends the following note :—

“The first three forms are quite regular—u.c., par +tu (tu=dy,

* This explains the peculiar word for ten, in what is styled ancient Tamil,

which we find in Dr Hunter’s ““ Comparative Dictionary.” This is orupakadu

(so also onbakadu, nine, and rupakudu, twenty), the meaning of which, when the

words are separated, is oru pakhdu, one ten.

A HUNDRED,

249

conf. ottw under No. 1), par + du (= pandu, see No. 1). The single d

in the three subsequent forms at first sight looks. strange; hut all

diﬁiculty' is removed when considerin

g the form pa in the end [begin-

ning].

This pa is unchangeable, whereas the li

quid 7 falls under. the

rule of Sithilatra (cf. No. 4)

—1.¢., the rule that in many cases a liquid

before %, ¢, d, is so slightly sounded that no double consonant is

formed, and accordingly has simply been dropped, so that pa + du (dz)

has remained : ede, erde, breast ; badulku, barduku, life [class. coll.

Can.] d appears twice in the form of ¥ ; see under No. 3, and

compare the j (a known cognate of y) under Nos. 1 and 5 [Tulu].

We add that panit [Sans.], when meaning the number 10, is a fad-

bhara of the Dravidian pattu, just as mukid [Sans.], pearl, is a tadbhara

of muttu, and sukts [Sans.], a curl, a tadbhara of suttu.”

Probably pattu could have been regularly derived in the way Mr

Kittel describes, but I am unable to accept this derivation ; for, as a

matter of fact, I can find no trace of » in the words for ten in any of the

Dravidian dialects.

pattu in CanareseVis parrwu (pronounced pattry) in

Tamil, and patfu in Telugu, porru Tam., means, it is true, to unite, to

soldex, t6 adhere, &e., but its radical meaning is to grasp. Metaphy-

sically it means attachment. I consider it a secondary theme, of which

the primitive form is par’, which, from 'a comparison of the other

secondary themes in Tamil—paxi, intrans. to escape, paxe, trans. to

pluck, para, to fly, pares, to utter a sound—must have meant to

move rapidly. It is noteworthy that Mg Kittel, so far from considering

pattu, Drav. to be a tadbhara of pankti, Sans., turns the tables

on Sanskrit by representing pankts itself to be a tadbhara of patiu.

A4 Hundred.—In all the Dravidian dialects this word is ndip-u.

Telugu, in addition to nir-u, has vanda. In Tul

u, nur-v becomes

widdu, which is an illustration of the tendency of that dialect to soften

down the hard r of the other dialects into d or J.

I have not been able to discover any resemblance to zdr-w in any

other family of tongues.

In no two Scythian stems do we find the

same word used to express this high number; nor indeed amongst

such rude tribes could we expect to find it otherwise.

One and the

same word for hundred, slightly modified, is used in every 1

anguage of

the Indo-European family, a remarkable proof of the unity

and ancient

intellectual culture of the race ; and the Finnish word for a 1

undred,

sata, has evidently, like some other Finnish words, been borrowed

from that family of tongues.

h

In Telugu and Malayalam, niru, m?fu, ashes, powder,

is identical

]

with ndru, ndTu, a hundred. In Tamil, ashes, to reduce to ashes, is

6

7Ty, pronounced nearly like ndru.

The word is written both with )

250

THE NUMERALS.

nod T 90g e MG OT

and with @ in Tel. and Mal. ; so that the difference in Tamil between

ni

ru, ashes, and ndru, a hundred, resolves itself into a mere question

of pronunciation,

There cannot be any doubt that we have here the

origin of the Dravidian word for a hundred. Dust, powder, would

naturally appear to a primitive race an appropriate name for a number

which must have seemed to them innumerable.

A Thousand.—The Dravidian words for thousand are ayiram, Tam.

and Mal ; sdvira, and also sawara, Can.; vélu, Tel.; sdra, Tulu.

sdwira or savara, and sara, are evidently identical ; and we may safely

derive both from the Sanskrit sahasra. The Tamil dyiram also is an old

Dr Gundert derives it thus: sahasram,

corruption of the Sanskrit.

sahasiram, a-a-yiram, Qyiraam.

A priori we might have expected to

find the Dravidian languages borrowing from the Sanskrit a word for

The Telugu word for thousand,

expressing this very high numeral.

vél-u, is a purely Dravidian word, and is the plural of weyi or veyys

(veyu-lu) ; vé is also used.

T am inclined to connect this word with

the root ve, to be excessive, to be hot, harsh, de.

OrDINAL NUuMBERS,—It is unnecessary in this work to devote much

attention to the ordinal numbers of the Dravidian languages, seeing

b

that they are formed directly, and in the simplest possible manner,

from the cardinal numbers, by means of suffixed verbal participles or

participial forms. The only exception is that of the first ordinal, viz.,

the word signifying first, which in most of the Dravidian languages, as

in the Indo-European, is formed, not from the cardinal number one, but

from a prepositional root.

In the Canarese and Malayalam, the

numeral one itself is the basis of the word used for first.

The base of

the first ordinal in Tamil and Telugu is mudal, a verbal noun signify-

ing priority in time or place, or a beginning. This, like all other

Dravidian nouns, may be used adjectivally without any addition or

change ; and therefore mudal alone, though signifying a beginning, is

often used as an ordinal number in the sense of first. More frequently,

however, it receives the addition in Tamil of dm, which is the usual

suffix of the ordinal numbers, and is in itself an aoristic relative par-

ticiple of the verb dg-u, to become.

When mudal is used in Telugu

without the usual ordinal or participial suffix, it requires to be put in

the inflected form—e.g., not modal, but modate.

The verbal noun

mudal is connected with the postposition mun, Tam. before ; so that

there is the same connection between the ordinal number first in the

Dravidian languages, and the postposition before, which is observed to

exist in the Indo-European languages between the preposition pra,

Sans. before, and prathama, wearos, &c., first.

Though the Tamil

ORDINALS—AFFILIATION.

251

mun, before, is allied to mudal, first, yet neither of those words exhibits

7

the ultimate root.

The n of mun appears in the verb mundu, Tam. to

V)

7

/ brend

A

get before ; but it does not appear to have had any place in mudal, of

which dal is a formative termination belonging to a numerous class of

verbal nouns, and mu alone is the root.

mudal, though itself a verbal

noun, is also used as the root of a new verb, signifying to begin. I

have no doubt that all these words and forms spring from mu as their

ultimate base.

mu is evidently a word of relation, signifying, like the

Sanskrit pra, priority ; and with it T connect mi, Tam. to be old, pro-

perly mu, as found in mudu, antiquity, this also being a species of

priority, viz., priority in time.

In all the Dravidian idioms, the other

ordinal numbers, from two upwards, are formed directly from the car-

dinal numbers by the addition of formative suffizes.

The same suffix

is added to every numeral in succession, without change either in the

cardinal number or in the suffix itself.

The ordinal suffix of the grammatical Telugu is ava, which is instead

of aga, from agu, to become, the g of which verb is generally changed

into v—e.g., midava, third: the Canarese adds ané to the cardinal

numbers—e.g., marang, third : the ordinal of the Tamil is formed by

adding dm to the cardinal—e.g., mandrdm, third.

The clear and

certain origin of the Tamil suffix dm from dgum, poetically and

vulgarly dm, the aoristic relative participle of dgu, to become, illus-

trates the origin of the suffixes of the Telugu and Canarese, which,

though considerably changed, are undoubtedly identical with the Tamil

in origin,

The adverbial forms of the Dravidian numerals are formed by means

I

of another class of suffixes from the same auxiliary verb dgu, to

become. In this instance the suffixes which are used by the Tamil,

i)

dvadu, &c.,

are neuter participial nouns used adverbially. Oftentimes,

)

however, adverbial numerals are formed by the addition of nouns

B

signifying succession, &c., to the cardinal or ordinal numbers—e.g.,

if

wrumures, Tam, twice, literally two times.

i

The multiplicative numbers, as has already been stated, are the same

i

as the numeral adjectives.

g

AFFILIATION.—It only remains to inquire w

hat evidence respecting

o

the affiliation of the Dravidian family of tongues is furnished by the

il

preceding investigation of the numerals of that family.

fle

The evidence is not only decidedly opposed to the supposition that

i

the Dravidian languages are derived from the Sanskrit, but also, so far

as it goes, is inconsistent with the supposition of the descent of those

p, f,

)

languages from the Aryan fzunivly. Even if we accepted Dr Gundert’s

292

THE NUMERALSO

theory that the words for five and ten are Saﬁskrit tadbharas, that

would only prove that the less cultured people had borrowed certain

words from the more cultured. Borrowing something from a friend

An ultimate relation-

is one thing, being related to him is another.

ship of some sort between the Dravidian languages and those of the

Indo-European family may perhaps be deduced, or at least guessed at,

from other departments of the grammar; but on this point, as it

appears to ‘me, the numerals are silent. - The only tésemblance I can

find between the Dravidian numerals and those of ahy Indo-European

language (excluding for the present the debated five and ten), is the

resemblance of the Telugu oka, one, to the Sanskrit éka, as well as to

the Ugrian og, ak, and okur, and in that instance it seems possible

that the Sanskrit itself may have 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

can be traced to the same forms, and are virtually identical ; and hence,

when we find in the Dravidian numerals, as I think we do, no resem-

blance to those of the Indo-European tongues, with the exception of

the abnormal Sanskrit éka, we seem to be compelled to conclude that

the:Dravidian languages cannot be Indo-European.

e

On the other hand, a comparison of the Dravidian numerals with

those of the Scythian tongues appears to establish the fact of the

existence of Scythian: analogies in this department, as in many others,

of the grammar of the Dravidian family. The resemblance between

the Dravidian one and four, and the corresponding numerals in the

Ugrian languages, -is so remarkable, {that we may fairly regard those

numerals as identical.

The same statement applies to the word for

one which is found in the Scythian version of Dariug’s cuneiform

The numeral four, and the other numerals

inscriptions at Behistun.

above one, are not contained in that unique relic of the ancient

Scythian speech of Central Asia ; ‘and in this case the negative argu-

Professor Hunfaloy doubts thie relationship of

ment proves nothing.

the Dravidian word for one to that in the Ugrian languages.

He says

nothing about the word for four, the identity of which I think he

must have admitted.

It may perhaps be thought that the resemblance

of only two numerals at most (one and four), out of ten, cannot be con-

sidered to prove much ; but it is to be borne in mind that this resem-

blance is all, or nearly all, that is generally observed in the Scythian

languages themselves between the numerals of one language of a family

and those of other languages belonging to the same family.

Thus, it

cannot be doubted that the Magyar and the Finnish are sister tongues,

g

essentially and very 01<>~e]}"2111ied ; and yet with respect to four nume-

\f

AFFILIATION.

253

rals—seven, eight, nine, and ten—I do not feel sure that any distinct

trace of resemblance between them survives; and it is only in the case

of the numerals one, two, and four, that it can be said, without hesita-

tion, that the same root is used in both languages. - Where the arith-

metical faculty is not strongly developed, words of number are formed

slowly and irregularly, and are easily forgotten.

0

I

254

THE PRONOUN.

P

Al

Vl‘

—————

THE PRONOU N.

MucH light is thrown by the pronouns on the relationship of languages

and families of languages; for the personal pronouns, and especially

those of the first and second person singular, evince more of the qua-

lity of permanence than any other parts of speech, and are generally

found to change but little in the lapse of ages.

They are more per-

manent even than the numerals, the signs of case, and the verbal

inflexions ; and though, like everything else, they are liable to change,

yet their counections and ramifications may be traced amongst nearly

all the languages of mankind, how widely soever sundered by time or

place.

In some instances the personal pronouns constitute the only

appreciable point of contact or feature of relationshipfibetween lan-

i

guages which belonged originally to one and the same family, but

which, in the lapse of time and through the progress of corruption,

have become generically different.

This remark especially applies to

the pronouns of the first person, which of all parts of speech is the

most persistent.

A remarkable peculiarity of the Japanese is the

absence of personal pronouns, properly so called. Usage alone deter-

mines which of the three persons is denoted ; as in English, it is usage

that determines that ¢ your servant’ means IJa@)your honour, you.’

SECTION I.—PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

1. ProNoUN oF THE FIrsT PERSON SINGULAR.

Comparison of Dialects.—Our first inquiry must be, what appears to

have been the primitive form of this pronoun in the Dravidian lan-

guages? A comparison of the forms it assumes in the different dialects

may be expected to throw much light on this question.

It will be

well to exhibit the facts of the case first, with only such explanations

as seem to be necessary, reserving to the end the consideration of the

inferences which the facts appear to establish.

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR

2

I must here remind the reader of what I have said in this introduc-

tion respecting the relation subsisting between the classical and collo-

quial dialects of the principal Dravidian languages

There is a pre-

sumption in favour of the antiquity of words and forms found in the

literature of those languages, especially when found in the grammars

and vocabularies, which are at least seven or eight hundred years old

and are regarded as works of authority ; but on the whole it is safer to

regard those words and forms, not as necessarily more ancient, but

only as probably more ancient, and certainly more classical

In citing

those dialects, therefore, I shall cite them, not, as has generally been

done, under the names of the ancient and the modern dialects, but as

the classical and the colloquial

It will be seen that in all cases I compare, not only the nominatives

of the personal pronouns found in the various dialects, but also the

inflexional bases of the oblique cases and the pronominal terminations

of the verbs

The base of the oblique cases of the pronoun of the first

person in the Indo-European languages seems altogether unconnected

with the base of the nominative

In the Dravidian languages it 1s

evident that the nominative and the inflexions of this and of all pro-

nouns are substantially the same

Differences, it is true, are apparent

but they are comparatively insignificant, and are generally capable of

being explained

Where the inflexion differs from the nominative, but

agrees with the verbal endings, we may reasonably suppose the in-

flexion a better representative than the nominative of the oldest shape

of the pronoun. In most of the dialects, the included vowel of each of

the personal pronouns is long in the nominative, short in the inflexion

In such cases, the inflexion might be supposed to be an abbreviation

of the nominative, made for the purpose of enabling the base to bear

the weight of the case-signs

On the other hand, as in the Dravidian

languages, the nominative of the personal pronouns is only used when

it is emphatic, the lengthening of the included vowel of the nominative

On the whole, the

ay be regarded merely as a result of emphasis

latter supposition seems preferable

(Compare the lengthening of the

vowel of several of the numerals, when used not as adjectives, but as

substantives.) It seems desirable also to compare the plural forms of

this pronoun with the singular

The mode in which the personal pro-

f0

{l

nouns are pluralised will be explained under a separate head ; but the

plural forms themselves will be cited here, for the sake of the light

1Ct\

they may be expected to throw on the initial consonant and included

e

In all cases it will be found that the ultimate

o

vowel of the singular.

base of the singular and that of the plural are identical.

e

Unlike the Indo-European tongues, as best represented by the. Vedlc

&

296

THE PRONOUN

Sanskrit, in which the plural of the first person has the force of I and

they, and that of the second person thou and they, the plurals of the

Dravidian languages are simply the singulars with the addition of

suffixes denoting plurality. The reader is requested to remember (see

note on Transliteration, preceding Sounds) that in most of the

Dravidian dialects ¥ has come to be pronounced before initial e—e.g.,

in Tamil, en, my, is pronounced yen.

This y (and the corresponding

v or w before o) has frequently made its appearance in the translitera-

tion of words commencing with e into the Roman character, and some-

times even in cases where a comparison of dialects was the object in

View,

- No notice will be taken of this euphonic of pronunciation in

the following analysis.

I cite each word as it is written by the best

classlcal wmters believing that the written™ fc»rm of' the word best

represents the manner in which it was actually pronounced when the

language was first committed to writing.

If y appears anywhere in

this analysis, it is because in that instance y has a place in the written

language, and appears to be radical.

In colloquml Tamil the nominative of the pronoun of the first

person singular is ndn :

in classical Tamil it is ydn or mdn, more

commonly the former.

The ¢ Nanntl,” the most authoritative grammar

of this dialect (the date of which cannot, I. thmk be later than the

eleventh century), gives both forms, ydn or ndn, but always places

yén first

This proves nothing, I think, respecting the relative an-

tiquity” of the two forms; it only proves that ydn was regarded by

the author 6f the “ Nannfil,” as it is still regarded, as more elegant

than ndn.

The 1nflexion of this pronoun in both dialects is en.

It 1s

here apparent, and‘will be seen in all the other dialects also, that the

included vowel vibrates between @ and e

The personal terminations

of the verbs are én in the colloquial ; and en and én, and occasionally

an, in the classical dialect

(I omit all consideration of those forms of

the Tamil verb which, though regarded by native grammarians as

belonging to the first person singular and plural, are in reality im-

personal)

The corresponding plurals are—mnom. colloquial, ndm

ndngal

classical, ydm or ndm ; inflexion, coll. nam, eigal

class. em,

nam. The nom. ydm is more common in the classics than ndm,; bub

in the inflected forms mam is regarded as nearly, if not quite, as

elegant as em—e.g., namar = emar, our party, nostrates, In the classical

compound eldm, all we, corresponding to elér, all you, the plural

nom.

is dm. Personal terminations of the verb—coll. ém, class

em, ém, am, dm, om.

At first sight we might suppose nam and ném to be the pronominal

terminations of the class. Tam nadandanam, nadandanem, we walked,

—

&

T

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

207

i

8

and of many similar verbs and conjugated nouns—nouns with which

0l

a pronoun is combined (see ¢ Classification of Dravidian Verb,”

i

Part V.; Appellative Verbs or Conjugated Nouns”); but the » of

he

these terminations is merely euphonic, and is used to prevent hiatus.

ly

When it is omitted, the vowels which it had kept separate coalesce—

e.g., nadanda-am becomes nadanddm ; nadanda-em, nadandém. The

termination dm is the only one now used in the colloquial dialect.

[y

This could not well have been derived from ém, but would spring

I

naturally enough from dm.

Of this we have an illustration in the

I

fact that dm, contracted from dgum, or G-um, it is so, yes, is some-

§

times written, as well as pronounced, ém.

Moreover, whilst many

i

instances of the change of @ into e or ¢, and also o, can be adduced,

16

I do not know any of the converse of this.

I

In Malayilam the nominative is 7idn (the initial 4 of which is the

nasal of the palatals, pronounced like 7¢ in onion).

The inflexion

is ordinarily en, as in Tamil ; but in the dative nikk is often used,

f

as well as the more regular enakk’ and enikk’.

en 1s here altered to

?

wn, a form which I do not find in any of the other cultivated Dra-

vidian dialects.

[

The verb in ordinary Malayalam is destitute of

personal terminations; but in the poetry an inflected form is frequently

used, in which the termination representing this pronoun is én, as in

Tamil.

In conjugated nouns the personal termination, as an or én—

e.g., adiyan or adiyen, I (thy) servant ; plural nom. ndm, nom, nam-

Y

b

mal, fiaiial, nummal; inflex. dawial, einal, em, and zyzlso no, nom,

1§

nom, num.

Personal terminations of verb (in the poets), om.

The

I

shortness of the included vowel of fianial, and the ordinary use of this

Iy

form, rather than of ennial, as the inflexion, are noticeable peculiarities

in the MalayAlam plural.

Iy

Another peculiarity is the occasional use

i

of nom instead of ndm, answering to the ém which forms the personal

)

termination of the verb in poetical Malayalam and colloquial Tamil.

I

In colloquial Canarese the nominative of this pronoun is ndnu,

nearly as in Tamil, the inflected form of which, as seen in all the

oblique cases, is nan’.

The crude form of this pronoun zd is also

flly

used as a nominative. This is a peculiarity of Canarese and Telugu ;

11U

ai

but the use of #4, the crude form of the pronoun of the second person,

ol

instead of ninw, has its counterpart in Tamil, in which 74 is the only

form of the nominative known.

o

In the classical dialect, or what is

A8

commonly called “old Canarese,” the nominative is an, ydn, or dm

the inflexion, en, is identical with that of the Tamil in both its

il

dialects. The pronominal terminations of the first person singular of

the verb are enu, énu, and ére in the colloquial dialect, and en in the

ol

classical,

It is deserving of notice that the final % or nu of the

R

B E

¥

st

L:IL PRONOUN.

personal terminations, as of the isolated pronouns, is frequently

The personal termination of this

dropped in the colloquial dialect.

person of the verb, when nu is dropped, becomes e, with which the

Tulu termination may be compared. Plurals: nominative, coll. dial.

Personal

ndvw ; class. dial. dm, dow ; inflexion, coll. nam; class. em.

evu 1S as

terminations of verb: coll. evu, évu, and éve,; class. evu.

clearly a softened form of em as dvu of dm.

In colloquial Telugu the nominative of this pronoun is nénu the

;

W

crude né may also be used, like nd in Canarese.

In the classical

dialect, énu is preferred, and this is sometimes represented by & alone.

nénu takes nd for its inflexion in all cases except the accusative (rnanu

or mannw), in which it is man’, as in colloquial Canarese. It appears

from this that the vowel of the pronominal base librates between a

and e, but that e is probably to be regarded as the more ancient, as

well as the more elegant form, in so far as Telugu usage is concerned,

The verbal inflexions of the Telugu are only the final syllable of the

nominative of each of the promouns—viz., nu or ni after ¢ (from

nénw, I); vu or vi after ¢ (from nivu, thou) ; and ndu (from vandu,

Plurals : nominative, coll. mému, manamu, class. ému; in-

he).

flexions, md, mam, mana,; personal termination of verbs, mu, or me

after 7. The most essential part of the personal pronouns has been

dropped, we see, in the verbal inflexions of the Telugu, the fragments

which have been retained being probably merely formatives, or at

most signs of number and gender.

Of the same character is the 7u,

or 73 after 7, which forms the personal termination of the second person

It represents merely the

plural and the third person epicene plural.

ar by which epicene nouns are pluralised.

This is the only

The Tulu nominative is ydn’; inflexion, yen’.

instance in any of these dialects in which y, the initial letter of the

In classical Canarese

nominative, appears in writing in the inflexion.

The

and Tamil the inflexion is written en, though pronounced ger

personal termination of the verb is e (compare the colloquial Canarese

verbal termination e, and the classical Telugu nominative é).

This e,

Mr Brigel informs us, is pronounced nearly like @ in man; whilst

the ¢ which forms the termination of the third person masculine of the

verb is pronounced pure.

Plurals: nominative, nama, yenkalw ;

inflexion, nam’, yenkul'.

The included vowel of nama is short in

the nominative, as well as the inflexion.

The only instance of this

in the other dialects is mammal, one of the MalayAlam nominatives,

and its related 7Zansnial.

Personal termination of the verb, a. . The

personal terminations of the first ‘person plural and the thitd_t person

—

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

)

neuter plural (both «) are

this dialect.

alike, which is A remﬁkable pemill»i_arity of

The Tuda nonﬁnative is dn (& pronounced like the E

) glish aw in

Tuda); inflexion, en personal termination of verb,

en, eny, 1L,

plural nom. dm or ém, also ém ; inflex. em (

the nominative dm is also

used, according to Dr Pope, like an inflexion). Mr Metz writes this

not dm, but am, which is more in accordance with

analogy. Personal

terminations, emd, vmi.

In the dialect of the Kotas, according to

Mr Metz, the nominative singular is dne;

inflexion, en, plural nom.

dme, éme, and also ndme; inflex. em, nam

personal terminations,

singular, ¢, as in Tulu ; plural, éme and eme,

In Gond the nominative,is annd ; inflexion, nd ;

plural, ammal ;

inflexion, md. Personal terminations of the verb :

singular, dn or na

plural, dm, am, or ém.

In the Ku or Khond the nominative singular

is dnw, as in classical Canarese ; inflexion, nd

» as in. Telugu and Gond

(Dr Hunter’s lists, dnu ; inflex. ndnde)

5 plural nom. d@muw ; inflex. mda

also dju ; inflex. ammd. Personal ter

minations of verb: singular, ¢n

or in (mdin, I am), or e (mdsse, 1 was) ; plural, dma.

In the Brahui the nominative is %,

but in the oblique cases (g,

kand, of me ;

kane, me, to me) the pronominal b

ase 18 ka or kan, a

root which seems to be totally unconnected w

ith the Dravidian ndn or

ydn, and which is to be compared rather with the Cuneiform,

Scythian,

Babylonian, and Gujarathi ku, hu, &c.

The plural of the first person,

nan, is on the whole in accordance with

the Dravidian pronoun.

The

verbal inflexion of the plural

18 67%*—6.9-, aren, we are.

In the Rajmahal dialect, I is en

mine, ongki ; we, nam, om ; our,

emle, ndm ki, Uraon, I, eran,; mine

r Hun

our, emhsi.

S

, enghi > we, em (D

€n

Fer, en) ;

5 nan

)

I have now gone over the ground traver

sed in my first edition, with

such additions and corrections

0

as recently published grammars have

enabled me to make.

4

The results are exhibited, for convenience of

comparison, in the accompanying table.

In this list, I include only

those dialects which have been careful

ly studied, and of which gram-

i

mars have been published.

The pronouns of the first person contained

bt

in the Rajmahal and Uraon are exhibited in

Il

a separate list, together

with those found in Dr Hunter’s lists of w

!

ords contained in the rest of

the Central Indian dialects,

s

It is obvious, however, that it would be

unsafe to deduce

any inference, except one of the vaguest kind, from

(]

lists of isolated words collected by persons who h

ad little or no real

e

acquaintance with the dialects to which they belor

1ged.

We tread on

0

firmer ground when we compare with one another

dialects which have

attained to the dignity of possessing published

grammars,

260

THE PRONOUN.

We have now

to determine, if possible, from a coﬁsidemtioh of tbé

facts elicited by this comparison, what was the primitive form of the

Dravidian pronoun of the first person. In the first edition, I said,

“The weight of evidence seemed to be in favour of our regarding ndn,

the Tamil nominative, as the best existing representative of the old

Dravidia

1 nominative of this pronoun, and nd, the crude form of the

Canarese, as the primitive unmodified root.” In coming to this con-

clusion, I w

as much influenced by the extra-Dravidian relationships of

this pronoun,

which, as will be seen hereafter, are strongly in favour

Viewing the question, however, from a purely

of ndn, as against ydn.

Dravidian point of view, the conclusion T arrived at did not seem to

me quite satisfactory ;

and the passage cited above had hardly been

I did not sup-

printed ere I wished I had decided in favour of ydn.

pose, however, that when we arrived at ndn (or ydn

), the earliest

organic development o

f this pronoun, we had reached a point in its

and still

history beyond which we could not go ; for it seemed to me,

seems, probable that the final 2 is only a formative, denoting the sin-

gul

ar number, and that the initial n (corresponding as it does with the

is another formative,

initial 7 of the pronoun of the second person)

denoting in some way personality ;

whilst it is by means of the in-

f the first person is to

cluded vowels (¢ and t) alone that the pronoun o

In consequence of this,

I

be differentiated from that of the second.

(a and 7) the very

thought T could recognise in those included vowels

carliest shape of the Dravidian pronoun.

ldef than ndn. This is also

Dr Gundert considers ydn as probably o

view, though in his ¢ Outlines of Tuda

Grammar,” p. 5, he

Dr Pope’s

says, very truly, T think,

¢ The original form of the Dravidian pronoun

The late Mr Gover, in a paper on the

of the first person is uncertain.”

¢ Dravidian Pronoun,” of which he was so kind as to send me a

privately

printed copy, advocated ydn as

against ndn, but further on rejected

and adopted dn or én as the real

the y also, as probably not primitive,

base.

It was necessary to his theory

to regard the final n as primi-

tive, being

derived, as he supposed, from the m of the Arvan ma

Dr Pope scems to

(changed first, he thought, to na, and then to an).

concur in Mr Gover’s view of both of the initial letters and of the

final

p 3

n (though for a different reason), when he says in his Outlines,”

I

5. «T would compare dn with the very ancient Sanskrit aham.”

conclude that both Dr Pope and Mr Gover may be cited, not only in

favour of ydn, as against ndn, but also in favour of dn, as against ydn.

Which is to be regarded

This latter point may be considered first.

as the older form, ydn or dn ?

A change of ydn into dn seems to me

But in

much easier and more natural than a change of dn into ydn.

P

N

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

261

this instance we are not left to mere abstract probabilities ; paralle]

cases can be adduced, and that from the list of pronouns and pronomi-

nals.

The Tamil dr, who? epicene plural, has undoubtedly been

softened from ydr, and that from ydvar ; and this is quite certain,

because both the changed form and the unchanged are still in daily

use; the only difference is, that the older form is considered more

elegant.

We have another instance in dndwu, Tam. a year, which is

properly ydndu, when? a year, from the same interrogative base ya.

y@ndu is the form of this word invariably used in inscriptions of any

antiquity. The ease with which ya would change into @ may be con-

cluded also from the ease with which it has changed into ¢, an instance

of which we have in the change of the interrogative pronoun already

cited, ydvar, not only into ydr and dr, but also into evar. It is evident

from these facts that 7 is a particularly changeable letter, and therefore

that dn may safely be regarded as a softened form of ydn.

The next point to be considered is, what is the relationship of ydn

to ndn ?

I refer here to the initial consonant alone, not to the differ-

cnce between the Tamil ndn, ydn, and the Telugu nénw, énu. That

difference consists in the included vowel, and will be considered after-

wards. As I have already said, it appears to me now that yan is

probably older than ndn, but ndn also, I consider, as of great antiquity.

It is quite clear that there is a tendency in the Dravidian dialects,

especially in Tamil and Malay&lam, to convert y into 7.

Several words

which begin with % or 7 in Tamil begin with a vowel in other dialects.

Comp. Tam. néndu, to swim, with Tel. 4du; Tam. and Mal. nandu

or ftandu, a crab, with the Tel, Can., and Tulu ends, entre, yandri.

I

In these cases, however, it cannot be determined with certainty whether

the initial % of the Tamil may not have been radical.

Clearer evidence

might perhaps appear to be furnished by the relative participles of the

:1

|

i

preterite Tamil verb, which may take either y or n—e.g., $ollvya or

2

$onna (for $ollina), that said ; with respect to which it might be con-

cluded that g, being considered more elegant, is also more ancient.

Il

This, however, seems to me doubtful, seeing that the use of n, as in

i

) !

{

this case, to prevent hiatus, is capable of being traced back to a very

early period in the history of the language.

The only instances of the

W

change of y into » that are quite reliable are those that are seen in

)

Sanskrit tadbhapas.

The Sanskrit yuga, a yoke, is ordinarily in Tamil

{_;4 /4'14&4

nugam, sometimes ugam. The Sanskrit yama, the god of death, though

vm

ordinarily yaman, is also found, especially in the poetry, as naman,

il

naman, and eman.* Here we have indubitable instances of the change-

ol

w

* Dr Pope points out that the English anchor has become in Tamil nangkuram

or nangkdram.

(B

X

<

62

THE PRONOUK.

éjole‘ness of y. It is evidently liabie both to be hardened into 7, and

also to be softened into a vowel.

We see therefore the possibility of

a primitive Dravidian ydn changing on the one hand into ndn, and on

the other into dn or én.

What seems to raise the possibility in this

case into a probability is the circumstance that the en, which forms the

only inflexion of this pronoun in the classical dialects of Tamil and

(lanarese, could much niore easily be weakened from ydn than from

nan.

This is partly in consequence of y being more easily softened

away than »,; partly in consequence of the peculiar tendency in the

Dravidian languages to pronounce y before e, so that ex would naturally

be pronounced yen, and would therefore naturally connect itself with

ydn.

It is curious also that yd seems to have a special tendency of

its own to change into ¢, as we have seen’ in_ the case of: the interroga-

.

tives—ydwvar, Tam. who? which becomes evar; ydigu, where? engu.

The change of ya (short) into e in- Tamil may also be illustrated from

Sanskrit tadbharas. yantra, a machine, becomes endiram ; yajamdna, a

sacrifice, a master, eSanydn.

There is an ulterior tendency in Tamil to

change a into e, which will be illustrated further on, in considering

the included vowel of this pronoun.

The change of ydn into ndn

would be facilitated if we should take the Malaydlam #@dn, as I think

we fairly may, as the middle point.

If y were usually pronounced

with a slightly nasal sound, it would naturally become #, and this

would naturally harden in some instances into the = of the dental

series, possibly even into % and m.

We have seen in the course of our comparison of the different Dra-

vidian dialects that the initial » or # of ndn, nénu, idn, has entirely

disappeared in the verbal inflexions.

The final #, whatever its origin,

has shown itself more persistent ; though it also, as we shall see, some-

times disappears; but in none of the dialects has the initial » or %, or

any relic of it, been retained in the personal terminations of the verb.

I think it unsafe, however, to conclude from this, or from any of the

facts mentioned, that the initial % of ndn is of modern origin.

ndn

may have been altered from ydn, as I think it was, and yet the altera-

tion may have taken place at so early a period, and both forms may

have continued so generally in use, that the question to be considered

is not so much, which is ancient, and which is modern? as, which is

to be regarded as the best representation of the primitive form of the

word? It would not be corrrect to say that the initial z is not con-

tained in any of the old forms, or that it has disappeared from every

ancient dialect.

ndn is represented, as we have seen, as alternating

with ydn in the most authoritative grammar of the classical Tamil;

~

T

FIRST ‘PERSON SINGULAR.

P

t

S

aud whilst the singular inflexion is always en, the plural may be-éither

em or nam. nam is found in Tamil compounds of high antiquity, like

nambe (comp. embi, lord, literally, our lord. 2d or nan is the inflexion

of the singular in Telugu, colloquial Canarese, Ku, and Génd. In

Malayélam 7icn is the most common form of the nominative, though ydn

also is known, and the 7% of Zan is lost in the inflexion.

In. Tulu the

plural is nama.

The Telugu plural mému has plainly been derived

from nému.

These deep-seated traces of the use at one time of a

nominative in ndn, contemporaneously with one in ydn, in the dialects

of people so long and so widely separated from one another as the Ku

and the Tamil, the Gond and the Malayalam, seem to carry us back to

an antiquity far greater than that of any of the so-called ancient

dialects. The classical compositions commonly called ancient carry

us back not much more than a thousand years ; but we must go back

perhaps three times that period before we réach the time when the

ancestors of the existing Tamilians lived side by side in the plains of

Northern India with the ancestors of the existing Gonds, At that

time, whenever it was, ndn may be concluded to have been in use as

well as ydn,; but even then ndn appears to have been a secondary

form ; ydn, the more characteristic and authoritative,

An excellent

illustration of the admissibility of this hypothesis may be derived from

Sanskrit. It is commonly asserted, and may perhaps be admitted to

be a fact, that the Vedic asme, we, is older than vagam, the correspond-

ing word in use in the later literature.

The use of "asmé in the Vedas

is one argument for its antiquity ; another and still better is its appear-

ance in Greek in the shape of &uues.

But we must not too hastily

assume that, because vayam appears in the later Sanskrit literature,

whilst asmé is found in the earliest, vayam is therefore a modern cor-

ruption ; for we find (va or vé) the base of this form not only in the

Zend vaém, but also in the Gothic veis (English, 4ve) ; and this carries

us back to the period

a period of unknown antiquity—when the

b

Teutonic tribes had not yet left their early seats in the Fast. The

reappearance in the plural, in the Pali-prakrkt tumké, yoi, of the tu

out of which the yu of yushme and yadyam was corrupted, after it had

wholly disappeared from every other form of Aryan speech, is

another

case in point, as tending to prove that an old form m

b}

ay be retained in

existence, and, to a certain extent, in use long after

another form has

4

supplanted it in popular favour. The antiquity of one form is evidently

therefore no valid argument against the antiquity of another.

;

In a discussion of this kind, it should not be forgotten that the

:

pronouns of the first and second person in all the Dravidi

an dialects

are evidently formed on the same p]:m,

They have been exposed to

264

THE PRONOUN.

the same influences, and have changed in nearly the same degree.

Dr

Pope (“‘ Outlines of Tuda Grammar”), who considers the initial n of

ndn, I, a late addition, thinks the initial » of nén (or nf), thou, un-

doubtedly radical.

If, then, » is to be regarded as undoubtedly

radical in 74, though it disappears in most of the inflexions, and in the

personal terminations of all the verbs, and though even the nomina-

tive becomes # in Tulu and %vx in poetical Telugu, may we not con-

clude that the initial » of ndn, I, though not radical (I have never

claimed for it that distinction), carries us back to a period in the

history of the language beyond which we can do little more than

guess our way.

What was the included vowel of the primitive Dravidian pronoun ?

6 is found in the

We have only to choose, I think, between « and e.

plural in some connections in Tamil and Malayalam, but it is derived,

as I think I have shown, from the 4 of dm.

The ¢ which makes its

1|

appearance in a solitary instance in Malayilam is quite exceptional,

and seems to be the result of attraction.

en, which occupies so impor-

tant a place in almost all the dialects, both in the inflexion and in the

verbal terminations, seems to point to a nominative in én, the best

On the other

representative of which is the classical Telugu énu.

PRSI S

hand, in the greater number of the dialects, including both the culti-

vated dialects in Southern India and the uncultivated dialects in the

hills in Northern India, the nominative is ndn or dn.

a, I think, is to

be preferred, on account of the existence of a tendency in almost all

languages, and particularly in the Dravidian, to weaken « into e, whilst

I cannot discover any distinct trace of the existence of the contrary

tendency. The tendency of the Tamil to weaken @ into e may best be

illustrated by Sanskrit derivatives, inasmuch as in these cases we

know which vowel was the original and which was the corruption.

Some have been quoted already, as showing the tendency of ya in

particular to change into e ; but the following examples, in connection

with other consonants, may be added—e.g., japa, Sans. prayer, Tam.

$ebam ; bala, Sans. strength, Tam. belam.

This tendency shows itself

in the pronunciation of many Sanskrit words used in Tamil, in which

I should add that Dr Gun-

the vowel remains unaltered in writing.

dert appears to consider not ya, but ge, euphonised to ¢, the primi-

tive form of this pronoun.

He admits, however, that ¢ is only another

form of a.

Whatever be

What is the origin of the final » of ydn, ndn, &c.?

its origin, it seems to me certain that it is not radical.

It is more

persistent than the initial n, but in the plural it is uniformly rejected,

and an (probably from the copulative wm), the sign of plurality dis-

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

)

tinctive of the personal pronouns, used instead.

This sign of plurality

1s not added to %, as it would have been if it had been regarded as a

part of the root, or even as a help to the expression of the idea of

personality, but substituted for it.

If we compare ndn, I, with ndm,

we, nin, thou, with ném, you, tdn, self, with ¢@m, selves, it is evident

that the final % is a sign of the singular number, and the final m a sign

of the plural.

The pronominal base is evidently the same in both

numbers ; and the certainty of this is not affected by any question

that may arise as to the shape of the oldest form of the pronominal

base.

If we regard ydn as more primitive than ndn, the conclusion

we come to must be the same, the plural of ydn being ydm.

This

appears to prove that nd (or ya) denotes either I or we, according to

the singularity or plurality of the suffixed particle (zd + n=1 alone ;

nd 4+ m=1Is, egogne, we) ; and that the final % of ndn, no less than the

final m of ndm, is a sign, not of personality, but merely of number.

Is the final % of ndn a sign of gender as well as of number ?

Is it

a sign of the masculine singular, and connected with an or =, the

ordinary masculine singular suffix of the Tamil?

The pronouns of

the first and second persons are naturally epicene, but it is not unusual

in the Indo-European languages to find them assuming the grammatical

forms of the masculine.

Thus in Sanskrit the terminations of the

oblique cases of the pronouns of the first and second persons, are those

which are characteristic of the masculine gender.

I am not inclined,

however, to adopt this explanation of the origin of the final n of the

Dravidian personal pronouns.

I am not satisfied, either, with the

supposition that this final # is merely euphonic, like the final nasal of

the Tartar man, 1.

The explanation which appears to me to suit the

facts of the case best is, that this » is identical with the an, alternat-

ing with am, which is so largely used, especially in Tamil and Malay-

dlam, is a formative of neuter singular nouns—e.g., wran, Tam.

)l

strength = uram.

It would thus accord in use (possibly in part even

J

in origin) with the final am of the nominative of the Sanskrit personal

pronouns, ak-am, I, to-am, thou, svay-am (sva-m), self (compare Greek

i

LLh

éydv), which is evidently a formative, and identical with one of the

I

most common nominative and accusative singular neuter case-signs.

(See “ The Noun : the Nominative.”) Compare the optional use of m

i

instead of n, as the final consonant of the pronoun of first person in

ot

classical Canarese—e.g., dm, I, instead of dn.

So also the same

dialect has awam for he, instead of avan.

be

am, the formative of the nominative of the Sanskrit pronouns, is

16

used not only by the singulars, but, in latter Sanskrit at least, by the

ed,

plurals—e.g., vayam, we, yiyam, you ; but properly these plurals are

is

6

3]

THE PRONOUN

to be regarded as abstract neuter singulars in form, though plurals in

signification

The Dravidian formative am or an is exclusively singular

Whatever be the origin of the final » in question, it must have had

a place in the personal and reflexive pronouns from a very early period

for we find it in the Brahui ten, self (compare Dravidian ¢dn}), and in

the Ostiak nyn, thou (compare Dravidian n%n)

This throws light on

the probability of the supposition I advanced with regard to the

initial # of ndn—rviz, that though ndn was apparently derived from

ydn, the date of its origin might be far earlier than that of any portion

of the literature which is written in what are sometimes called the

ancient ‘dialects

If,'as we have seen, nd or yd is to be regarded as the primitive form

of thé Dravidian pronoun of the first person, and the final » as merely

a sign of number, it might appear extraordinary that in the pronominal

terminations of the verb the initial » (or %) should have invariably and

altogether disappeared, whilst the first person singular should be repre-

sented, either by the final 7 alone, or by the fragmentary vowel e alone

Similar anomalies

however

are discoverable in other languages

In Hebrew, anachnu, we, from anack (in actual use andkt), I, with the

addition of nu, a sign of plurality, is the full form of the plural of the

pronoun of the first person ;

yet in the verbal terminations anachnu is

represented solely by nu, the final fragment, which originally was only

a suffix of number.

But we need not go beyond the range of the

Dravidian languages themselves for an illustration.

We are furnished

WIth ‘a ‘perfectly parallel case by the Telugu.

The pronoun of the

second person singular in Telugu is mfvw, thou, from =i, the radical

This v is of so little importance

base, and’vd, an euphonic addition.

to the expression of the idea of personality, that it totally disappears

in all the oblique cases.

Nevertheless, it forms the regular termina-

tion of the second person singular of the Telugu verb, and it bhas

acquired this use precisely like the 7 which forms the ordinary ter-

mination of the first person singular of the Dravidian verb, simply

from the accident of position, seeing that it is not even a sign of

number, like the 2 of the first person, much less of personality, but 1s

merely an euphonisation

Supposing 7d, yd, or d, to be the primitive form of the Dravidian

pronoun of the first person, and 2%, ¥, or 7 (as we shall presently find

it to be) the corresponding form of the pronoun of the second person

it seems evident that the only essential difference between the two

consists in the difference between the tw

vowels ¢ and

We seem

to be able also to trace back these pronouns historically to the same

two vowels

The initial consonant, whatever be the consonant used

P

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

67

seems to be the common property of both pronouns and the means by

which their personality is expressed, whilst the annexed @ restricts the

signification to the first person, or that of the speaker; ¢, to the.

second person, or that of the person addressed.

Some resemblance to

this arrangement may be noticed in the personal pronouns of the Heb’

The

rew, in which I is an-0ki, thou, an-td (corrupted into ar-td).

method adopted by the Dravidian languages of expressing the differ-

erice between the first person and the second by means of the vowels

a-and ¢, does not appear to be the result of accident.

It is probably

founded on some ultimate principle ; though it may be difficult or

impossible now to discover what that principle is.

If the pronominal

bases, @ and 7, be considered as identical with @ and 7, the demonstrative

bases, an idea which would suit the signification, and which is corro-

borated by the circumstance that u, the next vowel in order, is also a

demonstrative, we are met by the apparently insurmountable difficulty

that in all the Dravidian tongues, and (as far as the use of these de-

monstrative vowels extends) in all the tongues of the Indo-European

family, @ is not the proximate, but the remote, demonstrative ; and ¢

is not the remote, but the proximate ; whilst « is used in Tamil as an

intermediate between those two.

If this supposition had been well

grounded, we should have expected to find %, mean I, and ¢, thou.

But what we actually find is that ¢ means I, and 4, thou.

In Tamil,

avvidam, literally that place, is occasionally used as a polite peri-

phrasis for you, and wwvidam, literally this place, as a courtly peri-

phrasis for we.

So in Malayalam, addéham, literally that body, is

sometimes used for thou, and <ddéham, literally this body, for I

angu, thither, means also, in Malayilam, to thee, to you ; igu, hither,

to me, to us.

This use of the demonstrative vowels is exactly the

reverse of the use to which we find @ and ¢ put in the personal pro-

nouns in all the Dravidian dialects.

It seems useless, therefore, to

look to the existing demonstrative bases for the origin of the @ of nd,

I, and the % of »%, thou.

Is any weight to be attributed to the circumstance that «, being the

easiest and most natural of all vowel sounds, has the first place in all

lists of vowels, whilst ¢, being the next easiest vowel sound, stands

second? The first vowel sound would thus be taken to represent the

first person, whilst the second person would be represented by the

|

second vowel sound. If this theory had anything to support it beyond

its plausibility, it would take us very far back indeed into the history

(]

of -the origin of human speech.

It is remarkable, however, that this

theory seems to receive confirmation from the Chinese, which exhibits

0

probably the oldest stage of human speech of which any writteni’

)

THE PRONOUN

268

:

records survive

According to Mr Edkins, the oldest forms of the first

I may add, that the most

two pronouns in Chinese were a and ¢

peculiar and distinctive, possibly the most ancient, of the Dravidian

demonstratives—the ‘demonstrative which denotes in Tamil, Malayalam,

We thus

Canarese, something intermediate between a and ¢— was u

find the whole of the first three simple vowels utilised, @ =1

v =thou;

u =he, it

Extra-Dravidian Relationship.—We now enter upon a comparison

of a, ya, or na, the Dravidian pronoun of the first person, with the

pronouns of the same persons which are contained in other families of

tongues, for the purpose of ascertaining its relationship

As nd con-

stitutes the personal element in ndm, we, as well as in ndn, I (and it is

the same with ya and a, the verbal forms), it is evident that our com-

parison should not be exclusively restricted to the singular, but that

we are at liberty to include in the comparison the plurals of this

pronoun in the various languages which are compared ; for it is not

improbable & priore that some analogies may have disappeared from

It is also to be

the singular which have been retained in the plural

remembered that we are not obliged to restrict ourselves to comparing

the pronouns of other families of languages with the Dravidian ga alone

ya may be older than 7a, na, or a, yet each of these is old enough for

any comparison that may be instituted.

All pronouns of the first person singular that have been used at any

time in Asia, Europe, or Northern Africa, whether it be in connection

with the Indo-European, the Semitic, or Scythian family of tongues

can more or less distinctly be traced back, I believe, to two roots

Each of those roots has been preserved in Sanskrit, and in the more

primitive members of the Indo-European family; one (ak) in the

nominative, the other, and by far the more widely prevalent one (ma)

in the oblique cases

In order, therefore, to investigate the affiliation

of the Dravidian pronoun of the first person, it will be necessary to

extend our inquiries over a wider area than usual

1. Semitic Analogies.—The Semitic pronoun presents some remark-

able analogies to the Dravidian

This will appear on comparing the

Dravidian nd with the corresponding Hebrew ani, with the prefix an

of the Hebrew ﬂnokz of the Egyptian anuk, and of the Babylonian

5o

anaku, draka, or anku, and especially with the Jewish-Syriac and, the

Christian-Syriac eno, and the Athiopic and Arabic and

The plural

of the Aramaic and is formed by suffixing » (the final consonant of #n

or dn) : we may therefore compare the Tamil ndm, we, with the Ara-

maic plural andn, and also with the Egyptian plural anen

Notwithstanding this remarkable resemblance between the Semitic

0

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

26

v

pronoun and the Dravidian, it is doubtful whether the resemblance is

not merely accidental.

The Semitic initial syllable an, in which the

resemblance resides, is not confined to the pronouns of the first person.

We find it not only in ana (from anak, and that again from anak), I,

but also in the Arabic and Old Hebrew antd and the Aramaic ant,

thou (Egyptian, en-tek, en-ta).

The prefix being precisely the same in

both cases, the pronoun of the second person seems to have as good a

claim to it as that of the first.

It does not seem, moreover, to be an

essential part of either pronoun; for we find a similar prefix in the

third person in some of the Semitic dialects—e.g., in the Egyptian

entuf, he, entus, she, and the Chaldaic and Hebrew suffix enku, he.

Moreover, the alliance of the Semitic pronouns of the first and second

persons with the Indo-European comes out into more distinct relief

When the initial an is removed from

when this prefix is laid aside.

the pronoun of the first person, we cannot doubt the connection of the

remaining syllable (oke, ah, ah, uk, aku, or ak) with the Sanskrit ah,

the Gothic %, and the Greek-Latin eg; and it is equally evident that

when an or en is rejected from the pronouns of the second person

(antd, anti, ant, entek, enta), the ta, tv, te, or ¢, which remains, is allied

to the Sanskrit and Latin tuw.

It has sometimes been supposed that this Semitic prefix an is simply

euphonic—a sort of initial nunnation like that which is admitted to

exist in the Talmudic #nhi, he, when compared with the ordinary and

undoubtedly more ancient Hebrew Ad.

On this supposition, it is

allied, in nature and origin, to the euphonic suffixes or nunmnations

which may be observed in the Greek Zyd-vs, in the Finnish mi-nd, T,

and in the final nasal of the North-Indian main, I, and Zazn or

tun, thou.

If this be the origin of the Semitic prefix an, it must certainly be

I

unconnected with the Dravidian nd or and.

0

Sir H. Rawlinson supposes an to be a particle of specification, a sort

of definite article ; and he also considers it to be identical with am,

the termination of the Sanskrit personal pronouns ah-am, I, tv-am,

I

thou, va-y-am, we, yi-y-am, you.

The only difference, he says, is that

1

the particle is prefixed in the one family of languages, and suffixed in

the other, with a change of m into its equivalent nasal n.

I have

il

i

already stated that I regard the Sanskrit termination am as the ordi-

nl

nary termination of the nominative of the neuter singular, and as used

instead of the masculine and feminine, simply because of the intenge

m

personality which is inherent in the first and second personal pronouns,

1

especially in their nominatives, and which renders the terminations

0

distinctive of those genders unnecessary.

270

THE

PRONOUN

I have also stated that I regard it as probable that the terminal n

of. the, Dmvmhan personal pronouns is identical with the formative an

or am of many Dravidian neuter singular nouns, and possible that it is

identical also ‘with the Sanskrit nominative-accusative neuter

ase-sign

am, which has found its way, as it appears to me, into the nominatives

of the Sanskrit pronouns ah-am, &c

If the initial an of the Semitic

languages is allied to the final am of the Sanskrit aham, then it may

possibly be allied also to the final » or an of the Dravidian pronouns

nd-n, I, ni-n, thou, td-n, self

On the whole, however, it appears to

me more probable that the resemblance between the Semitic and Dra-

vidian languages on this point, though deserving of notice, is altogether

accidental

2. Indo L’zwopecm Analogies.—1It has already been remarked that

there appears to be but two pronouns of the first person singular known

to the Indo-European family of tongues, as to the Semitic and Seythian,

one of which appears in the nominative of the older Indo-European

languages, the other in the oblique cases

The nominative of this pro-

noun is ak-am in Sanskrit, ad-am in Old Persian, az-em in Zend, eg-o

in Latin and Greek (¢ydv = akam), ik in Gothic, ¢4 in the Old German

az in the Old Sclavonic, asz in Lithuanian, and g@ in Bohemian

We

find substantially the same root in the Semitic @k, ah, uk, aku, 6k,

&c., and in several languages of the Malayo-Polynesian group—e.g.,

Malay dk#, Tagala aco, Tahitian auw.

Dr Pope, in his “ Outlines of

Tuda Grammar

p. 9, says, “ This is not the place for a full discus-

sion of the subject, but I would compare dn with the very ancient

Sanskrit akam

I regret that I am not acquainted with Dr Pope’s

reasons for supposing dn connected in some way with akam

If he

had restricted the connection to the final » of the one and am of the

other, on the ground of their being nearly identical in use, and possibly

identical in origin, I should be quite prepared, as has already been

seen, to agree

but if, as I fancy, he connects ¢ also, and therefore zd

and nd with a’ (the earliest shape of which, probably agh, seems to

The

have been a decided guttural), in that case I must dissent

existence of some connection between the Dravidian pronoun and the

Indo-European may be suspected, if it be not capable of being clearly

proved ; but it is between the Dravidian pronoun and the-base'of the

Indo-European oblique cases, not between the Dravidian pronoun and

the Indo-European nominative, that the connection; whatever it be

appears to me to subsist.

Mr Gover, in his privately printed paper

already referred to, statod that he was at first inclined to identify.dn

with aham, but on further consideration preferred to connect:it. with

the oblique form ma

His mode, however, of doing this (ma=na=

™~

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

2

(

1

ana = dn) seems to me needlessly roundabout, besides being vitiated,

It is not the final n of

as I think, by beginning at the wrong end.

dn (ydn or ndn), which is only a sign of the singular number, not an

expression of personality, but the initial 7, which takes also the shape

of y or gets lost altogether, that is to be compared with the ma of the

Aryan tongues.

The oblique cases of the 'pronﬂoun of the first person singular in the

Indo-European family are formed from a totally different base from

from that of the fnominative, and of this oblique base the best repre-

sentative is the Sanskrit ma.

m forms the most prominent and essen-

tial portion of ma, and this m is followed either by @ or by some

vowel which appears to have been. derived from it. In the oblique

cases of the Sanskrit, this pronoun has the form of ma, whenever the

nature of the succeeding syllable allows o to remain unchari‘ged—,—e.g.,

ma-yt, in. me, ma-ma, of me.

In the secondary forms of the dative

and the genitive it becomes md.

In Zend and Old Persian, ma pre-

ponderates, whilst compounded and abbreviated vowels appear in the

Zend dative-genitives mé, mér,; and a pronominal base in ama is found

in some of the Old Persian prepositional compounds.

In the Greek

wE, g, woi, pod, &c., the vowel which is employed librates between e

and o, each of which is naturally derived from @, whilst the initial e

of fué is in accordance with the tendency of the Greek to prefix a

vowel to certain words beginning with a consonant—e.g., voua for

Ve,

The

The Latin has me, except in the dative, which is mehs.

Gothic has m¢ and mes (gen. mewna). The Lithuanian uses man as the

basis of its oblique cases; though possibly the final » of this form

belongs properly, like the n of the Gothic, to the sign of the genitive.

In the pronominal terminations of the verb in the Indo-European

languages, the first person singular almost invariably makes use of this

oblique pronominal base, in preference to the base of the nominative,

with such modifications as euphony may require.

The termination of

I

the first person singular is m¢ or m in Sanskrit and Zend, in all

0

primary and secondary verbs.

We have the same ending in Greek

16

verbs in ws, and in the wo of the middle voice ; in the m of the Latin

sum and inguam, in the Lithuanian md, in the Polish am, in the

4

Armenian em, in the New Persian am.

It becomes m in the old High

I

Geman gdm, I go ; tuom, I do ; and bim or pim‘(Sans. bhavdim), 1 am,

converted in modern German to Hun.

ol

On comparing the pronominal terminations of the Indo-European

I

el

verb, it is evident that the preponderance of use and authority is in

d

favour of mé, and that m has been derived from ms by abbreviation.

f

b

It is equally clear, however, that ms itself has been derived from ma,

z

15

272

THE PRONOUN.

the normal base of the oblique cases ; for in all languages a evinces a

tendency to be converted into some weaker vowel, ¢, e, or o, whereas

no instance is adducible of the opposite process.

Perhaps the best

illustration of the regularity of this change from ma to me is that

which is furnished by the Esthonian, a Finnish dialect, in which each

of the personal pronouns has two forms, the one primitive, the other

euphonised—e.g., ma or minna, I ; sa or sinna, thou.

The question of the relative antiquity of the nominative base agh

and the inflexional base ma does not appear to me to be one of any

great importance, both bases, as we have seen, being of immense

antiquity. Still, if any considerable difference in age exists, I am

inclined to consider ma as the older.

Children learn to say ‘mine’ long

before they discover the meaning and use of I ; and it may have been

the same in the childhood of nations.

ma, the base of mine, may pro-

bably claim to be the oldest shape of the pronoun of the first person

now discoverable in the world.

We have now to inquire whether any analogy is discoverable between

the Dravidian na, ya, or a, and the ultimate Indo-European base ma.

T do not seek for traces of the derivation of the one from the other.

The only admissible idea, as it appears to me, is that of analogy, or

remote relationship. Before proceeding further in the inquiry, it is

desirable that we should ascertain what changes the m of ma sustains

in the Indo-European languages themselves.

It appears certain that

ma changes into na and va, and probable that it changes also into a.

(1.) The m of ma often changes in the Indo-European languages into 7.

The final m of the first person of Sanskrit and Latin verbs (the

abbreviation and representative of me¢ or ma) has in some instances

degenerated into » in Cireek—e.g., compare the Sanskrit dsam, I was,

and the corresponding Latin eram, with the Greek 7y ; and adada-m

with é0i-0w-v.

We see a similar change of m into n, on comparing the

modern German bin, I am, with the old High German bim or pim ;

and the Persian hastam, I am, with the Beluchi Zastjan.

Compare

also the Laghmani pdkan, I go

The 7 which constitutes the initial and radical consonant of the

plural of the pronoun of the first person in many of the Indo-European

languages is evidently, like the final 7 of the singular terminations

One of the oldest

referred to above, derived from an older m.

forms of the plural of this pronoun, if not the very oldest, is that

which is employed in the verbal inflexions, and which in Sanskrit is

mas (Vedic-Sanskrit mase), in Latin mus, in Greek wev (for the more

ancient and more correct Alolic weg) : the most natural explanation of

which pronominal ending is to consider it as derived from ma, the old

%= //7 .5’(‘

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

R73

first person singular, by the addition of s, the sign of plurality. The

m of this primeval mas often becomes n—e.g., in the Latin nos, the

Celtic ni, the Greek vas; and also in the Sangkrit secondary forms

nas and nau, the Zend 76, and the old Slavonic na.

This » is evi-

dently a weakening of m, and represents the personality of the pronoun

of the first person, irrespective of the idea of number ; which is ex-

pressed, I conceive, by the subsequent portion of the word.* It is

remarkable that in Welsh, whilst the absolute forms of the personal

pronouns I and we, are ms and n¢ respectively, in the personal ter-

minations of the verb 7 and » are often found to change places, so

that the first person singular comes to be represented by =, and the

corresponding plural by m—e.g., gwelwn, 1 saw ; gwelem, we saw. Some-

thing similar has been observed in the Greek #5/douy, compared with

the plural of the same, ¢0/dousy ; but the use of z in the singular and m

in the plural, in verbal terminations, is much more systematic in the

Wel

and its related dialects than in Greek. The Irish generally

/

differs from those dialects in this particular—e.g., compare Irish casrim,

I love, with the Welsh carwn.

Welsh verbs of the first person, ending

in # in the singular and m in the plural, bear a remarkable resemblance

to the Tamil singular én, plural ém or ém.

Mr Gover too hastily, as

I think, concluded these forms identical ; but in Welsh the pronoun

is represented by the final consonant, m or =, both derived from the

m of the primeval ma ; whilst in Tamil the final # and 7 are merely

signs of number, and the personality of the pronoun is represented by

the preceding vowel alone.

!

This, however, is perfectly clear, that m

evinces, in the Indo-European languages, a tendency to changé into n,

e

06

and that this tendency is specially apparent in the changes the pronoun

)

of the first person has undergone. In old Slavonic, the nominative

plural retains the probably primitive m, whilst 2 replaces m in all the

s

oblique cases of the plural—e.g., nom. my, acc. ny, dat. na-mu, instr.

e

)

na-mi. The dual ¢ we,” too, has v for its nominative, na-ma, first accu-

sative, dative, and instrumental.

The genitive and locative plural is

11]3[0

na-su, dual naju. Sometimes the m changes into » in the singular,

whilst it remains unchanged in the plural ; sometimes it changes in the

e

plural and remains unchanged in the singular. No principle seems to

)péﬁ“

(oS

* It has been suggested by Colonel Rawlinson that the Sanskrit nas, the Latin

ode

of plurality, which have made themselves

nos, and the Greek @ (like the nu of the Hebrew anachnu),

were originally signs

independent of the bases to which they

, ol

were attached. I am unable, however, to adopt this view ; for the # of thege

it

forms naturally interchanges with m, and evidently conveys the ide

a of persona-

nore

lity ; and the s of the Latin nos (as of the corresponding vos)

is more likely to be

a sign of plurality than an abbreviation (as Bopp conjectures it to be

) of the

oD o

syllable sma.

e o

8

R

[+

~

~ 7

4

4

THE PRONOUN.

be involved in this diversity, for both changes may be observed in one

and the same language.

This is especially observable in Welsh, in

which the absolute pronouns are mi, I, and 24, we, whilst in the verbal

Compare also the

terminations, I love is carwn, we love, carem.

change from m in the nominative to n in the oblique cases in the old

Slavonian—e.g., my, we, ny, us.

The point to which T call attention

is the fact that the change from m into n is one which readily takes

place in this family of languages.

» alternates with 2 as the initial

(2.) This m changes also into .

and radical consonant of the plural of the first person in several Indo-

European languages ; and this v, I conceive, is merely a softened form

of m.

Tt was shown in the part on ““Sounds ” that, in the Dravidian

languages, wherever 7 and v are found to alternate, we have reason to

conclude that both are derived from, or represent, an older m ; and the

rule appears to hold equally good in regard to the Indo-European lan-

guages.

When we find in Sanskrit the nominative plural vayam (from

ve and the neuter formative am), we, and at the same time nas, which

is optionally used for the accusative, genitive, and dative plural of the

same pronoun, we cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that both the

na of nas and the va of vayam are derived from the more primitive

ma.

This idea is confirmed by finding » and v in exactly the same

connections in Zend.

Compare the old Slavonic plural ‘mes;: we, with

the Gothic veis, and especially the old Slavonic dual ve, we two, with

In the Lithuanian, dual v

the accusative of the same, na, us two.

alternates, not with z, but with 7 —that is, with what appears to be

the more primitive consonant.

The nominative-accusative magsculine

In the personal endings of the

may be either ve-du or mu-du.

old Slavonic verb, ve represents the first person dual ; in

Lithuanian,

va ;

whilst the plural proper ends in nu in the former language, and

me in the latter.

ﬁsom’_étimes

(3.) The m

of the pronoun of the first person disappears

altogether, so that ma- changes into @ This is the only reasonable

explanation that has been given of the origin of the Vedic asmé, we=

Guwes. When this is compared with yuskmé, you = Upss, it is evident

that smé, whatever its origin, is in use simply a sign of the plural, and

that as the yu( = tu) of yushme represents the singular thou, so the a of

asmé must represent the singular I

This being the case, a-smé must

This seems to be the best explanation also

be equivalent to MA-SME.

of the ¢ of the Sanskrit dual dvdm, we two, probably derived, some

We find the a of the plural asme

think, from ma, I, and dva, two.

itself similarly lengthened in the Bengali ndme, modern Bengali dme.

(See ¢ Pluralisation of Pronouns.”)

e

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR,

275

The same pronominal root 7 changes also in the Scytlian, tongues,

as will be seen, to 7 and g, and even to b, but at present we have

to deal exclusively with the changes that take place in the Indo-

European tongues.

Can we now infer the existence of any relationship between the

Dravidian pronominal base and the Indo-European ? Isthe Dravidian

ya, varying to 7 or n, on the one hand, and @ on the other, connected

in any way with the Indo-European wma, varying to na on the one

hand, and on the other to va, and possibly also to @ 2 I think we are

It is more

wayrranted in inferring the existence of some connection.

difficult, as it appears to nie, to suppose that these two series of words,

belonging to the earliest requirements of human speech, identical in

meaning, and so nearly alike in form, were from the beginning inde-

dendent of one another, than that an ultimate relationship of some

kind existed between them.

If we were at liberty to compare the

Dravidian na directly with the Indo-European ma, no room for doubt

could exist—ma, as we have seen, being proved to change into na.

And even though we are obliged to be suspicious of the credeutials of

the Dravidian na, and to prefer ya as probably a better representative

of the very oldest form of the word, yet we are not altogether pre-

cluded thereby from making the comparison under consideration, the

antiquity of na being almost as great as that of ya, just as the Indo-

European na, va, and « must be almost as ancient as ma.

ya, it is

true, is not one of the shapes the primeval ma is found to have

J

4

assumed within the circle of the Indo-European tongues; but as ma

17

is not confined to that family, but is the common property also of the

languages of the Scythian group, in which it will be found to have

i

sustained a set of changes peculiar to them, it does not seem unreason-

)

able to suppose that ya, varying to #e, may have been the shape it

md

first assumed amongst the early Dravidians.

3. Scythian Analogies.

When we examine the personal pronouns

il

of the Scythian group of tongues, some independent and very interest-

aHE

ing analogies to the Dravidian pronoun are brought to light.

6=

The pronominal root, which constitutes the basis of the oblique

ot

cases in the Indo-European languages, is adopted in the languages of

[l

I

the Scythian family, not only in the oblique cases, but also in the

) (1 U{

nominative itself.

Whilst in both families the oblique cases are sub-

il

(8t

stantially the same, the Indo-European uses as its nominative the base

i

in ah, the Scythian the base in ma.

There are a few languages

sone

even in the Indo-European family in which ma has found its way into

19

(sl

the nominative—e.g., the Celtic has mi, the New Persian man, the

l Uﬂ”

North Indian vernaculars main.

In some cases, also, especially in the

2

27

6

THE PRONOUN.

later dialects of this family, the accusative has come to be used instead

of the nominative, in violation of ordinary grammatical rules.

Thus,

the Singhalese mama, the Kavi mami, and the Cuneiform Persian

mdm, are probably accusatives in their origin, like the Italian me and

the French moz.

On the other hand, we are met by one, and only

one, exceptional case in the Scythian tongues.

The Scythian of the

Behistun inscriptions makes use of Zw as its nominative ; but in me,

the corresponding possessive suffix, the ordinary Scythian base re-

appears.

(1.) The nominative (as well as the oblique cases) of the first personal

pronoun in all existing languages of the Scythian group is derived

from a base in ma,; and it will be shown that this ma not unfre-

quently comes into perfect accordance with the Dravidian pronoun, by

In those languages ma is very generally

changing into nga and na.

euphonised or nasalised by the addition of a final », or of an obscure

nasal resembling the Sanskrit anusvdre, in consequence of which,

not ma, but maii, may be stated to be the normal form of the Scythian

pronoun, and this bears a closer resemblance than ma to the Dravidian

nan.

The addition of this euphonic nasal is not unknown even to

the Indo-European languages.

It may be seen in the Persian man,

the Sindhian mdn, and the Bellichl menik,; and a similar inorganic

This

addition is apparent in the old Greek éydvs, as also in 7ivz.

nasal is much more common, however, and more characteristic in the

Scythian tongues.

On examining the Turkish family of tongues, we

find men in Oriental Turkish; mdn in Turkoman ; mdm in Khivan ;

ben (m degraded to 0) in Ottoman Turkish.

In the Finnish family,

the Finnish proper has mind,; the Lappish mon, the Hsthonian ma

or minna,; the Mordwin and Votiak mon, the Ostiak ma (dual min,

plural men) ; the Magyar én.

The Samoiede dialects have man, man.

In both Mongolian and Manchu the nominative of this pronoun-is bz

but this is evidently corrupted from ms (like the Ottoman ben, from

the Oriental or Uigur men); and it is md, with a final nasal, which

forms the basis of the oblique cases.

In both languages the genitive

is mi-nu or mi-nt ; and the dative is men-dow in Mongolian, min-de

in Manchu.

It is evident from the above comparison that the true and essential

representative of this pronoun in the Scythian tongues is ma.

In

many of those idioms ma still retains its place unchanged, or may

optionally be used instead of the later man.

The Mingrelian has ma,

the Suanian mz, the Lasian ma, the Georgian me.

The Finnish has

both me or ma and mind, and also mia ; the Ostiak both min and ma.

It is found also in those languages in which man constitutes the

S

FIRST PERSON SINGULAR.

277

isolated pronoun that = is used as its equivalent in the personal

terminations of the verbs, and generally in all inflexional compounds.

We see this usage illustrated in the colloquial languages of Northern

India and in the Persian.

For example, whilst man is the nominative

of the Persian pronoun, the basis of the oblique cases is not man, but

ma (e.g., ma-rd, me, of me); and the pronominal ending of the verb

in the first person singular is .

In a similar manner, in the Turkish

family of languages, m is used in composition as the equivalent of

man Or men.

d

Thbus, in Oriental Turkish, whilst men is retained in

the present tense—e.g., bo/d-men, I am—the preterite is contented

with 2 alone—e.g., boldi-m, T was.

|y

The same suffix is used to denote the first person singular in most

y

¢

of the Scythian possessive compounds, a class of words which is

peculiar to the Scythian family—e.g., Turkish bdbd-m, my father, from

)

il

bdbd, father, and m, the representative of the first person singular.

In the Magyar also, though the isolated pronoun of the first person

t

singular is én, yet m is used instead of » in the possessive compounds

Iy

and determinate inflexional terminations—e.g., from atya, father, is

0

formed the possessive compound atya-m, my father; and the first

person singular of objective verbs ends in m—e.g., szeretem, 1 love

6

(some one). It is also to be noticed, that whilst the Magyar has én

(¥

as the singular of the isolated pronoun, its plural is mz or mink ; the

1,

former of which is evidently pluralised from ma or me, the latter from

MIN.

ly,

il

(2.) It was shown that the initial and radical 7 of the Indo-European

il

\l

pronoun was occasionally converted into #: we have now to show that

T

a similar change from m to » is apparent in the Scythian languages

also, and that in some of those languages # has become as distinctive

i

of the first person as in the Dravidian family itself. In Finnish,

1o

though the isolated form of this pronoun is ma or mind, yet in all

L

il

inflexional additions and compounds 7 is represented by n—e.g., from

mmﬂ

wsd, father, is formed 4sd-ns, my father, and from é7, to be, is formed

il

w4

Ol-en, T am, This final » is not derived from the euphonic % of mind ;

but from a direct conversion of m into » 2

il

for though we see the same

o

euphonic addition of » in sind (from se or sia), thou, yet we h

ave ¢

) B

Bl

alone (the equivalent of s) in 6l-et, thou art.

7 has, therefore, become

p

in Finnish, as in Dravidian, the ordinary

sign of the first person

i)

Il

Ml

singular of the verb ; though there is this difference, that in Dravidian

g o

the # is the final #», which is distinctive only of numbers, w

hereas the-

lld il

Finnish » seems to be derived by conversion from

an older m, the

s W

initial m of ma.

The Magyar én, I, appears to be still more nearly allied to the

AR

THE PRONOTUN.

and in this case n is certainly derived from m,

Dravidian pronoun;

for whilst 2 is found in the nominative, m is used instead in all pos-

gessive compounds and verbal inflexions. With the Magyar nominative

¢n, compare not only the Tamil-Canarese én or en, but also dn, I, in

the Lar, a Sindhian dialect.

A similar form of this pronoun is found

in the ‘Mordvin, another idiom of the Finnish or Ugrian family, in

which, whilst mon is the isolated nominative, az is used instead in

verbal inflexions—e.g., paz-an, 1 (am) the Lord.

In the Olet or Calmuck

dialect of the Mongolian tongue, there are

distinct traces of the same

change of ma into na,; and in this instance

the » appears, not as the final, but as the initial, and is therefore in

more perfect accordance with the » of the Dravidian pronominal base.

'The nominative of this pronoun in Calmuck is b7 (from mz), and the

same base appears in the genitive meni, bub the rest of the oblique

cases are formed not from B¢ or” me, but from nqd or na—e.g., na-da,

We here discover

to me, na-da-edze, from me, and’ also na-mai, me.

the existence of a pronominal base in na (prabably derived from ma),

which is in remarkable agreement with one of the forms of the Dravi-

dian base.

11-id111 g

In a few of the Scythian langnages, the isolated pronoun, inc

its nominative, seems to be

almost identical with that of the Dravidian

family—e.g., na in the Quasi Qumuk, a Caucasian

dialect ; and ne in

Motor, a dialect of the Samoiede ; na or nai in Corean ; nme or ne in

Basque. In the East Asian languages, gn or #g (which are pronounced

place of n.

Sometimes n and gn

alike) are often found to take the

like % and # in Tamil-Malayalam.

alternate in the same language,

0Old Chinese forms,

The Canton Chinese is ngo; the Mandarin, wo.

The analogy of the

according to Mr Edkins, are nga, g¢, g0, kan, a.

how that a was the

pronoun of the second person would seem to s

oldest form of all.

Compare Corean, na or nai ; Burman, nd or ngd;

Tibetan, written nd, colloquial g

1yd (mine, written naks, nayt, col-

Mikir, ne, Khari

loquial gnay); Tetenge, an ‘Assam dialect, ne;

The Burman ngd prevails in the langu

ages of the sub-

Naga, nu.

A very common form among

those tribes, and

Himalayan tribes.

Central

those of the north-eastern frontier, including also the Kols of

I am not clear, however,

India, ends in ng—e.g., ang, ung, ing, ang.

d

as to the nature of the relationship of the latter forms to ma, ngd, an

so the

na, the High Asian group, with which the Dravidian (and al

I feel,

Indo-European) pronoun seems to stand in closer connection.

however, on tolerably firm ground in comparing the Tibetan «d, I,

colloquial nga, with the Malayalam #d; and if so, the Chinese 799,

especially when examined in the light of the Chinese nt, thou, must

=,

-~

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR,.

279

also be allowed to claim kindred.

We may here, too, compare the

Australian pronouns of the first person—viz,, nga, nganya, 1; its dual,

agalee, we too ; and the plurals ngadiu and nadju, we.

I

(3.) A few traces of the softening of na or nga to ya and a, or at

(i

least of the use of ya and « instead of nga and na, may also perhaps

be discovered in the East Asian languages.

I

Thus the Sgau-Karen is

The Pekin Chinese wo

Il

yd, ydlh ; the Pwo-Karen ger; the Manyak d.

may also be compared.

[6

On the whole, we seem to have reason to conclude that the various

(6

forms which the. pronoun of the first person singular assumes in the

1l

Scythian group of languages, and which we have now compared, are

identical.

Possibly, also, we may see reason to conclude that the

7

Scythian forms (ma, na, ba, nga, ya) bave had a common origin with

g

[llE

the Indo-European (ma, va, na, and a). The Dravidian ya, na, a, bear

Jd’

so close a resemblance to the pronouns of both groups (especially, as

Vel

we have seen, to the Scythian), that we seem to be . justified in regard-

ing them as related to both in common.

r'l\y

If this be admitted, we

)l

arrive at the conclusion that one and the same pronoun of the first

person, probably ma, was the common property of the whole Japhetic

19

family prior to the separation of the Indo-European tribes from the

\n

Scythian. The conclusion arrived at by Professor Hunfalvy (in his

paper on the study of the Turanian languages, read at the International

1

Congress of -Orientalists, 1874) is substantially similar. He notices

R

yeed

the resemblances between the Aryan and Turanian languages with

40

il

regard to the personal pronouns, and then says that, “considering this

il

fact he is inclined to suppose a stage of language anterior to both

it

classes.” He sees also in certain single words, as papa, mama, dc.,

visible remains of that ancient form of speech.

i il

i

2. PRONOUN oF THE SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

I Md’

!

Comparison of Dialects.—OQur first inquiry, as with respect to the

i

pronoun of the first person singular, must be what appears to have been

i sul

the primitive form of this pronoun.

bl

o

In Tamil, 7, which is properly the crude base, is invariably used as

(Ot

the isolated nominative, instead of n4n— the form which would corre.

l

Tl L

spond by rule to ndn, the nominative of the fi

rst person singular,

lﬂd ﬂ‘l

That nn originally constituted the nominative even in T

amil, appears

bl

e

from this, that the oblique cases in the higher dialect

agree in using

1

nen as the base to which the case suffixes are attached,

)

uUn 18 0cca-

il

sionally used as the inflexion in the classics,

always in the colloquial

L

l

QQ

dialect. Another form which is occasionally used in the cla

iy

ssies is niy

iy

\nu’ mll!s

280

THE PRONOTUN.

in which the final # appears to bear the same relation to n as the

initial % of ydn or ndn of the first person—that is, it has either been

softened from 7, or is the primitive letter from which » was hardened.

——

This final 7 appears also in dy and 8y, two of the personal terminations

of verbs and conjugated nouns.

The final % of this pronoun, though

it is generally lost altogether in the nominative, and is only represented

occasionally by , is invariably retained in the inflexional base, in

which it is the initial » that becomes liable to alteration.

‘When the

initial vowel is retained, the included vowel is either 7 or » (nin or

nun), generally the former, but when it is discarded » (wn) is the only

vowel in use.

The inflexions now described are nin, nun, wn.

In

the personal terminations of the Tamil verb, this pronoun is repre-

sented by the suffixes dy, 8y, ¢, or 7, from each of which suffixes the

final #, as well as the initial, has disappeared.

In the poetical dialect

of the language, the initial 7 at first sight appears to have retained its

place in such forms as nadandaner, thou didst walk, and in the corre-

sponding plural nadandantr, ye walked ; but the n of these pronominal

terminations (nef and #dr) is merely euphonic (as in similar termina-

tions of the first person of the verb already mentioned), and is inserted

for the purpose of keeping separate the contiguous vowels of na-

danda-et and nadanda-ir.

The root of the verb is regularly used in Tamil as the second person

singular of the imperative, without any pronominal suffix, and even

without any euphonic addition ; but the second person plural of the

imperative in the colloquial dialect is formed by the addition of wm,

which is probably identical with the wm or m which constitutes the

normal sign of plurality in Dravidian pronouns, and is probably in

itself the copulative ‘and’ also. (See the pronoun of the first person. )

Compare this with the optional addition of mu to the root in Telugu

to form the imperative singular.

Properly mu forms an honorific sin-

gular, and is therefore to be regarded, like the Tamil wm, as a plural in

original signification. In the higher dialect of Tamil, dy and #r, the

ordinary representatives of these pronouns in the verbal inflexions, are

often added to the root to form the singular and plural imperative—

e.g., kéldy, hear thou, kélér, hear ye.

These forms appear at first sight

to be identical with %é&/dg, thou hearest not, and kélér, ye hear not;

but they are not really identical, as Beschi supposed, for it will be

shown in the section on the “ Negative Verb” that a, probably a relic of

al, not, is an element in all negative forms ; though in these, and in some

other instances, it has been absorbed in the succeeding long vowel.

Beschi, in his Grammar of the High Tamil, represents dz as being

used occasionally by the Tamil poets as a suffix of the second person

T

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

281

singular of the imperative ; and if this representation were correct, it

would be necessary to regard d¢ as a pronoun, or as the fragment of a

pronoun, of the second person singular.

It is founded, however, on a

mistake ; for the word which Beschi cites in proof (ddz, become thou,

from dgu, abbreviated into @, to become) is not really an imperative,

but is the second person singular of the preterite ; and di is com-

pounded of @, the sign of the preterite tense, and ¢, the usual fragment

of ni, thou.

Adi means properly thou hast become, 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.

We find the same suffix

in such poetical preterites as varu-de (for vanddy), thou camest, and

kedu-di (for kettdy), thou art ruined.

The plural forms of this pronoun in Tamil are as follows :—nom.

nin, the singular

ntr, niyir, ntvir, ntngal ; inflexion, num, wm, wigal.

poetical inflexion, does not become n#m in the plural, as might be

expected, and as we find it in Canarese, but only 715177?,. Personal ter-

minations of the verb, o, %

Tamil grammarians give min (e.g.

s o

kenmen, hear ye) as one of the signs of the second person plural in the

The nature of this form will be considered in the section

imperative.

on the ¢ Pluralisation of the Personal Pronouns.”

In Malayalam the nominative is #%, as in Tamil in both dialects;

the inflexion nen, as in classical Tamil—e.g., ninakk’, to thee ; plurals,

nom. nfivial, ninial,; inflexion naiial, also in the poets nim (e.g., nim-

mddu, with you), from the obsolete nom. nim.

The Tulu nominative singular is 2 (comp. Tel. 4va, from an obsolete 2);

b

inflexion néi—e.g., nina, thy.

In nikk, to thee, the inflexion is ne.

10

Verbal termination « ; plurals, nom. &r (chiefly used as an honorific

singular like 74 in colloquial Tamil), also nikulu ; inflexions %’ and

)

nikul’ ; verbal ending ar.

:

In Canarese, the nominative of this pronoun in the colloquial dialect

i

is nin-u, classical #én; but the crude form 7% is often used instead of

il

nin-w,.as is always the case in Tamil.

In both dialects the inflexion

the

in nin—e.g., ninna, thy.

In the personal terminations of the verb

e

this pronoun is much changed in all the Dravidian dialects.

It not

[

only loses its initial », like the pronoun of the first person, but its final

bt

n also disappears.

Generally nothing remains in the verbal inflexions

0t

but the included vowel (probably the primitive pronominal base), and

|

that also is more or less modified by use. In the colloquial Canarese verb

ol

it appears as ¢, 3, ¢ye, and e, in classical Canarese ay only, closely resem-

e

bling the Tamil dy. Plurals, nom. coll. niva ;. class. nim ; inflexion

in both nim—e.g., nvmma, your.

Verbal terminations, coll. 4r¢, %re,

il

T

¢

¢

(\'u

4N

~

THE PR

OUN.

;-

;82

qlri; class. 2. This ¢r is identical \_Vith one of the classical Tamil

terminations.

The Telugu nominative is nfvu, expanded from 2% by the addition

of the euphonic particle vu . nivu, Tel. thou, is identical in form,

though not in meaning, with the modern Canarese plural of the same

pronoun—rviz., nfvu, you.

nt, the crude form, is also used, as in the

other dialects.

In the oblique cases, Telugu rejects the euphonic

addition of vw, and uses 7% as its inflexional base, and also as its pos-

sessive.

The objective alone follows the example of the other dialects

in abbreviating the included vowel, and appending a final nasal.

That

e ————

case is nen-u or nen-nu, and is evidently formed from a nominative nén-u.

In the higher dialect of the Telugu, Zvu, from an obsolete nominative %,

The

identical with the Tulu, is occasionally used instead of nivu.

Telugu plural of this pronoun has miru as the nominative, m? as the

inflexion, and mimu as the accusative.

Both mire and mimaw indicate

a base in m?, from which they have been formed by the addition of

signs of plurality ; and m? bears the same relation to the nZ of the

other dialects that md, the Telugu plural of the first person, does to

the ordinary Dravidian nd. How this change from 2 to m has taken

The

place will be inquired into under the head of “The Plurals.”

plural in the higher dialect is Zru.

In the personal terminations of the

verb, the Telugu rejects every portion of the pronmominal root, and

employs only the euphonic addition vz or v..

The Tuda nominative is 7%, inflexion nen, personal termination of

verb ¢ or e.

Plural nominative nima, inflexion ném, personal termina-

tion of verb ¢ or ¢, as in singular.

In the dialect of the Kotas, the

Plural

nominative is %, inflexion nin, personal termination of verb <.

nominative nime (also nsve), inflexion nim, personal termination of verb

i1, 7.

In G6nd, the nominative singular is #mmd, which is evidently an

The inflexion

older form of the plural used as the honorific singular.

is 74 (niwa, thy), personal termination of verb 7z or 7.

Plural nomina-

tive vmmdg, inflexion ms, as in Telugu; pel'éoxlal ‘tgrminﬁ;i‘tio-n:of verb

20,

The personal terminations of the first and second person singular

in (Gond require a little consideration.

In both persons the initial »

of the isolated pronoun seems to hold its ground in some of the tenses

in a manner which is not observed in any other dialect—e.g., dydtond,

I am becoming, dydtdni, thou art becoming.

In some other tenses

(e.9., imperfect dnddn, I became, perfect ditdn, 1 have become), the

termination of the first person resembles that in use in most of the

other dialects. In the second person (dndi, dtt), the », whatever its

)——‘“\\

-

283

SECOND ]‘E’EI\.SON SINGULAR.

1

origin, disappears altoget

aer

: and is rep]dced by the ordinary Dravidian

K2

I prefer, therefore, to regard the n of+the first and second persons,

in these tenses, as the » of the pronoun of the third person singular,

on, he, forming, when added to the root, a participial noun. dydt-On-@

would then mean, I am one who becomes ; dydi-on-7, thou art one who

becomes.

If this view is correct, nothing can be observed in these

forms differing in reality from those in the other dialects.

Nomi-

The Ku pronoun corresponds on the whole to the Telugu.

native singular 7nu, inflexion i, personal termination of verb ¢, plural

nominative 4r-u, inflexion m3, personal termination of verb érwu, dru.

The Rajmahal nominative singular is nen, inflexion nin ; plural nina,

exion nien

plural nim

inflexion n¢m.- - Uraon nominative singular ﬁf?,en, infl

nominative dsw, inflexion dss’.)

Gn. e ghai Gese. nimhat

Cu

The Brahui nominative isz, as in most of the Dravidian dialects,

inflexion ndé; plural nominative num, one of the inflexions of the

plural in classical Tamil, inflexion nwm (numd, your), Verbal termina-

tion 74, as in many of the Dravidian dialects (compare aren, we are,

areri, you are).

See the “ Table of Pronouns” of the second person for the forms

found in ’qhe minor dialects of Central India.

We have now to consider the conclusion to be drawn from the com-

parison made above.

We found three forms of the pronoun of the

first person singular, ndn, ydn, dn, each of which claimed to be the

best representative of the original form ; and of these, ydn seemed to

)

(v

carry with it most authority, and to be probably the source from which

it

ndn on the one hand, and dn on the other, were derived. With

il

regard to the pronoun of the second person singular, there are only

cYb

two forms (nin, 4) whose relative antiquity we are called upon to

decide.

No claim can be set up in behalf of zin as a pronoun of the

al

second person to correspond with the ydn of the first person.

If

such a form ever existed, I can find no trace of it now left.

The final

o

n of nin or in (as of ndn, ydn, dn) has already been ascertained to be

0

merely a sign of the singular number.

In the plural it is replaced by

il

(s

m, the sign of plurality, or », ¢r, a relic of wwar, they (prox.) This

i

final 7 of the singular may, therefore, be dismissed from our considera-

ol

tion at once.

On comparing 72 and %, with #d and ¢, it seems evident

Nsey

i

that if the initial % of ndn did not belong to the root, but was a pro-

duct of nasalisation, the initial » of nin cannot safely be regarded as

st

radical.

If nd was derived from a more primitive yd or @, it seems

i

evident that ¢ must have been derived from a more primitive 7.

The

f the

initial 7 of 7% must, be identical with the initial » of nd. Whatever

g 18

984

THE PRONOUN.

the origin of the one may be, the origin of the other must be the same.

Just as the initial » of nd disappears from all the verbal terminations

of the first person, so the initial % of #Z disappears from all the verbal

terminations of the second.

If this initial % had been radical, it would

have retained its place more or less firmly in the verbal inflexions, like

the m of the Indo-European first person, and the ¢ or s of the second

person of the same.

As the initial » has disappeared so completely

from the Dravidian verbal inflexions, though it sometimes retains its

place as the inflexional base of the oblique cases, I conclude that it is

A

not radical, and that we are to consider

(2

more primitive than ni.

Still the antiquity of the initial % of 74 must be enormously great—

almost equal to that of % itself, seeing that we find it, as we shall pre-

sently see, in the Scythian of Behistun, and even in the Chinese, in

both of which the pronoun of the second person is ne.

Strange to

say, 1t is n¢ also in Bornu, a language of Central Africa.

Even when looking at the Dravidian dialects alone, we cannot sup-

pose n¢ much later in origin than 7.

Whatever be the relative an-

tiquity of #Z and %, 1 consider the vowel, not the consonant, as the

real pronominal base.

The only question that remains is, what is to

be regarded as the oldest shape of this vowel !

We find ¢, %, and

also, but more rarely, ¢ and e.

The last two may be left out of

account.

In the verbal

The vowels most generally used are z and .

terminations ¢ has driven » out of the field altogether.

On the whole,

there seems to be more in favour of the antiquity of ¢ than of that of

u, though it must be admitted that » changes more readily in Dravi-

dian speech to ¢ than ¢ to u—e.g., puli, Tam. a tiger, becomes in the

pronunciation of the vulgar pile; mun, before, becomes min, &ec.

It

will be seen that generally in the Indo-European languages the vowel

P

of the pronoun of the first person is %, whilst in the Scythian languages

it is ¢. Possibly at the outset there was no very sharp line of dis-

tinction between these two sounds.

At all events, we cannot safely

venture to draw any such sharp line of distinction now between the 2

and w of the pronoun of the second person in the Dravidian tongues,

both vowels being retained, in some connection or another, in most of

the dialects.

Thus in poetical Tamil we find both n¢n and nun as the

singular inflexion of the pronoun; in the plural we find num and

ungal, but not nim, though the nominative n#igal must be considered

as the representative of an older nim.

Extra-Dravidian Relationship.—1It 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

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

28

9

found that the relationship of the pronoun of the second person is less

extensive, but more distinctive ; it is more specifically Scythian, or at

least non-Aryan.

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 ¢ (e.g., tu), or its euphonised

equivalent s (e.g., o0) ; and the only other form found in any family

of either of those groups is that which is built upon the consonant #,

and of which the Cuneiform Scythian, the Chinese, and the Dravidian

ne is the best representative.

These roots appear to have been always

independent of one another.

I cannot discover any reliable trace of a

connection between them, or of a gradual change in any instance of the

one form into the other.

In order to place this point in a clear light, it is desirable, in the

first place, to trace out the connections and alliances of the pronominal

root ta.

It has been conjectured that this pronoun had its origin in

the demonstrative base ¢, but the investigation of this point is beyond

our purpose, which is merely that of tracing its relationship.

In San-

skrit the pronoun of the second person singular is fva-m ; in Zend

Con-

ti-m, and also thw’, as included in the accusative thwd, thee.

nected with the Sanskrit fva, there is a simpler form, ta, which is

apparent in fava, thy ; and we have analogies to this in the Kavi ta

and the Semitic ta (included in antd, thou). The Semitic ¢4 is changed

in the inflexions to %d, a change which resembles that of the Kavi,

which has ¢a as its, nominative and %o as its possessive. Bopp sup-

poses that yu, the base of the most common form of ‘the plural of this

pronoun, is derived from ¢u, and that va, the base of the Sanskrit

16

secondary plural vas and of the Latin vos, is derived from tva. v, how-

i

ever, is more frequently derived from m than from any other letter, of

il

which we have seen an instance in the change of the ma of the first

i

person into va in vayam.

It is not very easy to explain how ¢ became

v and w.

iis

tva-m becomes twva-m in the Old Persian; and from ¢u

(itself derived from ¢v) proceeds the Sanskrit dative tu-bhayam, the

ey

ot

base of which is allied to, or identical with, the Latin, Armenian, and

;11951

Pehlvi tu, the Aolic and Doric 70 ; the Persian, Afghan, and Singhalese

tw; and the Gothic thw.

The ¢& of the Gothic and Zend seems to

U

fof

point out the path by which the Old Greek 7 was converted into o0,

fhe

ad

Mr Edkins, in his ¢ China’s Place in Philology,” has suggested another

origin for yu.

e

He supposes it may be connected with ¢ or nu, the

Chinese pronoun of the second person, of which ¢ or « was, he thinks,

ik

the primitive form. If this supposition should be correct, yu will

8

10

then be the Indo-European equivalent, not only of the Chinese ne or

be

286

THE PRONOU

2. but of the Dravidian, which also is ns or nu—ne in the nominative

nw (nu-n) in the oblique.

In the personal terminations of the verbs, in Sanskrit and most

other languages of the same family, the earlier ¢ of the ordinary form

of this pronoun has very generally been weakened into s in the sin-

gular, whilst in most of the plural terminations, ¢, with some trivial

modifications, and with a

sign of plurality annexed, has succeeded in

retaining its place

In our investigation of the pronoun of the first

person, it was found that ma was converted in the personal termina-

tions of the verb into mi, and still further weakened into m

so also

su (for tu) generally becomes s¢ in the verbal terminations ; and se in

like manner afterwards becomes &

In the Scythian group of tongues, the pronoun of the second person

in general use is substantially the same as in the Indo-European—

another evidence of the primeval identity of both groups; but in the

Scythian tongues the weaker s has obtained wider prevalence than the

older ¢, and the vowel by which s is enunciated is more frequently ¢ or

e, than % or a.

The Magyar has te in the singular, ti or t/ in the

plural, with which we may compare the Armenian ¢u, thou, and fuk,

you

The Mongolian tcht or dz

thou, exhibits the progress of ¢

towards softening into se

In Finnish proper, the isolated pronoun of

the second person singular is se or stna,; but ¢ retains its place in the

plural, and the personal termination of the verb even in the singular

18 .

The chief peculiarity apparent in the Scythian form of this pronoun

is, that it has generally been euphonised by the addition of a final

nasal, the consonant =, precisely in the same manner as the pronoun

In the older Greek, rivn and solv corre-

of the first person’ singular

and in like manner, in the languages which

gpond to éyuwvy and eywv

belong to the Scythian family, or which have been subject to Scythian

influences, where the pronoun of the first person is found to be nasal

ised, the pronoun of the second person generally exhibits the same

feature

In the vernaculars of Northern India we see this euphonic

addition to the pronoun of the second person in the Hindi, Panjabi

and Sindhi fu#, and -in the Marathi and Gujarathi tdn

In some of

those idioms, especially in the Gujarathi and Panjabi, the euphonic

asal 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 sz, the plural

Compare also the Georgian

;

shen, the Samoiede tan, tanz, the Lappish don, the Votiak and Mordvin

y

SECOND PERSON SINGULAR.

238

ton (plural ¢¢n), and the Finnish sind, which alternates with se, sia, and

Sve

The euphonie origin of this » is most evident in the Esthonian

dialect of the Finnish, which -uses indifferently sa or sinna for the

second person, and ma or minnae for the first.

In the Mongolian and

Manchu, n appears in the oblique cases only.

In Mongol the nomina-

tive is ¢chi, in Manchu st but the genitive in the former is tchini, in

the latter sins, and the corresponding datives are tchim-dow and sin-de

In Calmuck the nominative is dz or dzma, genitive dzini, dative

dzimadou, accusative dzimai.

In the pronouns of this language we

may observe several instances of m being used as an euphonic, instead

of n.

It is evident that there is no resemblance whatever between any of

The final nd

the pronouns compared above and the Dravidian n?.

of the Finnish sind, and its equivalent, the final vy of the Greek rivy,

are separable, euphonic, inorganic additions, and can have no real con-

nection with »2, which is an ultimate root.

It will be necessary for us

therefore to go further in search of a really trustworthy analogy.

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 »

of the Dravidian nd.

Is it possible that the radical ¢ of the pronoun

of the second person in both those families of tongues was changed in

like manner into 7, so as that tw or ¢z was the origin of the Dravidian

3.2 =1 think not.

This is supposed by Castrén, a very high authority,

to be the history of the » by which the second person singular is often

1S

represented in the personal affixes of the Finnish and Turkish families.

il

It may also be mentioned here, that a change of ¢ into n is not quite

1

unknown even in the Indo-European languages, It is somewhat fra-

It

quently found to take place in Pali—e.g., ¢, they, masculine, becomes

optionally 7né ; ¢d, they, feminine, becomes nd, and tdns, they, neuter,

160

becomes ndnz.

In Sanskrit also, étam, him, is sometimes changed into

1l

énam. There is no evidence, it is true, that the » now under considera-

NA

tion—the initial 7 of the Dravidian uz

arose from any such process of

alllv

change. That it proceeded from an older # would be a wholly gratuitous

I

assumption, in so far as the internal history of the Dravidian languages

It

all

is concerned.

It would be more in accordance with precedent, indeed,

el

to regard it as a mere nasalisation.

Yet when we carry our inquiries a

ot

step farther, and bring to view a pronoun with », not ¢ in some of the

, bib

oldest laniguages of the Scythian group, whilst on the one hand we shall

find that the resemblance of this Scythian pronoun to the Dravidian

0 the

amounts to identity, on the other hand, we shall possibly find it allied,

i th

by a deep-seated, underground relationship, to the ordinary pronoun

gt

with ¢, so that it must always remain doubtful whether these are not

gl

0}0

288

THE PRONOUN.

two Japhetic bases of the pronoun of the second person, ¢z and ni, ori-

ginally independent, like a% and ma of the first, or whether ¢« did not

change into nw, and that to #¢, ab some early period, now unknown,

before the isolation of the Dravidians, and even before the isolation of

the Chinese, from the rest of the Japhetic race.

I must first endeavour to establish the first point now mentioned,

viz., that traces will be found in various languages of the Scythian

group of the existence of a pronoun of the second person, apparently

identical with, and certainly allied to, the Dravidian #?.

I begin with the most ancient analogy which is capable of direct

proof, viz., the pronoun of the second person in Chinese.

This is e,

precisely as in the Dravidian idioms.

The plural is ni-men (compare

wo-men, we, ta-men, they) ; Old Chinese nge, nw, yu, .

Mr Edkins

thinks the oldest form of all was ¢, to which » was prefixed.

The

same n¢ appears in some of the dialects of the nomad tribes of the

western frontier of China, towards Tibet—e.g., Gyami and Horpa. The

plurals in Gyami are nz-me, in Horpa, ni-ni.

The Tibetan itself,

though agreeing so closely as regards the first person, seems to present

no analogy in the second.

In the dialects of Burmah, the prevailing

The

form of the word is nang ; in the Karen dialects nah, ner, nd.

Manyak, a dialect of the same stock, which has & for the first person,

has n6 for the second.

All the analogous forms of Eastern Asia rest

upon the Chinese ; and the antiquity of the Chinese language and lite-

rature is so great, that the identity of the Chinese pronoun of the

second person with the Dravidian is a point of great interest and

importance.

The next analogy I adduce is one which I regard as

almost equally remarkable and decisive, viz., the pronoun of the second

person in the Scythian tablets at Behistun.

This is %, precisely as in

the Dravidian idioms; and the possessive which is used in compounds

is n%, which is identical with the similarly abbreviated basis of the

Dravidian oblique cases of this pronoun.

The plural of this pronoun

1s, unfortunately, unknown.

The personal termination of the verb is

not n¢, but n¢e, which I suspect to be a compound of n¢ and ¢, like

the antd, ants, of the Semitic languages.

I have given the Brahui a

place amongst the Dravidian dialects, but I refer to it here again on

account of its centrical geographical position.

The Brahui pronoun,

as we have seen, is 2% (plural num), the identity of which, both with the

Dravidian, properly so called, and with the Behistun and Chinese, can-

not, I think, be doubted.

It is a remarkable circumstance, and very

difficult to explain, that in the language of Bornu, in Central Africa,

together with several other Scythian peculiarities, the pronoun of the

second person is nz.

e

03\)

D Q

SECOND

PE

B

ON SINGULAR.

89

~\;

n Ostiak which is treated of in

astrén’s Grammar, thou is nep,; you

I

two, nén ; you (indefinitely plural), nen

Here ne or nz constitutes the

pronominal base, and th

final % of the sincular nen is a formative or

)

euphonic addition like that which has converted the Dravidian »4 into

nin

The strong pronunciation of this Ostiak final % reappears, as we

shall see, in the Turkish

In other Ostiak dialects we find num and

I

ma, and also (which is more deserving of notice) myn, with a plural

Iy

nYnt

In the Vogul we find analogies which are no less remarkable

than the above—e.¢

nev, nyY, nan, nyngt, and nank

Compare also the

0l

Vogul plurals.nen and non.

iy

In the Finnish proper, the only trace of this pronoun which we

16

observe is one which, but for the existence of such express analogies

b}

in other members of the family, we should probably have overlooked.

16

In the plural of the second person of the Finnish verb (e.g., olette, ye

1

are, pluralised from olef, thou art), the suffixed pronoun corresponds

g

to that of which ¢ or s is the initial ; but in the possessive compounds

|

i

in which we should expect to find precisely the same form, we find

i

instead of it a plural possessive of which the initial and radical is »

Il

\{

Thus, the expression thy hand, being kdtes, we should expect to find

[be

your hand, kdtesse, or, more primitively, kdtette, like the corresponding

1,

Magyar kezetek (from ek, you, another form of t¢), whereas the form

st

actually used in Finnish is kdtenne

It thus appears that two pronouns

e

the singou-

of the second person retain their place in the Finnish ; on

he

lar of which is s/, or more properly ¢, the plural fe; and another

and

hidden in the ancient compound

the plural of which is ne, and of

| &

which, by dialectic rules, the singular must have been 2

Even in the Turkish, we

shall

find traces of the existence of a similar

conﬂ

pronoun

it

I

In the possessive compounds, the second person singular is

i

not represented, as we should have expected it to be, by sen, as the

¢

first person singular is by 7, but % or ng is used: instead (a nasal

I

ol

which corresponds to that of the Ostiak nen)—e.g., bdba-n thy father

g

and as the final m of bdbd-m is derived from m% or me, I, we seem to

i, e

be obliged to deduce also the final % of bdbd-n from an obsolete ng or

ne, thou, which 1

allied to th

corresponding forms that have been

aul @

pointed out in other Scythian tonouus

We find this possessive » or

g 0

ng not only in the Osmanli Turk

, but even in the Yakute, the

ool

Turkish of Siberia

i e

The same » makes its appearance in the personal terminations of the

i, O

Turkish verb

sen is more commonly used than » ; but » is found as

qe

Africh

the representative of the second person in those verbal forms which

must be considered as of greatest antiquity—e ¢., in the preterite of

o

the auxiliary substantive verbs, #dum, I was, 2dun, thou wast idi, he

4%

290

THE PRONOUN.

4

was.

In the Oriental Turkish the forms corresponding to these are

boldim, boldin, bolds ; and the same termination of the second person

singular

the nasal n—appears in all the preterites of that language.

We may compare also the plural forms of this pronominal suffix. The

Turkish pronouns are pluralised by changing the final formative » into

2, or rather by adding # to the crude base.

Thus, we is bez (for maz),

and you is szz.

In possessive compounds ¢ changes into » ;+ and hence

our father is bdbd-musz,

In the samme manner, your father is bdbd-nuz,

indicating a suppositious, isolated pronoun, ez, you, corresponding to

miz, we.

Whilst « is used instead of 2 in Osmanli Turkish, the older

:md more regular ¢ retains its place in the Oriental Turkish—e.g.,

uzil-ntz, you yourselves ; in which you is nfz or nglz, and from which,

when 2, the sign of plurality, is rejected, we deduce the singular »? or

ngs.

The same mode of forming the plural termination of the second

person appears in all regular Tarkish verbs—e.g., compare forkdu-nuz, ye

feared, with Lérkdu-n, thou feardest.

We see it also in the imperative

korkdu-nuz, fear ye.

Tn all these instances, I consider the Turkish 7

or ng to be dialectically equivalent to the Finnish n, and the prono-

minal root which is thus found to underlie so many Turkish and

Ugrian compounds of the second person may, I think, be regarded as

identical with the Dravidian, Chinese, and Behistun-Scythian pronoun.

Even the libration between ¢ and u, which we noticed in considering

the Dravidian forms of this pronoun, meets us again in Turkish.

In the Himalayan dialects, we cannot fail to see Dravidian analogies

in the Dhimal nd, in the Miri no, in the Garo ndd ; and in the which

forms the first and most essential radical of the pronoun of the second

person in all the rest of the Lohitic dialects.

Compare also the pronouns of the second person in various Austra-

lian dialects—e.g., ninna, nginnee, nginte ; the duals, niwa, nura ; and

the plural nimedoo.

On a comparison of the various forms of this pronoun which have

been adduced above, it must be evident that the affinities of the Dra-

vidian 2% are almost wholly Scythian ; and this important circumstarnce,

taken in conjunction with the predominance of Scythian influences over

Indo-European in the formation of the first personal pronoun, tends to

show that the Dravidian languages stand in closer relationship to the

Scythian family tl}nh to the Indo-European.

3. Tae RerLExivE ProONOUN ‘ SELF.’

The Dravidian pronouns of the third person are, properly speaking,

demonstratives, not personal pronouns; and they will, therefore, be

,¢\

.

THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN .

29

“

ot

investigated under a subsequent and separate head.

The pronoun;

}

which is now under consideration is entitled to a place amongst per-

sonal pronouns, because it possesses all their characteristics, and is

It corresponds in meaning

19

declined precisely in the same manner.

to the Sanskrit svayam, to the defective Greek § and the Latin sui,

stbi, se,; with a range of application which is more extensive than

b

theirs.

It may almost, indeed, be regarded as a pronoun of the third

person, seeing that, when it stands alone as the nominative of a verb,

the verb with which it agrees must always be in the third person.

f

(I

In Tamil the nominative singular of this pronoun is ¢dn : the plural

of which (by the usual pronominal change of » into m) is tdm (tdngal);

and the inflexion, or basis of the oblique cases (which, takenr by itself,

)

has the force of a possessive), is formed, as in the case of the other

I

personal pronouns, by simply shortening the included vowel—e.g., tdn,

1

In all its cases and con-

1[4

of self; suz, or (adjectivally) suus, sua, suwm.

\[4

nections ¢dn is found to be more regular and persistent than any other

1

pronoun.

The Canarese nominative is /dn in the ancient, Zdn-w in the

modern dialect : the inflexion is formed, as usual, by the shortening of

|0

the included vowel ; and the crude root ¢¢ (without the formative, n)

)0

i

is sometimes used instead of #dn-u, just as nd, of the first person, and

2

ni, of the second, are occasionally used instead of ndn-u and nin-w.

1'!

In Telugu the reflexive pronoun is more regularly declined, and is more

in accordance with the Tamil-Canarese, than any other pronoun of the

personal class.

The nominative is tdn-u, the inflexion and possessive

63

tdn-a, the plural nominative tdm-w.

tdr-w may be used instead of

o

)

tdm-u. This appears to be a contracted form of ¢amar-u, a form also

td

used in poetical Tamil, and meaning they who belong to one’s self.

may be used at pleasure, as in Canarese, for ¢dn-u.

A similar regula-

i

rity of formation and of declension is apparent in all the Dravidian

il

dialects, so that further comparison of the forms of this pronoun seems

to beunnecessary. The root or base is evidently ¢4 or ¢a, self. The final

jar

of the singular, though only a sign of the singular number (like the

Dri

final % of nd-n, I, and né-n, thou), is one of great antiquity, for we find

cey

it even in the Brahui—e.g., the nominative singular is tenat (co‘mpare

el

with this the inorganic ¢, which is suffixed to the personal pronouns in

ds 1]

Gond) ; genitive fena, dative tene. tdn, self (like ndn, I, and nin, thou),

o e

is of no gender.

The use of this pronoun agrees, on the whole, with the use of the

corresponding Indo-E‘uropean reflexive. When not itself used as the

nominative of a sentence, it always agrees with the principal nominative

and with the governing verb, or that verb which is in agreement with

g

the principal nominative.

It is also used as an emphatic addition’ to

g 8

292

THE PRONOUN.

each of the personal and demonstrative pron(;uns, like the Latin ¢pse,

the Sanskrit svayam, or the English self, in the compounds myself,

yourself, &c.—e.g., we say in Tamil ndn-tdn, I myself; ns-tdn, thou

thyself ; avan-tdn, he himself ; aval-tdn, she herself ; adu-tdn, itself or

that itself ; and ¢dm, the plural of ¢dn, is in like manner appended

to the plurals of each of those pronouns and demonstratives,

The

reduplicated form of the inflexion talitam, for tam-tan, is used to mean

theirs respectively. The Sanskrit svayam is indeclinable ; the Dra-

vidian ¢an is regularly declined, which is a difference worthy of notice.

tdn acquires also an adverbial signification by the addition of the usual

adverbial formatives—e.g., tdndy (for tdn-dgt), Tam., of myself, of your-

self, or spontaneously; and when appended. to nouns of quality or

relation its use corresponds to that of our adverbs really, quite, dc.—

e.g., mey, tdn, Tam., it is really true, §ar ¢tdn, quite right.

One use to which the reflexive is put is peculiar to these languages

—vViz., as an honorific substitute for the pronoun of the second person ;

and in this connexion either the singular, the plural, or the double

plural may be used, according to the amount of respect intended to

be 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

the third person, yet when thus used honorifically for the second person,

the verb with which it is connected receives the pronominal termina-

tions, not of the third person, but of the second. This use of #dn as

an honorific pronoun of the second person, illustrates the(possibility, if

not the probability, of the origin of the Indo-European pronoun ¢,

thou, from a demonstrative base.

A very interesting class of Dravidian words, the nature of which has

generally been overlooked, has originated from the honorific use of the

reflexive pronoun. Its inflexion, or possessive, has been prefixed hono-

rifically to most of the pure Dravidian words which denote parents and

other near relations, in a manner which somewhat resembles our

modern periphrasis, Her Majesty, your worship, &c. In general the

plural tam has been used in this connection instead of the singular

tan, as a prefix of greater honour.

In some instances also the crude

{i

base ¢a has been used as the first member of the compound . instead of

the regularly organized tam. This-class of compounds specially abounds

in Tamil, in which also em and nam, our, and wm, your, are optionally

tion.

used in poetry instead of tam or ta, with the same honorific significa-

The following illustrations are from Tamil alone,

In the other

dialects (except Malayilam, which here is in agreement with Tamil),

some of the most interesting of the compounds are unknown, or the

N\,

THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN.

293

different members of the compound have become so corrupted that it

is still more difficult to identify them than in Tamil.

tambirdn (Mal. tamburdn), God, Lord, the abbot of a Saira monastery ;

the nearest English is his lordship ; from ¢am, used hono-

rifically, and pirdn, lord (probably a derivative from the

1 (Iflansl{pm, betore). embirdn, our lord, and wmbirdn, your

lord, are also used. pirdt¢i, tambirdtts, lady. Comp. ember-

umdn (em, our, perwmdn, great person), our Lord, literally

our great one, a title common in poetry and in inscriptions;

(fem. perumdtte, lady).

zfagappcm, father ; from ¢am, used honorifically, and appan, father.

This word is sometimes pronounced by Brahmins in the

ancient manner, tamappan ; in Malayalam it is both tagap-

pan and tammappan ; nearest English, his fatherhood.

tander, father, his fatherhood ; a more classical word than tagappan,

yet almost as common (Can. ¢tande, Tel. tandri, Mal. tanda).

There can be no doubt that the first portion of this word is

the honorific reflexive tam, seeing that we find also in the

Tamil poets endei (em), nandei (nam), our father ; and wnde:

(wm), nander (nam), your father.

Comp. also mundei,

ancestor, first father, from mun, before.

It is difficult to

explain Ze, the second member of the compound.

it i

plain that it means father ; but the only word for father at

all resembling it in Tamil is attan, father (also dttan, a

superior person ; comp. atlei, Attdl, mother). If the tes of

tandei, &ec., is connected with this word, it must have come

16

from an older abstract form, affe; meaning either father or

mother, according to the connection (as ¢annei, mother, elder

i

sister, is also used in the poets for elder brother); and this

i

word atte: we might possibly derive from the verbal root

e

attu, to join, to lean wupon.

(See “ Glossarial Affinities,

It

Sanskrit and Scythian.”)

de

tdy, mother, her maternity ; from ¢a, the basé of tam, used honorifi-

ol

cally, and dyi, mother (ta-dyi); Can. tdysi.

dyr, mother,

s

matron, lady, is a more classical word than ¢dy, though

retained in many compounds in daily use.

Another form

1l

¥

is dy (Tam).

This is identical in sound with a verbal root

her

signifying to select ; but it is difficult to suppose that select,

pretty, can’ have been the original meaning of one of the

j)

{oe

most ancient patriarchal Dravidian words for mother.

Another and perhaps more probable derivation is from 4,

.

- 904

Tﬂlﬂ ‘ PRONOUN.

cow, from which ays, fem., would naturally be formed,

with the meaning of mistress of the cows.

Comp. duhutri,

Sansk., a daughter, literally a milkmaid.

dchche is a South

Malaydlam form for dye.

dyar, Tam.-Mal. the epicene

plural of this word, is a common poetical epithet for cow-

herds.

{ammes, mother ; from ta, honorific for z‘chn, and‘(mnm{ei, an honorific

word for mother, matron (also amman, ammd, anmmdl).

tanmei, mother ; from ¢, honorific, and annei, an honorific word for

mother, probably identical in origin with ammes. This word

means not only mother, but also both elder sister and elder

brother.

tameiyan, elder brother, his eldership ; from fam, used honorifically,

and.eiyan (sometimes ayan), a senior or elder, and therefore

meaning also father, elder brother, or guru).

Another very

common word for elder brother is anpnan, apnal, from appu,

Comp.

to resort to, to lean upon (Tel. anna, Can. apna).

tammun (poetical), an elder brother, from tam and mun,

before.

- tamakket, elder sister, her eldership ; from tam and akkei, elder sister

(also mother).

The ordinary Tamil forms are akkd and

akkdl.

tambi, younger brother ; from tam, honorific, and p, a word or portion

of a word of doubtful origin and meaning:

The Telugu

tammudu and the Canarese tamma throw no light on the

meaning of ps (Mal. both tambe and tambdin).

Comp. with

.

pi, peidal, Tam. and Mal., a boy, literally that which is

fresh and green.

The most probable explanation, though

one which is not free from difficulty, is that p¢ is for pin,

after.

Comp. tammun, Tam., from tam and mun before, a

poetical word for elder brother.

tambe is explained by the

native lexicographers as meaning pin-pi¥andon, he who has

been born afterwards.

They also give pinndn, he who is

after, as a synonym for tambi, and pinner, the corresponding

feminine or neuter abstract, as a synonym for tangei, younger

sister.

Probably p¢ was the primitive shape of pin, as mu

was certainly the primitive form of mun ; still it is difficult

to see how the formative » (changing to » in piragu, after),

which was retained in mun when used as the final member

of a compound, happened to be omitted altogether from pu.

Equivalent forms of this word in poetical Tamil are embi,

our younger brother, umbi and nwmbi, your younger brother ;

,ﬁ%

THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN.

206

probably 'aléo nambt (whi‘ch see) is to be regarded as the

same word.

»iangei, younger: sister ; from tam, used honorifically, and kez, a word

of doubtful origin (Mal. tanga, Can. tangi, Coorg tangey.

&F

It would seem from the Tamil poetical word «nang‘ei, a lady,

that ke: does not mean one that is young, or one that comes

afterwards, as I have supposed the p¢ of tambi to mean, but

must have had a meaning in some way suitable to be applied

to women in general (manget, a girl, looks as if it included

the same fked) ; yet, on the other hand, we find in the Tamil

poets this very word ked, in the shape of Zeiyes, an -abstract

T

noun, used as a synonym for tanges, a younger sister.: This

appears to settle the question as regards the meaning of kei,

It cannot be

but the origin of the word continues doubtful.

(7

connected with keimmer, beimpen, Tam., a widow, that word

|

being most naturally derived from Zez (another shape of

Il

hence also the noun /e,

which is kasdu), to be bitter;

adversity.

We seem, therefore, to be obliged to fall back

Ily

on kei, a hand, in the sense of a help, a handmaid, and to

explain tangei as meaning her handmaidenship *—a meaning

I

which suits well the position a younger sister would natu-

rally have assigned to her.

The corresponding Telugu word

chellelu, younger sister, incl

)

udes the mfan,ning of playful,

petted.

o1l

nambi, a title of inferior priests, meaning probably like tambe, younger

brother (which see).

Comp. nambiri, properly nambutire,

ith

the title of a class of Malayilam Brahmins.

Comp. also

) I

Telugu tammaly, dammadu, a petty priest.

1

notice in

i

Coorg two instances of fam used honorifically, which are

pii!.

not in Tamil—viz., tammdvu, father-in-law, from zam and

g,

mdvw (Tam. mdmdn), the same, and ‘ammdvi, mother-in-

{0

law, from fam and mdve (Tam. mdmi), the same.

b

[

0

Another remarkable use of the reflexive pronoun is the adoption of

g

its possessive, or inflexional base, tam, of self, or self’s, as the base

it

ot

of the abstract noun fan-me¢ or tanam, quality or nature, literally

g it

selfness.

Tamil

tanam 1s the form of this word used in Telugu.

uses both #tanam and tanmer; but the latter can

N v

ot

ol

and alone, whilst

,.

Vi

ff)

tanam is used only in compounds.

e 1s the regular formative of

e

i

it

e

L

i

* Compare with this mem;mg of a younger;i;éé; 71‘:]16 name of spilvlster, \\h};h

1 [;z'ﬂ:

is applied by ourselves to unmarried females; and also the derivation attributed

iy

il

to duhitry (duhitar), Sansk. daughter, viz., a milk-maid.

et

29

6

THE PRbNOUI\’.

Tamil abstracts ; like our English ness, the Latin tas/; or the Sanskrit

twam.

tanmer 1s identical in meaning with the Sanskrit tatvam,

nature, property, which is derived from tad or ¢at, that, and is possibly

=

allied to it in origin, though indirectly.

td or ta, the base of the Dravidian reflexive pronoun, has no connec-

tion with, or resemblance to, any other pronoun of this family of

lahguages, though it is unquestionably a pure Dravidian root. If we

look at its meaning and range of application, it must, I think, have

originated from some emphatic demonstrative base; and it will be

found that there is no lack either in the Indo-Europeaun or in the

Scythian family of demonstratives closely resembling ¢a or ta-n.

We

see examples of this resemblance in the Sanskrit tat, that (from ¢a, the

demonstrative base, and ¢, the sign of the neuter singular); in tadd,

then, at that time ; and also (with the ¢ weakened into s) in sah, he,

sd, she.

The reflexive pronouns of this family, sva, se, &c., are pro-

bably derived from the same base, though considerably altered.

tl

Compare also the old Greek article, which is properly a demonstrative

pronoun, 7ég, 77, ¥, and the corresponding German der, die, das.

We

find the same or a similar demonstrative (with an annexed nasal, as in

!

the Dravidian tan) in the Doric ##-o0g, he, that, which is the form from

D

which the Afolian #7v-0¢, and the later Greek é-x¢n-og, is supposed to

10

have been derived (by a change similar to that by which the Hebrew

all

The resemblance between

pronominal suffix £¢ was derived from #a).

h

v7v and ¢dn is certainly remarkable; and may not this Dravidian

reflexive pronoun, which is used honorifically as a pronoun of the

second person, throw some light on that curious indeclinable Greek

word which is sometimes used as a form of polite address, viz., ré or

o 7a, Sir, My good friend, &c., and which has been derived by some

10y

etymologists from s7v-og, by others from an obsolete vocative of v

il

or iy ?

{lg

The same demonstrative base, with a similar final », appears also in

(’JE]

the Old Persian fan’s (for tana-s), he ; and in the Scythian tongues we

Dot

find it, either nasalised or pure, in the Finnish remote demonstrative

ing

tuo, and the proximate tama, in the Lappish ¢as, he, fan, of him (root

( I

ta); and in the Ostiak remote demonstrative foma, and proximate

My

tema.

The reflexive pronoun is used by the Seoni Gond both as a

€‘1)

reflexive and as a demonstrative.,

)

Thus, in the “ Song of Sandsumjee,’

i

in Dr Manger’s paper (Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society), ten means

I

L

The

him (not se, but <llum); tunna, his; and ¢dne, her and it.

e

reflexive signification also appears in the same song in funwa (Tam.

lng

tan), suus-a-um. This seems to prove that @ was originally a demon-

strative,

theg

Even in Tamil we find, I think, a distinet trace of the

hﬁ\

THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN.

~

%

97

demonstrative signification of the reflexive ¢u still surviving in the use

in poetry of the oblique cases of tdn, tdm, instead of the oblique cases

of the nouns to which they belong, in a manner similar to the use of

adu, it, with its cases—e.g., maranddne: (tanei, the accusative of tdn)

kkandén, 1 saw the tree, instead of maramader, the other poetical

form, or the colloquial marattes.

(See the Noun—inflexional forma-

tive am.)

The strongest argument, perhaps, for considering the Dravidian #a

or ¢dn, self, to be allied to the Sanskrit-Scythian demonstrative ta, 1s

the circumstance that tan, the inflexional base of tdn, is u

sed, as has

been already mentioned, in the formation of the word tanmei or tanam,

quality, selfness, in precisely the same manner as the Sanskrit tad,

that which forms the basis of the corresponding Sanskrit word tatvam,

quality, quiddity, thatness. The Dravidian word may have been, and

probably was, framed in imitation of the Sanskrit (for so abstract a

term is necessarily of late origin), but it cannot have been direct

ly

derived from the Sanskrit word.

It seems very probable that both

bases are remotely allied, and if they are so allied, their alliance carries

us back to a very remote period ; for whilst the Dravidian reflexive

pronoun retains the original demonstrative ¢ the corresponding reflexive

in every one of the Indo-European tongues (sva, s, &c.) had already

allowed ¢ to be weakened into s, before those tongues separated from

the parent stem.

4. PLURALISATION OF THE PERSONAL AND REFLEXIVE ProvNouns.

[

I class the plurals of these pronouns together because they are

formed from the same pronominal bases as their singulars (which have

{l

already been investigated), and because they are all formed on one and

the same plan, viz, either by the addition of a pluralising particle

1

(generally m) to the pronominal base, or by the substitution of that

6

particle for the singular formative.

Exceptions exist, but they are few

\l

and unimportant.

i

Comparison of Dialects.—In the classical dialect of the Tamil, the

ate

plurals of the personal and reflexive pronouns (ndn, I; ni, thou ; tdn,

self) are ydm or ndm, we; nir, wiyir, or nivir (instead of the more

g d

regular ném), you ; and tdm, selves.

In the colloquial dialect a double

0

plural has got into extensive use, which is formed by the addition to

i

the classical plurals of ga/, the sign of plurality which especially be-

I

longs to the class of irrationals.

In consequence of the existence of

il

o

these two sets of plurals, a difference in their use and application

the

has gradually established itself. The classical or pure and simple

THE PRONOU

298

plurals are now used in the colloquial dialect as honorific singulars;

whilst the double plurals—ndnggal (ndm-gal), we ;

ninggal nim-gal),

you ; and tdnggal (tdmgal), selves—are used as the ordinary plurals.

A double plural has crept into the Telugu also—e.g., miralu (for miru)

you, vdralu (for wdrw), they

Another point of difference between

ndm and ndngoal, the two Tamil plurals of the first personal pronoun

The formation of these

will be inquired into under a subsequent head

secondary double plurals of the Tamil and Telugu is in harmony with

Of the

a usage which is observed in some of the Gaurian languages.

Orlga Mr Beames writes (Indian Antiguary for October 187:

2)y#¢ 1hiye

pluml of mu, 1, is amhe (pronounced ambhe), and that of tu, thou, is

but as the learned have taken ambhe and tumbhe into

tumhe (tumblhe);

use as equivalents for I and thou, they have had to make fresh plurals,

ambhomdne, tumbhemdne

Din Krishna (a poet who lived at the close

of the fifteenth century) uses only the two first (ambhe, and tumbha)

and always in their proper ancient signification

The same process 18

observed in the Turkish

In that language ben, I, is regularly plural

ised into biz, we; and sew, thou, into siz, you ; but those plurals ar

sometimes pluralised over again by the addition of le the ordinary

suffix of plurality

., biz-ler, we, siz-ler, you.

In the verbal 1nﬁe*<10ns the initial consonant of each of the pm-

noniinal plurals (as of the corresponding singulars) disappears ; and

the pronoun is represented solely by the included vowel and the sign

of plurality.

The personal termination of the first person plural in the

in the classical dialect am, dm, em, ém.

The

colloquial dialect is om ;

1

termination of the second person plural is 4r or o7, the representative

of n#

The reflexive pronoun tdm, selves, has no place in the verbal

inflexions

Of the three High Tamil or classical plurals which hav

£

two form their plurals by sub-

been mentioned—andm, nir, and tdm

i

stitutine m for the final » of the $ingular, or by adding m to the crude

)

1r00t.

This I consider to be the regular method of pluralising the per-

1l

sonal pronouns ; and the use of nir, you, instead of nim, is an abnormal

I

This appears on comparing it with nin-gal, the correspond-

exception.

ing plural in the colloquial dialect, which is formed from ném—the

fl

plural that is requlred by rule, and which is found in classical Canarese,

I

Tt also appears from the circumstance that ##r is not the base of the

]

oblique cases of the plural' of this pronoun in any dialect of the Tamil.

0

7t constitutes the sign of plurality instead of 7 in the oblique cases of

I

nér, precisely as in those of ndm, we

ndm is represented in the

Jl

and by nam and

oblique cases in the classical dialect by nam and em

engal (em-gal) in the colloquial dialect

In like manner, the oblique

cases of the plural of the second personal pronoun are wm and num In

)&%\

PLURALISATIO

OF PERSONAL PRONOUN

299

the hicher dialect

nn

the

and ungal (um-gal). in the colloquial

l’),

abbreviation of 7in, beine used in the classics as the inflexion of the

old singular, we should have expected to find the corresponding nzm

)

(from n¢m) in the plural

but in the oblique cases ¢ has given pl

eell

to u

m

t

The final % of ndn, nin, tdn, may be omitted in the nominative in

pg

several of the Dravidian dialects, but th

e final m of the plurals (though

plil

The reason

softened in colloquial Canarese to vu) is never omitted

il

is that the singular might often be taken for granted, or would appear

The

sufficiently from the context, whilst, if the plural were meant, it was

1, 1B

more necessary that it should be distinctly expressed.

N

In Canarese the plurals of all the personal pxonounb are formed in

al

he classical dialect with perfect and beautiful regul:

tan

self, tdm, selves

058

dm, we ; nin, thou, nim, you

In the oblique

}Mu

cases the included vowel is shortened as usual; and the only other

15

change' which takes place is in the weakening (as in Tamil) of the

it

radical @ of the nominative of the first person into e in the oblique

are

cases—e.g., emma

our

In this particular, namma, the form which

It

has survived in the colloquial dialect is more regular, and probably

more

anclent.™

The colloquial dialect substantially agrees with the

classical

)0

the chief difference consisting in the softening, in the

and

nominatives alone, of the final m into vu—e.g., ndvu, nivu, and tdvu,

Sien

instead of ndm

nem

and tdm

In the personal terminations of the

verb, the modern dialect uses éve, evu, and évu,

as representatlves of

) T

navw, we ;

the ¢

Th’

of which forms corresponds to én, the termination of

the Tamil singular

W\

This final »» of the modern Canarese is not

L) /35‘7[

yere

I8

euphonic, like the vu of . the Telugu singular, né-vu, thou ; but is soft-

ened from, and is the representative of, an older m

Though m is the

I fave

y SI0

true sign of the plural of the second person, as of the other personal

pronouns, 7 is used instead in all the Canarese verbal terminations, as

1 LIUJV

in those of all the other dialects.

The ancient Canarese uses 77, the

Lhe 1»4

modern 277 and %7z

h()m

In Telugu the second personal pronoun is pluralised in the nomina-

st

tive by » instead of m—e.g., mér-u, higher dialect #rw, you; and in

i

A0

i

it

eS?

Telugu, as in all the other Dravidian dialects, » invariably forms the

(Al

of 106

plural of the terminations of the second person of the indicative mood

17

of the verb

It will be seen, however, in the sequel that there are

g Tk

indications in Telugu that the use of 7 in the nominative plural of the

A

pronoun is abnormal

!

b

il

i ®

e

The m which constitutes the pronominal sign of plurality in Telugn

i

R A LS

:001

)

* See p

40, last paragraph

T J

300

THE PRONOUN.,

is not softened into vu in the termination of the first person plural of

the verb, as in Canarese.

That termination is amuw, dmu, emu, ému,

and in the preterife it takes the shape of ém¢, through the influence of

ti, the preterite formative.

The plural of the second person is repre-

sented by dru, @rv, eru, éru, wru, and ru; of which r, the pluralising

suffix of miru, you, is the only essential element.

Telugu differs from

the Tamil-Canarese in occasionally using #dr-u, softened from tamar-u,

instead of ¢dm-u, as the nominative plural of the reflexive pronoun.

This irregularity, however, like that of the pluralisation of the second

personal pronoun by means of # instead of m, disappears in the oblique

cases ; the plural inflexion or possessive of this pronoun being tam-a,

in Telugu, as in the other dialects.

tamar-u 18 properly a possessive

noun.

The Telugu plurals mém-u, we, and mir-u (or miralu), you,

present some peculiarities which require to be investigated.

In common with their singulars, the inflexions of these pronouns

reject altogether the final consonant—the sign of number

and retain

the long included vowel of the nominative unaltered. Thus, the in-

flexion or possessive of mému is md, and that of miru, mi—corresponding

to the singular inflexion nd and #i.

The objective case, however,

follows the rule of the Tamil and Canarese—e.g., mamu or mammau, us,

q

mumaL Or MImImY, you.

It may, therefore, be concluded that the mode

i

[

in which the inflexions m? and md are formed is irregular and of com-

paratively late origin ; and that in Telugu, as in the other dialects, m

1]

is to be regarded as the ancient and regular sign of the plural of the

i

personal pronouns.

fe

The chief peculiarity of these pronouns (mém-u and mér-u) in Telugu,

o

T

is the change of the initial # into m. How is it to be accounted for

that the Telugu plurals have m as their initial, instead of 7 2—mém-u

0f

and mér-u, instead of ném-uw and nim-u or nir-u—the sign of plurality

prefixed, instead of being suffixed ?

I believe that this m is not to be

e

considered as the representative of an older pronominal root ; but that

Iy

it is merely the result of the euphonic attraction of the final m, which

By

constitutes the regular sign of plurality.

If the plural of the Telugu

i)

first person alone had = for its basis, we might possibly suppose that

i

m to be radical and primitive, on account of m being, as we have seen,

g

the basis of the corresponding Scytho-Sanskrit pronoun ; but we find

l»ﬂh

the same initial 7 in the plural of the Telugu second person also.

0fh

Now, as it can scarcely be doubted that 73, the singular of that pronoun

Ty

(agreeing as it does with the Behistun-Scythian and the Chinese, as

U3y

well as with many of the Finnish forms) faithfully represents the

fUlll

earliest organised form of the Dravidian pronoun of the second person,

QXp]

it seems evident that mim (the suppositious nominative from which

,“—“"K

PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

301

the objective mim-mu has been derived) must have been altered from

if

nim. We may, therefore, conclude that the same process must have

|

taken place in the pronoun of the first person also.

o

Telugu is more addicted to harmonic changes than any other Dravi-

16

dian dialect.

It alters both vowels and consonants for harmonic

g

reasons so frequently, that the change from ném-u to mém-u, and from

Jil

nim-w to mim-u, would be thought by Telugu people a very natural

1l

and easy one.

It occasionally drops also the initial % or m of these

i

words.

d

We have seen that the first person forms its plural in all the Dravi-

16

dian idioms, properly so called, by changing the final formative of the

1,

singular 7 into m ; and that the second person originally formed its plural

Ve

in the same manner—rviz., by substituting m for n, though the verbal

1,

endings and the nominative of the ‘isolated pronoun in some of the

dialects are now found to prefer 7.

We have seen that the reflexive

pronoun also forms its plural by discarding 7 and annexing m. Con-

i

114}3

sequently we are now entitled to regard m as the most regular and

1

ancient sign of plurality u

sed by the Dravidian personal pronouns.

ng

Origin of Pluralising Particles.

(1.) Origin of ‘7r”—We have

DI’

already seen, under the head of the * Pluralisation of Nouns,” that the

epicene plural of the Dravidian languages is'ar or ¢r; and that the «

b

and ¢ of ar and 4 are probabl

y the remote and proximate demonstra-

tive bases, ¢ and 7, to which 7, a sign of plurality, h

as been appended.

11

ar and u7, we have seen, may be regarded as equiv

alent to the more

he

fully developed avar, war, those people, these people.

But how has a

termination which is naturall

Yy appropriate to the third person only

found its way into the second

* In this manner, T apprehend. nir,

gl

for

Tam. you, takes also, as we have seen, in the Tamil cl

assics, the form

of nver, and miyir, and in this instance I have no dou

i

bt that the more

classical form is also the more ancient,

it

wi-(y)-ir or ni-(v)-ir will thus

mean thou + they, and this com

o0

fication of you.

pound will naturally acquire the signi-

that

The Sanskrit yushmé, you (yu + smé =

thou + they),

il

is supposed to have a similar origin,

The Tamil word, however, is still

more suitable than the S

I

anskrit one to express the meaning required.

¢r in Tamil means not, as the Sanskrit smé is su

{haf

pposed to do, they,

indiscriminately, without reference to the distance

or proximity of the

el

persons referred to, but, they who

\ﬁﬂd

are standing unearer than certain

other people.

s

It means not those people, but these people. The

Tamil ni-(v)-ir means, therefore, thou + these people ;

and this supplies

us with a more suitable origin for the word uged

for you’ than is to be

Ise'f ¥

found in Sanskrit, or, T believe, any other ]

anguage.

An alternative

i

explanation is th

ETSOU-‘

at the 77 of the plural pronouns is identical in origin

e

'y

y

02

3

U

THE PRONQUN.

Wit_h ir, two. On this supposition niyer, niver, nir, would mean ¢ two

thous,” and would have been used first as a dual, ther} as a plural.

(See p.

)

(2.) Origin of ‘m.’—Can the origin of m, the most distinctive sign

of the plural of the Dravidian personal and reflexive pronouns, be dis-

covered? It is only in the event of our being unable to discover its

origin in the Dravidian languages themselves, that it will be desirable

or necessary for us to seek for it elsewhere.

It will be found, I think,

to be capable of satisfactory explanation.

It appears to me to have

been derived from um, the conjunctive or copulative particle of almost

all the Dravidian dialects.

Being a conjunctive it is used for con-

joining person to person—that is, for pluralising. (See ¢ The Plural

Imperative.”) This particle 1is ;‘hn in Tamil and Malayalam, wm or

am, more commonly um, in classical Canarese, @ in colloquial Canarese,

2 in Telugu. The Telugu particle takes euphonically the shape of yu

or nu, according to the preceding vowel, but in itself it is simply u,

aud identical with the Tamil-Malaydlam-Canarese wm, the m of which

appears to be the ordinary formative m of neuter nouns. w is best

explained as the intermediate demonstrative base %, correlative to the

remote demonstrative base @, and the proximate s.

Tulu stands alone

Whatever be the origin of um,

in using /@ as its copulative particle.

;)5‘

its use as a copulative particle is of very great antiquity. Like the

Latin gue it is incapable of being used separately, and 1s agglutinated

If

to the word it qualifies. On the supposition of the final m, which

!

constitutes the sign of plurality in Dravidian pronouns,

personal and

I

reflexive, being a relic of the copulative wm, ndm, we, and nim, you,

resolve themselves into nd-um, L-and, egogue, and nf-um, thou-and,

1

tuque.

This view is corroborated’ by the extensive use which is avow-

(

edly made of this very wm in the forr

nation of Tamil distributive and

fl

universal nouns and pronouns.

Thus, evamwm, eVery one, quisque;

of

engum, everywhere, ubique and epporudum, always, every time, are

unquestionably derived from evan, who, engu; where, and epporudas,

o

what time, with the addition in each instance of the conjunctive par-

ticle wm, and ; so that the compound pronoun “ every one’ is regularly

ﬁli

I 0

expressed in Tamil, like quisque in Latin, by who, and— ; everywhere,

In the

like wbigue, by where, and— ; always, by what time, and—.

same manner um is annexed as an auxiliary to some affirmative uni-

i

versals for the purpose of widening their application—e.g., elld-(v)-um,

b

Malayalam, all, literally all and—, from eligd, all, and um, and. This

|

form is abbreviated in Tamil into elldm; which is regarded and

W

treated by grammarians as a neuter plural.

The corresponding epi-

B

cene plural is elldr-um, all persons.

In Tamil poetry eldm is regarded

l

.43%

PLURALISATION

OF

j i VB A%y

PERS

SONAL PRONOUNS.

303

10

as a plural of the first person, meaning all we, in which dm probably

il

represents dm, we. If then the addition of um, abbreviated to m,

undoubtedly constitutes pronominal distributives and universals, may

7

not the sign of plurality which is employed by the personal pronouns

ha

be an abbreviation of the same um ?

In poetical Tamil, personal verbs

1t

are sometinies pluralised by the addition of um—e.g., Seygu, 1 will do ;

bl

Seygum (deyg’-um), we, ye, they will do.

So also Seygum vandém, we

¢

have done (so and so) and come.

Here $eygu is an old future or

ave

aoristic verbal participle, capable of being used also as a finite verb,

108t

and we find that by the addition of wm it is pluralised, so as to ‘corre-

0l

spond with the more fully expressed plural vandém, we came.

In the

|t

same dialect of Tamil seydw (which in the modern colloquial dialect

ol

means having done) is sometimes used in the sense of I did, and seyd-

6se,

wm in the sense of we did. © We have here distinct and evidently very

,///

ancient traces of the use of wm as a sign of personal plurality. = This

1l

use of wm.appears still more distinctly in the second person plural of

|

the imperative of Tamil verbs in the colloquial dialect, which is much

jieh

b

Bl

used as an honorific singular—e.g., £é/ (the root used as the first per-

This form has been

e

singular imperative), hear thou ; £élum, hear ye.

Jone

still further vulgarised by the addition of gaf, the sign of plurality

i

belonging to irrational nouns—e.g., kélungal, hear ye.

Compare the

fhe

Telugu honorific singular (properly a plural) rammu, come ye, the

regular singular of which is »d, come thou.

Neither the Tamil ume of

1ted

jich

the second person imperative, nor the corresponding Telugu mu or upu

and

can be satisfactorily explained by identifying it with the Tamil wm, the

ol

inflexion of the pronoun of the second person plural.

It is best ex-

plained by identifying it with the wm by which that inflexion wm itself

i

i T

(from nm), together with the other plurals of the personal and re-

{4 Al

flexive pronouns, was originally pluralised.

116

A parallel instance of the use of a copulative conjunction as a sign

e

of plurality appears in Ostiak, in which the sign of the dual (¢ga, ka,

10

gaz, &c.) is ‘derived by Castrén from ka or kz, also.

Baxtra-Dravidian Relationship.— We now proceed to inquire whether

o A

final m, the distinctive Dravidian plural of the personal pronouns,

forms the plural of this class of words in any other family of languages.

i

m having a tendency to be weakened into 7 (of which there are

i

many examples in the terminations of Tamil nouns), and m and #»

(4

il

being generally equivalent nasals, the use of a final » as a sign of the

plural of pronouns, may possibly be equivalent to that of m.

If so,

!

weé may adduce as examples of plurals resembling the Dravidian the

el th[

Brahui nan, the Chaldee andn, and the Ostiak men, we ; as also the

s

Persian ¢an, you. A slight trace of the use of m as a sign of the

1‘6“‘“

el

Zi/

-

304

'THE PRONOUN.

plural may be noticed in the Beluchi mimiken, we, when compared

with menek, 1

In the Ostiak, a Finnish dialect, the first person plural

of the verb terminates in e, whilst the plural of 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, however, is illusory ; for the m of

the Finnish me is a sign of personality, not of plurality.

me, we, 18

the plural of ma, the old Finnish I ; of which na (from which the =

We can

of olen arises) is, as I have shown, an euphonic modification.

scarcely indeed expect to find in the pronouns of the Scythian lan-

guages any sign®of plurality perfectly corresponding to that of the

Dravidian m ; for in those languages the personal pronouns are gener-

ally pluralised by a change of the final vowel, not by any change or

addition of consonants—e.g., Manchu bz, I, be, we ; Magyar e, thou,

ts, you ; Ostiak and Finnish ma, I, me (or men), we.

T have reserved till now the consideration of a series of remarkable

analogies which run through the whole of the Indo-European family of

languages, and which' are found also in the Gaurian or North-Indian

vernaculars.” In those languages we find very frequent use of m in the

plurals of the personal pronouns, in which it either constitutes the final

consonant, or occupies a place of evident importance ; and this m in

some instances appears to replace a final # or z which is used by the

corresponding singulars.

In the vernaculars of Northern India we find the following instances

Hindi man,

of the use of # or m in the singular and m in the plural.

I; ham, we; td, tdn, or tam, thou; twm, you.

Gujarathi hum, I;

hame, we ; tin, thou; tame, you.

Marathi, ¢dn, thou ; tumhz, you.

In Bengali and Oriya mn disappears from the terminations of the

singulars, but in the plural 7 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 Oriya tumbha, the base of the double plural, tumb-

hamdne. The same distinctive m appears in the Pali-Prékrit, the stock

from which the Gaurian vernaculars radiated, in tumbhe, you, amhe, we,

Compare also the New Persian shumd, you, and the final m of hastém,

we are. 1 quote the following from an article by Mr Beames in the

Indian Antiguary for November 1872 :—/dm, plural of personal

pronoun, first person; Hindi, Zam.

This is a peculiarly instructive

form. The origin of this word in all the seven languages (of Northern

The Oriya, with its usual fondness for

India) is the Prakrit amhé.

archaisms, still retains this form almost unchanged in dmbhe, where

the b is merely the natural thickening of the pronunciation after ne.

Hindi has thrown the % backwards to the beginning of the word,

e

2?792

PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

305

dl

making hamé.

In Adm we have the tendency, natural to Bengali,

;l

towards lengthening the short vowel, so that this form may be regarded

g

as transitional between middle Hindi and the modern Bengali dmi.”

Similar and very striking analogies meet us in Greek. Compare

he

the singulars éydv and roly, Zydvsn and rolvy, with the plurals #usic

and Uweds.

0?

This resemblance, too, is strengthened when the vowels of

the Greek plurals are compared with some of the corresponding

1l

Dravidian ones—e.g., compare 7u-¢is with the Telugu ém-u, we; and

(all

Uu-eig with wm, which is the base of the oblique cases of the Tamil

.

plural of the second person.

It also deserves to be noticed, that in

the

the QGreek, Persian, Gaurian, &ec., m is not used indiscriminately by

I

all nouns, or even by all pronouns, as a sign of plurality in general,

[U§

but is invariably restricted to the pronouns of the first and second

0l

person—a, usage which precisely accords with that of the Dravidian

P

languages.

0ie

A strong case for regarding the 7 of the above-mentioned Aryan

ol

idioms as closely allied to the 7 which constitutes the most distinetive

fia

sign of the plural of the three personal pronouns in the Dravidian

the

family (in Canarese, dm, we; nim, you; tdm, selves) has now been

established. I do not wonder, therefore, that the late Mr Gover (in

n'al

1)

a privately-printed paper on the Dravidian personal pronouns) con-

sidered that there was ““no possible doubt as to their real and intimate

he

)

connection ;

> or that Dr Pope, in his “ Qutlines of the Tuda Grammar”

k(‘L

(p- 5), should have said, though with hesitancy, “Nor can I think it

i}

clear that dm (Tuda, we) is not related to the Sanskrit vayam, or to

the Greek 7u-s7z or duuse, and Védic asmé.”

The evidence of relation-

il

ol

ship appears to me to be weakened by this reference to vayam. We

f e

have already seen that the am of vayam is properly a sign of the neuter

spf3—

a

singular, constituting vayam, we, like ydyam, you, an abstract noun—

oV

o il

plural, indeed, in signification, but singular in form.

It has been

fu

seen, also, that the same am appears in aham, 1; tvam, thou ; and

svayam, self. When vayam and yidyam are set aside as not really

i

AL

related to the Dravidian forms, the probability of the existence of a

h

i f

it

real relationship between the Dravidian dm, ydm, we, and the Graeco-

Vedic @uu-cc, asm-¢, and still more between the Dravidian dm and the

1

"N lle

Bengali Adm, dmi, becomes, I admit, very great ; so also the probability

Pe[ IS

of a relationship between wm, the Dravidian oblique form of you, and

pri®

the Graeco-Vedic Yuu-cs, yushm-¢, and the wm of the Hindi tum.

I

.ohh““

)

feel still, however, obliged to say, as I said in the first edition, that,

¢

et

on a more extended comparison and on closer consideration, this

gffer !

il

resemblance appears to me first to diminish and then to disappear.

The more it is examined, the more the difficulties in the way of itg

p gl

U

THE PRONOUN.

306

reception appear to increase. Perhaps, indeed, mo better illustration

could be found of the danger of confiding in apparent resemblances,

however close and exact, and of the necessity of tracing words back

t6 *their earliest shapes before concluding that resemblances imply

relationship.

We have seen that the plural 7 of the Dravidian personal pronoun

resolves itself most naturally into wm, the Dravidian conjunctive

What is the history of the plural m of the

particle, and, also.

Greeco-Gaurian personal pronouns? How far soever we trace back

the Dravidian mm, it is found to sustain no change, and to exhibit no

signs of being descended from anything extrinsic to itself. On the

other hand, though the m of the Greek and Gaurian presents itself

to us simply as m in these languages ; yet on carrying our comparison

a few stages further back, and inquiring into its origin and history,

we find it losing its simplicity, and presenting itself to us as only one

member in a composite formative, to which the Dravidian m bears no

resemblance.

nwers and dwek, as is well known, are not the oldest forms of the

Greek plurals. For #uéf; the Doric and Aolic dialects have cuee

Gupss, and duue ; for bueis they have Buee, Dpwes, and ups 5 of which

forms the oldest and most reliable appear to be &uueg; or its unin-

flected type Gmus and Dupes or D,

Tn like manner the Gaurian

forms of the plurals of the personal pronouns are not the oldest forms

of these plurals we have to deal with. The Hindi kam, the Gujarathi

hame, the old Bengali Adm, the modern Bengali dmi, the Oriya dmbhe,

are all derived from the Prakrit amhé.

The Greek &uwpe and the

Prakrit amhé are evidently identical ; but what is the origin of both?

In Zend the m and % of the Prakrit amhé change places, so that ahmé

may have been an older form. The plural nominative in Zend is

vaem, answering to the later Sanskrit vayam; but all the oblique

)—e.g., ablat.

cases are built upon akma (pointing to a nominative ahmé

ahmat (Sans. asmat). Already the Dravidian m is losing its resem-

blance to the Aryan ; but when we come to the next stage, the Vedic-

Sanskrit asmé (a + sme), the fountain-head of all these pronominal

forms, the resemblance appears almost wholly to vanish.

The Aryan

genealogical tree is very clearly made out: asme, ahme, amhe, Cuws,

Gupi-sg = nusis 5 dmbhe, hame, ham, hdm, dm.

In the Dravidian

languages, on the other' hand, even if we trace our way back to the

time when the Tamilians and the Khonds were still one people, in-

habiting the same districts and speaking the same tongue—a time

earlier by many ages than the degradation of the Préakrits into the

modern Glaurian vernaculars—we still find an unvarying m (irresoluble

except i\nto wm) used for the pluralisation of the personal pronouns.

A

PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS

30%

In like manner, on comparing Juuss or Juws, you, with the Zend

yuishem (in the oblique cases yusma or yiésma), and with the Vedic-

Sanskrit yushmé. (for yusmé), it is equally obvious that yusmé is the

root: of the whole.

yusmé, you, the, plural of #u, thou, has Drobably

been softened from fusmé = tu-smé (as asmé from masmé = ma-smé) ;

and this suppositious tusmé (weakened into zuhmé, like asmé into alkmé)

becomes a reality when we turn to the Prakrit tumhé, you, from which

comes dlrectly the Gaurian tumbi, tumbha, tame, tum, &e.

Compare

also the New Persian shumd.

)

When we find that the Dravidian m or wm is to be compared, not

with the apparently identical m of the Gaurian Aam and tum, but

f

with the Vedic-Sanskrit smé of asmé and yushmé, it is evident that

the improbability of 7 or wm being identical with smé, or nearly related

§

to it; becomes very great.

This improbability i Increases when the uses

0

of smé and those of m are compared.

0

smé is a compound cousisting of two members, sma and ¢, of which

¢ alone is characteristic of the plural

sma, which contains the 7 that

16

has been supposed to be connected with the Dravidian sien of plurality,

1s a particle the origin of which is doubtful, and the force of which is

still more doubtful.

When used as an isolated particle, it gives to the

present tense of verbs a species of past signification.

Its use in the

1nﬂex10n of pronouns, when inserted between the pronominal base and

5

the signs of case and number, suggests the idea that it _was originally

h

@ pronoun of the third person, meaning, perhaps, self or the same,

h(.

which came to be added on occasionally to the other pronominal bases

the

for the purpose of imparting additional emphasis. We find a somewhat

fh!

similar use in Tamil of ¢an, tam, the inflexion of the reflexive pronoun

self

fn

selves, which is

occasionally.

especially in

poetry,

inserted

i1

N

between nouns and their case S1218.

The & of smé is the ordinary

nque

sign of the nominative plural of pronominals of the class of smé, all,

Wt

and has obviously no resemblance to the Dravidian . -

and the sma

1\€m

into which the m of smé resolves itself, whatever be its origin, seems

to resemble it as little.

gl

ik

Tt is also worthy of notice, that sma makes its appearance not only

Tl

in_the inflexion of the plurals of the personal prououns, but also in

the sincular

(1l

It is used in the plural alone in connection with the

~1dlu

pronouns of the first and second persons in Sanskrit ;

but Bopp

g e

recognises it in the singular also in Zend in thwahmi, in thee, and

niore doubtfully in Gothic and Latin ; and there can be no doubt of

le‘ Il

e

its use in the singular of the personal pronouns in the Prakrit (which

may be defined as early colloquial Sanskrit), in mamasme or mamamms,

0 lhe

in me, and tuma,smz or tumammz in thee,.

’O]ubl

Bopp supposes this use of

°

308

THE PRONOUN.

sma in singular pronouns to be of late origin, and to have arisen from

imitation of the plurals; but as the reason why sma was used in the

inflexion of pronouns has only been guessed at, and is not certainly

known, there is no proof that the plural has a better right to it than

But however this may be, it is evident that its resem-

the singular.

blance to the Dravidian in, which is used in the inflexion of the

personal pronouns in the plural alone (never in the singular), has

become less and less.

The resemblance, as it appears to me, wholly

vanishes when it is found that, whilst this use of m as a sign of

plurality is absolutely restricted in the Dravidian languages to the

pronouns of the first and second persohs in the reflexive self, in

Sanskrit, and more or less distinctly in the other Aryan languages,

sma makes its appearance (in three of the cases in the singular) in the

inflexion of the pronouns of the third person, including the demon-

strative, the relative, and the interrogative pronouns.

Nothing could

be further than this from the Dravidian use; and nothing also, I

think, could show more clearly that the sma of asmé and yushmé can-

not safely be regarded as in any sense a sign of the plural.

Twofold Plural of the Dravidian Pronoun of the First Person.—The

ordinary plural of the Dravidian first personal pronoun is constantly

used, not only as a plural, but also as an honorifie singular, precisely

as the royal and editorial ‘we’ is used in English; and the plural of

every other Dravidian pronoun may optionally be used as an honorific

singular in the same manner.

Tt is not, however, this twofold signifi-

cation or use of the same pronoun to which I now refer ; but the exist-

ence of two pronouns of the first person plural, which differ from one

another in signification almost as much as the plural and the dual of

In all the Dravidian dialects, with the exception

other languages.

of the Canarese, there are two plurals of the pronoun of the first

person, of which one denotes, not only the party of the speaker, but

also the party addressed, and may be called the plural enclusive ; the

other excludes the party addressed, and denotes only the party of

Thus, if a person

the speaker, and may be called the plural exclusvve.

said “We are mortal,” he would naturally use the “ we” which includes

those who are spoken to, as well as the speaker and his party, or

the plural inclusive - whilst he would use the plural exclusive, or that

which excludes the party addressed, if he wanted to say We are

Hindus ; you are Europeans.”

There is a similar distinction between the two plurals of the first

person used in the Marathi and the Gujarithi—e.g., Aame in Gujardthi

means we—the party speaking ; whilst dpane means we—the party

speaking, and you also who are addressed.

There 'is mo connection

A

A\

\

_~PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS.

309

between the particular pronominal themes used for this purpose in

Northern India and in the languages of the South ; but the existence

of so remarkakle an idiom in the North Indian family, as well as in

the Southern, seems to demonstrate the existence in the Northern

family of an ancient under-current of Dravidian, or at least of non-

Aryan influences.

The idiom in question is a distinctively Scythian

]

one, and is one of those points which seem to connect the Dravidian

family with the Scythian group. There is no trace of this twofold

plural in the Sanskrit, or in any of the languages of the Indo-European

6

family, but it is found everywhere in Central Asia. Thus the Manchu

I

has m, we—of the one party, and be, we—the whole company. The

Mongolian has a similar idiom.

This peculiarity is found also in the

16

northern dialect of the Chinese.

In that dialect, ¢sa-men, we, includes

It is remarkable

the persons addressed, whilst wo-men, we, does not.

that it is found also in the Polynesian languages, in many of the

I

languages of America, and also in those of the Australian tribes.

All the Dravidian languages do not use precisely the same plural

pronouns as wnclusive and exclusive plurals.

The colloquial Tamil

(with which the Malayilam agrees) forms the plural exclusive from

il

|

ndm, the ordinary and regular plural, by the addition of ga/, which is

properly a neuter sign of plurality ; by which addition ndm becomes

adngal in Tamil, Aanal or Zwiial in Malayilam.

The corresponding

f

plural in Tulu is emkulu.

Telugu, on the other hand, uses mém-u

ﬁ.c

(answering not to the Tamil ndnggal, but to ndm) as its plural exclu-

W

sive ; and as this is the simplest form of the pronoun, it seems better

15t

suited to this restricted use than the reduplicated form.

Telugu,

0ne

11 ol

though differing from Tamil in this point, agrees with Tamil in using

mému as its honorific singular ; and this use of the plural exclusive in

fion

Telugu as an honorific is more in accordance with philosophical pro-

first

it

priety than the Tamilian use of the plural inclusive for this purpose ;

for when & superior addresses inferiors, it is evidently more natural for

e

him to make use of a plural which excludes those whom he addresses,

i il

than one in which they would be included together with himself.

Ku

grsil

agrees with Telugu, and uses dm-» (identical in origin with the Tamil

jdé

ydm, ndm) to express the restricted signification which the Tamil gives

i

to ndngal.

Its plural inclusive is dju, the oblique form of which is

[ il

ammd, ; and the Telugu plural which corresponds to dju (but which in

e

meaning corresponds to ndm) is manam-u, the base and inflexion of

which is mana. manam-w is probably derived from md, the inflexional

o

base of mému, with an euphonic addition, or possibly with a weakened

i

reduplication.

)

afi?

)

- DRAVIDIAN PRONOUN OF

THE }FIRST PERSON.

- SINGULAR.

PLURAL

e

Inflexion,

Pronominal termi-

Inflexion, 7.e., inflex-

2

Pronominal termi-

Nominative, “1.”

%.¢., inflexional

Nominative, ¢ We.”

ional basis of “ our,

nations of the Verb.

basis of “ my,”

nations of the Verb.

“us,” &c.

‘“ me,” &c.

Tamil

.

en

nam, em, engal.

am, dm, em, é'n;, om.

nan, yan.

en, én ; an,

ndm, ydm, ndngal.

A

ndm, ném, nammal,

em, no, nom, nom,

M alaysﬂém

.

fidn

en,; 1.

en.

nummal, iangal

num, engal.

b om.

ém-u, mém-u,

Telugu

én-u, é, nén-u, né.

nd, nan’.

nu, nt, va, v,

manam-u.

md. mam’, mana.

mu, ','m'.‘

5

|

|

Canarese.

e

em, nam.

ev-ut, év-u, ev-e.

ydn, dn, ndn-u, nd.

en; naw .

en, en’, én-u, éne,

am, dv-u, ndv-u,

Tulu .

€

yenkulu, nama.

yenkule,nama, nam., a

yan'.

yer', yena.

Coorg.

naw'.

en

Uy G5 1

nanga, enga.

enga.

a5 5

Gond .

annd

na,

dn, na.

ammdyt.

ma

dam, am;, om.

Ku

dm-a.

.

dn-u.

N,

m, in, €

Am-u, dj-u.

md, ammd.

Tuda .

.

an

€.

en, ent, vnY

am

dm ?

emi, vma.

dam, 6m, ém.

Kota

dne.

en.

€

dme, ndme, éme.

em, nam.

eme, éme.

Raj mahaf

en

on?

nam, em, om ; en?

em, ndm.

Uraon

en

en

em, ndm.

em.

DRAVIDIAN PﬁQNOUN OF THE SECOND PERSON.

SINGULAR.

PLURAL.

e

Inflexion,

N dminative, ““Thou.”

t.c., inflexional’

Pronominal termi-

Inflexional basis of

basis of “they,”

nations of the Verb,

Nominative, ‘¢ You.”

Pronominal termi-

“‘ your,” &ec.

nations of the Verb.

‘¢ thee,” &c.

B

N

Tamil

nir, niyir, niver,

.

nt, ny.

nen, nun, Un.

dy, 0y, e, @

ningal.

|

num, um, ungal.

o, By min ?

0%,

nn.

Malayalam

ningngal, ningngal.

mngngal, nim.

Ky

nA

Telugu .

niv-u, nt, Ww-u.

ni, nn.

v, VL.

mir-u, or-u.

m;, mim’,

Canarese.

.

nn.

ay; v, 4, tye, e

nnm

szzn, nt, Nin-u.

ngm, ngve.

w, i, i, ars.,

Tulu

.

v

nmna, ne.

nmekulu, %

ar’.

nin'.

nekule, pre.

A

Coorg.

m:n.

wa

ninga.

nmnga.

ra,

Gond .

.

tmmd.

ne.

n, v

immdt.

/8

a

s

Ku

n-u.

n2.

2.

-

m._.

Tuda .

nt.

nn.

7 e.

nima.

nwm

éjr- u, dr-u.

)

n%.

% €.

Kota

m{n.

nm

nwn

n:me, ngve.

w, ire.

Rajmahal

nna, nn

nvma ; nina ?

nTm.

Uraon

nin, nien.

nan, wien

nem ; ds-u?

nm ; dss’ ?

Brahui

.

3.

nd,

num.

num.

7t

PRONOUN OF THE FIRST PERSON IN SEVENTEEN DIALECTS OF CENTRAL INDIA.

o

)

Dr HuNTER'S ¢ COMPARATIVE DICTIONARY.”

SINGULAR.

PLURAL.

"We kbl

COur:

(13 I'J’

¢ Mine.”

alléa, abid.

Ho (Kol) .

ing.

mya.

dlle, Gbd.

Kol (Singbhtim)

awng.

wan.

dling, dle.

alle-a.

Santali

ting ; vng-red.

dling, dlang ; dle, dban.

thlnag ; tdle, taban (alled ?).

myg, inge.

dle.

abusa-ban.

Bhéimij

wmyg.

myd.

Mundala

mg.

Jhdtand.

dllege.

ahud-tana.

nanda.

mamad.

rdana, awa.

Gayeti.

idana, awd.

mawa.

Rutluk

nan-na.

nawd.

caret.

Naikude

an

amnet.

dle (?).

amed.

aneten.

anandumn.

anet.

Kolami

an

M4di

NANNA, NAR.

nawda,.

mam

mawa, adunawand.

Miadia .

anda.

caret.

caret.

caret.

nan.

Kuri

mg.

dale.

Keikadi

nanu.

namiu.

nang.

caret.

mo-nt.

moni-nate.

Savara .

gnda.

gndnate.

Gadaba

naT-sa.

novnyo.

ne-yam.

nYYINo.

Yerukala

na-na.

nungudedt, namburuduy.

nama, nam-bury

namburudu.

hamar.

hame.

hamdr.

Chentsu

hd-me, hda-me,

t R Atk T PR AR e SN

\ (,h«.xxt-su

\ Fe i e, F

B

\ Feaerrzoe”

=

—

-

s

o

\

R

-

PRONOUN OF THE SECOND PERSON IN SEVENTEEN DIALECTS OF CENTRAL INDIA

Dr HuNTER’S ¢ COMPARATIVE DICTIONARY

SINGULAR

PLURAL

“Ye.”

‘Nion:

“Thou

¢ Thine.”

umma,

appéa

Ho (Kol) .

wUn,

dppe

Kol (Slngbhum)

wm (am ?)

ummd,

ape (?)

appea

Sant4ali

tam ; dm-rea (dmi ?)

aben

dpe

taben

tape (appe )

am, wmge

umma,

Bhiamij

am (am ?)

dpe (?)

(dppe, tdpe ?)

Mundala

am (am ?)

ama-tana

wkoghe

apra-tana

wme

nIUWa

wm

vda-wonan

Gayeti

mrwa

Rutluk

1ma

nNIUA

caret

Naikude

nwwa

met

dpe (?)

wmed,

wneten.

nwuwa

YEINNALON,

Kolami

na

M4di

ntmao

nwa

marad,

mawa, adunitwand,

Madia

caret

caret

caret

caret

caret

Kuri

am

ama

ape

Keikadi

nnu

nimiu

ne

mua

aman

ammanate

aman

ammanate

Sévara

caret

Gadaba

no

nenne

pen

Yerukala

ne-nu

ningadeo, ninadide

ming-alu, avarw

ningalide, nine-bududu

thor

thor

Chentsu

yi-ke, tu-mys, tu

te, tu-mye

314

THE PRONOUN.

II.—-DEMONSTRATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS:

It is very difficult to treat the demonstrative and interrogative pro-

nouns of the Dravidian family separately.

The bases are different,

but they are built up on those bases in precisely the same manner, and

obey one and the same law, so that what is said about the ‘one class

may be regarded as said about the other also,

I shall discuss them

fli

separately as far as possible, but it will often be necessary to treat

them together.

d

1. DEMONSTRATIVE AND INTERROGATIVE BaAsEs.

3

L. Demonstrative Bases.—The Dravidian languages, like most other

primitive uncompounded tongues, are destitute of pronouns (properly

so called) of the third person, and use instead demonstratives signify-

ing this or that, with the addition of suffixes of gender and number.

In these languages ¢ he,” means literally that man ; ‘she,’ that woman ;

and ‘ they,” those persons or things. The interrogatives are formed in

the same manner by the addition of suffixes of gender and number to

i

an interrogative base signifying ¢ what.’

i

The words which signify man and woman have gradually lost the

0

definiteness of their original signification, and shrunk into the possition

i

of masculine and feminine terminations. They are no longer substan-

00)

tives, but mere suffixes or signs of gender 3

and are so closely incor-

porated with the demonstrative bases that it requires some knowledge

th

of the principles of the language to enable us to separate them. In

Iy

comparison, therefore, with the Turkish and Ugrian languages, in which

I

there is but one pronoun of the third person, the Dravidian languages,

0n

which possess a great variety, appear to considerable advantage.

i

Nevertheless, the speech of the Dravidians appears- to have been

of

originally no richer than the other Scythian idioms ; and to have at

sl

length surpassed them only by the Aryanistic device of fusing that-

th

The

man, that-woman, that~thipg, into single euphonious words.

0

signification of man and woman still shines through in the masculine

1]

and feminine terminations; but no trace remains of the words by

which a thing and things were originally expressed, and which are

(pn

Inf

now represented only by d, the sign of the neuter singular, and a, that

of the neuter plural.

Four demonstrative bases are recognised by one or another of the

Dravidian dialects, each of which is a pure vowel—viz., a, the remote,

7, the proximate, and u, the medial demonstrative 5

together with ¢,

A

i

DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES

315

which is the suffix of emphasis in most of the dialects, but is a demon-

N

strative in Ku

The first two—viz., a, the remote, and ¢, the proxi-

jul

mate demonstrative—are the most widely and frequently used. The

medial » is occasionally nsed by the Tamil poets, more frequently in

rem)

classical, Canarese and in Tulu, to denote a person or object which is

and

intermediate between the remote and the proximate; and it will be

[nsd

found that it has ulterior affinities of its own

the ordinary Dravi-

hem

dian suffix of emphasis, is used as a demonstrative in Ku alone—in

treat

addition however to @ and 7—e.g., évdru, they

It appears also in the

Uréon édal, this, the correlative of Addal, that

The use of ¢

being

chiefly emphatic, I refer the reader, for an account of it, to a subse-

quent head. The ordinary demonstratives of the Dravidian dialects

are the simple short vowels a, ¢, and u,

and it will be found that

her

every other form which they assume is derived from this by some

ety

euphonic process.

i)

2. Interrogative Bases.—There are two classes of interrogatives in the

1061

Dravidian languages—rviz., interrogative pronouns or adjectives; such

Al

as, who, which, what, and syntactic interrogatives, such as, is it, is

there

im

Interrogative pronouns and adjectives resolve themselves in

fo

the Dravidian tongues into interrogative prefixes, resembling the de-

monstrative prefixes already considered, by suffixing to which the ‘for-

The

the

matives of number and gender we form interrogative pronouns

100

interrogative particle itself, when simply prefixed to a substantive

fal

constitutes the interrogative adjective what ?

In all

10T

(a.) The most common interrogative prefix is the vowel e

the Dravidian dialects this prefix is used in the formation of pronomi-

odge

il

nals, in precisely the same manner as the demonstrative bases @ and

It forms one of a set of vocalic prefixes (a, ¢, », and ¢); which occupy

phich

one and the same position, obey one and the same law, and differ only

Jages

1taZe

in the particular signification which is expressed by each. The unity

of principle pervading these prefixes will be clearly apparent from the

begn

subjoined comparative view

The forms which are here exhibited are

fhat

I

those of the Tamil alone ; but in this partlcular all the dialects agree

on the whole so perfectly with the Tamil, ‘and with one another, that

The

it is unnecessary to multiply examples.

I exhlblt here an alternative

aﬂﬂhne

ds by

(probably an older) interrogative base in yd which will be inquired

into further on

oh e

3

y

of e

il &

316

"l‘H'E PRONOUN,

Sl

s

Remote

Intermediate

Proximate

Demonstrative

Demonstrative

Interrogative e

Demon‘strgtive

7

@

or ya.

SAZ S

evan or ydvan,

Mas. sing

wan, hic.

avan, lle.

wuvan

quis’?

wval

eval or ydval, |

Fem. do.

wal, heec.

aval, lla.

quee ?

Neut. do

wdu, hoc.

adu, llud.

udu

eduw or yddu,

quid ?

evar or ydvar,

Epic. plu

war, hi, he.

avar,ll, illce.

uvar

qui ? quee?

wver

ever or ydver,

Neut. do

wet, heee.

aver, la.

§

quce ?

T need not call attention to the beautiful and philosophical regular-

ity of this quadruple set of remote, proximate, and intermediate de-

monstratives and of 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 circumstance that the demonstrative vowels are

not only used in these languages with an invariable and exact discrimi-

nation of meaning which is not found in the Indo-European tongues

i

(with the solitary and partial exception of the New Persian), but are

also associated with a corresponding interrogative vowel of which the

f

Indo-European tongues are ‘totally ignorant, tends to confirm the sup-

1l

position which I have already expressed, that the Dravidian family

has retained some Pre-Sanskrit elements of immense antiquity ; and,

b

in particular, that its demonstratives, instead of being borrowed from

the Sanskrit, represent those old Japhetic bases from which the demon-

[l

stratives of the Sanskrit itself, as well as of various other members of

I

the Indo-European family, were derived.

f

(b.) The other interrogative base of the Dravidian languages is yd.

[

yd is not used at all in Telugu, but is largely used in Canarese, and

somewhat more rarely in Tamil.

Probably there was originally-only

f

one interrogative base, and if so, it must have been yd, and e must

D

have been corrupted from it. The process by which yd became e is

Il

(See

tolerably clear.

a evinces a tendency to be weakened into e.

« Part I, Sounds.”) We have seen an illustration of this in the cir-

5

cumstance that the Sanskrit yama, the name of the god of death,

In Tulu, ydr, who,

becomes in Tamil ema(n), pronounced yema(n).

:

becomes yér’.

This is a considerable step towards e.

Then, also, € is

b

commonly pronounced as ye, and éas gé, and in Telugu this is

I\

frequently written, as well as heard. This would facilitate the omission

of the y in writing, when yd came generally to be weakened into yé.

i

A

§

o

o

DEMOﬁSTRATlVES AND INTERROGATIVES.

O

1

{

¢ alone would in time have the same force as zé, and would come to

be regarded as its equivalent.

The long form é still survives in the

Malayalam évan, éval, he, she, for evan, eval ; and in the Tamil and

A

(1,

Malayalam édu, and the Telugu éde.

In Telugu

4

sometimes directly

corresponds to the Tamil yd—e.g., compare ydndu, Tam. where, when,

l‘(],

a year (nasalised from yddu), with the Telugu édu, where, édi, a year.

A

We see also this long interrogative

€

in the Telugu é/a, how, in what

{

]/1

manner, compared with @/a, #a, in that manner, in this manner.

There is a remarkable change in Canarese of the interrogative yd

il

e

into dd.

We may say either ydvan-u or ddvan-u, what man? ydval-u

So also the

),

or ddval-u, what woman ? ydvadu or ddvadu, what thing ¢

crude interrogative is ydva or ddva, who, which, what ?

In Tulu we

find the same dd, which ? alternating with vd and wdva ; also ddne,

!

lar

what ? ddye, why ? In these instances the analogy of the other dialects

leads me to conclude 7d to be the older and more correct form of the

F; e

interrogative base.

In yér, who ? 7d appears as yé, which is a very

ﬂy of

ln

trifling change.

The GoOnd interrogative 6d¢ and b6 appear to be

hardened from yd, like the Tulu vd.

g ate

i

In High Tamil, 4 is not only prefixed adjectivally to substantives

gues

(like a, ¢, and ¢)—e.g., yd-(k)kdlam, what time ? but it is even used by

itself as a pronoun—e.g., yd-($)Seyddy, what hast thou done ?

It forms

are

| the

the basis of only one adverbial noun—rviz., ydpdu, Tam. when ? a year,

sup:

a correlative of dndw, then, and %pdw, now.

The only use to which

yd is put in the colloquial dialect of the Tamil, is that of forming the

iy

al

basis of interrogative pronouns ; a complete set of which, in Tamil as

fron

well as in Canarese, are formed from yd—e.g., ydvan, quis? ydval,

e

quee ? yddu, quid ? ydvar, qur, quee ? ydvei, gue? The Canarese inter-

rogative pronouns accord with these, with a single unimportant excep-

i

tion.

The neuters, singular and plural, of the Canarese are formed from

i3 g

ydva, instead of yd—e.g., ydvadu, quid ? (for yddu), and ydvavu, qua ?

(for ydva).

This additional va is evidently derived by imitation from

i alld

the euphonic v of ydvanu, he, and its related forms ; but it is out of

o

place in connection with the neuter, and is to be regarded as a cor-

et

1§

ruption.

In Tamil, a peculiar usage with respect to the application of

e ¢

the epicene plural ydvar, qui, que, has obtained ground.

It is largely

,

{8 i3

used in the colloquial dialect, with the signification of the singular as

well as that of the plural, though itself a plural only and epicene ; and

f it

Wh0$

when thus used, ydvar is abbreviated into ydr—e.g., avan ydr, who is

i,

he ? (literally he who) ; aval ydr, who is she? ydr has also been still

50, ¢ 1

further corrupted into dr, especially in compounds.

i

9. Demonstrative and Interrogative Pronouns.—The original char-

ol

sith

acter of the demonstrative bases, like that of the interrogative; is

o0 yé,

318

THE PRONOUN.

best exhibited by the neuter singular, the formative of which does

not commence with a vowel, like an and a/ (Tamil), the masculine and

feminine suffixes, but consists in a single consonant d; followed by an

enunciative vowel—that is, a vowel intended merely as a help to

enunciation.

This vowel is ¢ in Telugu, a very short % in the other

languages.

The remote and proximate neuter singulars are in Telygu

ackudw adi, idi, that (thing), this (thing); the interrogative éd7, what (thing) ;

in Tamil, Malayalam, and Canarese they are adu, ¢du. (with the in-

Fopt

termediate udw), and edu.

In Gond the demonstratives are ad, id.

The anomalous forms of the Tulu and the Tuda will be considered

1

further on.

d having already been shown to be the sign of the neuter‘singular

used by pronominals and appellatives, and there being no hiatus

between @, 7, or u and d, and therefore no necessity for euphonic

(

insertions, it is evident that the-a, ¢, and w of the neuter singulars

cited above constitute the purest form of the demonstrative bases.

The suffixes which are annexed to the demoustrative bases a, 7, and

u, for the purpose of forming the masculine and feminine singulars

and the epicene and neuter plurals, commence with a vowel.

Those

suffixes are in Tamil en for the masculine, a/ for the feminine, ar

for the epicene plural, and ez or @ for the neuter plural ; and v is the

al

consonant which is most commonly used to prevent hiatus.

The

L

following, therefore, are the demonstrative pronouns of the Tamil—

al

viz., avan,wlle; wan, hic ; aval, illa ; wal, hec; avar, il ; war, hic ;

by

aver, slla ; wver, heec.

To these must be added the intermediates uvan,

dl

(6]

wval, udw, wvar, wver, which do not admit of being translated by a

81

single word. I quote examples from the Tamil alone, because, though

different formatives of number and gender are sometimes annexed in

(o

Co

the other dialects, those differences do not affect the demonstrative

bases. .The anomaly.which will be noticed in the case of the Tulu

i

will be found, when examined, to be only apparent.

All the above

suffixes ‘of gender have already been investigated in the section on

“The Noun.” The ‘mode in which they are annexed to the demon-

0§

strative bases is the only point which requires to be examined here.

S

The demonstrative bases being vocalic,"and all the suffixes, with the

T

exception of the néuter singular, commencing with a vowel, some

In

euphonic consonants had to be used to keep the concurrent vowels

L)

separate and pure.

v, though most frequently used to prevent hiatus,

euI

is not the only consonant employed for this purpose. The Ku being

)

but little attentive to euphony, it sometimes dispenses altogether with

Vo)

the euphonic v, and leaves the contiguous vowels uncombined—e.g,

g

Adiigu, he ; ddlu, she.

Even Tamil sometimes combines those vowels

he

/%k

21

DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES.

J

19

(1063

instead of euphonically separating them-—e.g., ydvar, whot is com-

0]

monly abbreviated into yds

and this is still further softened to d» in

i

the colloquial dialect

1) 10

In the higher dialect of the Tamil, » is often used euphonically

instead of w, especially in the personal terminations of the verbs

ofl

Thus, instead of wrunddn (for trundavan), he was, the poets sometimes

el

say wundanan

and for wrundava, they (neuter) were, the form which

ing)

o I

we should expect to find used, vrundana is universally used instead

(] i

This euphonic » has in some instances come to be regarded as an

In the nominative plural

dered

integral part of the’demonstrative itself

of the Gond neuter demonstrative, the final and characteristic vowel «

has disappeared altogether, without leaving any representative—e.g.,

|14

av, those (things); v, these (things)

In the oblique cases @ is repre-

Iia

ented by e

In Telugu, though the nominatives of the neuter plural

T

s

demonstratives ave and zwe use v merely as an euphonic, yet in the

oblique cases, the bases of which are vd and v

the demonstrative

ase

vowels have got displaced, and » stands at the beginning of the word

and

as if it were a demonstrative, and had a right per se to be represented

glas

In_the masculine singulars vddu, lle

sdu, hic; and in the epicene

Those

7

0 (Il

plurals vdru, <lle

vgru, hi, v euphonic has advanced a step further,

and assumed the position of a demonstrative in the nominative as

£

well as in the inflexion

That this », however, is not a demonstrative

The

A

and that the use to which it is put in Telugu is abnormal, is shown

=

by the fact-‘that in dd and «

the inflexions of ade and <de, 2llud

e )

and hoe, the :neuter singular demonstratives of the Telugu d, though

i

certainly not a demonstrative, nor even euphonic, but simply .a sign or

Qe

suffix of neuter singularity, has been advanced to as prominent a position

fhough

(by a similar euphonic displacement) as if it belonged to the root

oxel I

Compare especially the corresponding Telugu interrogative.

fpaff

In Tulu the proximate neuter singular demonstrative is ¢ndu or

o0

undu, the remote avu

indw and undv correspond to the Tamil proxi-

¢ aLO"t

mate zdu and intermediate wdu

the only difference consists in the

«[RU

nasalisation of the 4

avu, the remote demonstrative, though a neuter

Jemo!

singular, is identical in form with the Canarese avu, they (neuter)

fire

The v of avu seems to be merely euphonic, as it disappears altogether

e

K-&

i

The

in ‘the plural, which is not avukulu, but eikulu (qvu=ayw= ei)

e] o0

corresponding masculine pronoun is dye

he, in which ¥ is used

«

%

¢ foweR

euphonically where » would have been used in Tamil

In the feminine

1 it

a7, she (Tam. aval), even the y has disappeared, and the two contiguous

vowels have coalesced. The proximate pronouns of the Tulu masculine

and feminine singular and plural present several peculiarities

imbe,

he (%ic), corresponds to the Tamil swan, the old Canarese swam. The

ned/h

o6 fOTe

320

THE PRONOU.I-\T.‘

euphonic » of those languages seems to have been hardened into m,

and this m to have become mb.

The plural of the same is mér’ (the

remote is dr, for avar).

The feminine proximate she (heec) is mél,

the plural of which is moékulu. mér stands for swar — imar, and mol for

wal =vmal. Compare the apparent disappearance of the demonstrative

bases % and « in the Telugu v§r% and vdru, they, proximate and remote,

for war and avar.

See also “The Noun,” epicene plural, in mdr.

)T

The same peculiarity appears in the Tulu demonstrative adverbs.

avulu, there, corresponds with similar words in the other dialects (Can.

allt) ; but madlu, here, presents the same peculiarity as mol, hcec.

In the Tudu dialect the pronoun of the third person is the same for

both numbers and for all three persons, like the Sanskrit reflexive

pronoun svayain.

atham represents everything of which ¢that’ can

be predicated ; #¢ham is the equivalent for this.

With atham, wtham,

compare the Telugn atadu, atanw, dtandu, dtadu, dtadu, itanu, fady,

Yanu ; the Old Canarese singular masculines dtam, ~tam, dtam ; and

<>

the Tamil @dam, idam, it, an inflexional form of adu.

The final am

of the Tudu is occasionally dropped. M1au a4 1, ZD/«- ‘4‘}5«-/11/"(. s

Ad

n@er-

-

Tamil possesses a complete set of abstract demonstrative and

rogative nouns of perfect regularity and great beauty. I class them

here (for convenience of comparison) with demonstrative and inter-

rogative pronouns ; but they are in reality nouns, expressing abstractly

the ideas that are embodied in the pronouns in a concrete shape.

They consist of the demonstrative and interrogative vowel bases (a, 2

u, ¢); with the addition of mei, the ordinary formative of abstract

nouns, which we have already noticed in tam-mer, nature, literally

self-ness, in the section on the reflexive pronoun ¢dn.

The initial con-

sonant of met is doubled by rule after the demonstrative and inter-

The words referred to are smmer, this-ness ; ammer,

rogative vowels.

that-ness; wmmei, an intermediate position between that-ness and

this-ness ; emmer, what-ness.

In use, the words chiefly denote the

immes, the present state or birth,

different states of being or births.

is the only word of the set in common use ; the rest are found only in

S

the poets.

ammes (common equivalent mafrumet, other-ness) denotes

the future birth ; wmmes, the birth before the present; emmes, what

birth ? generally found with the addition of wm, and so as to give the

ing in whatsoever birth.

We have seen that the neuter singular of the demonstrative and

interrogative pronouns, properly so called, is formed by the addition of

the neuter formative d to the vowel bases a, 7, « ; ¢ or yd.

There are traces also of the existence of two classes of pronouns

formed by means of the addition to the same vowel bases of m, the

P

321

DEMQNSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES,

equivalent of ‘which is ; or of 7 Pronominals ending in'7 are used

chiefly as adverbs of place and mode.

There are exceptions, however

M,

—e.g, alla, Tel., that, has the force of an adjective (allade, that thing).

fie

See Adverbs, formative /, 7.

The demonstrative pronouns and pro-

il

nominals ending in # or z are not free from doubt. I shall, therefore

)

1or

adduce first the interrogatives belonging to this class, about which no

i\

doubt can be entertained.

0%,

Each of the dialects possesses a neuter finterrogjntive pronoun, formed

[l

it

from the interrogative hase e or &, and ‘che neuter formative n or m.

10

This formative is more abstract than d, but less so than mei. ed-u

Al

means which ¢ en, what ¢

In Tamil we find en, what? from which is

formed the Singular appellative ennadu, what thing? and the plural

g 0!

enna, what things? en is also lengthened into én, the lord’imry mean-

1T

ing of which is why? Though enna is properly a plural neﬁfer, it has

(4l

come to be used also as a singular, and is even turned colloquially into

Wl

a singular neuter noun, ennam—e.jg., ennamdy, how? Malayilam uses

il

én, like Tamil, meaning what, rather than why? but does not use en;

al

instead of this we have endw, what? which, however, is probably the

Malayalam shape of the Tamil ennadu = en-du.

|

In Canarese énu is

ahh

(i

-

not a mere interrogative particle, but a regularly declined inferrogative

d

?54*

et

pronoun, like the vulgar Tamil eninam. We have substantially the

Jell

same word in the Telugu émi, what? why? ®mi bears the same

o)

relation to éds, Tel. what (thing)? that en in Tamil bears to edu. The

At

ly

only difference is in the use of the more abstract n or m as a neuter

formative, instead of o, which gives more distinctly the sense of jthe

i

0,1

neuter singular. In the compound word émo, Tel., I know not what

sttatt

(Tam. Mal. Can. énd), from ém and 6, the particle of doubt, we see that

erﬂﬂ_ﬂ

éme is a secondary form of ém; and by the help of Tamil we are able

& [HL

to trace this ém back to the shorter form em, "¢, which I consider

il

the equivalent of émi, is used in the conjugation of Telugu verbs as a

‘P

M-

"

conditional particle ; properly it implies a question.

‘mnl’l’?

We now return to the demonstratives, which appear to be formed

s ol

from the demonstrative vowels a, 7, u, with the addition of m or =.

s ff

am, that, appears to survive in the am which is used so largely as a

il

formative by neuter nouns in Tamil and Malayalam ; and possibly also

ly

in am, which seems to be the oldest sign of the Dravidian accusative

ot

case.

In each of these instances an is often used instead of am.

See

i

the sections treating on these formatives and case-signs in Part IIL,,

o e

“Nouns.” ¢m shows itself in the Canarese sign of the ablative case,

originally a locative, and in the corresponding Tamil ¢», with which 42

o i

corresponds. The primitive meaning seems to be this place, here, and

tion OE

hence, a place, a house. Both al and tl appear also in verbal deriva-

X

’{

i,

%{

£

322

THE PRONOUN

tives, especially in Tamil, in which e.g. the number of nouns derived

from verbal roots which take al or 7/ as their formative, is almost as

large as those which take am or an

Dr Gundert derives from am or

and 1

sm the Tamil demonstrative adjectives anda, that, enda, this

presume would attribute the same origin to the Telugu and Canarese

adjectives anta, nta, &c., which are more or less demonstratives in

meaning. On the whole, however, I still prefer to regard these forms

as nasalised from ad’, that, id’, this

We have had an instance of this

nasalisation before us just now in the Tulu pronoun indu, undu, this

(thing), which must be identified with the idu, udu of the other

dialects

On the other hand, I have no doubt of the origin of nda,

the Canarese sign of the ablative, from #m ; and the Tamil adverbial

nouns andru, indru, endru, that day, to-day, what day, seem to be

formed either from am, im, em, or from al, 2, el

See the Demon-

strative and Interrogative Adverbs

A very interesting inquiry remains

Is wm, the Tamil-Malayélam

particle of conjunction, and, even (Tel. u, classical Can. um, am

coll. Can. @), to be regarded as a demonstrative pronoun, formed

from w, the intermediate demonstrative base, and the formative m,

corresponding in origin to the demonstrative am and m, and also to

That this is the origin of um

the interrogative em, considered above?

is one of the most ingenious of the many ingenious suggestions con-

tained in Dr Gundert’s communication. { In his Malayalam. dictionary

n

he prefers to derive um from u, the-supposed. root-of -the-verbal noun-

ugar, height; with the meaning of above.

In classical Canarese am is

/

sometimes used as the equivalent of wnz; and this seems to connect

{ g

In Tamil poetry we find

the particle at once with the demonstratives.

an adverbial demonstrative of place, umbar, with the meaning of the

intermediate demonstrative u, the correlatives of which are ambar,

that place, smbar, this place, and embar, which place? wumbar means

literally a place intermediate between two other places ; but it is

remarkable that it is also used in a secondary sense to signify on, upon

above, and even uyar, height.

We thus get for wm, the conjunctive

particle, the meaning above, which is one that suits. it exceedmgly

well, without any inconsistency with its ultlmately demonstrative

ori 0'1n

wm at the end of verbs changes occa,smna]ly in the Tamil

poets to undu, which reminds one of the undu, this (thing), and also

yes, of the Tulu.

(2.) Demonstrative and Interrogative Aa’]ect'wes —When the demon-

strative bases @ and 7 are simply prefixed to substantives, they convey

the signification of the demonstrative adjectives that and this

‘When

prefixed, they are indeclinable ; but on thus prefixing them to substan-

et

333

i

DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGA'I‘IVES.

i

tives, eithe‘r'.the initial consonant of the subst

antive is euphonically

0r

doubled—e.g., anndl (a-(n)-

ndl), Tam. that day; or if this euphonic

doubling is not resorted to, the demonstrative vowels

are lengthened.

A

Tamil invariably adopts the former plan : the latter i

S

more common

in Malayalam and Canarese.

10

When the substantive commences with a

vowel, and v is inserted as usu

1§

al to prevent hiatus, Tamil, by a dialectic

I

rule of sound, doubles this v, as if it were regarded as an initi

al con-

sonant—e.g.,

hls

when @7, Tam. a village, receives this prefix, it becomes

1él

not avdr (a-(v)-dr), but avedr. The origin of this doubling of the

initial consonant of the word to which the demonstrative vowel is pre-

i

jal

fixed, is to be ascribed to the emphasis which is necessarily included in

the signification of the demonstrative.

Uﬂ

Through this emphasis @ and 7

assume the character, not of ordinary formatives,

but of qualifying

Ol

words ; and the energy which they acquire influences the initial con-

Ml

sonant of the following substantive, which is no longer an isolated

word, but the second member of a compound.

In the same manner

i

1l

and from a similar cause, when Sanskrit words which commence with

@ privative are borrowed by Tamil, the conson

3

ant to which @ is pre-

fixed is often doubled, at least in the colloquial di

alect—e.g., aniijdnam

)10

(a-(7)-idnam), ignorance.

i

)i

The occasional lengthening of the demonstrative vowels, when used

adjectivally, in Malayalam, Canarese, and the other dialects (without

i

the doubling of the succeeding consonant), is merely another method

1B

of effecting the same result. The emphasis which is imparted in this

manner to the demonstrative, is equivalent to that which the doubled

ot

consonant gives ; and hence when the demonstrative vowels are length_

il

the

ened, from ¢ and ¥ to ¢ and %, the succeeding consonant always remains

bar,

single. The fact that the demonstrative vowels are short in the pro-

nouns of the third person in each of the Dravidian dialects without

?

exception, shows that those vowels could notoriginally have been long,

1

and that the use of long @ and ¢ as adjectival prefixes, instead of @ and

1p0ﬂ;

%, is owing to emphasis. Some curious illustrations of the lengthening

\(4

of a vowel through emphasis alone, are furnished by the common

mal\'

il

i\

speech of the Tamil people—e.g., adigam, much, large—a word which

is borrowed by the Tamil from the Sanskrit—when it is intended to

[

signify very much, is colloquially pronounced adigam. Similar in-

Bl

stances might be adduced from each of the colloquial dialects.

The only peculiarity which requires notice in the use of the interro_

i

gative prefix ¢, is the circumstance that it is occasionally lengthened to

ey

é, precisely as a and ¢ are lengthened to @ ‘and %

In Tamil this

e

emphatic lengthening is very rare.

It is found only in the neuter

et

singular interrogative pronoun edw, what or wl}ich (thing ?) quid ?

@

THE PRONOUN.

324

which sometiﬁies, esxpecially in compositibn, becomes édw ; and in the

interrogative en,

what, why? which is ordinarily lengthened to én.

In Malayalam édw and én have entirely displaced edu and en. In

Telugu also this increase of quantity is common. It appears not only

in ém¢ and éla, why ? but is often used as the interrogative prefix

where the Tamil invariably has short e.

Thus, whilst Tamil has

evndam,

what manner? how? Telugu says either evvidham or évidham.

So also, whilst Tamil occasionally only uses édu, quid, instead of the

more classical edu, the corresponding interrogative of the Telugu is

On the other hand, the Telugu

is invariably éds, and its plural éve.

masculine interrogative pronoun ewvadu, quis? preserves the same

quantity as the Tamil evan,; and even when the prefix is used adjec-

tivally, it is sometimes ¢ (not &) as in Tamil—e.g., eppudu, what time?

when ¢ and epudu, epdu, in poetry, but not épadw. In the Tulu

interrogatives of time, & is the interrogative base ; in those of place—

e.g., 6lu, where (pronounced wdlu), & is replaced by 6.

N7 ut

In addition to the use of the simple vowels a, 4, and ¢, and their

equivalents @, ¢, and ¢, as demonstrative and interrogative adjectives,

much use is also made in Tamil of a triplet of adjectives derived from

the above. The simple vowels may be styled merely demonstrative

prefizes. The adjectives referred to may be called by right demenstra-

tive adjectives. They are anda, that, ¢nda, this, enda, which or what

—e.g., anda maram, that tree, inda milam, this land, enda 4, which

person ? These demonstrative and interrogative adjectives are unknown

to the other dialects of the family. They are unknown even in Malayé-

lam, and in the higher dialect of the Tamil itself they are unused.

They appear to have been developed in Tamil subsequently to the

separation from it of the Malayalam, and subsequently, to the first

beginnings of its literary cultivation. We find demonstrative and

interrogative adjectives similar to these in form, and probably in

origin, but differing somewhat in meaning, both in Telugu and in

(Canarese.

The Tamil anda, inda, enda, mean simply that, this,

which ; the parallel Telugu and Canarese words have the meaning of

such, like that or this, so much, &c., and are used more like adverbs

than like adjectives.

They are in both languages anta, tnta, enta,

with a few dialectic differences of no importance.

Connected with

these is the Tam.-Mal. adjective ¢nna, such and such—e.g., wmno

@r, such and such a town. There is no corresponding adjective derived

from a.

The final a of all these adjectives is clearly identical with the

@ which is one of the most common formatives of the relative par-

ticiple, and the most common case sign of the possessive, by‘_mggﬁs of

which also so many adjectives are formed. The first part of these

DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES

325

words (and’, ant’, &c.) has been considered above under the hea,d of

“ Demonstrative Pronouns.”

I should here add the Telugu triplet of adjectives 4¢ts, atts, etts, this

like, that like, what like ?

5

Also the Canarese triplet, with a significa-

tion partly adjectival, partly adverbial, enitw, anitu, enitu, this, that

|

how ? much

With this is connected the Telugu set of secondary

16

1§

pronouns, wndaru, s0 many people, innz, so many things, with their

corresponding remote and interrogative forms, andaru, anni; endaru,

1l

enna.

I

The demonstla’mve and interrogative bases ¢/, al, el are used, as has

h

been mentioned, almost exclusively as adverbs.

One of them makes

ol

its appearance in Telugu as an adjective, viz., alla, that (e.g., alladx,

lu

that thing).

Both in Tamil and Malay4lam the demonstrative pronouns aduw, idu

are often used instead of the demonstrative adjectives a, 7, anda, inda

el

in Tamil, and @, ¢ in Malayalam—e.g., adu kdriyam, Tam. that matter

68,

adw porudu, Mal

that time

This usage illustrates the manner

)]

in which I suppose anda, &c., to have been derived from adu, &c

AL

(3.) Demonstrative and Interrogative Adverbs.—All Dravidian

[

adverbs, properly speakin

are either nouns or verbs

Adverbs of

manner and degree are mostly infinitives or gerunds of verbs. Adverbs

of place, time, cause, and other relations are mostly nouns

Some of

those adverbial nouns are indeclinable, and those of them which are

g

capable of being declined are rarely declined. Whether declined or

not declined; they have generally the signification either of the dative

he

or of the locative case

The latter is the more usual, so that words

st

literally signifying that time, what time? really signify at or in that

ad

time, at or in what time ¢

Any noun whatever, conveying the idea of

;m

relation, may be converted into a demonstrative or interrogative

i

adverb by s1mp1y prefixing to it the demonstrative or interrogative

gy

s

vowels.

)¢ 0[

There is a class of words, however, more nearly resembling our

qerts

adverbs, formed by annexing to the demonstrative and interrogative

gnfar

vowels certain formative suffixes.

The suffix is not of itself a noun,

wlth

like the second member of the class of words mentioned above.

It is

e

merely a formative particle.

But the compound formed from the

envfd

union of the vowel base with the suffixed particle is regarded as having

i e

become a noun, and is treated as such, though in signification it has

become what we are accustomed to call an adverb. A comparison of

o

a1

I

the demonstrative and interrogative adverbs of the various dialects

fhs

shows that the same, or substantially the same, word is an adverb of

place in one dialect, an adverb of time in another, an adverb either of

326

THE PRONOUN

place or of time, as occasion may require, in a third, and an adverb of

mode or of cause in a fourth

It seems best therefore to .arrange

them, not in the order of their meanings, but in the order of the

different suffixes by means of which they are formed

(1.) Formatwe k, g, #.—Tam. wigu, igu

angu, Adngu

engu,

ydngu, here, there, where ?

Can. iga, dga, ydrdga, now, then, when ?

hige, hdge, hydge, this, in that manner, what? ydke, why. Gond,

hoke, thither, heke, thither, Laga, aga, there, zga, here, baga, where ?

Nga, NOW.

I consider the Tamil asngu, &c., nasalised from agu.

The prlmmve

unnasalised form is seen in the Canarese and Gond

The change of

the gu of the other dialects into ngu in Tamil is exceedingly common

The resemblance between the Gond ¢ga, here, and the Sanskrit vhq,

here, is remarkably close; yet there is no appearance of the Gond

word having been borrowed from the Sanskrit one

The demonstrative

base ¢ is, as we have seen, the common property of the Indo-European

and the Dravidian languages

but though zga seems to bear the same

relation to ¢ha that eg-o bears to ak-am, yet the Dravidian formative

k, g, ig, by suffixing which demonstrative vowels become adverbs of

place and time, and so many nouns are formed from verbs does not

seem to have any connection with the merely euphonic 4 of ika (comp

Mongolian yago, what ?)

(2.) Formative ch, j,

1

The only instances of this are in Tulu

wnchz, anchi, onche, hither,

thither, whithery? ¢ncha, ancha, encha, in this, that, what manner?

In

Tinneglly, in the southern Tamil country, wigé, here, is vulgarly pro-

nounced ¢nje

|

(3.) Formative ¢, d, n

Tamil (classical dial.) #du, here, in this present life, in this manner

dndu, there (vulgarly, but erroneously used for ydndu, a year) ; ydndu,

where, when ? a time, a year

dtter; annual, should be ydgze

wan,

avan, evan, here, there, where ? Telugu, ita, ata, eta, here, there

I

where ? ifu, atu, etu, in this, that, what manner ? ida, dda, éda, here,

there, where ?

From éda, with the secondary meaning ¢ when,’ comes

édu, a year

Tulu, ¢de, ade, ode, hither, thither, whither ? We see

now that the primitive, unnasalised form of the Tamil ydndw must

have been yddu, formed regularly from yd + du, like edu, which ? from

e+ du

(4.) Formative t, d, n, also ndr

ll

Tamil, endru, andru, endru (secondary forms, dttrei, attrei, ettrer) ;

Canarese, indu, andu, endu ; Malayilam, inn’, ani’, enn

Tulu, 2ne

dani, ént

In each case the meaning is the same—viz., this day, that

o

DEMONSTRATIVES ' AND INTERROGATIVES.

327

day, what da;!y’.l or now, then, when? In the Telugu, vndu, andu, endu,

we have evidently the same triplet of words.

The only difference is

that they are used as adverbs of place, not, as in the other dialects, as

adverbs of time. They are used to mean, in this, that, what place—

we., here, there, where? indu and andu have acquired the special

/|

meaning of, this life and the next, here and hereafter, like the Tamil,

vmmer, ammes ; and andu, there, is commonly used as the sign of the

|

locative case, like the Canarese alli.

In all the dialects these adverbs

are declinable.

In form they are simply nouns.

It appears on the

14

whole most probable that these words have been nasalised from the

if

pronouns zdu, adu, edw.

There is a peculiarity in the Tamil form of

res

D,

these words, consisting in this, that ndr suggests the idea that amdru

\a|

is formed from al; that, like the corresponding andru, not, it is not

&

|

I

(from al, not + du), or endru, classical Tam. the sun (from ¢f, the sun,

V6

time + du) ; but the testimony of the other dialects does not confirm

1%

/’4, ('pf

Al

this idea. As, however, in Tamil endr» (the sun) is formed from el,

16

so another is formed from en—viz., endru, having said, which is from

(4

en + du.

of

(5.) Formative mb.

Tamil-Malayalam, ¢mbar, ambar, embar, here there, where ?

o

The formative mb is as commonly used in the formation 0f deriva-

tive nouns as ng, but the demonstrative adverbial nouns formed from

mb are now obsolete, - They survive in poetry alone, The final ar is

the equivalent of al.

Strange to say, there is an interrogative in Mon._

golian which looks almost identical with this, yambar, what. This

might be supposed to be a mere accident were it not that the Mongo-

lian yambar is formed from the interrogative base za, which is also

the true, primitive Dravidian base.

This base appears also ip the

Mongolian yage, what ?

29

i

(6.) Formative I, 1.

(i

Canarese, ¢lli, allz, elli, here, there, where ? Telugu ¢/, the proximate,

not used as a demonstrative, but survives in 4lu, llw, a house, the

i

01y

root meaning of which appears to be this. place, here.

The larger form

of this word, however, is used demonstratively—e.g., %@, in this

1es

lsee

manner ; ala, there, d/d, in that manner ; ellz, where?

elly is used

nuSt

also to mean to-morrow (in Tulu elle is to-morrow) ; éla, &ld, in what

way t These words show that ¢ holds an important place amongst

00

demonstrative and interrogative formatives.

In some Tulu adverbs /

is replaced by the lingual —e.g., mdlu, avalu, oOlu, here, there, where ?

wh

The existence in Tamil of demonstratives and interrogatives formed

wl)z

from /, like those we find in Telugu and Canarese, is by no means

‘ L'ni'v

certain, but traces of them, particularly of the interrogative e, may, I

fhal

8

328

THE PRONOUN

think, be discovered.

el is not now used directly-as an interrogative,

but there are many words formed from e/, the meanings of which seem

to me to pre-suppose the ex1stence of a prnnary interrogative sense.

Compdre ydndu, Tam. a year, primarily where, when ? also Tel. édu,

a year, prlmarﬂy where (éda).

I smll here set down the wvarious

meanings of the Tamil e/ in what appears to me to be the order. of

their growth

It will be found, I think, that they include the words

for a boundary,” and for ¢all,’ not only in Tamil, but in all the

Dravidian dialects.

(1.) What, where, when? ‘as in Canarese and Telugu (suppos1t10us

meaning).

(2.) A period of time, a day, to-morrow (compare Telugu and Tulu),

the sun (the cause of day), night. (that being also a period of time).

Other forms of this word are elves, élver, time, a day ; elle, ellavan,

endru (el + du), endravan, the sun.

The meaning of the sun appears

in erpddu, properly el-pddu, sun-set

elli means nicht, as well as the

sun

(3.) A boundary. This in Tamil is elles, old Tamil elger (ger,

formative of verbal nouns)

This word means in Tamil, not only

boundary, but also a term, time, the sun, end, last

There appears to

me no doubt of the identity of this word with meaning No. 2. The

meaning of boundary is derived from that of termination

Compare

the poetical compound ellei-(¢)-t3, the last fire; by which the world is

to be consumed

(4) All

This stage of development is more doubtful, but I find

that Dr Gundert agrees with me here, at least as to e/, the first parf

and base of the word meaning boundary

I explain e/ to mean ¢ what-

ever is included within a boundary,” everything up to the last

Dr

This would be a

Gundert thinks e/l-4 a negative, meaning boundless

very natural derivation for a word signifying all, but I am obliged to

dissent, as I find no trace of this 4 of negation in any of the older poetical

The

forms of this word in Tamil—e.g., el-dm, all we, el-tr, all ye

colloquial word elldm (properly elldviim) is not to be confounded with

the classical word eldm, all w

It does not contain the meaning of

‘we

The @ of el(l)-d-(v)um is the abbreviated relative participle of

dgu, commonly used as a connective or continuative link, and meaning

properly that which is

um is added in Tamil to give the word a

universal application

This use of wm confirms me in the idea that

el, all, is identical not only with e/, a boundary, but with e/, what

The latter and primitive meaning seems to me to shine through that

of boundary, and to throw light on that of all

Just as evan-um, who

—and, means whosoever, so if e/ were originally an interrogative

—

DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES.

329

Z

el(l)-d-(v)um would naturally be used to mean whatsoever, all. .\The

I

Tamil ellavan, the sun, from e/, when? time, is a singular noun. Plu-

£

ralise it, and we get ellavar, which is a classical Tamil form of the

word all.

We may safely, I think, conclude that these words are

I

identical.

of

The traces we find in Tamil of the existence of demonstratives in 2/

and al are more indistinet than those of the interrogative el, but if

Ie

an interrogative en, én, pointed to the existence of the corresponding

demonstratives i, im, an, am, we may reasonably regard the existence

15

of ¢l and al as testified to by the existence of el.

We find ¢/ in the locative case-sign alternating with ¢», and meaning

)

also ‘house ;’ also, I think, in verbal nouns ending in 2/, such as

)

katt-il, a cot, vand-il, a wheel, a cart.

al we find in a still larger

Ml

class of verbal nouns, such as kad-al, the sea, in which a/ seems to be

I8

equivalent to am and an (e.g., dr-am, depth, kad-an, debt).

The most

conclusive illustrations of the use in Tamil of ¢/ and «/ as demonstra-

he

tives, and of e/ as an interrogative, would be furnished by indru,

andru, endru, this day, that day, what day ? if we could be sure that} e

/

Iy

they are formed from a base in /, and not from one in # or m. The

o

peculiar combination ndr could be derived from either.

Thus, én + du,

having said, becomes endru, and equally also e + du, the sun, becomes

(4

endru.

Considering the identity of endrw, the sun, with e, the sun,

time, a day, to-morow, it seems to me probable that endru, what day ?

must be the same word, and if so, ¢ndru and andru, this day, and

that day, will become representatives, not of 4n and an, but of #/ and

1

ig

al, and the existence of demonstratives in ¢/ and al will then be placed

l

beyond the reach of doubt.

andrw in Tamil, though derived from al,

2

might possibly become andu, annw, in the other dialects.

On the

D

whole, however, the evidence of those dialects is unfavourable to this

B

|0

supposition.

The Dravidian negatives ¢/ and al bear a strong apparent resem-

il

blance to demonstratives.

@l negatives existence (there is not such a

Th

thing) ; al negatives attributes (it is not so and so).

al, Tam. as a

ith

uof

verbal root, means to diminish, and as a noun, means night (allz,

night, a night flower).

No similar extension of the idea of negation

) 0

seems to proceed from /.

¢/ and al resemble demonstratives not only

03

in sound, but in the structure of the, derivatives formed from them.

d

ot

Com pare andru, it is not, with andru, that.day ; ndru, there is not,

with. ¢ndru, this day.

I am unable, however, in this matter, to go

Jut

beyond resemblance and conjecture.

No connection between the

ihat

demonstrat%ve and the negative meanings of «/ and a/ seems capable

0

of being historically traceds

K4

fire

330

THE

PRONOUN

Afiliation of Demonstrative Bases :

Extra-Dravidian A flinities.—

There is only a partial and indistinct resemblance between the remote «

proximate 7, and medial », which constitute the bases of the Dravidian

demonstratives, and the demonstratives which are used by the languages

of Northern India

In Bengali and Singhalese, ¢ is used as a demon-

strative

in Marathi Ad, 7%, hen :

in the Hindustani we find vu/, that,

yeh, this;

but in the oblique cases the resemblance increases—e.g.,

2s-k0, to thls

7 is used as the proximate demonstrative in the North-

Indian languages more systematically than @ or any corresponding

vowel i1s used as the remote—e.g., Marathi tkade, here

Hindi «dhar,

hither

Mar

wtake

so much

The Sindhi proximate is A% or hé

In the Lar dialect, % is commonly dropped, and the base is seen to

be %, as in the Dravidian tongues

The remote in Sindhi is %% or Ad

in Lar 2 or 6

A general resemblance to the Dravidian demonstrative bases is

1

apparent in several of the Himalayan languages—e.g., Bodo tmbe, this

hobe, that ; Dhimal %, @

Uraon édah, hiddah

The Rajmahal ék and

dh are perfectly identical with the Dravidian demonstratives, and form

another evidence of the Dravidian character of a portion of that idiom

The connection which appears to subsist between the Dravidian medial

demonstrative » and the % of the Urfon and Dhimal is deserving of

d;

notice

é

Perhaps the Dravidian medial « (Dhimal %, Urdon hddgh)

may be compared with the Old Hebrew masculine-feminine pronoun

il

of the third person, /s, and thus with the Old Persian remote demon-

a0

strative Aawwva, of which the first portion appears to be hu, and the

it

second awa,—which ava forms the base of the oblique cases

It may

th

also be compared with the % or o which forms the remote demonstrative

A

n some of the Scythian languages—e.g., Finnish tuo, that, tdma, this

I

Ostiak toma, that, tema, this

Compare also the Hind. vuh, that

J U

Bodo Aobe

The Magyar demonstratives are more in accordance with

o

the Dravidian ¢ and ¢—e.g., az, that, ez, this

The demonstratives of

fhe

the other languages of the Scythian family (e.g., the Turkish bow, that

B

ol, this) are altogether destitute of resemblance

)

When we turn to the languages of the Indo-European family, they

the

appear in this particular to be closely allied to the Dravidian. Through

Oy

ut that family both ¢ and 4 are used as demonstratives

though not

by

to so large an extent, nor with so perfect and constant a diserimination

b

between the remote and the proximate, as in the Dravidian family

ol

In Sanscrit a is used instead of the more recular 7 in most of the

th

oblique cases of #dam, this

and the correlative of this word, adas,

g

means not only that, but also this

Nevertheless, ¢ is more generally

ay

a remote than a proximate demonstrative, and 7 more generally a

)

N

391

DEMONSTRA'I?VES AND INTERROGATIVES.

=

proximate th@n a remote. In deri;}ed adverbial words ¢ has always

tee,

a ‘proximate force; but ¢a, the consonantal demonstrative, is more

fian

generally used than c.

The following are examples of each vowel :—

N\ -

Bt

w-ha, here ; i-ddnim, now ; ta-ddnim, then : also i-ti, so, this much

on

.'I.J' W

a-tha, so, thus, in that manner.

1, the proximate demonstrative root,

hat

is in all probability identical with ¢, the sign of the locative in such

o

words as Aridi, heart.

Probably, also, we see the same root in the

orth-

preposition 4n. We may also compare the Old Persian avadd, thither,

ding

in that direction ; and the corresponding proximate i-dd, hither, in this

har,

direction. The resemblance between the bases of these forms, not-

i

withstanding the irregularity of their application, and the Dravidian

n o

remote and proximate demonstrative bases, amounts to identity. All

1t;

irregularity disappears in the New Persian, which in this point accords

as perfectly with the Dravidian languages as if it were itself a Dravidian

68 18

idiom. Its demonstratives are dn, that, 4n, this. These demonstratives

thi

are adjectival prefixes, and naturally destitute of number; but when

plural terminations are suffixed, they acquire a plural signification—

and

form

e.g., dndn, those (persons), indn, these (persons).

The same demon-

jom

stratives are largely used in the modern Turkish, by which they have

dil

been borrowed from the Persian.

dn and 7n are undoubtedly Aryan

demonstratives.

yof

This is apparent when we compare dn with the Zend

i)

aém, that, and that again with the Sanskrit ayam ; but # is still more

i

clearly identical with the Zend 4m, this.

The same %m constitutes the

o

accusative in Vedic Sanskrit (and is also identical with syam, the

masculine-feminine singular of the Old Persian, and the feminine of

the

the Sanskrit); but in Zend #m is the nominative, not the accusative,

i)

five

and it is to this form that the New Persian is most closely allied.

The demonstrative base ¢ (without being restricted, however, to a

his;

proximate signification) appears in the Latin 2s and ¢d, and in the

thz‘

b

it

Gothic ¢s; and the Dravidian and New Persian distinction between

the signification of @ and that of ¢, has been re-developed in our

768 0[

English that and this.

Whilst the New Persian dn and #n are closely

i

connected with Sanskrit and Zend demonstratives, it does not follow

that they are directly derived from either the one tongue or the other.

r, they

On the contrary, the exactness with which the Persian discriminates

gt

between the remote and the proximate, leads me to conclude that it

I it

has retained more faithfully than either of those languages the primitive

matiﬁﬂ

characteristics of the Pree-Sanskritic speech. If so, instead of supposing

ol

the Dravidian dialects to have borrowed their demonstratives, which

o

are still purer than the Persian, from the Sanskrit (which are irregular

adﬂsu

and greatly corrupted), it is more reasonable to suppose that the

’neraﬂ."

Dravidian demonstrative vowels retain and exhibit the primeval bases

ly ?

“an

332

THE PRONOUN

from which the demonstratives of the Sanskrit and of all other Indo-

European tongues have been derived.

Afiiliation of Interrogative Bases: Extra-Dravidian Relationship.—

There seems to be no analogy between either ¢ or yd and any of the

Interrogative bases of the Indo-European family. Both in that family

and in the Scythian group, the ordinary base of the interrogative is the

guttural £—e.g., Sanskrit, kim, what?

The same base appears in the

Sanskrit interrogative initial syllables ka-, k-, ku-, which correspond to

the Latin qu-, the Gothic %va-, and the English wh

We find the

same base again in the Turkish Zwm or Zim, who? what? in the

Magyar k¢, who? plural kik

and in the Finnish kuka (root ku)

I

g

am unable to suppose the Dravidian yd derived from the Sanskrit

Indo-European fka

I:see nowhere else any trace of a Sanskrit &

changing into a Dravidian .

It would be tempting, but unsafe, to

connect ka-t (Sans.) with yd-dw (Tam.).

In the absence of a real relative pronoun, the interrogative is used

as a relative in many of the Scythian languages

The base of the

Sanskrit relative pronoun ya (yas, yd, yat), bears a close apparent

resemblance to the Dravidian interrogative yd. The Sanskrit ya, how-

ever, like the derived North-Indian j6, and the Finnish yo, is exclusively

used as a relative, whereas the Dravidian yd is exclusively and dis-

tinctively an interrogative

It has been conjectured that the Sanskrit ya, though now a relative

;

was a demonstrative originally ; and if (as we shall see that there is

some reason for supposing) the Dravidian interrogatives ¢ and a were

originally demonstratives, it may be supposed that yd was also a

d

la

demonstrative, though of this no direct evidence whatever now remains

If yé were originally a demonstrative, the connection which would then

l

appear to exist between it and the Sanskrit relative would require to

It

be removed a step further back; for it is not in Sanskrit that the

relative ya has the force of a demonstrative, but in other and more

distant tongues—viz., in the thhuaman yus, he ;

and in the Slavonian

¥

fq

yam,.and the Zend yim, him.

Emphatic é.—1It has been seen that in Ku ¢ is used as a demon-

I

i

strative—e.g.; évdru (é-(v)-dr), they ; and this may be compared with

If

the demonstrative @ of the Sanskrit état, this (neuter) and the corre-

sponding Zénd caétat

In the other Dravidian dialects, however, is

0

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 communicates, are precisely the

?%

same in the various dialects, and will be sufficiently illustrated by the fol-

lowing examples from Tamil

When & is post-fixed to the subject of a

e

DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES

333

proposition, it sets it forth as the sole depositary of the quality pre-

Indg

dicated —e.g., kalvi-(y)-¢ Selvam, learning (alone is) wealth; whenp ost-

fixed to the predicate, it intensifies its signification—e.g., kalvi $elvam-é,

4

learning is wealth (indeed) : when post-fixed to a verb or verbal deriva-

)i

tive, it is equivalent to the addition of the adverb truly, certainly—e.g.,

alla-(v)-¢ (certainly) not

In the colloquial dialect, it has often been

iy

i

annexed to the case-terminations of nouns without necessity, so that it

n e

has sometimes become in that connection a mere euphonic expletive

in consequence of which, in such instances, when emphasis is really

ud o

d fhe

required. by a sign of case, the & has to be doubled—e.g., enndléyé

In Tulu

becomes

D i

(enndl-é-(y)-¢), through me (alone)

emphatic

euphonically, not only »(é) and n(é), as in Tamil, after certain vowels

)1

skt

but also n(é)

however, .is always to be regarded as the sign of

emphasis

The same sign of emphasis forms the most common vocativ

it &

case-sign in the various Dravidian dialects, the vocative being nothing

i, b

more than an emphatic enunciation of the nominative

Compare with

this the use of the nominative with the addition of the definite article

sl

as the vocative in Hebrew and in Attic Greek

The Persian é of

i fhe

supplication may also be compared with it.

qareut

Some resemblance to the use of & as a particle of emphasis may be

o

dlscovered in the Hebrew /e paragogic,’ which is supposed to intensify

irely

the signification of the words to which it is annexed. ‘The ¢ ke direc-

s

tive’ of the same language is also, and not without reason, supposed

to be a mark of emphasis

A still closer resemblance to the emphatic

ive,

¢ of the Dravidian languages is apparent in Chaldee, in which @ suffixed

1618

to nouns constitutes their emphatic state, and is equivalent to the

Wele

A

definite article of many other languages

The Persian

€

of particu-

50 8

Al

larity, the é of ascription of greatness, &c., in addition to the & of sup-

plication, which has already been referred to, probably spring from a

j then

Chaldaic and Cuthite origin, though each of them bears a remarkable

i

resemblance to the Dravidian emphatic &

Honorific Demonstrative Pronouns.—I have deferred till now the

| o

consideration of a peculiar class of honorific demonstratives, which are

1&'0rﬁﬂﬂ

found only in Telugu and Canarese, and in which, I think, Aryan

influences or affinities may be detected

In all the Dravidian dialects

Jemok

the plural is used as an honorific singular when the highest degree of

Ji

respect is meant to be expressed ; but when a somewhat inferior degree

) (ome

of respect is intended, the pronouns which are used by the Telugu are

i 18

dyana, he, ille, and dme, she, ¢lla; with their corresponding proxi-

Ut

mates Zyana, hic, and ime, hec

These pronouns are destitute of

o, 0

plurals

When a little less respect is meant to be shown than is

i

implied in the use of dyana and tyana, and of dme and %me, the Telugu

il

!

334

THE P‘RO.“;\I‘OUN.A

3

makes use of atadu, tlle, dse, illa, with their (lzo‘rresponding proxiihates

dtadu and ise; atanu and dtanu are also used, also the longer forms

dtanu, dtadu, &c.

Here the Canarese agrees with the Telugu—e.g.,

dtan, tlle, ttanu, hic (class. Can. déam, ttam). The Canarese feminines

dke, ulla, ike, heec, do not appear so perfectly to accord with the Telugu

dse, 1ise.

Both the above sets of Telugu pronouns are destitute of

plurals, but both are pluralised in Canarese —e.g., dtagalu, itagalu,

those and these men ; dkeyar, tkeyar, those and these (women).

Th_e

Tuda atham, he, she, it, appears to be allied to the pronouns now

referred to. I consider it toi be a neuter singular synonymous with

adw, the neuter singular of the Tamil-Canarese, and used corruptly for

the masculine and feminine, as well as for the neuter.

An Aryan origin may possibly. be attributed to some of these words,

especially to dyana, tyana, dme, ¢me; and this supposition would

account for the circumstance that they are found in the Telugu only,

and not in any other dialect of the family (except the Tulu dye, he, is

to be regarded as a connected form): it would also harmonise with

their use as honorifics.

Compare dyana with the Sanskrit masculine

ayam, lle, and tyana with the Sanskrit feminine, and the Old Persian

mas. fem. yam, hic, heec.

dme, tlla, and Zme, hec, the corresponding

feminine pronouns of the Telugu, may be compared not only with the

plurals of the Sanskrit pronoun of the third person (vme, mas.,smdk, fem.,

imdns, neut.), but also with amwm and ¢mam, him, which are accusa-

tive 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 or formative addition.

Bopp considers it to be

the former, but Dravidian analogies incline me to adopt the latter view,

and the m of these forms I conceive to be the ordinary neuter forma-

tive of Dravidian, and especially of Tamil, nouns, whilst the v seems

to be merely a softening of m.

me is a common suffix of Telugu

neuter nouns.

When the Telugu masculine of respect dtadu, datnu, and the corre-

sponding Canarese honorific dta-nu, are scrutinised, it is evident that

in addition to the vocalic demonstrative bases, @ and 7, which are found

in Dravidian demonstratives of every kind, the ¢ which is subjoined

to @ and 7, possesses also somewhat of a demonstrative or pronominal

signification. It cannot be regarded like », as merely euphonic ; and its

restriction to masculines shows that it is not merely an abstract forma-

tive, as the £ of the feminine dke may be presumed to be.

It can

scarcely be doubted, I think, that the affinities of this fa are 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 to the

o

- DEMONSTRATIVES AﬁD INTERROGATIVES.

33

(%)

vocalic demonstrative.

1

fa-d, Sans. that, fs an instance of the former ;

I

whilst the secondary or auxiliary place which ¢a or da occupies in the

Dy’

Sanskrit étad (é-ta-d), this, and adam, adas (a-da-m, a-da-s), this, or

1IE§

that, is in perfect agreement \'vith‘ the Telugu and Canarese d-ta-nu,

g0

a-ta-du. The final e of dse, se, dme, tme, ake, ke, is equivalent to the

(I

Tamil ei. e or e is an ordinary termination of abstracts in these

languages, and a sunitable one

X

I

; according.r to Dravidian notions, for

The

feminine honorific pronouns.

0%

Syntactic Interrogatives, & and 6.—The interrogative prefixes ¢ and,

ith

yd, are equivalent to the interrogative pronouns and adjectives, who?

i

which ? what? &c. Another interrogative is required for the purpose

of putting such inquiries as are expressed in English by a change of

s

construction—e.g., is there? is it? by transposition from there is, it is.

i

This species of interrogation is effected in all the Dravidian languages

in one and the same manner, viz., by suffixing a1 open vowel to the

‘n]’v,

i

noun, verb, or sentence which forms the principal subject of interroga-

tion ; and in almost all these languages it is by the suffix of 4 or 6

pith

alone, without any syntactic change, or change in the collocation of

lne

Slal

words, that an interrogative verb or sentence differs from an affirmative

fng

one—e.g., compare the affirmative avan tanddn, Tam. he gave, with

avan tanddn-42 did he give? and avan & tanddn? was it he that

the

gave? compare also adu 4r, that is a village, with adw 4r-d 2 is that a

Iy

§6-

village ? This interrogative is never prefixed to nouns or pronominals,

or used adjectivally ; but is invariably postfixed, like an enunciated or

ral

audible note of interrogation.

nal

0 is used instead of ¢ in Malay4lam, in which the interrogative use

)be

16

of % is almost unknown. @ seems to survive only in ¢dd (Tam. idd) lo,

literally what is this? ¢ is used occasionally in Tamil also as a simple

I

interrogative ; but its special and distinctive use is as a particle

eell

expressive of doubt.

1l

Thus, whilst avan-d means is it he? awan-6

ojlf

means can it be he? or, I am doubtful whether it is he or not,

0 1s

postfixed to words in precisely the same manner as @, and is probably

(e

only a weakened form of it, in which, by usage, the interrogation has

f b

become merged in the expression of doubt. It has acquired, however,

faunﬂ

as a suffix of doubt a position and force of its own, quite independent

ngﬂefi

of d; in consequence of which it is often annexed even to Interrogative

i

pronouns—e.g., evan-6, Tam. I wonder who he can be ; enna(v)-0, what

ad 8

it may be I know not—compound forms which are not double interro-

fomp

gatives, but which consist of a question evan, who? or enna, what

fro

and an ahswer 8, I am doubtful, I know not, there is room for further

m )

inquiry. In Tuly, in addition to the use of ¢ and 6, as in the other

Jarth

dialects, ¢ (euphonically (v)¢ or (n)é) is used syntactically as an interro-

o

i

THT

PRONOUN

336

This* is doubtless identical with the é of emphasis in origin.

gative.

The use of ¢ or o

6 as an interrogative suffix does not seem to have any

counterpart in.any language either of the Scythian or of the Indo-

It is altogether unknown to the Sanskrit

and the

European family

Cashmirian is the only non-Dravidian tongue in which it is found

I am inclined to consider @, the ordinary Dravidian interrogative, as

derived from, or at least as allied to, @ or d, the remote demonstrative

of the same family. The quantity of that demonstrative a is long or

short, as euphonic considerations may determine

and though the

interrogative @ is always long in Tamil, yet in consequence of its being

used as a postfix, it is pronounced long by necessity of position, what-

ever it may have been originally

In Telugu it is generally short

always so in poetry. 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, ¢ 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

A

between e or

the adjectival interrogative, and some demonstrative

accordingly this is found

particle, with a smular interchange of places ;

to be the case, for ¢ is not only the ordinary sign of émphasis 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 loca-

tion

emphatic being placed at the end of a word, e interrbgative at

the beginning

would naturally be derived from &, asiin the change

of ydm, we, Tam. into ém, in the pronominal terminations of the

Tamil text

A similar change in the position of particles, to denote or correspond

with some change in signification, is not unknown in other tongues.

Thu% in Danish, the article en has a definite s¢nsein one position, and

an indefinite in another—e.g., en konge, a king,

kongen, the king.

But it is still more remarkable, and more corroboratlve of the suppo-

sition now advarced, that in Hebrew; one and the same particle, Ae

(for it must be regarded as one .and the same, and any difference that

exists seems to be merely euphonic), imparts emphasis to a word when

postfixed to it, and constitutes an interrogative when prefixed. Even

in English the interrogative is founded upon the demonstrative

‘That ?’ differs from ‘that’ only in the tone of voice w ith which it is

pronounced

Distributive Pronouns.—In all the Dravidian tongues distributive

pronouns are formed by simply annexing the conjunctive particle to

any of the interrogative pronouns

Thus, from evan, who? by the

RELATIVES.

33

Iy

addition of wm, and, the conjunctive or copulative particle of the Tamil

is formed, viz., evanwm, every one, whosoever (literally who !-and) ;

e

and from epporudu, when ? is formed in the same manner epporudum,

always (literally when tand). In Canarese similar forms are found,

o

always

though not so largely used as in Tamil—e.g., ydvdgalis (yd-dgal-

.

@),

7

)

and in Telugu « (the copulative particle which answers to the

0r

Tamil wm and the Canarese ) is used in the same manner in the for-

be

mation of distributives—e.g., evvagunw (evvadu-(nn)-u), every one, eppu-

If

dunnu, (eppudu-(nn)-v), always.

I

i

SECTION IIL—RELATIVE PRONOUNS. -

1§

i

106

give this heading a place in the book solely for the purpose of

g

drawing attention to the remarkable fact that the Dravidian languages

have no relative pronoun,

he

a participial form of the verb being used

e

instead.

I

Instead of relative pronouns, they use verbal forms which are called

\[7

by English grammarians relative participles ; which see in the part on

id

““The Verb.” All other words which correspond either in me

aning or

in use to the pronouns of other languages will be found on exa

b

mination

to be nouns, regularly formed and declined.

E

16

il

£5

id

n\T

kpb

1

i

hen

!

it

i

firt

b0

fhe

338

THE VERB.

|

PADIL b

—_—

THE VER.B.

THE vobjecf in vie\%r in this part of the work is to ihyestigate the nature,

affections, and relations of the Dravidian verb. 15, seems, ~d\e‘sirable to

commence with some general preliminary remarks upon its structure.

1. A large proportion of Dravidian roots are used indiscrimi—nately,

either as verbs or as nouns.

When case-signs are attached to a root,

;

or when, without the addition of case-signs, it is used as the nomina-

tive of a verb, it is regarded as a noun: the same root becomes a verb

without any internal change or formative addition, when the signs of

tense (or time) and the pronouns or their terminal fragments are

suffixed to it. Though, abstractly speaking, every Dravidian root is

capable of this twofold use, it depends upon circumstances whether

any particular root is actually thus used ; and it often happens, as in

other languages, that of three given roots one shall be used solely or

generally as a verbal theme, another solely or generally as the theme

of a noun, and the third alone shall be used indiscriminately either as

a noun or as a verb, Herein also the wusus loquendi of the various

dialects is found to differ ; and not unfrequently a root which is used

solely as a verbal theme in one dialect, is used solely as a noun in

another.

R

9. The inflexional theme of a Dravidian verb or noun is not always

identical with the crude root or ultimate base.

In many instances

formative or euphonic particles (such as vu, ku, gu or g, du or nd,

Bu or mbw) are annexed to the root,—not added on like isolated post-

positions, but so annexed as to be incorporated with it. (See Part

IL, “Roots.”)

But the addition of one of those formative suffixes

does not necessarily constitute the root to which it is suffixed a verb :

it is still capable of being used as a noun, though it may be admitted

that some of the roots to which those suffixes have been annexed are

more frequently used as verbs than as nouns.

3. The structure of the Dravidian verb is strictly agéluﬁigétive»

STRUCTURE.

339

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 and 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 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 heing used also as the theme of a noun, is used in the

Dravidian languages, as in many others, as the second person singular

of the imperative ; and the ideas of number and person and of the

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,

sentences ads virundadu, the stroke fell ; enner adi-ttdn, he struck me 3

and idei adr, strike thou this; the theme, adi, strike, or a stroke, is

the same in each instance, and in the third illustration it is used with-

out any addition, and in its crude state, as the second person singular

s

of the imperative.

5. As the normal Dravidian noun has properly but one declension,

so the normal Dravidian verb has properly only one conjugation and

but very few irregular forms.

It is true that grammarians have

arranged the Dravidian verbs in classes, and have sometimes styled

those classes conjugations; but the differences on which this classifica-

tion is founded' are generally of a trivial and superficial character.

The structure of the verb, its signs of tense, and the mode in which

5

i

the pronouns are suffixed, remain invariably ‘the same, with such

changes only as euphony appears to have dictated.

Consequently,

N

though class differences exist, they are hardly of sufficient importance

to constitute different conjugations.

When I speak of the normal

\&

Dravidian nouns and verbs I mean those of the more highly cultivated

bl

dialects, Tamil, Malaylam, Canarese, and Telugu. The Tulu and Génd

i

verbs will be found exceptionally rich in moods and tenses.

i

Such is the simplicity of the structure of the normal Dravidian verb,

that the only moods it has are the indicative, the infinitive, the impera-

568

tive, and the negative, and that it has only three tenses, the past, the

er

present, and the aorist or indefinite future.

There is reason to suspect,

el

also, that originally it had no present tense, but only a future and a

14

past. The ideas which are expressed in other families of languages by

AL

the subjunctive and optative moods, are expressed in all the members;

340

THE VERB.

of the Dravidian family, except in Tulu and Gond, by means of suffixed

particles ; and the imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, future perfect, and

other compound tenses, are expressed by means of auxiliary verbs.

In these respects the normal Dravidian verb imitates, though it does

not equal, the simplicity of the ancient Scythian verb. The modern

Turkish has, it is true, an extraordinary number of moods—con-

ditionals, potentials, reciprocals, inceptives, negatives, impossibles, &c.,

together with their passives, and also a large array of compound tenses ;

but this complexity of structure appears to be a refinement of a com-

paratively modern age, and is not in accordance with the genius of the

Oriental Turkish, or Tatar properly so called. Remusat conjectures.

that intercourse with nations of the Indo-European race, some time

after the Christian era, was the occasion of introducing into the Turkish.

¢ From

language the use of auxiliary verbs and of compound tenses.

the extremity of Asia,” he says, “the art of conjugating verbs is

unknown.

The Oriental Turks first offer some traces of this ; but the

very sparing use which they make of it seems to attest the pre-exist-

ence of a more simple method.”

All the Dravidian idioms conjugate their verbs, with the partial

exception of Malayilam, which has retained the use of the signs of

tense, but has rejected the pronominal terminations, except in the

ancient poetry. Nevertheless, the system of conjugation on which

most of the Dravidian idioms proceed is one of primitive and remark-

able simplicity.

Tulu and Gond verbs possess more complicated systems of conjuga-

tional forms, almost rivalling those of the Turkish in abundance.

Tulu has a perfect tense, as well as an imperfect or indefinite past.

It has conditional and potential moods, as well as a subjunctive.

Tamil has but one verbal participle, which is properly a participle of

the past tense, whilst Tulu has also a present and a future participle.

All these moods, tenses, and participles have regularly formed nega-

tives.

I do not refer here to the pluperfect and second future, or

future perfect tense, of Tulu, these tenses being formed, as in the

other dialects, by means of the substantive verb used as an auxiliary.

G6nd has all the moods, tenses, and participles of Tulu, and in

addition some of its own.

It has an inceptive mood.

Its imperfect

branches into two distinct tenses, an imperfect, properly so called (I

was going), and a past indefinite (I went).

It has also a desiderative

form of the indicative—that is, a tense which, when preceded by the

future, is a subjunctive, but which when standing alone implies a

wish.

On comparing the complicated conjugational system of the Gédnd

STRUCTURE.

341

with the extreme and almost naked simplicity of the Tamil, I conclude

that we have here a proof, not of the superiority of the Génd mind

to the Tamilian, but simply of the greater antiquity of Tamilian

literary culture.

The development of the conjugational system of

Tamil seems to have been arrested at a very early period (as in the

parallel, but still more remarkable, instance of the Chinese) by the

invention of writing, by which the verbal forms existing at the time

were fossilised, whilst the uncultured Gonds, and their still ruder

neighbours the Kols, went on age after age, as before, compounding

with their verbs auxiliary words of time and relation, and fusing them

into conjugational forms by rapid and careless pronunciation, without

allowing any record of the various steps of the process to survive.

The Dravidian languages do not make a distinction, as the Hun-

garian does, between subjective and objective verbs.

In Hungarian,

‘I know,’ is considered a subjective verb ; I know (it, them, some-

thing), an objective verb. A like distinction is made by the Bornu or

Kanuri, an African language, but not by any of the Dravidian dialects.

6. The Dravidian verb is as frequently compounded with a noun

as the Indo-European one ; but the compound of a verb with a prepo-

sition is unknown.

An inexhaustible variety of shades of meaning is

secured in Sanskrit 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

they are made.

In the Scythian tongues, properly so called, there is

no trace of compounds of this kind ; and though at first sight we seem

to discover traces of them in the Dravidian family, yet when the com-

ponent elements of such compounds are carefully scrutinised, it is found

that the principle on which they are compounded differs widely from

that of Indo-European compounds.

The Dravidian preposition-like

words which are most frequently compounded with verbs are those

which signify over and under, the use of which is illustrated by the

common Tamil verbs mér-kol, to overcome, and Zir-( p)pads, to obey.

Dravidian prepositions, however (or rather, postpositions), are properly

nouns—e.g., mél (from mi-(y)-al), over, literally means over-ness, supe-

riority ; and mél-ko] (euphonically mér-kol), to overcome, literally

signifies to take the superiority. These and similar verbal themes,

therefore, though compounds, are not, after all, compounds of a preposi-

tion and a verb, but are compounds of a noun and a verb; and the

Greek verbs with which they are to be compared are not those which

commence with @ep/, xard, dve, &c., but such compounds as woA/opxiw,

to besiege a city, literally to city-besiege ; vavmryéw, to build a ship,

literally to ship-build.

In such cases, whether in Greek or in Tamil,

342

THE VERB

9

the first member of the compound (the noun) does not modify the

ignification of the second (the verb), but simply denotes the object to

which the action of the verb applies

It is merely a crude noun, which

is used objectively without any signs of case, and is intimately com-

bined with a governing verb.

Dravidian verbs acquire new shades of meaning, and an increase or

diminution in the intensity of their signification, not by preﬁxmg or

combining prepositions, but by means of auxiliary gerunds, or verbal

participles and infinitives—parts of speech which in this family of

languages have an adverbial force—e.g., mundi (p)pondn, Tam. he

went before

literally having-got-before: he went

$urrs ($uttre)

(p)pondn, he went round, literally rounding he went

tdra (k)kudit-

tdn, he leaped down, literally so-as-to-get-down he leaped. A great

variety of compounds of this nature exists in each of the Dravidian

dialects

They ‘are as easily made, and many of them are as beautiful

See

as the Greek and Sanskrit compounds of prepositions with verbs

especially Dr Gundert’s ¢ Malaydlam Grammar

SECTION L—CLASSIFICATION

-

1. TRANSITIVES AND INTRANSITIVES

-

Dravidian grammarians divide all verbs into two classes, which ar

called in Tamil pira viner and tan wviner, transitives and intransitives

These classes

literally outward-action words and self-action words

correspond rather to the parasmai-padam and dtmané-padam, or tran-

sitive and reflective voices, of the Sanskrit, than to the active and

passive voices of the other Indo-European languages

The Dravidian pira vine: and tan vinei, or transitive and intransitive

verbs, differ from the parasmai-padam and dtmané-padam of the San-

skrit in this, that instead of each being conjugated differently, they are

both conjugated in precisely the same mode

They differ, not in their

mode of conjugation, but in the formative additions made to their themes

Moreover, all pira vinet, or transitive verbs, are really, as well as for-

mally, transitives, inasmuch as they necessarily govern the accusative

through the transition of their action to some object

whilst the tan

viner, or intransitive verbs, are all necessarily, as well as formally,

transitives

The Dravidian transitives and intransitives closely

resemble in force and use, though not in shape, the objective and sub-

Jective verbs of the Hungarian.

The Hungarian objective verbs, like

the Dravidian transitives, imply an object—an accusative expressed or

implied—e.g., sze;etem, I love (some person or thing); whilst the

3438

TR;ANSITIVE_SAND INTRANSITlIVES'. »

o

“

Hungarian subjective verbs, like the Dravidiaﬁ intransitives, neithér

express nor imply an object—e.g.; szeretek, I love—u.e., I am in love.

In alarge number of instances in each of the Dravidian dialects,

including entire classes' of verbs, there is no difference between: tran-

sitives and intransitives, either in formative additions to the theme, or

in any structural peculiarity, the only difference is that which consists

in the signification. Thus in Tamil, all verbs of the class which take

¢ as the sign of the past participle are conjugated alike, whether they

are transitives or intransitives—e.g., from panp-u, trans. to make, are

formed the three tenses (first person singular) pannu-gir-én, I make,

pann-i-(n)-én, I made, and pannu-v-én, I will make ; and .in like man-

ner from péé-u, intrans, to talk, are formed, precisely in the same

manner, the corresponding tenses péSu-gir-én, I talk, pés-i-(n)-én, I

talked, and pésu-v-én, I will talk.

In a still larger number of cases,

however, transitive verbs differ from intransitives, not only in signifi-

cation and force, but also in form, notwithstanding that they are

conjugated alike.

The nature of the difference that exists and its

rationale are more clearly apparent in Tamil than in any other Dra-

vidian dialect ; my illustrations will; therefore, chiefly be drawn from

the Tamil.

There are three modes in which intransitive Tamil verbs are con-

verted into transitives.

1. Intransitive themes become transitive by the hzirdening and

doubling of the consonant of the appended formative—e.g., peru-gu,

to abound, by this process becomes peru-kku, to increase (actively), to

cause to abound.

Transitives of this kind, which are formed from

intransitives in actual use, are often called causals, and they are as

well entitled to be called by that name as many causal verbs in the

Indo-European tongues ; but as there is a class of Dravidian verbs

which are distinctively causal (and which are formed by the annexing

to the transitive theme of a causal particle—e.g., pannuvi (v-¢), Tam. to

cause to make, from panpnu, to make), it will contribute to perspicuity to

regard the whole of the verbs of which we are now treating simply as

transitives, and to reserve the name of causal verbs for the double

transitives referred to.

When transitives are formed from intransitives

by doubling the consonant of the formative, there is no change in any

of the signs of tense, or in the mode in which those signs are added ;

and the hardened formative appears in the imperative, as well as in the

other parts of the verb.

The nature of these formatives has already

)

been investigated in Part II., on “ Roots ;’

and it has been shown

that they are generally either euphonic accretions, or particles of

épgcialisation, which, though permanently annexed to the base, are not

344

THE VERB.

to be confounded with it.

I subjoin a few illustrations of this mode

of forming transitives by the doubling and hardening of the consonant

of the formative.

(1.) gu, or its nasalised equivalent sigu, becomes kku—e.g., from

po-gu, to go (in the imperative softened into pd), comes pd-kku, to

-

drive away ; from ada-rigu, to be restrained, comes ada-kku, to restrain.

(2.) $u becomes chchu—e.g., from adei-$u, to be stuffed in, comes

adei-chchu, to stuff in, to stick on.

(3.) du, euphonised into ndu, becomes ttu—e.g., from tiru-ndu, to

become correct, comes teru-ttu, to correct.

(4.) bu, euphonised into mbw, becomes ppu—e.g., from nira-mbu,

to be full, comes nera-ppu, to fill.

When intransitives are converted into transitives in this manner in

Telugu, gu or ngu becomes, not kkw as in Tamil, but chu—a difference

which is in accordance with dialectic rules of sound. Thus from t-gu,

or euphonically ¢d-igu, to hang, to sleep, comes #2-chu, or euphonically

tu-fichu, to weigh, to cause to hang (Tam. #fi-kkw).

Telugu also

occasionally changes the intransitive formative gw, not into chw, the

equivalent of Zku, but into pu—e.g., from méy, to graze, comes mé-pu,

to feed ; and as ppw in Tamil is invariably hardened from bw or mbu,

the corresponding Telugu pu indicates that bu originally alternated

~

with gu ; for the direct hardening of gz into pu is not in accordance

with Dravidian laws of sound. This view is confirmed by the circum-

stances that in Telugu the use of pu instead of chw (and of mpu instead

of 7ichw) is in most instances optional, and that in the higher dialect of

Tamil the formative pp sometimes supersedes kk—e.g., the infinitive

of the verb ¢ to walk > may in that dialect be either nada-kka or nada-

Ppa

It is obvious, therefore, that these formative terminations are

mutual equivalents.

If the transitive or causal p of such verbs as nira-ppw, Tam. 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 it with

the p, which is characteristic of a certain class of causal verbs in San-

skrit—e.g., jlvd-p-aydmi, I cause to live, jiid-p-aydmi, I make to know.

It is evident, however, that the resemblance is merely accidental, for

etymologically there is nothing of a causal nature in the Dravidian

formatives ; it is not the formative itself, but the hardening of the

A

formative which conveys the force of transition ; and on the other

hand, the real sign of the causal in Sanskrit is aya, and the p which

precedes it is considered to be only an euphonic fulcrum.

It has already been shown (in “ Roots ”) that the various verbal

formatives now referred to are used also as formatives of nouns, and

TRANSITIVES AND INTRANSITIVES.

345

that when such nouns are used adjectivally, the consonant of the for-

mative is doubled and hardened, precisely as in the transitives of verbs

—e.g., marutty, medicinal, from marundu, medicine ; pdppu, serpen-

tine, from pdmbu, a snake.

When nouns are used to qualify other

nouns, as well as in the case of transitive verbs, there is a transition

in the application of the meaning of the theme to some other object ;

and the idea of transition is expressed by the doubling and hardening

of the consonant of the formative, or rather by the forcible and em-

phatic enunciation of the verb of which that hardening of the formative

is the sign.

There is something resembling this in Hebrew. The

doubling of a consonant by Dagesh forte is sometimes resorted to in

Hebrew for the purpose of converting an intransitive verb into a tran-

sitive—e.g., compare ldmad, he learned, with limméd, he caused to

learn, he taught.

2. The second class of intransitive verbs become transitives by the

doubling and hardening of the initial consonant of the signs of tense.

Verbs of this class are generally destitute of formatives, properly so

called; or, if they have any, they are such as are incapable of change. The

sign of the present tense in colloquial Tamil is gir ; that of the preterite

d, ordinarily euphonised into znd ; and that of the future, or ». These

are the signs of tense which are used by intransitive verbs of this

class ; and it will be shown hereafter that they are the normal tense-

signs of the Dravidian verb. When verbs of this class become transi-

tives, gir is changed into Zkir, d or nd into ¢, and b or v into pp.

Thus, the root §ér, to join, is capable both of an intransitive sense—

e.g., 0 join (a society)—and of a transitive sense—e.g., to join (things

that were separate). The tense-signs of the intransitive remain in

their natural condition—e.g., sér-giv-en, I join, $ér-nd-én, I joined,

$ér-v-én, I will join ; but when the signification is active or transitive

l,

—e.g., to join (planks), the corresponding parts of the verb are $ér-

5

kkix-én, 1 join, §ér-tt-én, I joined, $ér-pp-én, I will join. The rationale

i

of this doubling of the first consonant of the sign of tense appears to

be exactly the same as that of the doubling of the first consonant of the

formative.

It is an emphasised, hardened enunciation of the intran-

of

sitive or natural form of the verb ; and the forcible enunciation thus

bl

produced is symbolical of the force of transition by which the meaning

e

of the transitive theme overflows and passes on to the object indicated

by the accusative.

et

In verbs of this class the imperative remains

always unchanged ; and it is the connection alone that determines

i

1t to a transitive rather than an intransitive signification.

o

It should here be mentioned, that a few intransitive verbs double

the initial consonant of the tense-sign, and that a few transitive verbs

o

aqp

346

THE VERB.

leave the tense-@gn in its original, unemphasised condition. Thus,

iru, to sit, to be, is necessarily an intransitive verb ; nevertheless, in

the present tense ¢ru-kkir-én, I am, and in the future dru-pp-én, I shall

be, it has made use of the ordinary characteristics of the transitive.

So also padu, to lie, though an intransitive, doubles the initial con-

sonant of all the tenses—e.g., pac_lu-]c/cir—'én, I lie, padu-tt@nz I lay,

padu-pp-én, 1 shall lie.

On the other hand, %, to give, to bestow,

though necessarily transitive, uses the simple, unhardened, unemphatic

tense-signs which are ordinarily characteristic of the ‘iﬁtransitive—e.g.,

t-gir-én, I give, t-nd-én, I gave, t-v-én, I will give. These inétaﬁces are

the result of dialectic rules of sound, and they are not in reality excep-

tions to the method described above of distinguishing transitive and

intransitive verbs by means of the hardening or softening of the initial

consonarnt of . the tense-signs. Besides, this anomalous use of the tran-

sitive form of the signs of tense for the intransitive is peculiar to

Tamil.

It is not found in Telugu or Canarese.

3. A third mode of converting intransitives into transitives is by

adding a particle of transition to the theme or root.

This particle is

du in Canarese, and ¢fw (in composition ¢ or du) in Tamil, and may

be regarded as a real transitive suflix, or sign of activity. We have an

instance of the use of this particle in the Canarese ¢d/-du, to lower,

from td@l-u, to'be low, and the corresponding Tamil #dr-ttu, to lower,

from tdy or tdyr-u, to be low. When the intransitive Tamil theme ends

& g

in a vowel which is radical and cannot be elided, the transitive particle

It

is invariably ttu—e.g., padu-ttu, to lay down, from padu, to lie.

might, therefore, be supposed that ¢fw is the primitive shape of this

particle ; but on examining those instances in which it is compounded

with the final consonant of the intransitive theme, it appears to resolve

itself, as in Canarese, into du.

It is always thus compounded when

the final consonant of the theme is [or /, d or r; and in such cases

the d of dw is not merely placed in juxtaposition with the consonant

to which it is attached, but is assimilated to it, or both consonants are

euphonically changed, according to the phonetic rules of the language.

e.g., from sural,

Thus [/ and d« become rr-u (pron‘ounce‘d ttr-u)

intrans., to be whirled, comes sura¥r-u (surattr-u), trans., to whirl. /

and du become ftu—e.g., from mil, to return, comes mitt-u, to cause to

return, to redeem. From these instances it is clear that du, not ttu, is

' to be regarded as the primitive form of this transitive suffix.

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 adjectival

formative, attu or ttu, which was fully investigated in Part III., ¢ The

Noun,” and of which the Canarese form is ad’, the Telugu tz or ti.

P

CAUSALS.

347

There is a transition of meaning when a noun is used adjectivally (s.e.,

to qualify another noun), as well as when a verb is used transitively

(t.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 transition, viz.,

a particle which appears to have been originally a neuter demonstrative.

Nor is this the only case in which the Tamil transitive verb exhibits

the characteristics of the noun used adjectivally, for it has been shown

also that the doubling and hardening of the consonant of the formative

of the first class of transitive verbs is in exact accordance with the

manner in which nouns terminating in those furmatilvés double and

harden the initial consonant when théy are used to qualify other nouns.

Another illustration of this principle follows.

4. The fourth (a distinctively Tamil) mode of converting intransitive

-

3,

verbs into transitives consists in doubling and hardening the final con-

sonant, if d or r.

This rule applies generally, though not invariably,

to verbs which terminate in those consonants ; and it applies to a final

nd-u (euphonised from d-u), as well as to d-u itself. The operation of

this rule will appear on comparing vdd-w, to wither, with vd¢¢-u, to

cause to wither; éd-u, to run, with 6¢f-u, to drive ; tipd-u, to touch,

with ¢¢¢-u, to whet; mdr-u, to become changed, with mdrr-z (pro-

nounced mdttr-u), to change.

The corresponding transitives in Telugu

are formed in the more usual way by adding chw to the intransitive

theme—e.g., mdru-chu, to cause to change, vddu-chu, to cause to wither.

Tamil nouns which end in d-u, nd-u, or r-u, double and harden the

final consonant in precisely the same manner when they are placed in

an adjectival relation to a succeeding noun—e.g., compare kdd-u, a

jungle, with kd¢t-u vari, a jungle-path ; irand-u, two, with drattu ndl,

double thread ; dr-u, a river, with drru (pronounced dttru) manal, river

o)

sand.

Thus we are furnished by words of this class with another and

remarkable illustration of the analogy which subsists in the Dravidian

[6

languages between transitive verbs and nouns used adjectivally.

(7

vil

2. CAUSAL VERBS.

{0

There is a class of verbs in the Dravidian languages which, though

1\

generally included under the head of tramsitives, claims to be regarded

distinctively as causals. These verbs have been classed with transitives

fl

both by native grammarians and by Europeans.

Beschi alone places

il

them in a class by themselves, and calls them éval vinei, verbs of com-

[l

mand—z.c., verbs which imply that a thing is commanded by one

fl

person to be done by another.

Causals differ from transitives of the

348

THE VERB.

ordinary character, as well as from intransitives, both in signification

and in form.

The signification of intransitive verbs is confined to the

person or thing which constitutes the nominative, and does not pass

outward or onward to any extrinsic object—e.g., pé-gir-én, 1 go.

The

signification of transitive or active verbs, or, as they are called in

Tamil, outward action-words, passes outward, to some object exterior to

the nominative, and which is generally put in the accusative—e.g.,

unner anuppu-gir-én, I send thee: and as to send is to cause to go,

verbs of this class, when formed from intransitives, are in some lan-

Hitherto the

Indo-

guages, appropriately enough, termed causals.

European languages proceed par: passw with the Dravidian, but at

this point 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 causing to send, ¢.e., causing one person to send another,

we cannot by any modification of structure get any Indo-European

verb to express by itself the full force of this idea: we must be con-

tent to make use of a phrase instead of a single verb; whereas in

the Dravidian languages, as in Turkish and other languages of the

Scythian stock, there is a form of the verb which will express the

entire idea, viz., the causal—e.g., anuppu-vi, Tam. to cause to send,

which is formed from anuppu, to send, by the addition of the particle

v to the theme.

Transitives are in a similar manner converted in

Turkish into causals by suffixing a particle to the theme—e.g., sev-dur,

to cause to love, from sev, to love; and déch-d, to cause to work, from

dtch, to work.

There is a peculiarity in the signification and use of Dravidian causal

verbs which should here be noticed.

Indo-European causals govern

two accusatives, that of the person and that of the object—e.g., I

caused him (acc.) to build the house (acc.); whereas Dravidian causals

generally govern the object alone, and either leave the person to be

understood (e.g., vittes (k)kattuvittén, Tam., I caused to build the house

(or, as we should prefer to say, I caused the house to be built); or else

the person is put in the instrumental—e.g., I caused to build the house,

avanet (k)kondu, through him, or employing him ; that is, I caused the

house to be built by him.

Double accusatives are occasionally met

with in classical compositions in Tamil, and are not uncommon in

Malayalam. Dr Gundert quotes the Malayilam phrase avane Yama-

lokam pugichchu, he caused him to enter the world of Yama—-to die;

J

but in all such instances, I think, Sanskrit influences are to be

suspected.

Though the Dravidian languages are in possession of a true causal—

formed by the addition of a causal particle—yet they sometimes resort

|

CAUSALS.

349

to the less convenient Indo-European method of annexing an auxiliary

verb which signifies to make or to do, such as $eyj and panp-w in Tamil,

mdd-u in Canarese, and ckéy-u in Telugu.

These auxiliaries, however,

are chiefly used in connection with Sanskrit derivatives. The auxiliary

1s annexed to the infinitive of the principal verb.

Tamil idiom and the analogy of the other dialects require that

causals should be formed, not from neuter or intransitive verbs, but

from transitives alone; but sometimes this rule is found to be

neglected. Even in Tamil, »2, the sign of the causal, is in some

instances found to be annexed to intransitive verbs.

This usage is not

only at variance with theory, but it is unclassical.

In each of those

t

cases a true transitive, derived from the intransitive in the ordinary

§

manner, is in existence, and ought to be used instead. Thus, varu-vs,

W)

Tam., to cause to come, is less elegant than varu-ttw ; and nada-ppe,

h

to cause to walk, to guide, than nada-ttu.

1

The use of the causal, instead of the active, where both forms exist,

1s not so much opposed to the genius of the other dialects as to that

I

of Tamil. The use of one form rather than another is optional in

8

Telugu and Canarese ; and in some instances the active has disappeared,

4

and the causal alone is used. Thus ra-(p)-pifichu, or rd-visichu, to cause

|

to come, the equivalent of the Tamil varu-vi, is preferred by Telugu to

a form which would correspond to waru-ttw,; and instead of akk-u,

b

Tam., to cause to become, to make, which is the active of dg-u, and is

Iy

formed by the process of doubling and hardening which has already

been described, Telugu uses the causal kdv-inchu, and the Canarese the

1

corresponding causal dg-isu.

One and the same causal particle seems to me to be used in all the

sl

Dravidian dialects, with the exception of Tulu and G6nd. It assumes

Gl

in Tamil the shapes of vz, b7, and ppe, in Telugu, sichu and pischu ;

in classical Canarese, ichw ; in the colloquial dialect, 7§u.

It seems

g

difficult at first sight to suppose these forms identical ; but it will

) 06

be found, I think, in every case that the real form of the causal

(I

particle is ¢ alone, and that whatever precedes or follows it pertains to

gt

the formatives of the verb.

il

he

I begin with Telugu, which, in regard to this point, will be found to

throw light on the rest of the dialects.

In Telugu, causal verbs end

ild

either in #ichu or pifichu—e.g., chéy-iiichu, to cause to do, from chéy-u,

o .

to do; pili-pifichu, to cause to call, to invite, from pilu-chu, to call.

fichu, the final portion of 4fichu or pisichu, has first to be explained.

0 (16

fichw (pronounced ntsu) is a nasalised form of chw, which is a very

ol

common formative of Telugu verbs. When chu follows {—j.e., when

the base to which it is attached ends in ¢, it is invariably euphonised

nléﬂl/

S [eﬁﬂﬂ

350

THE VERB.

or nasalised into 7ichu—e.g., jayz, a Sanskrit derivative, though not a

causal, ends in 4 ; hence the Telugu verb formed from it is jayi-ichu,

to conquer ; and hence also, as the causal verb in Telugu is formed by

affixing the particle ¢ to an ordinary verbal root, all such causal verbs

end in iichu.

tchu is to be regarded as the original form, and zchu is

compounded of the causal particle and the affix chu.

What is this chu ?

We have already shown, in the section on

« Formative Additions to Roots,” that the Telugu chu is a verbal

formative, identical in origin with the Tamil Zku.

The formative

khw of Tamil is affixed to the verbal base of causals, as to various

other classes of verbal bases, before adding the ¢ which forms the

sign of the infinitive.

It is also affixed to the base before adding

um, the sign of the indefinite future; and the identity of this Tamil

kkw with the Telugu 7ichu will appear as soon as the Tamil infinitive

p

is compared with the Telugu—e.g., comp. $eyvi-kka, Tam. infinitive,

to cause to do, with the Telugu chéyiicha, areippi-kka, Tam. in-

finitive, to cause to call, with the Telugu pilipi-ficha.

Comp. also

an ordinary transitive verb in the two languages—e.g., mara-kka, Tam.

infinitive to forget, with the Telugu mara-cha.

It thus appears that

the ch or nck of the Telugu is as certainly a formative as the % of the

Tamil.

Even in the vulgar colloquial Tamil of the extreme southern

portion of the Tamil country %% systematically becomes ck. ' Thus

marakka, the word just mentioned, is marache in the southern patois,

precisely as in Telugu.

The chief difference between Tamil and

Telugu with respect to the use of this formative is, that it is used

by two parts of the Tamil verb alone (the infinitive and the neuter

future), whereas in Telugu it adheres so closely to the base that it

makes its appearance in every part of the verb.

What is the origin of the p which often appears in Telugu causal

verbs before enchu ?

The causal formed from wviduchu, Tel. to quit,

This p shows itself, not in

is not vidifichu, but vidipifichu, to release.

all causals, but only in those of verbs ending in the formative chu, and

it is a peculiarity of that class of verbs that ¢/ changes optionally into

p. Their infinitives may be formed by adding either pa or cha to the

base. On the causal particle ¢ being affixed to such verbs, c/ changes

by rule into p : thus, not pili-ck-tichu, to cause to call, but peli-p-iiichu.

This preference for p to ¢k before another ¢k looks as if it had arisen

from considerations of euphony. But however this may be, p i3

frequently used in Telugu in the formation of verbal nouns, where

such considerations could hardly exist—e.g., marap-u, forgetfulness,

from mara-chu, to forget (Tam, marappu); tera-pa, an opening, from

tera-chu, ‘to 'open (Tam. tirappu). This formative is sometimes doubled

e

o

CAUSALS

351

tOt 4

in Telugu—e.g., tepp-inchu, to cause to bring, from techckh-u, to bring

ol

In Tamil p is always doubled, except after nasals or 7

Though the

L0

use of this hardened form of p is rare in Telu

, yet its existence tends

(GUN

still further to identify the Telugu causal with the Tamil.

;v!m

Certain verbs in Telugu, ordinarily called causals (ending in chu,

fichu, pu, mpu, &ec., without a preceding ), are to be regarded not as

I

causals, but simply as transitives—e.g., veduchu, vidupu, to cause to

er[jak

quit

vafichu

to bend

lépu, to rouse

They are formed, not' by

i

annexing v or ¢, but by the doubling and hardening of the final con-

it

sonant of the formative (e.g., compare (épu, to rouse, with the corre-

) th"

sponding Tamil eruppu, the transitive of erumbu), and the verbs from

Ins’oead ‘there-

in

which they are so formed are not actives, but neuters

(e}

il

fore, of saying that #ir-u, to end, forms its causal either in tar-cku or

1TE

tir-pifichu, it would be more in accordance with Tamil analocrles to

Yt

represent #r-w as the neuter, tér-chu as the transitive, and tzr~pmcku

i

as the causal

It is of the essence of what I recard as the true causal

a5

that its theme is a transitive verb—e.g., katt-tiichu, to cause to build

T

from katt-w, to build

ha

In Canarese, causal verbs are formed by suffixing $u, or rather ¢-$u,

e

to the transitive theme—e.g., from mddu, to do, is formed mdd-i-$u

fert

to cause to do

This causal particle ¢-Su (in the classical dialect i-chu)

is annexed to the theme itself before the addition of the signs of tense

'lon

018

so that it is found in every part of the causal verb, like the' corre-

and

sponding Telugu particle ¢-fichu, with which it is evidently identical

It has been shown that the Telugu #-7ichw has been nasalised from

Uaed

puter

t-chu (the phonetic equivalent of the Tamil ¢-kkw), and now we find

1 !

this very ¢-chu in classical Canarese

The change in colloquial Canar-

ese from e-chu to 7-$u is easy and natural, § being phonetically equi-

valent to ¢k, and chu being pronounced like zsu in Telugu

sl

(l

I

An additional proof, if proof were wanting, of the identity of the

q

0

Canarese ¢-§u with the Telugu ¢-ichu, is furnished by the class of

ol

derivative verbs, or verbs borrowed from Sanskrit.

Sanskrit ‘deriva-

I, o

tive verbs are made to end in ¢ in all the Dravidian dialects (e.g., jay-

1l

ha

to conquer) ; and those verbs invariably take in Telugu, as has been

said, the formative termination #ichu—e.g., jayi-fichu

The same verbs

invariably take i-§u, or yi-$u, in Canarese

Thus from the Sanskrit

[l

derivative theme, dhare, to assume, Telugu forms the verb diari-fichu,

the Canarese equivalent of which is dhars-$u, Tamil infinitive tari-kka

Wil

i

i

These verbs are not causals

but the use which they make of the

i

formative 7ichu or $u, preceded by ¢, illustrates the original identity of

the Canarese causal particle ¢-§u with the Telugu i-7ichu, and of both

g, IV

with the Tamil z-kkw

Generally the older and harsher sounds of

foud®

NS

L /y

s

352

»

THE VERB.

Canarese have been softened by Tamil ; and in particular, the Canarese

% has often been softened by Tamil into ¢ or ¢k ; but in the instance

of the formative annexed to the causative particle, exactly the reverse

of this has happened ; the Tamil %% having been softened by the

Canarese into §. Canarese, like Telugu, does not so carefully dis-

criminate between transitive and causal verbs as Tamil.

The true

causal of Tamil is restricted to transitive themes; but Canarese, notwith-

standing its possession of transitive particles (e-9.,compare nera-hu, to fill,

with nerz, to be full, and ¢iru-pu, to turn (actively), with #ru-gu, to turn

(of itself), often annexes the causal particle ¢-éu to intransitive themes—

e.., 6d-v-$u, to cause to run (Tam. ott-u), from éd-u, to run. In J apanese,

causative verbs are formed by affixing s¢ to the root. s means to do.

We now return to consider the causal particle of Tamil, instead of

beginning with it. 7 is generally supposed to be the causal particle

of Tamil, hardening in certain connections into &; or ppr. In the first

edition I adopted this view in substance, though regarding ¢ alone as

the causal particle in Telugu and Canarese, but preferred to consider

be, rather than v, the primitive form, seeing that » does not readily

change into b in Tamil (though » in Tamil often becomes & in Canar-

ese—e.g., vd, Tam. to come = Can. 44), whilst & would readily soften

into v on the one hand, or harden into pp on the other,

On recon-

sideration, however, it seems to me better to regard ¢ alone as the

causal particle of Tamil, as of Telugu and Canarese, provided only the

v, b, or pp, by which it is always preceded, be found capable of some

satisfactory explanation.

A clue to the right explanation seems to be furnished by the use

of p instead of ¢k in Telugu.

kk in Tamil answers to ck in Telugu

and we find the Tamil %% changing optionally in classical Tamil

into pp, precisely in accordance with Telugu usage. Instead of the

infinitive nada-kka, to walk, nada-ppa may also be used. On com-

paring the Tamil nadakka, to walk, with the Telugu naducha, and

the Tamil nadappikka, to cause to walk, with the T elugu nadipiiiche;

we find them substantially identical.

No difference exists but such

as can be perfectly explained either by the change of %k into cA,

nasalised into 7ick after ¢ as already mentioned, or by the *har-

monic sequence of vowels” explained in “ Sounds.”

The p preceding

¢ has clearly the same origin, and is used for the same purpose in both

dialects. As it is certainly a formative in Telugu, it must be the

same in Tamil ; and accordingly we find it actually used as a verbal

formative in the classical Tamil infinitive nadappa, to walk, as men-

tioned above. It will be seen hereafter that a alone is the sign of the

infinitive, and that whatever precedes it belongs to the verbal theme,

B

b ol

¥

a 7z,

CAUSALS.

343

or its formative. This circumstance might explain the pp of the Tamil

causals ; but it is necessary to go a little further in order to be able to

explain the v or & which alternates with pp. The most common for-

mative of Tamil causals is w2

e.g., varu-vy, to cause to come ; the

next is ppi—e.g., padi-ppt, to cause to learn.

The remaining form is

b, used only after nasals—e.g., en-b7, to cause to say, to prove, from

en, to say, kdn-br, to show, from kdzn, to see.

There is no doubt that

neither the 6 of 62 nor the pp of ppt can have been inserted merely for

euphony.

v before ¢ (in i) meght be merely euphonic ; but this is

rendered impossible by the circumstance that »2 is added, not only to

verbs ending in vowels, but also to certain verbs ending in consonants

(y and r)—e.g., Sey-vi, to cause to do, from ey, to do.

Telugu and

Canarese add ¢ nakedly to the base (chéy-inchu, from chéy-u, géy-isu,

from géy-u).

We have an instance of the use of »¢ after the soft, deep

r in Tamil, as well as after g, in vdr-vz, to cause to flourish, from vdy,

to flourish.

ve is«almost always used after u (e.g., kattu-vi, to cause to

build), but in some instances ppz is used by rule after u—rviz., where

v is preceded by a short vowel and a single consonant—e.g., edu-ppi,

to cause to take up, to erect, from edu, to take up.

The Tamil future tense-signs seem to throw light on the formatives

to which the causal particle ¢ are affixed. It is remarkable, at all

events, that those three signs, », b, pp, are identical with the forma-

tives of the causal verb, in what way soever this identity may be

accounted for, so that if we know which of those three signs is used

by any verb in the formation of its future tense, we know at once how

the causal of the same verb is formed. Compare varu-v-én, I will

come, with varu-v-i, cause to come ; edu-pp-én, I will take up, with

edu-pp-r, cause to take up, erect ; padi-pp-én, I will learn, with padi-

pp-t, cause to learn, teach. This rule applies also to verbal roots

ending in consonants—e.g., compare vdr-pp-én, I will pour, with wvdr-

pp-, cause to pour, cast ; vdr-v-én, I will flourish, with vdr-v-¢, cause

to flourish ; kdn-b-én, I will see, with kdn-b-i, cause to see, show.

b

Tamil admits of the use of a double causal—that is, of a verb denoting

i

that one person is to cause another to cause a third person to do a

b

thing.

In this case also the new causal agrees with the future of the

I

first causal, on which it seems to be built.

Compare varuvi-pp-én, I

§

will cause to cause to come, with varu-vi-pp-v, cause to cause to come.

i

The explanation of this curious coincidence seems to be that the Tamil

bt

future was originally a sort of abstract verbal noun, which came to be

il

used as a future by the addition of personal signs, whilst the same

abstract neutral noun was converted into a causal (as we have seen was

it

probably the case also in Telugu causals in p-i-inchu) by the addition

6

Z

K

Ny

344

THE VERB.

t‘-:o. it of the causal particle. The addition of the causal particle in all

cases in Canarese to the verbal root would seem to indicate an older

and simpler period of Dravidian speech. Tulu forms its causal verbs

in a somewhat different manner from the other Dravidian dialects—viz.,

by suffixing ¢ instead of ¢ to the verbal theme, or sometimes dw, and

then adding the signs of tense—e.g., from malp-u, to make, is formed

malp-d-vu, to cause to make, from nadapu, to walk, nadapudu, to

cause to walk., - This 4 of the Tulu resembles the Hindustani causal—

e.g., chal-wd-nd, to cause to go, from chal-nd, to go ; and as the Hindu-

stani causative particle wd@ has probably been derived from the Sanskrit

aya or p-aya, the Tulu ¢ might possibly be supposed to proceed from

the same or a similar source.

In Gond Aa or % is the causal particle,

and is added to the present participle of transitive verbs, not to the

theme.

Origin of the Dravidian Causal Particle ‘z.’—The oldest form

of the Indo-European causative particle is' supposed to be the San-

skrit aya (with p prefixed after a root in d).

aya becomes @ in

old Slavonic, and the apparent identity between this 2 and the

Dravidian ¢ is noteworthy. Notwithstanding this, it does not seem

to me either necessary or desirable to seek for the origin of Dravidian

particles out of the range of the Dravidian languages, if those languages

The

themselves provide us with a tolerably satisfactory explanation.

Dravidian causative particle ¢ may be supposed to have been’ derivéd

from 7, to give.

This 7 is short in various portions of the Telugu verb.

The crude base is ¢-chch-u, the infinitive %-va or z-vva.

The Canarese

2$u also, the causal of %, séems to be formed, not from 7, but from e

(v-vsu = Tsu).

In nearly all cases in the Dravidian languages the short

vowel seems to be older than the long one.

The meaning of ‘give’

seems tolerably suitable for a causal particle ; but we find it developing

into a still more appropriate shape in Telugu, in which % is used after

an infinitive to mean to let, permit, &c.—e.g., pd(n)-%, let it go, from

0, to go, literally give it to go.

In Canarese also 7-su, the causal of

7, is used in the same sense of to let, permit, &c., as the original verb

itself in Telugu—e.g., pdgal-isi, permit to go.

It is remarkable also

that in Canarese the corresponding and more common word kodu, give,

¥ is used in the same manner as as a.permissive or causal, mdda kodu,

permit (him) to do.

3. FREQUENTATIVE VERBS.

There is a class of verbs in all the Dravidian languages that have

sometimes been called iterative or frequentative. The following are

—

e

THE i*ASSlVE VOICE.

344

Tamil examples : minuminu-kka, to glitter, from. min, to shine ; velu-

velu-kka, to whiten, from velu-kka, to be white, root vel, white ; mura-

mura-kka, to murmur, munamuna-kka, to mutter, kirukivu-kka, to be

giddy. "It does not seem to me, however, necessary to enter into the

examination of these and similar words, seeing that there is no pecu-

liarity whatever in the mode in which they are conjugated, the iterative

meaning resides in the root alone, and is expressed by the device, in

common use in all languages, of doubling the root.

Compare Latin

murmuro, Lintinno, &c.

In Tulu, however, there is 'a- form of the

verb rightly called frequentative.

It is formed by inserting ¢ (probably

the particle of emphasis) between the base and the personal signs,

whereupon a new verbal base is formed, which is regularly conjugated

—e.g., malpéve (malpu + &+ (v)e), I make again and again.

4. INTENSIVE VERB.

I

b

This form of verb is also found only in Tulu. - Compare malpupe, 1

make, with maltruve, I make energetically ; Aénuve, I hear, with

kéndruve, I hear intensely ; biruve, I fall, with bz%ldm'e, I fall heavily.

5. INCEPTIVE VERB.

We find a fully developed inceptive or inchao{:i'\}e form of the verb

in Gond alone. It is formed by annexing the signs of person and

tense, not to the base, as in the case of the ordinary verb, but to the

infinitive.

it

6. Tae Passive VoIck.

Il

Each of the primitive Indo-European languages has a regular passive

tel

voice, regularly conjugated.

The Sanskrit passive is formed by an-

o

nexing the particle ya (supposed to be derived from yd, to go), to the

| Uf

verbal theme, and adding the personal terminations peculiar to the

b

middle voice. Most of the languages of the Scythian family also form

0

their passives by means of annexed ‘particles.

In order to form the

gi\'ef

passive, the Turkish suffixes to the verbal theme 7 or %/ ; the Fiunish

ff)dll‘:

et ; the Hungarian at, et, tet ; and to these particles the pronominal

terminations -are appended in the usual manner.

Japanese has a

passive voice, the form of which is active.

The Dravidian verb is

entirely destitute of a passive voice, properly so called, nor is there

any reason to suppose that it ever had a passive.

None of the Dra-

ot

vidian dialects possesses any passive particle or suffix, or any means of

i

expressing passivity by direct inflectional changes ; the signification of

346

THE VERE.

the passive voice is, mevertheless, capable of being expressed in a

variety of ways.

We have now to inquire into the means adopted by the Dravidian

languages for conveying a passive signification ; and it will be found

that they correspond in a considerable degree to the means used for this

purpose by the Taurian vernaculars of Northern India, which also are

destitute of a regular passive voice.

In the particulars that follow, all

the Dravidian dialects (with the exception of the Gond) agree: what

is said of one holds true of all.

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; somewhat as in Japanese.

This is in every dialect of the family the most idiomatic and character-

istic mode of expressing the passive ; and wherever it can be used, it

is always preferred by classical writers.

Thus, it was broken, is ordi-

narily expressed in Tamil by udeindadu, the preterite (third person

singular neuter) of wudei, intransitive, to become broken ; and though

this is a neuter, rather than a passive properly so called; and might

literally be rendered, ‘it has come into a broken condition,’ yet it is

evident that, for all practical purposes, nothing more than this is

required to express the force of the passive.

The passivity of the

expression may be increased by prefixing the instrumental case of the

agent—e.g., enndl udeitndadu, it was broken by me, literally it came

into a broken condition through me.

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 to become, to

be, to go, or (occasionally) to end. Thus, we may say either mugin-

dadu, it is finished, or mugind dyittru, literally, having finished it is

become.

This form adds the idea of completion to that of passivity :

not only is the thing done, but the doing of it is completed. Transi-

tive or active verbs which are destitute of intransitive forms may in

this manner acquire a passive signification.

Thus katt-u, to bind or

build, is necessarily a transitive verb, and is without a corresponding

intransitive ; but in the phrase kévil katts Qyittru, the temple is built,

literally, the temple having built has become, a passive signification is

acquired by the active voice, without the assistance of any passive-

forming particle. pdyittru, it has gone, may generally be used in ‘su’c‘%lf

B

phrases instead of dyittru, it is become.

Verbal nouns, especially the verbal in dal or al, are often used in

Tamil instead of the preterite verbal participle in the formation of this

onstructive passive—e.g., instead of $ejid’ dysttru, it is done, literally,

having done it has become, we may say $eydal dyittru, which, though

e

THE PASSIVE VOICE

347

it is used to express the same meaning, literally signifies the doing of

it has become—i.e., it has become a fact, the doing of it is completed

The Dravidian constructive passives now referred to require the

third person neuter of the auxiliary verb. The force of the passive

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

the activity inherent in the idea of personality would necessitate an

active signification

it would tie down the transitive theme to a transi-

tive meaning ; whereas the intransitive relation is naturally implied in

the use of the neuter gender, and therefore the expression of the signi-

fication of the passive (viz., by the intransitive doing duty for the

passive) is facilitated by the use of the third person neuter

A somewhat similar mode of forming the passive has been pointed

out in the Hindustani and Bengali—e.g., jénd ydy, Beng. it is known

literally, it goes to be known

jand is represented by some to be a

verbal noun, by others to be a passive participle ; but, whatever it be

there is some difference between this idiom and the Dravidian one ; for

in the corresponding Tamil phrase terind dyittru, it is known, terind-u

is unquestionably the preterite verbal participle of an intransitive verb

terindu

and the phrase literally means ¢ having known it is become

pbyittru, literally, having known it is gone, conveys the same significa-

tion

It is remarkable, however, that a verb signifying to go should

be used in the Dravidian languages as a passive-making auxiliary, as

well as in the languages of Northern India.

Occasionally Dravidian active or transitive verbs themselves are used

with a passive signification, without the addition of any intransitive

auxiliary whatever

Relative participles and relative participial nouns

§

are the parts of the verb which are most frequently used in this manner

—e.g., erudina $wvade undu; achck’ aditta pustagam véndum, Tam. I

have got a written book ; I want a printed one,

In this phrase both

Il

"

erudina, written, and achck’-aditta, printed, are the preterite relative

O

participles of transitive themes

The former means literally that

5

wrote ; yet it is used passively to signify written, and the latter means

I

literally that printed or struck off, but is used passively as equivalent

N

to that is printed

[

The relative participial noun, especially the preterite neuter, is often-

il

times used in the same manner—e.g., in Sonnadu pddum, Tam. what

was said is sufficient, Sonnadw, literally means ¢ that which said ;’ but

1

the connection and the usage of the language determine it to signify

s

passively that which was said ; and so distinctively in this case is the

If

passive sense expressed by the connection alone, that the use of the

xgh

more formal modern passive, Solla-( p)pattadu, would sound awkward

348

THE VERB.

a,:md foreign. endra, Tam., anéde, Tel., that is' called, literally that

spoke, is another very common instance of the same rule.

Tyésu

enbavar, Tam., signifies literally, Jesus who speaks ; but usage deter-

mines it to mean he who is called Jesus,

The mode of ‘expressing the passivé adopted by Tulu is on the whole

similar to this. The perfect active participle is used for the passive in

this manner, but the pronoun is repeated at the end—e.g., dye nindi-

sdindye dye, he is one who has despised, meaning, he is one who has

been despised.

‘(The corresponding Tamil would be aran nindittavan

avan.)

3. The passive is formed in Gond in a manner peculiar to that

language, viz., by the addition of the substantive verb I am to the

participle of the active voice.

In the other Dravidian dialects this

is the usual mode in which the perfect tense is .formed. In Tamil,

ndn aditt’ irukkivén, 1 am having beaten, means I have beaten. The

corresponding Génd expression ana jist aidtona, means I am beaten.

This corresponds to the modern English mode of forming the passive,

as in this very expression, I' am beaten. ; but still more closely to the

mode adopted by the New Persian, in which the same form of the verb

has an active meaning when it stands aloue, and a passive meaning

when followed by the substantive verb.

4. The verb up, to eat, is occasionally used in the Dravidian 1,#11-.

guages as an auxiliary in the formation of passives.

It is invariably

appended to nouns (substantives or verbal nouns), and is never com-

pounded with any part of the verb—~e.g.,‘adz' unddn, he was beaten, or

got a beating, literally he ate a beating ; padeipp’ undén, I was created,

literally I ate a creating.

The same singular idiom prevails also in

the Gaurian or North Indian vernaculars,

The. particular verb signi-

fying to eat used in those languages differs indeed from the Dravidian

un; but the idiom is identical, and the existence of so singular an

idiom in both the northern and the southern family is deserving of

notice,

It is remarkable that the same peculiar contrivance for ex-

pressing the passive is found in Chinese, in which also to eat a beating,

means to be beaten.

5. Another mode of forming the passive used in each of the

modern cultivated colloquial dialects of the Dravidian family, except

tl

1e Tulu, is by means of the auxiliary verb pad-u, to suffer, to ex-

perience, which is annexed to the infinitive of the verb signifying the

action suffered—e.g., kolla-(p)pattdn, Tam. he was killed, literally, he

suffered a killing.

It is also annexed to nouns denoting quality or

condition—e.g., vetka-(p)pdttin, he was ashamed, literally, he suffered

or experienced shame,

The ultimate base of a verb is sometimes used

=

)

THE MIDDLE/J VOICE.

349

instead of the infinitive or verbal noun in construction with

this

auxiliary, in which case the base is regarded as a noun—e.g., instead

of advkka-(p)patidn, we may say adi pattdn, he was beaten, or literally

he suffered a beating

J

.

and where this form can be used, it is con-

sidered more idiomatic than the use of the infinitive.

It is evident that this compound of pad-u, to suffer, with an infinitive

or noun of quality, is rather a phrase than a passive voice. It is rarely

found in the classics ; and idiomatic speakers prefer the other modes

of forming the passive.

pad-u is often added, not only to active, but

also to neuter or intransitive verbs; but as the intransitive expresses

by itself as much of a passive signification as is ordinarily necessary,

the addition of the passive auxiliary does not alter the signification—

e.g., there is no difference in Tamil between the intransitive teriyum,

it appears, or will appear, and teriya (p)padum ; or in Telugu between

telusunu and teliya badunu, the corresponding forms. In ordinary use,

pad-w conveys the meaning of continuous action or being, rather than

that of passivity—e.g., ¢rukka-(p)patte (Tam.) is vulgarly used for

erukkira, that is; and I have heard a Tamilian say, ndn nandrdy

$dppida-(p)pattavan (Tam.), meaning thereby, not I have been well

eaten,

but I have been accustomed to eat well.

The

Dravidian

languages, indeed, are destitute of passives properly so called, and,

therefore, resist every effort to bring pad-u into general use.

Such

efforts are constantly being made by foreigners, who are accustomed

to passives in their own tongues, and fancy that they cannot get on

without them ; but nothing sounds more barbarous to the Dravidian

ear, than the unnecessary use of padu as a passive auxiliary.

It is

only when combined with nouns that its use is thoroughly allowable.

7. Tue MippLe VoICE.

In none of the Dravidian dialects is there a middle voice, properly

so called. The force of the middle or reflective voice is expressed con-

structively by the use of an auxiliary verb—viz., by %kol, Tam. to take

(Tel. kon-w; Tulu, kopu and onu)—e.g., panni-(k)kondén, I made it for

myself, literally, I made and took it. This auxiliary sometimes conveys

a reciprocal force rather than that of the middle voice—e.g., pési-(k)

konddrgal, Tam. they talked together ; adittu-(k)konddrgal, they beat

one another.

The same usage appears in the other dialects also.

8

TeE NEGATIVE VOICE.

Properly speaking, the Dravidian negative is rather a mood or voice

350

THE VERB

or nasalised into sichu—e.g., jayi, a Sanskrit derivative, though not a

causal, ends in ¢

hence the Telugu verb formed from it is jayi-fichu

and hence also, as the causal verb in Telugu is formed by

to conquer

affixing the particle ¢ to an ordinary verbal root, all such causal verbs

end in iichu

schu is to be recarded as the original form, and zchu is

compounded of the causal particle and the affix chu

What is this chu ?

We have already shown, in the section on

“« Formative Additions to Roots,” that the Telugu chu is a verbal

formative

identical in origin with the

Tamil Zkw

The formative

kkw of Tamil is affixed to the verbal base of causals, as to various

other classes of verbal bases, before adding the a which forms the

sien of the infinitive

It is also affixed to the base before adding

um, the sign of the indefinite future; and the identity of this Tamil

kkuw with the Telugu 7ichu will appear as soon as the Tamil infinitive

is compared with the Telugu—e.g., comp. $eyvi-kka, Tam. infinitive

-

to cause to do, with the Telugu chéyi-ficha, arewppi-kka, Tam

finitive, to cause to call, with the Telugu pilepe-richa

Comp. also

an ordinary transitive verb in the two languages—e.g., mara-kka, Tam

infinitive to forget, with the Telugu mara-cha

It thus appears that

the ¢/ or nch of the Telugu is as certainly a formative as the &% of the

Tamil.

Even in the vulgar colloqulal Tamil of the extreme southern

Thus

portion of the Tamil country %% systematically becomes ch.

marakka, the word just mentioned, is maracke in the southern patois,

precisely as in Telugu.

The chief difference between Tamil and

Telugu with respect to the use of this formative is, that it'is used

by two parts of the Tamil verb alone (the infinitive and the neuter

future), whereas in Telugu it adheres so closely to the base that it

makes its appearance in every part of the verb

What is the origin of the p which often appears in Telugu causal

verbs before enchu ?

The causal formed from wviduchu, Tel. to quit

This p shows itself, not in

is not widisichu, but mdzpmchu, to release.

all causals, but only in those of verbs ending in the formative chu, and

it is a peculiatity of that class of verbs that ¢/ changes optionally into

p. Their infinitives may be formed by adding either pa or cha to the

——

base

On the causal particle ¢ being affixed to such verbs, ch changes

by rule into p : thus, not pilé-ch-ifichu, to cause to call, but pile-p iiichu

This preference for p to ¢k before another ¢k looks as if it had arisen

from considerations of euphony. But however this may be, p 18

frequently used in Telugu in the formation of verbal nouns, where

such considerations could hardly exist—e.g., marap-u, forgetfulness

from maxra-chu, to forget (Tam, marappu)

tera-pa, an opening, from

teva-chu, to- open (Tam. tirappu). This formative is sometimes doubled

CAUSALS.

351

4

in Telugu—e.g., tepp-inchu, to cause to bring, from techch-u, to bring.

l

In Tamil p is always doubled, except after nasals or 7,

Though the

J

use of this hardened form of p is rare in Telugu, yet its existence tends

3

still further to identify the Telugu causal with the Tamil.

1§

Certain verbs in Telugu, ordinarily called causals (ending in chu,

iichu, pu, mpu, &c., without a precéding ?), are to be regarded not as

i

causals, but simply as transitives—e.g., viduchu, vidupu, to cause to

al

quit ; wvafichw, to bend; lépu, to rouse.

They are formed, not' by

e

annexing »z or ¢, but by the doubling and hardening of the final con-

1§

sonant of the formative (e.g., compare (épu, to rouse, with the corre-

he

sponding Tamil eruppu, the transitive of erumbu), and the verbs from

I

S SR

which they are so formed are not actives, but neuters. Ihst"ead,';thereu

il

fore, of saying that #{r-u, to end, forms its causal either in t?r—"’chi& or

\[7

tir-pifichu, it would be more in accordance with Tamil aﬁafbgies to

{7

represent ¢4r-u as the neuter, ¢tér-chu as the transitive, and tir—piﬁcku

as the causal.

It is of the essence of what I regard as the true causal

)

that its theme is a transitive verb—e.g., katf-ifichu, to cause to build,

il

from kat-u, to build.

ot

In Canarese, causal verbs are formed by suffixing ¢$u, or rather ¢-$u,

he

to the transitive theme—e.g., from mddu, to do, is formed mdd-i-$u,

[

to cause to do.

This causal particle ¢-§u (in the classical dialect ¢-chu)

1§

is annexed to the theme itself before the addition of the signs of tense,

5

so that it is found in every part of the causal verb, like the’ corre-

d

sponding Telugu particle ¢-fichu, with which it is evidently identical.

ed

It has been shown that the Telugu #-fichu has been nasalised from

fi

t-chu (the phonetic equivalent of the Tamil ¢-kkw), and now we find

I

this very ¢-chu in classical Canarese.

The change in colloquial Canar-

ese from ¢-chu to <-§u is easy and natural, § being phonetically equi-

i

valent to ¢k, and chu being pronounced like ¢sw in Telugu.

11

An additional proof, if proof were wanting, of the identity of the

1l

— .

Canarese ¢-$u with the Telugu #-#ichu, is furnished by the class of

i

derivative verbs, or verbs borrowed from Sanskrit.

Sanskrit deriva-

ht J

tive verbs are made to end in ¢ in all the Dravidian dialects (e.g., jay-i,

fhe

to conquer) ; and those verbs invariably take in Telugu, as has been

said, the formative termination 7ichu—e.g., jayi-fichw. The same verbs

jie

% 1

invariably take 4-$u, or yz-$u, in Canarese.

Thus from the Sanskrit

el

derivative theme, dhari, to assume, Telugu forms the verb diare-fichu,

) B

the Canarese equivalent of which is dhari-$w, Tamil infinitive tari-kka.

i

These verbs are not causals ; but the use which they make of the

16551

formative 7ichu or $u, preceded by %, illustrates the original identity of

10

the Canarese causal particle ¢-$u with the Telugu ¢-7ichu, and of both

J

w‘ith the Tamil 7-kkw. Generally the older and harsher sounds of

Snta

=5

THE VERB

instances, if euphony alone had been considered

u, the ordinary

enunciative vowel, would have appeared where we find «

1t may

therefore, be concluded that @ (euphonically @ in Tamil and Malayé-

lam) has intentionally been inserted, and that it contributes in some

manner to grammatical expression.

It will be found that light is thrown upon this subject by Telugu.

The pronominal terminations of the negative voice of the Telugu are

identical with those of the present tense of the affirmative.

In Tamil

and Canarese the prorominal terminations of the verb commence with

a vowel ; but in Telugu verbs the pronoun is represented by the final

syllable alone, and that syllable invariably commences with a consonant

Hence, if no particle of negation were used in the conjugation of the

Telugu negative voice, the pronominal suffix would be appended directly

to the verbal theme, and as every Telugu theme terminates in the

enunclative u, that » would not be elided, but would invariably remain

What then is the fact?

On examining the Telugu negative, it is found that the vowel a

invariably intervenes between the theme and the pronominal suffix

and as the final enunciative % of the theme has been elided to make

way for this @, it is evident that @ is not an euphonic insertion, but

i3 a particle of negation.

Compare chéy-a-nu, Tel. I do not, with

Tamil Sey(y)én; chéy-a-vu, thou dost not, with Tamil $e y(y)-dy ; chéy-

a-mu, we do not, with Tamil sey(y)-dm,; chéy-a-ru, you do not, with

Tamil sey(y)ir

From this comparison it cannot be doubted that « is

regularly used in Telugu as a particle of negation

We find the same

a used in Telugu as in Canarese and Tamil, in the negative verbal

a-ka, without doing ;

participle—e.g., chéy-

D)

in the relative participle—

e.g., chéy-a-ni, that does not ; and in the verbal noun—e.g., chéy-a-m,

the not doing.

In each of these participials @ is used in the same

manner by the Canarese, and @ by the Tamil : and that those vowels

are not euphonics or conjunctives, but signs of negation, even in Tamil

Canarese, is now proved by the evidence of Telugu, in which a similar

@ 1s used, not only by the participles, but by all the personal forms of

the verb

The Telugu verb to go forms its ordinary negative, it is true, without

any trace of this vowel of negation—e.g., pénu, I go not, pévu, thou

goest not

This, however, is only au apparent irregularity, for the

classical forms are pov-a-nu and pov-a-vu.

The lengthening of the

included « of Zdnu, I become not, is in accordance with the Telugu

law of dlsplacement kdnw being instead of ak-a-nu or ag-a-nu, the

equivalent of the Tamil dgén.

We have thus arrived at the conclusion

that a is the sign of negation which is most systematically used by the

=

as—

e

THE NEGATIVE VOICE.

353

Dravidian language in the formation of the negative voice of the verb.

It has; it is true, disappeared from the conjugated forms of the Tamil

i

and Canarese ; but the analogy not only of the Telugu personal forms,

¢

but also of the Tamil and Canarese participles and participial nouns;

proves that it must originally have been the common property of all

1

the dialects.

The negative «, being succeeded in Tamil and Canarese

1t

by the initial vowel of the pronominal suffix, appears gradually to have

|

got incorporated with it; and an evidence of this incorporation sur-

vives in the euphonic lengthening of the pronominal vowel in Tamil.

ol

The negative particle of the Tulu is ¢jji, answering to Tam. illes,

1

Mal, and Can. 4lla. Most of the tenses of the Tulu negative verb

he

are formed by annexing to the temporal particles of the verb j, the

Iy

abbreviation of this ¢/, with such enunciative vowels as euphony is

be

supposed to require. The negative of the future tense appears to be

formed from @, the particle used in the other dialects.

Comp. mal-

pyjt, I do not make, malldiji, I have not made, with malpaye, I

[}

shall not make, and the conditional form mall’dvage, I should not

make.

GoOnd inserts the negative particles XAille or halle (Drav.

tlle or alle) between the pronoun and the verb, without abbreviation.

This crude use of the form has doubtless come down from a high

antiquity, as we shall find that a/ is sometimes used in a somewhat

similar manner by the Tamil poets,

i

It is desirable now to inquire into the participial and imperative

1§

formatives of the negative verb.

The negative verbal participle of

Tamil is formed by suffixing d-duw or d-mal—e.g., Sey(y)-d-du or Sey(y)-

i

d-mal, not doing, or without doing.

In the highest and lowest Tamil

met is used as the formative of this participle instead of mal—e.g.,

i

varuv-d-mer, without slipping.

met constitutes the ordinary termina-

tion of abstract nouns, and is added both to crude roots and to the

e

il

relative participles of verbs—e.g., tdr-mei, lowness, humility; ¢ru-

kkindr-a-mer, a being or the being.

The formative termination of

ol

negative verbal nouns is identical with this abstract me:, and mal,

| mr

the participial formative, is evidently equivalent to it ; ‘probably also

50l

it is the original form ; for, on the whole, it is more likely that a final

[ should have been softened away than added.

The verbal noun of

ot

the Telugu negative verb ends in i, which is virtually the same as

i

mer

The other Tamil termination of negative verbal participles, du,

il

¢

18 an ordinary formative of neuter.nouns of quality.

The correspond-

L

I

ing Canarese termination is d2; and in Tamil du; with a subsequent

U

al

emphatic 4, is commonly used as a negative imperative or prohibitive—

il

e.g., $ey(y)-d-d-¢, do not thou,—a proof that the negative verbal pas-

g0l

ticiple in du or de is properly a verbal noun.. The relative participle

1

e

354

THE VERB.

of the negative verb in each of the dialects, except the Telugu, is

formed by suffixing «, the sign of the relative, to the verbal participle

in d-u, eliding as usual the enunciative uw—e.g., $ey(y)-d-da, Tam., géy-

a-da, Can., that does or did not.

Many additional forms are con-

structed by the addition of the various tenses and participles of the

substantive verb, and it is by the help of that verb that the negative

imperative and negative infinitive in both Canarese and Tamil are

ordinarily formed. The negative relative participle of the Telugu is

formed. by adding =z, instead of the usual relative «, to the negative

This ne is one of the

particle—e.g., chéy-a-nz, that does or did not.

Telugu inflexional increments, and is also used as a particle of conjunc-

tion, as will be seen under the head of the ¢ Relative Participles.”

Mr A. D. Campbell, in his “ Telugu Grammar,” states that the

negative verbal particle of the Telugu is formed by suffixing ka to

the infinitive of the affirmative voice; and that the prohibitive is

formed in like manner by suffixing %u or ke to the infinitive [£a is not

so used], with the ordinary addition of mu or mo.

In consequence of

this representation, Dr Stevenson has been led to consider fu as a

Telugu sign of negation, and to search for allied or equivalent par-

ticles in other Indian languages. The comparison of the negative verbs

in the various Dravidian dialects which has just been made proves

that this representation is inaccurate, and that the @ to which the Za

and ku aforesaid are suffixed is not the ¢ which forms the sign of the

infinitive, but the negative particle a.

The suffixes of the forms in

question, therefore, are not ku or ka, but a-ku and a-ka, and thus

chéy-a-ka, without doing, or not having done, and chéy-a-ku, do not,

come into harmony with the other Telugu forms, viz., chéy-a-nz, that

does not, chéy-a-mz, the not doing ; and also with the negative parti.

ciples and verbals of the other dialects.

The @ of the Telugu imperative and negative verbal participle being

undoubtedly the sign of negation, it only remains to inquire into the

origin of the %a or ku which is suffixed to it.

The participial suffix ka

is evidently used in Telugu for the same purposes as the Tamil suffixes

du, mal, and mez, and the Canarese de.

Those suffixes, though used by

verbal participles, are undoubtedly to be regarded as formatives of

verbal nouns.

I consider Za also as proceeding from a similar origin ;

for in Telugu many verbal nouns are formed in this very manner by

adding ka to the root—e.g., nammi-ka, confidence, from nammu, to

confide, and kdri-ka, hope, from %éru, to hope.

This ka is kke, in

Tamil (e.g., nambi-kkei, confidence), and ge or ke in Canarese : it is a

very common formative of verbal nouns, and is equivalent in use to

the formatives of which d or ¢, b or p, is the initial. When we

THE NEGATIVE VOICE.

355

compare Telugu derivative nouns ending in ka (e.g., teliyi-ka, sem-

1§

blance, from teliyu, to appear) with the negative verbal participles of

lé

the same language, which invariably end in ke (e.g., telvy-a-ka, not

¥

seeming), it is evident that the particle %« is not that by which the

)

difference in meaning is expressed. The @ which precedes ka is evi-

e

dently the seat of the difference.

In those cases in which the deriva-

\

tive noun and the negative participle are absolutely identical in sound

I

and appearance, the negative ¢ has been absorbed by the preceding

1§

long @ of the root.

This is the cause of the similarity between rdka,

\[;

a coming

D2

and 7dka, not or without coming, the latter of which is for

o

réd-a-ka.

10

In the dialect of the Kotas of the Nilgherry Hills, p appears to be

used as the formative suffix of the negative verbal participle instead of

he

the Telugu % and the Tamil-Canarese d—e.g., hdgd-pe, without going,

0

corresponding to the Canarese Adgade, and the Telugu pévaka.

This

I8

is in accordance with a rule often already noticed, viz., the interchange-

ot

ableness of £ and p in the formatives of verbs and nouns. The Telugu

o

prohibitive suffix %u is, I conceive, substantially identical with ka, the

suffix of the verbal participle, just as dé, the colloquial Tamil prohibi-

Al

tive, is identical with du, the negative verbal participle in the same

fs

dialect.

Dravidian imperatives are in general nothing but verbal

oA

nouns, pronounced emphatically.

Hence, the Tamil sey(y)-d-dé, do not

thou, is simply $ey(y)-d-du, doing not, with the addition of the empha-

16

tic ¢, and the Telugu chéy-a-ku, do not thou, is in like manner, I con-

ceive, identical with the verbal participle ckéy-a-ke, doing not, or

\US

without doing, with an emphasis understood.

There is in classical Tamil a prohibitive particle which nearly cor-

o,

responds to this Telugu prohibitive, viz., arka—e.g., $ey(y)-arka, do

ha‘t

not.

1il

It is used in connection with both numbers and every gender ;

and I believe that it is by usage only that the corresponding Telugu

A

form is restricted to the second person singular ; for when we compare

the Tamil $ey(y)-arka and the Telugu chéy-a-ka, we cannot doubt that

{1

they are substantially identical.

What is the origin of this Tamil pro-

[ Im

hibitive suffix arka ? It is derived from al (pronounced ar before £),

s

the particle of negation, the origin of which from the negative base

11y

a will presently be shown, and %a, which is identical with £a or ga, a

s

sign of the Tamil infinitive, optative, or polite imperative, apparent in

iy

such words as wdr-ga, may (he, thou, you, they, &c.) flourish. This

ol

3 10

infinitival, participial, or imperative form appears to have been origin-

ally a verbal noun.

i

We should here notice the prohibitive particle of Gond, viz., manni

54

or minni. This is not suffixed to the verb, but prefixed, like the Latin

¢ W0

} (4

s

356

THE VER"B.

nolz.

mannt closely resembles the Tamil suffix min, in such words as

$ey(y)an-min, do not ye; but the resemblance is purely accidental, for

the prohibitive particle of $ey(y)an-niin is' an euphonised from al, and

man is not, as Beschi supposed, a prohibitive particle at all, but is a

sign of the second ‘person plural of the imperative, and as such is

systematically used in the higher dialect by the imperative of the

aflirmative voice, as well as by the prohibitive—e.g., poru-min, bear ye.

This in Malayalam is vin, pin (see the imper. of the affirmative). In

poetical Tamil also arpin (al-pin) is ‘occasionally used instead of

ar-min.

There is also a plural form of this, arpi.

Possibly the

Gond prohibitive, manni, may be connected with the Hindustani mat

and the Sanskrit md, or, but very remotely, with the Turkish particle

of negation me or ma, which is used like the Dravidian & in the for-

mation of the negative voice of the verb.

manni resembles ¢nni, the

prohibitive particle of the Scythian tablets of Behistun.

Origin of ‘a,’ the Dravidian Negative Particle—We have seen that

a is the sign of negation in Dravidian negative verbs, and that it is

inserted between the theme and the signs of personality and other

suffixes to form the negative voice. Is this @ connected with the alpha

privative of the Indo-European tongues? I think not, though this

would seem a more natural use of the alpha privative than that of

forming the temporal. augmentin Sanskrit and Greek, according to

1l

fo

Bopp’s theory.

There is no trace of alpha privative or any equivalent

privative prefix in the Dravidian languages; and its place is supplied

by some postfixed relative participle or verbal noun formed from ¢ or

mn

0

al—e.g., from nér, Tam. straight or straightness, is formed nér-inmes

§

(¢l-mes euphonised), crookedness, want of straightness.

The negative @ of the Dravidian negative verb is, I have no doubt,

{

equivalent to al or ¢/, the ordinary isolated particle of negation. This

i

very sign of negation is sometimes used by the Tamil classics instead

of @ in verbal combinations—e.g., axi(g)-il-ir, you know not, takes the

place of the more common, ari-(y)-ir: compare also ninei-(y)-ald, not

considering ; $ey(g)-al-dddr, they will not do, or they who will not do.

|

In all these examples the af is evidently the isolated negative particle.

There cannot be any doubt whatever of the negative force of a/ in the

i

negative appellatives, which are formed from al-an or tl-an, he is not,

combined with verbal roots—e.g., pés-al-ém, we speak not, und-vl-er,

thou eatest not or hast not eaten. Compare also mattralan (mdrralan),

i

{

’

Tam. and Mal. an enemy, from mdttru + al + an, he who cannot be

G ¢

I

! WW

changed. Dr Gundert derives this from matird + ul + an, he who is

+unchangeable. In the ordinary negative form, mdttrdn, Tam. and

Mal. an enemy, the idea of negation is expressed by &, but in mdtta-

:

s,

THE NEGATIVE VOICE.

357

1§ 0

alan I have no doubt we have the negative particle al.

Gond regu-

, for

larly forms its negative voice by suffixing Zalle or hille, a barbarous

euphonisation of the more correct alle or ille,; and the dialect of the

-

1§ &

Kotas makes a similar use of the particle s//a. This particle is also

systematically used in forming the prohibitive, or negative imperative,

ch 'is

of the poetical Tamil, in which connection al is ordinarily lengthened

{8

Te,

to dl or él

e.g., Sel-él, go not, mum'—(y)-él, be not angry. But it is

Jui

also, as we have seen, often retained unchanged—e.g., sey(y)-ar-ka (ax

In modern

1

for al), do not, and sey(y)-an-min (an for al), do not ye.

colloquial Tamil, illet (for illa) is commonly subjoined to the infinitive

i

¥l

of the affirmative verb to form an aoristic negative—e.g., vara-(v)-iller

i

1ie

(I, thou, he, &c.), did not, do not, or will not come. This form, though

very common, is not classical, and has arisen from the tendency which

fo

compounds evince to break up in process of time into their component

nht’

elements,

fhat

It is evident that a, the sign of negation in the Dravidian negative

verb, and a/, the isolated negative particle, are substantially identical.

i

The use of @l instead of a in various verbal combinations in classical

ther

Tamil seems to me to prove .this point. It remains, however, to

i

endeavour to ascertain which is the older form.

Has @ been softened

il

from al? or.is al a secondary form of o # There are several parallel

01

instances of the apparent disappearance of a final /—e.g., dal, the

10

x]]t

formative of many verbal nouns in Tamil, is represented by ta in

Canarese and Telugu.

Thus muri-del, Tam. a breaking, is in Can.

ed

mura-ta ; Sey-dal, Tam. a doing, is in Tel. ché-ta.

The infinitive is al

Ut

or ¢ in Canarese, ¢ alone in Tamil.

‘We have seen also that the Tamil

el

suffix of the negative verbal noun may be either mal or mer. None of

these instances, however, is decisive ; as it may be supposed, and is I

itk

think probable, that a final /, answering to a final m, n, or r, was

Ths

annexed to many verbal nouns in process of time for the purpose of

ool

making them more distinctive.

In those instances, therefore, « may

be the primitive shape, al the secondary,

The same explanation seems

I

to be the most satisfactory mode of accounting for the double form of

0

the negative particle. I regard a as the original shape of that particle

—the primitive negative base—answering to a, the primitive demon-

¢

strative base, and a/ as the more fully developed form of the negative

10

—a negative noun—answering to the demonstrative nouns am, ad,

ZM

al, &c. 1 refer in'this only to] the resemblarice in form between the

,’an);

demonstrative and the negative bases and nouns ; but I think we may

10

now safely go a step further with Dr Gundert, and derive the negative

0 s

meaning itself from the demonstrative.

He says (in his private com-

i

munication to me), ¢“I believe the [remote demonstrative] pronoun a

it

N

a2

THE VERB.

forms the [particle of negation in] the negative verb ; just as this « in

its interjectional [syntactic] form has the signification of a question.

From the meaning of a question comes the meaning of negation.

ad

varum-& ¢ will it happen?=it will never happen.”

In the colloquial

dialect of the Tamil, at least, it is certain that the idea of negation is

very often expressed by putting a question.

It is at once a“poetical

and a vulgar usage.

I am unable, however, to agree with Dr Guudert when he proceeds

to say that he does not consider a/ a negative in itself, but only a

negative when followed by the negative particle @, as in the words

alla, &e.

Whether ¢/ may or may not have been a demonstrative in

origin, as I think it probably was, yet, when used as a particle of nega-

tion, it seems to me certain that it is a negative of itself without any

addition, and that the added vowels a, &c., are merely enunciative.

This applies with equal force to the corresponding negative particle /.

The following words in Tamil seem to me to prove that a/ and ¢/ have

of themselves the full force of negatives.

AL :—andru (al-du), it is

not ; (class. Can. altw, Tulu, att’) ; anmer (al-met), not-ness, negation ;

al-gu, to become less.

al, darkness.

al-vari, a grammatical term,

absence of inflexion.

IL :—ndru, it is not; ¢nmer (vl-mez), not-ness,

non-existence.

01, one who has nothing ; ¢/-porul (porul, thing), non-

existénce, &c., the thing that is not.

Whatever opinion we entertain respecting the derivation of ¢ from

al, the widely extended affinities of al, d/, or él, the prohibitive or

negative imperative particle, are deserving of notice.

Compare the

Sanskrit prohibitive particle alam, no, not, which looks as if it were

derived from the Dravidian «l.

The prohibitive particle of the

Séantdl, a Kol dialect, is ¢/d; the Finnish prohibitive also is dld ;

the Ostiak ¢/d ; and we find a similar prohibitive particle even in the

Hebrew—viz, al,; Chaldee, /4.

9. APPELLATIVE VERBS O0R CoNJUGATED NOUNS.

In some languages of the Ugrian group the pronominal terminations

of the verbs, or those pronominal fragments in which verbs commonly

terminate, are suffixed directly to nouns ; which nouns become by that

addition denominative or appellative verbs, and are regularly conju-

gated through every number and person—e.g., from the noun paz, the

Lord, the Mordvin forms paz-dn, I am the Lord ; and from the posses-

sive paz-an, Lord’s, it forms pazan-dn, I am the Lord’s. Adjectives

being merely nouns of quality in the Scythian languages, every rule

which applies to nouns applies to adjectives also. In the New Persian,

P2

p—

=/ é/%j

APPELLATIVES.

369

1

i

possibly through the influence of the conterminous Secythian lan-

guages, there is a similar compound of a noun or an adjective with

rf’

the verbal terminations—e.g., merd-em, I am a man, from merd, a man,

Il

This class

and em, the contracted form of the substantive verb I am.

I

1A

of compounds resembles, but is not identical with, the class of posses-

sive compounds described in p.

; that class is not found in the

Dravidian languages.

1A

The agreement between the Dravidian lzmguageps and those of the

K

Ugrian family with respect to the formation of appellative verbs of

IS

the character referred to is very remarkable, and has been admitted to

be very remarkable by Professor Hunfalvy, though in other particulars

0,

he fails to see much resemblance between the Finno-Ugrian and the

Il

Dravidian languages.

Any Dravidian noun and any adjective may be

i3

converted into a verb in the more ancient dialects of each of the Dra-

bl

vidian languages, and in some connections even in the colloquial

e

dialects, by simply suffixing to it the usual pronominal fragments ;

i B

and not only many nouns in the nominative case be thus conjugated

o

;'

as verbs, but even the oblique case-basis, or virtual genitive, may in

Al

classical Tamil, as in Mordvin, be adopted as a verbal theme.

Tamil

16§

grammarians call the verbs here described viner-(k)kurippu, literally

100

verbal signs; and they have, not inappropriately, been styled conju-

gated nouns by an English writer on Tamil Grammar : but I think

ji!

the best name is that which was given them by Beschi—viz., appella-

(0¥

tive verbs or conjugated appellatives.

o

the

Appellative verbs are conjugated through every number and person,

616

but they are restricted to the present tense ; or rather, they are of no

he

tense, for the idea of time is excluded from them.

Thus, from %én,

It

Tam. a king, may be formed /kon-en, I am a king, kdn-e/, thou art a

8he

king, kon-em, we are kings, kén-ir, ye are kings.

So also we may

annex to the crude base the oblique or genitival formative in, and then

from the new constructive base kdn-in, of the king, or the king’s, we

may not only form the appellative nouns, £én-in-an, he who is the

king’s, kon-in-ar, they who are the king’s (each of which may be used

oS

also as an appellative verb, which signifies he is the king’s, or they are

g

moﬂk

the king’s), but we may also form the more distinctively verbal appel-

i

latives, kon-in-en, I am the king’s, kdn-in-em, we are the king’s, dc.

This use of the oblique or inflexion as the basis of appellative verbs is

it

a peculiarity of classical Tamil ; but the formation of appellative verbs

a,th?

s

from the nominative or crude base of nouns is common to the whole

Dravidian family. Thus, in Telugu (in which the vowel of the pro-

nominal termination varies by rule in accordance with the preceding

i g

vowel), from sévakundu, a servant, or kavi, a poet, we form the appel-

)el 51211|

DU A

S

370

THE VERB

Seva-

lative verbs sévakunda-nu, I am a servant, Zave-nz, I am a poet

kunda-vu, thou art a servant, kavi-vi, thou art a poet.

In the plural,

the Telugu has allowed the base of the noun (to which the plonomlnal

terminations are affixed) to be pluralised, apparently from having for-

gotten that the plural sign of the pronominal termination was sufficient

whereas in Tamil

of itself—e.g., it says sévakula-mu, we are servants

the difference between adi-(y)-én, I am (your) servant, and adi-(y)-ém,

we are (your) servants, appears in the pronominal terminations alone

and the plan of denoting the plural which the Tamil has adopted is

evidently more in accordance with the true theory of the appellative

verb

The MalayAlam singular adeyan or adiyén agrees with the

Tamil, but the plural adeyannal bears marks of corruption

The

classical Tamil words e/-dm, all we, el-ir, all ye, belong to this class

The Telugu appellative verb is destitute of a third person except in

the neuter singular

It is obliged to be content with placing the

isolated pronoun of the third person and the substantive noun in

apposition, with a substantive verb understood—e.g., vddu kavi, he (is)

a poet

Tamil is in this particular more highly developed, for its

appellative verbs are freely conjugated in the third person in each

gender and number, by suffixing the final fragment of the pronoun—

e.g., from nal, goodness or good, is formed nal(l) -an, he is good,

nal(l)-al, she is good ; nal(l)-adu or nan-dru (for nal- dw), it is good,

nal(l)-ar, they (epicene) are good, nal(l)-ana, or nal({)-a, they (neuter)

are good. The neuter singular in Tamil may appear to take a variety

of forms ; but on examination those various forms will be found to be

identical

and the apparent differences which exist are owing either

to the euphonic union of the final du with some previous consonant

or to its euphonic reduplication

The third person neuter, singular

and plural (and occasionally the third person masculine and feminine

also), of every species of Dravidian verb, is often used not only as a

verb, but also as a verbal or participial noun

Its primary use may

have been that of a participial noun, and its use as a verb may be a

secondary one; but at all events, the two uses are found to be inter-

changeable—e.g., srukkiradu, means either it is, or that which is, or

the being, according to the context.

It is especially with relation to

appellatives that this twofold use of the forms of the third person must

be borne in mind ; for in the third person (singular and plural, mas-

culine, feminine, and neuter) there is no difference whatever in spelling

or pronunciation between appellative verbs and appellative nouns and

it is the context alone that determines which meaning is the correct

one

Generally the appellative verb is more commonly used in the

classical dialect, and the noun in the colloquial dialect; but to this

[

APPE LLATIVES.

3

P

é

1

there are exceptions, and (e.g.) nalladw more frequently signifies in

the colloquial dialect ‘it is well” than ¢ that which is good ’—that is,

it is used more frequently as an appellative verb than as an appellative

noun.

It 3s® certain, however, that the appellative verb, whatever

person or gender it takes, is used more largely in the higher dialect of

the Tamil than in the lower; and its brevity and compression render

it peculiarly adapted for metaphorical use.

Adjectives are formed into appellative verbs as well as nouns ; but

as the Dravidian adjective is merely a noun of quality used adjecti-

vally, the difference is more in terms than in reality—e.g., ofi-(y)-ei,

Tam. thou art bright, is literally thou art brightness; and ini-(y)-es,

thou art sweet, is-thou art sweetness.

Appellative verbs are formed

from adjectives, or nouns of quality, not only in the cultivated Dravi-

dian dialects, but even in Ku, which is spoken by an uncultured race

—e.g., negg-dnu, Ku, I am good, negg-dmu, we are good.

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 in-

stances which have'just been cited ; but in many cases we find the

particle ya intervening between the crude base and the pronominal

termination or sign of ge'nd'ér——'e. ., kod-vya-n (as a verb), he is cruel ;

(as a noutt) one who is cruel, or a cruel man ; val-tya-n, a strong man,

or he is strong, &c. This is the same particle which we have already

seen to be used as an adjectival formative—e.g., val-tya, strong, per-

wa, great, sir-tya, little, &¢., and 1 have stated that I conceive words

like these to be relative participles.

2 18 identical with the z of the

past verbal particle, which is often used in Telugu as an adjectival

formative without any addition ; and the final @ is the sign of the

relative, which is kept separate from ¢ by an euphonic .

wya is

therefore the formative of the relative preterite participle, and val-i-

()-a, strong, means properly that which was strong.

But though the

form of the preterite tense is employed, the signification (as often

happens, especially in the case of relative participles) is aoristic or

without reference to time. This being the origin, as I conceive, of

such forms as val-ya, an appellative noun like val-iya-n, a strong man,

is in reality a participial noun, signifying he who is strong, and so of

the other genders ; and this explanation brings such forms into perfect

harmony with other parts of the Dravidian conjugational system, for

participial nouns are regularly used in these languages as verbs.

In some instances @, the sign of the relative participle, is dispensed

’g

with, and the pronominal signs or signs of gender are elegantly suffixed

to 7, the sign of the verbal participial —e.g., peri-du, Tam. it is great,

or that which is great, instead of peri-(y)-a-du. On the other hand,

o

372

THE VERB.

in another class of instances, ¢ disappears, and“a alone remains.

Words of this class, when deprived of their signs of gender, are com-

monly called adjectives, and undoubtedly it is as adjectives that they

are used ; but, looking at their construction and force, I would term

them relative participles of appellative verbs.

In the words referred

to, @, the sign of the relative participle is directly annexed to crude

substantive roots—e.g., udes-(y)-a, belonging to, more literally which

is the property of. malei-(y)-a, hilly, literally which is a hill ; #-y-a,

evil, literally which is evil.

As udei-(y)-an, considered as a noun is

certainly an appellative, signifying he who owns, a proprietor ; and

as the same word is used poetically as an appellative verb when it

signifies he is the owner, it seems evident that 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 adjectivally.

SECTION III.—CONJUGATIONAL SYSTEM.

Mope or ANNEXING ProNoMINAL Siens.—The persons of the

Dravidian verb, including the related ideas of gender and number,

are formed by suffixing the personal or demonstrative pronouns, or

their fragmentary terminations, to the signs of tense.

The change

which the pronouns undergo when they are appended to verbs as

signs of personality have already been exhibited in the section on

““The Pronoun.”

They consist chiefly in the softening away of the

initial consonant; but in a few instances the final consonant has also

been softened away, and nothing left but the included vowel.

In

Telugu, n4-vu, the pronoun of the second person singular, has lost both

its radical initial and its formative final ; and in the personal termina-

tions of the verb it is represented only by v%, an euphonic addition.

In the Indo-European languages the personal signs of the verb are

formed by suffixing pronominal fragments to the root; and those

fragments are disguised in a still greater degree than in the Dravidian

languages, not only by frequency of use and rapidity of enunciation,

but also by the love of fusing words and particles together, and form-

ing them into euphonious compounds, which distinguishes that family

of tongues.

Sometimes one dialect alone furnishes the key to the

explanation 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

various Indo-European languages (e.g., fer-unt, pég-ovri, bharants, &c.),

is found in the Welsh alone, in which Zwynt is a pronoun of the third

person plural,

The various changes which the Dravidian pronouns undergo on

r—

PRONOMINAL SIGNS.

373

being used as the pronominal signs of verbs have already been stated

in order. In Telugu, and partly also in Canarese, the pronominal

terminations vary according to the tense ; but this arises from the

operation of the law of harmonic sequences (see ‘‘Sounds”), by which

a vowel is affected by a preceding vowel, and changed so as to har-

monise with it. What requires here to be investigated is simply

the mode in which the pronominal signs are attached to the Dravidian

verb.

1. The pronominal signs of the Dravidian verb are suffixed, not

prefixed. The primitive Turanian verb seems to have been destitute

of pronominal terminations altogether. The pronoun was neither

prefixed nor affixed, but had a position of its own as a separate word.

This continues to be the case with the most distinctively Turanian

languages; but in the Buriat dialect of the Mongolian, and in the

Tungusian idiom, spoken near Njertschinsk in Siberia, personal termi-

nations have recently been added to the verb.

In Turkish, Finnish,

and Hungarian, as in the primitive Indo-European languages, the

pronouns have been compounded with the verb, and have dwindled

down to pronominal terminations.

In the modern Indo-European

vernaculars, most of the verbs have lost their old pronominal termina-

tions, and the pronouns which are used as nominatives to verbs are

usually isolated and placed first.

Thus, instead of love-I, in accord-

an alteration

ance with the ancient am-o0, we have learnt to say I love,

of position which produces no change in meaning. In the Semitic

languages a change in the position of the pronoun from the termina-

tion of the verb to its commencement produces an important change

in grammatical signification : the position of /the pronouns or pronomi-

nal fragments determines the tense.

When the pronominal fragments

are prefixed, the tense of the verb is regarded as future or aoristic: it

is regarded as past when they are suffixed.

Prefixing the pronominal

\y

fragments appears to denote that the action of the verb has, as yet,

only a subjective existence in the mind of the speaker or agent—i.e.,

it is future; suffixing them may denote that the action of the verb

has already acquired an objective existence, apart from the will or wish

of the speaker or agent—i.ec., it is past.

No peculiarity of this kind characterises the Dravidian languages.

)

The tenses are formed, not by means of the position of the pronouns,

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

rule is that which forms the most characteristic feature of Malayalam

—a language which appears to have been originally identical with

3

.

l

4

THE VERB.

Tamil,—but which, in so far as its conjugational system is concerned,

has fallen back from the inflexional development reached by both

tongues whilst they were still one, to what appears to have been their

primitive condition—a condition nearly resembling that of the Mon-

golian, the Manchn, and the other rude primitive tongues of High

Asia,

In ancient times, as may be gathered from Malay&lam poetry,

and especially from inscriptions preserved by the Syrian Christians and

the Jews, the pronouns were suffixed to the Malay4lam verb, precisely

as they still are in Tamil. At present, the verb is entirely divested,

at least in the colloquial dialect, of signs of personality ; and with the

pronouns the signs of number and gender also have necessarily dis-

appeared ; so that the pronoun or nominative must in every instance

be separately prefixed to the verb to complete the - signification, and

it is chiefly by means of this prefixed pronoun that a verb, properly so

called, is distinguished from a verbal participle.

Though the personal

signs have been abandoned by the Malayalam verb, the signs of tense

or time have been retained, and are annexed directly to the root as in

the other dialects.

Even in modern English some persons of the verb

retain archaic fragments of the pronominal signs (e.g., lovest, loveth) ;

but in the Malayalam every trace of those signs has disa

ppeared.

Thus, whilst we should say in Tamil adittén, I beat; adittdg,

thou

:

and all

didst beat; adittdn, he beat; the Malayilam uses in these

similar eases the verbal participle afichu (for adittw), having beaten,

==

with the prefixed pronouns I, thou, he, &c.—e.g., fidn adichu, 1 beat ;

/

n% adichu, thou didst beat ; avan adichu, he beat.

Though- the pro-

[

nominal signs have been lost by the Malayalam verb, they have been

retained even by the Tuda; and netwithstanding the barbarity of the

(1onds and Kus, their conjugational system is peculiarly elaborate and

complete.

2. Another peculiarity in the manner in which the personal signs

are suffixed in the Dravidian languages consists in their annexation,

not directly to the root, as in the Indo-European family, but to the

temporal participles.

The first sufix to the root in the affirmative

voice is that of the sign of tense, then follows the suffix of personality.

Every pure Dravidian affirmative verb is compounded of three elements,

which are thus arranged and named by Tamil grammarians, viz. (1)

the pagude (prakriti, Sans.), or root; (2) the ¢der nules, or medial

particle, ze., the sign of tense ; and (3) the viguds (vikriti, Sans.), the

variation or differentia, ¢.e., the pronominal termination.

‘When the

signs of tense are attached to the theme, some euphonic changes take

place (not in the theme, but in the signs themselves), which serve, as

has been shown, to distinguish transitive verbs from intransitives.

ey,

o

PRONOMINAL SIGNS

3¢5

Other euphonic changes also take place in accordance with Dravidian

laws of sound, which will be inquired into when those signs of tense

are one by one examined. The changes which take place in the pro-

Ir

nominal signs when they are annexed to the signs of tense have already

been stated in the section on ¢ The Pronoun.”

i

In the Indo- European languages we meet, I think, with no instance

fy

of the annexation of the pronominal signs to the participles, .., to the

It

combination of the root with the signs of tense.

I know of no 1nstance

I

of the use of any form like amant-o, instead of am-o, to signify I love

i

This, however, is the method which is invariably employed in the

It

Dravidian lancwages, and which constitutes an essential element in the

1§

family likeness by which they are pervaded

It is also distinctive of

(6

the Turkish. Thus, the Turkish 6ldrsen, thou art, is formed from 6lidr

i

being, the present participle of the verb 4/, to be, with the addition of

$0

the pronoun sen, thou.

So also the Oriental Turkish b6/dmen, I am,

nl

is formed from 06ld, being (theme bol, to be), and the pronominal

156

suffix men, 1.

10

An important difference generally found to exist between the Dravi-

]

dian languages and the Taurian vernaculars should here be stated

In

)

the languages of Northern India the present tense of a verb is ordi-

Il

arily formed by annexing the substantive verb to its present parti-

|

j/I

ciple—e.g., karitechi, Beng. (karite-dche), I am doing, instead of I do

In Telugu, perhaps through the influence of the North Indian verna-

l, A

culars, a similar usage prevails ; but it is found in the present tense

3

only, it may readily be dispensed with, and the simpler usage, which

0

accords with that of all the other Dravidian dialects, is undoubtedly

Tl

the more ancient

In Tamil and Canarese this use of the substantive

the

verb, as an auxiliary in the formation of the present tense, is unknown

il

it is used as an auxiliary only in the formation of the compound pre-

terite and future tenses

Malayalam occasionally uses the substantive

o'

)b

verb in a similar manner to the Telucu, but with a somewhat different

signification.

100

In Telugu naduchutunndnu, 1 walk (from naduchu-tu

the

walking, and unndnu, 1

to)]

am), has simply the meaning of the present

Ve

tense, and is equivalent to the simpler form naduchutdnu, answering to

Jif

the Tamil nadakkirén, and the Canarese nadeyutténe,; but in Malay-

alam, whilst 7#dn nadakkunny means I walk, #dn naakkunnunda has

el

j

generally an emphatic sense—e.g., I am really walking

Tamil has a

ol

form precisely resembling this

| the

3. It is a peculiarity of Telugu that the third person of the preterite

is sometimes left altogether destitute of the signs of time, person

e

fabe

number, and gender

and this peculiarity applies also to the third

i

person of the aorist

Thus, whilst unditenz, 1 was, and unditevs, thou

/wei

THE VERB

376

wast, are supplied with the usual signs of tense and person, the third

person of the same tense is simply w::de-nu, he, she, or it was, or they

were, without distinction of number or gender, and without even the

The

particle ¢¢, which constitutes the usual sign of the preterite

aorist third person, with a similar absence of distinction, is undu-nu,

A

and in both cases the final nu is merely a conjunctive suffix, like the

corresponding Tamil wm. Sometimes even the aorist formative nu is

discarded, and the root alone is used as the third person singular

Thus (he, she, or it) falls or will fall, may either be padw-nu, or simply

padu

The usage of poetical Tamil occasionally agrees with that of

the Telugu with respect to the neuter gender, both singular and plural,

espemally in connection with the negative voice of the Verb——eg,

$ey(y)-d, it will not do, is often used for sey(y)-ddu.

A usage similar to this prevails in many languages which are widely

different one from the other

Thus, the New Persian uses for the

third person singular of the preterite the contracted infinitive, as gram-

marians style it—an abstract verbal noun, which may be regarded as

the theme of the verb. The Hebrew third person masculine of the

preterite tense is also a verbal noun, without pronominal addition

We see a similar peculiarity in the third person of the present tense of

the verb in some languages—e.g., compare the three persons of the pre-

sent tense of the Turkish substantive verb, é6ldrum, I am ; dlidrsen

thou art

oldr, he is

Compare also the Armorican kanann, I sin

kanez, thou singest ; kan, he sings

Compare with these examples the

Hungarian esmerek, 1 know

2L8MENSZ

thou knowest

and 2smer

he knows

4. There are traces in ancient Tamil and Canarese of the existence

of a very primitive system of conjugation

A form of the verb is

occasionally used by the poets, which must have come down to them

from great antiquity

In Tamil, $eydu (dey-du), which is now the

preterite verbal participle, is used for the preterite tense of the finite

verb in all persons in the singular, and seydum ($ey-d-wm), (the same

form with the addition of the conjunctive wm, used as a pluralising

particle), for all persons in the plural

A somewhat similar form is

used for the future, by means of the addition of Aw or gu to the root

instead of the sign of the preterite du

sey-gu is used to mean I

will do

sey-g-um, we will do

The use of this form is not extended

to the other persons so widely as that of seydu, an irregularity which

shows that it had become nearly obsolete when it received a place

In written compositions

The um of the aoristic future in modern

Tamil is restricted to the neuter gender, but it is used for both num-

bers indiscriminately. The gu and gum of the poetical Tamil is found

FORMATION OF TENSES.

377

also in classical Canarese in the form of gum or kum, in which it has

a wider range of application than in Tamil.

In classical Tamil its use

is confined to the first person ; in classical Canarese it is used indiseri-

minately for all persons—e.g., avar mddugum, th‘ey do. fuw also survives

in Canarese—e.g., ké-ku (Tam. vepd-um), must. It would appear{’there-

fore, that the Dravidian verb was originally uninflected ; and this may

i

f 4

partly account for the circumstance that Malayalam so readily lost the

(

inflexions which, in common with Tamil, it had acquired. The period

when the Dravidian verb was uninflected must have been long prior to

the separation of the present tongue into dialects, in all which, even in

the rudest, a system of inflexions has been developed. The retention

of traces of the ancient verb in Tamil and Canarese, and partly also, as

noticed in the previous paragraph, in Telugu, seems to prove the great

antiquity of the literary culture of the Dravidian languages.

5. The Dravidian verb, as now inflected, like the verb of many

other languages, does not distinguish the genders of either the first

person or the second, whether singular or plural ; but in the third

person it marks all existing distinctions of gender with peculiar expli-

citness and minuteness.

Thus, without the use of isolated pronouns,

and employing the inflexions of the verb alone, we can say in Tamil

varugirdn, he comes ; varugirdl, she comes ; varugiradu, it comes ;

varugirdr, they (men and women) come, or honorifically he comes ;

varugirdrgal, they (men and women) come; wvarugindrana, they

(things) come.

-

: FormaTION OF THE TENSES.—Most of the Dravidian tenses are

formed from participial forms of the verb: an inquiry into the parti-

ciples is therefore a necessary preliminary to an inquiry into the

tenses. Dravidian verbs have two species of participles, one of which,

called relative participles, because they include the signification of the

relative pronoun), will be ‘inquired into in a subsequent part of this

section ; the other, commonly called verbal participles or gerunds, and

which are now to be considered, constitute the bases on which the

tenses are formed. The forms which are assumed by the verbal par-

ticiples will be inquired ,into in connection with the signs of tense,

from the consideration of which they cannot be severed.

I content

myself here with some general remarks on the signification and force

of this class of words.

E

Verbal Participles, their Signification and Force.—In ordinary collo-

quial Tamil there is but one verbal participle, that of the past tense.

In Malayilam and in classical Tamil there is a verbal participle of the

future tense as well as of the past.

In Canarese and Telugu there is

o

|

378

THE VERB.

a verbal participle of the present and of the past.

In Tulu there are

three verbal participles, that of the present (or future), that of the

imperfect past, and that of the perfect. In this particular, therefore, col-

loguial Tamil may be considered as the poorest of the Dravidian dialects.

Properly speaking, the words which are called verbal participles are not

participles at all, seeing that they do not participate in the nature of

adjectives, as all the Indo-European participles do.

They have some-

what of the signification of gerunds, inasmuch as in addition to the

idea of time, they include more or less of the idea of cause. Never-

theless, as each of the Indo-European participles is commonly used also

as a gerund, without losing the name of a participle, and as the gerund

in do (to which alone, amongst Latin gerunds, the Dravidian participles

have any resemblance) has a very restricted application, it appears

advisable, after all, to style these words participles instead of gm

—or more fully verbal participles, to distinguish them from what are

called relative particeples.

The following sentences will illustrate the force of the Dravidian

verbal participles :—

1. Present Verbal Participle.—This verbal participle, though unknown

in Tamil and Malayalam, is commonly used both in Canarese and in

Telugu.

I quote the illustration which follows from Canarese.

¢ Vikramérka, punishing the wicked and protecting the good, reigned

over the kingdom.”

Here the English words ¢ punishing’ and ¢ pro-

tecting’ are participles of the present tense, used gerundially; and the

Dravidian words which they represent (in Canarese, sikshisuttd and

rakshisuttd) have precisely the same force.

In this respect only there

is a difference between them, viz., that the English participles are

capable of being used also as adjectives, whereas the Dravidian words,

though called participles, cannot be used adjectivally, or in any other

way than that here exemplified.

2. Preterite Verbal Partictple.—** Salivihana, having killed Vikra-

mérka, assumed supreme power.”

Though the English participle

A

¢ having killed,” which is here used, is a compound one (being formed

from the present participle having, and the passive participle killed),

\\\

its signification is that of a simple, uncompounded participle of the

st tense, and the Dravidian word which it represents (kondru, Tam.’\

/

/ kondu, Can.) is also a preterite,active verbal participle. In this inst

/n

ANCTR,

/

/

neither the English participle nor the Dravidian one is capable of being

uged as an adjective.

In reality, they are both preterite gerunds

olr gerundials, though they retain the name of participles as a matter

of convenience.

In those Dravidian dialects in which there is a pre,sent, as well as a

"

THE PRESENT TENSE.

3

{

9

16

preterite, verbal participle (as in Canarese and Telugu), the present is

he

0L

used to express subordinate actions which are contemporaneous with

that which is denoted by the principal and finite verb ; whilst the

preterite expresses subordinate actions which are antec

edent in

oint

10

of time to the principal action.

In Tamil, the preterit

is

§ with the

PL

used to express al

1 subordinate actions, whether simultane

Sy

i

main action or antecedent to it; but though that participle is always

a preterite in form, it possesses the force of a participle of the present

¢l

tense when the connection requires it.

In each of the dialects and in

v

nd

every connection, the nominative of the final governing verb is the

nominative of all the subordinate verbal participles.

Id

The Dravidian verbal participles may be compared with the Sanskrit

indeterminate past participle in tvd—e.g., kritvd, having done,

Like

|

One of the

that participle they are indeclinable and indeterminate.

chief peculiarities, however, of these verbal participles is, that they

have a continuative force, dispensing altogether with the use of con-

il

junctions.

In the Dravidian languages, though nouns and pronouns

1!

are united by means of conjunctions, finite verbs are never so united.

In every sentence there is but one finite verb, which is the last word

i

in the sentence, and the seat of government ; and all the verbs which

¢,

express subordinate actions or circumstances, whether antecedent or

d

eontemporaneous, assume: an indeterminate, continuative character, as

verbal participles or gerundials, without the need of conjunctions or

he

copulatives of any kind ; so that the sense (and more or less the time

i

also) waits in suspense for the authoritative decision of the final

o1

governing verb.

Hence those participles might properly be called

e

continuative gerundials.

Tamilian grarmarians class them, with in-

(5

finitives and subjunctives, as viner echcham, verb defects, or verbal

et

complements—z.e., words which require a verb to complete the sense.

It is a peculiarity of these languages that.when a series of verbal

g

participles constitutes a relative clause in a sentence, antecedent to a

Eiple

noun to which the relative clause relates, the last of the verbal. par-

rnléd

ticiples alone is converted into a relative participle.

All the rest

/\

[

5

remain in form/ verhal participles or gerunds. So also in the Seythian

¢“The Turanian,’

b

says Mr Edkins, ‘““in describing a suc-

i

languages.

am.?

eession of. eventg: gives to his verbs the form of gerunds, and adds to

fi

them, when needed, the case suffixes,”—converting the gerund thereby

belh“

into a relative participle, as in Tamil, &e.

The rationale of the pro-

cess is that in both families of tongues the gerund is treated as a noun,

L

uat[ﬂl’

and must have been a verbal noun in origin.

1. 7'he Present T'ense.— It may be stated generally that the present

tense of the Dravidian verb is formed by suffixing the pronominal

) 58

380

THE VERB.

signs to the present verbal participle, with such trivial changes only

as euphony requires.

The exceptions to this general rule are as

follows ;—

(1.) In poetical Tamil the tenses are sometimes formed by suffixing

the pronominal terminations to the relative participles, instead of the

gerunds or verbal participles—e.g., nadanda(n)an (equivalent to the

colloquial nadanda(v)an), he walked, literally a man who walked. In

such instances a verbal or participial noun is used with the force of a

verb. This is not an uncommon usage in other languages also ; and

in colloquial Tamil the third person neuter of the verb, both singular

and plural, is certainly a verbal noun in its origin, though used with

the force of a' verb—e.g., nadandadu, it walked, literally means a

thing which walked; and the plural nadanda(n)a, 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., nadanda(n)en,

I walked, literally, I who walked ; nadanda(n)am or nadanda(n)em, we

walked, literally we who walked. This mode of forming the tenses

has been developed from the Dravidian custom of using participial and

verbal nouns as the conjugational bases of verbs, and, so far, is in

accordance with the genius of the language ; but it has a constructive,

artificial look, and it is an exception to the mode which prevails

throughout all the other dialects of the family, whether colloquial or

classical.

(2.) The Tamil and Malayilam have, properly speaking, no present

verbal participle, but only a particle denoting present time, which is

suffixed to the theme of the verb, and to which, in Tamil, the pro-

nominal signs are then suffixed for the purpose of forming the present

tense.

The combination, however, of the root and the particle of

present time, forms virtually a present participle. I think it may,

therefore, be assumed that the Tamil-Malayalam had a verbal participle

of the present tense at a former period, which has now become obso-

Ul

lete, except in combination with the personal terminations, when it

)

constitutes the present tense of the verb.

|

(3.) In the ancient or classical dialect of the Canarese there is

¥

another exception to the general rule. In the colloquial dialect the

if

present tense is formed regularly from the present participle ; but the

i

present tense in the classical dialect is altogether unconnected with

fo

that participle, or at least is only very distantly related to it. The

dq

sign of the present participle is wute, &c., whilst that of the present

)

tense is dap-—e.g., bdlute, living, baldapem, 1 live.

(4.) The Telugu usage of employing the substantive verb in a

s

modified form (viz., unndnw, 1

am, unndvu, thou art, &c.) as an

P

THE PRESENT TENSE.

381

arcely be called

auxiliary in the formation of the present tense, can sc

an exception to the general rule specified above ;

for this auxiliary is

y

annexed to the present verbal p

[N

of Canarese :

articiple, which is closely allied to that

)

and its use in this connection is only a refinement, not a

necessary element in the formation of the present tense.

ains to

i

These real or apparent exceptions being disposed of, it rem

inquire into the formation of the present verbal p

articiples” in the

e

various dialects,

In

ForMATION OF THE PRESENT.—In both the classi

4

dialects of Clanarese the verbal

cal and colloquial

participle of the present tense is formed

i

by adding to the verb

al root a particle, of which «# is the most essential

ln

portion—e.g., coll. Can. bdl-uta, livin

(o))

o e

ond-utta, joinin

O )

o

th

mad-utid,

making : class. Can. od-ute, reading ; ¢-(y)

-utte, descending; kats-

X

uttu, tying ; geyutum (geyuttum, geyyutum), doing, The final vowel

ly

of this particle ¢ assumes various shapes, and is elided before the

i

initial vowel of the pronominal signs in the formation of the

present

il

tense in the colloquial dialect (e.g., comp. mdd-

utte, doing, with mdd-

e

utt’éne, 1 do).

It may, therefore, be concluded that it is simply

05

enunciative ;

and as » is the vowel most commonly used as a hel

p to

id

enunciation in all the dialects, the

primitive shape of this particle

i

must have been wfu. I have no doubt that Mr Kittel is correct in

/

identifying this utw with udu, the intermediate demonstrative pronoun

of the Tamil and Canarese, used as a proximate demonstrative in Tulu.

Another form of wdu in classical Canarese is dtam.

utu, with the

meaning of ¢this,’

would very naturally come to be used as a sign of

f

present time in the formation of a participle of the present tense. It

18

will be seen, in considering the preterite tense, that the d which con-

demonstrative ¢that.’

stitutes the sign of past time is probably a relic of aduw, the remote

il

Probably the um of wtum is the ordinary con-

Jjunctive wm, used for the purpose of more distinctl

i}

time.

y emphasising the

i)

e

It is more difficult to explain the origin of the sign of present time

bst?'

used in the formation of the present tense in Old Canarese. The

) 1

present tense in this dialect is not formed from the present participle.

That participle is, as we have scen, substantially the

same in both

g8

dialects ; and in the colloquial dialect the present tense is formed by

the

affixing to this participle the personal terminations,

The ancient

) the

dialect, on the other hand, makes no use of its present participle in

i

forming its present tense, but forms that tense by inserting the particle

The

dap between the verbal root and the pronominal fragments. The

oDl

colloquial Canarese bd/utténe, I live, is formed from the colloquial and

classigal present participle bdlutte,; but the corresponding form in

p

y ¢

i

382

‘IHE VERB.

classical Canarese is bdldapem, in which present time is répresentejd"“by

dap.

What is the origin of this particle?

Mr Kittel (in a private

communication with which he has favoured me) regards dap as being

properly dapa, and dape as consisting of da + apa.

This apa he

considers identical with aka, the future participle of ahu (in coll. Can.

dgu), to become ; da he regards as the sign of the past tense.

Hence

madi + da + apa + em (mddidapem) would mean ¢ having made I shall

be.’

This form, therefore, was properly a second future.

He traces

its origin to the custom of replying to a command by an answer in the

past tense—e.g., you say to some one, Come ! and the reply is, I came—

%.6., 1 come.

The fact that this form was originally a second future,

accounts, he thinks, for the introduction at length into the modern or

colloquial dialect of a present tense distinctively denoting the present,

being formed from the present participle in use in both dialects. This

explanation is-certainly very ingenious, and seems to me satisfactory.

It will be shown further on that one of the forms of the present in

Tamil makes use of a participle of the verb d (dgu), to become, and

It

that most of the Dravidian presents were formed from futures.

will also be shown that the use of d, the ordinary sign of the preterite

in all the dialects, was not originally restricted to that tense so abso-

lutely as it is now.

The present verbal participle of Telugu is ordinarily formed by

adding chu (pronounced fsw) to the ‘theme of the verb. In ‘the

colloquial dialect 7 is used instead of chu, and though it is possible

that chu may be the original, and ¢ (from #st) the corruption, yet it

would be more in accordance with analogy to derive chu from {u; and

this fu so nearly resembles the Canarese ufa or ute, 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 fu.

chunnau or tunn,

the ordinary termination of the participle of the present tense in gram-

I

matical Telugu, is a compound form derived from chu or the real

it

and only sign of present time in this language, and unnu, a participle

f

of the substantive verb undu, to be, used as an auxiliary.

i

The Tulu participle of the present tense is also used for the future

as well as for the present, and was probably a future originally. The

{

sign of the present used in the present tense of the verb is v, which is

identical with the Tamil-Canarese sign of the future.

The sign of present time used by the Tamil and Malayalam, differs

The present tense in

considerably from that of the Telugu-Canarese.

Tamil is formed by suffixing ger-u, gindr-u, or d-nindr-u, to the verbal

3

THE PRESENT TENSE,

-

383

A

theme, to one or other of which particles the pronominal signs are

annexed. d-nindr-u is a compound form, which is rarely used even by

Il

e

the poets, and is derived, I conceive, from d, the ultimate base of d-gu,

all

to become (and which is not unfrequently used in this shape in the

poets), and nindru, standing, abiding,

continuing

o )

root, nel, to stand.

06

il

The meaning of the compound seems to be continuing to become—e.g.,

tdrdmindrdn (tdr-G-nindr’-Gn), he is low, he is humble, literally, he

(63

continues to become low or humble.

There is documentary evidence

i

e.—

forthcoming of the accuracy of my supposition that the @ of dnindru

was a representative of dgs. In the Old Tamil inseription (774 A.D.)

Ité

in the possession of the Syrian Christians on the Malabar coast, I

| (f

find dyenin-dru instead of the dnindru which has been universally used

en‘t.

in later times. dgi is often softened into dys even in modern Tamil,

s

then into dy, and then into ¢. ' The other particles of present time,

]

10

gir-u and gindr-u, are in more common use, especially the former—

e.g., varu-gir-dn, or varu-gindr-dn, he comes.

The only difference

1Ld

between them is that gindr-w is considered more euphonious and

i

1i¢

elegant than gir-u, and more suitable, in consequence, for poetry and

elevated prose. I have no doubt that they ‘are identical in origin,

and that the one is either an euphonised or a corrupted form of the

other. In some connections gir-u and gendr-u are changed by dialectic

)y

rules of euphony to Akir-u and kkindr-u—rviz., when they are attached

e

to roots consisting of two short syllables (like padu, to lie ; iru, to

be ; nada, to walk), the final vowel of which is regarded as a part

1l

of the root, and is incapable of being elided. It is a rule of the

od

Y

language that if in such cases the sonants 9, d, b, immediately follow,

they shall be hardened, that is, converted into the corresponding surds

]

k, t, and p, and in Tamil the only method of hardening sonants is by

15

doubling them,—for it has already been shown that in this language

fhe

the same consonant is a sonant when single and a surd when doubled.

iy

Hence we say in Tamil not wru-gir-én, I am, but oru-kkir-én. A similar

all

result follows in another and more numerous class of instances from

il

a different cause.

It has been shown in a former part of this section

,1p16

that transitive or active verbs are in many instances made to differ

from intransitives by the hardening and doubling of the initial con-

sonant of the sign of tense.

il

In such cases gir-u and gindr-u become

T

(not for the sake of euphony merely, but as

'a means Qf grammatical

b

expression) kkir-w and kkindr-u.

Malayalam uses the same sign of tense somewhat modified : the

[ﬁdf

sign of present time in Malayalam is unnu or kkunnu, suffixed to the

pll

verbal theme. The older dialect of Malayslam has generally innu,

gl

esp}ecially in connectidrl‘."with the negative verb—e.g., ~va:wil—(y)-z'wm,u,

4§

384

THE VERB.

comes not. Where Tamil would use gindra, Malayalam omits the g¢.

The

When Tamil doubles the g and says k%, Malayalam uses &% also.

Malayilam ennw is clearly a softened and euphonised form of the

Tamil particle.

The Tamil compound sound ndr is constantly con-

verted into nn in Malayalam—e.g., ondru, Tam. one, is in Malayalam

Even in

onw’, and mdndru, Tam. three, is in Malaydlam madnn’.

vulgar colloquial Tamil the same or a similar tendency appears : ondru,

one, being commonly pronounced onpw, and mdndru, three, mdnu.

The Tamil gendru and kkendrw would, therefore, naturally and dialec-

tically be converted in Malaydlam to ginnu and kkinnu.

The next

point is the softening away of the g of ginnuw.

This has arisen from

the circumstance that in Tamil ¢ is pronounced in the middle of a

word so softly as to be little more than an indistinet guttural breath-

ing ; in consequence of which, it is used to.represent the A of the

Sanskrit, and in the colloquial dialect it is often discarded altogether

—e.q., pdgirén, I go, is commonly pronounced pé-rén ; and varugirdn,

he comes, varu-rdn or vd-rdn.

Hence ginnw (from gindru) would

naturally become in Malayalam nnu.

The only remaining difference

is between the ¢ of wnnu and the w of wnnu, but this presents no

difficulty, for even in Tamil ¢ is very often pronounced as = by the

vulgar, and we have seen that in Malayalam also ennu is more classical

than unnu.

The identity of the Malaydlam sign of the present tense with that

of the Tamil, cannot be doubted. Sometimes in Malayilam poetry

the pronominal signs are suffixed to the signs of tense, as in Tamil ;

and in that connection the identity of the signs of tense is clearly

apparent—e.g., compare adikkindrdn (adi-kkindr-dn), Tam. he beats,

with the corresponding form in poetic Malayalam adikkunndn (adi-

kkunn'-dn). A prior: it might have been supposed that the Malayalam

unnu or kkunnu was related to chunnu or tunnu, the sign of the pre-

sent participle in Telugu.

The resemblance, however, is altogether

illusory ; for the Malaydlam particle is derived from the Tamil gendru

or kkindru, whilst the Telugu chunnu is compounded of chu, the real

sign of present time, and wnnu, a participle~ of wundu, to be ; which

participle is in Malayalam wuapd’.

I have said that I believe the Tamil gir-w and gindr-u are identical

in origin, and that the one is merely an euphonised or corrupted form

of the other.

Which is the original form ? and which the euphonised

or corrupted ?

There are many instances of r being euphonised in

Tamil into ndr—e.g., hundru, as a verb, ¢ to become small,’ as a noun,

‘a small hill,” must be a secondary form of Zur-w, small, a form of the

root which constitutes the basis of a large number of words, such as

z

{

THE PRESENT TENSE.

385

e

{le

@rram, a fault. The change of ndr into r is not so easy, nor can L

find any instances of it which are free from doubt.

Still such a

1)1

change may be suspected to have taken place in several instances, one

lan

| 1I

of which is sndru, now, to-day. A secondary form of ¢ndru in Tamil

1M

is srrer (pronounced ¢ttrer), and this seems to point to 4l-ter (see p.

);

[ +¢, sometimes became ndr in Tamil, and sometimes in the poets r.

i

|

Thus Sel-tal, the verbal noun of $el, to go, is changed to $éral in the

“ Nanntl,” the Tamil classical grammar.

In this case, however, there

JeX

is also a lengthening of the preceding vowel.

If we may suppose #/-tu

0l

L4

to have become, on the one hand, vndru, and on the other, perhaps at

a latter period, ¢ru, we arrive at the best explanation which has been

i

given of gindru or giru, the Tamil sign of present time.

Dr Granl, I

ine

hor

believe (in his “ Qutlines of Tamil Grammar ”), was the first to suggest

the origination of this sign from £=g, a sign of the future in poetical

(Il

,,,,,

111

Tamil, and ¢ndrd, now. His idea appears to have been that Tamil

was originally without a present tense, and that the present was a new

b

secondary tense, formed from the future by the addition of a sign of

10

The same

th

present time.

kindru was thus = k-indru (then: kiru).

o

view seems to have been adopted, or independently arrived at, by Dr

ol

Gundert.

The fact that the form of this particle retained in Malay-

at

alam is wnnu (in older compositions often nnu) would seem to prove

that gindru, not giru, was the form in use in Tamil prior to the final

separation from Tamil of the Malaydlam, and, therefore, not only

i

il

the more classical form in Tamil, as it is admitted to be, but also the

more ancient.

This fact, though it does not prove the derivation of

o

gendrw from g + indru, yet favours that supposition.

i

The present tense is seldom used in Tamil poetry, and I have never

o

found it in inscriptions, though the past and future and combinations

of both abound.

pre

In the talk of the common people, though the pre-

fher

sent tense is freely used, yet the grammatical signs of the present, giru,

i

&c., are generally omitted. They say végudu, it burns, instead of

ol

végu-(gir)-adu.

It would seem, consequently, that the inflexional

hieh

forms of the present tense are not very deeply rooted in the language.

In the language of the Tudas the present and future seem to be

wlthﬂl

identical, and the sign of time seems to be & or g—e.g., pokend, 1 go,

o

pokems, we go ; ershken (ersh-k-en), I am, ershkimi, we are (rsh for 7).

mééd

In the second and third persons the £ seems to be softened into ch—

ol 1

e.g., ershche, he or they are.

In the language of the Kotas, p seems to

H()H“v

replace k—e.g., higape, 1 go, hogapéme, we. go.

In the third person,

i the

however, singular and plural, £ asserts its place—e.g., hdgako, he or

b

they go.

third seem

rI“he Tuda % of the first person and the Kota % of the

28

386

THE VERB.

naturally to connect themselves, not only with the gu of the Old Tamil,

but with ‘the Zum or gum of the Old Canarese aorist.

Old Tamil

Sey-gu, I do or will do ; Old Canarese mddu-gum (I, he, they, &c.), do.

The p of the Kota present -is evidently connected with dap, the Old

Canarese sign of the present tense, but still more nearly related to the

v, b, or p of the Tamil MalayAlam-Canarese future.

In some Kota

verbs £ is the sign of the present tense, as in Tuda—e.g., vindkene

(vind-k-ene), 1 ask, vindkeme, we ask. In some, both letters seem to be

mixed, as in ettakepe, I raise up, I build, of which the past tense is

éttape.

9. 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 suffixing to it the sign of the personal

agent. In the primitive Indo-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 appears in

the root.

The Indo-European preterite was also frequently formed by

means of a prefixed temporal augment ; a prefix which Bopp considers

to be identical with ‘alpha privitive,” but which is supposed by Meyer

to be identical with @, a relic of the auxiliary verb to have, which is

4

still prefixed to verbs in the Celtic languages as a temporal augment—

f)

we., as a sign of past time.

In a large proportion of the verbs in the

()

modern Teutonic tongues, in the modern Persian, in the Turkish and

{

Finnish families of languages, in the vernacular languages of Northern

§

India, and, with a few exceptions, in the Dravidian languages, the

d

I

preterite is formed by suffixing to the verbal theme a particle, some-

g

times a consonant, sometimes a vowel, which is significant ‘of past

)

time.

1

\I

The Dravidian preterite tense is ordinarily formed, like the present,

by annexing the pronominal signs to the preterite verbal participle.

a

It is in that participle that the idea of past time resides: by it alone

3]

that idea is expressed : the changes that are made when the pro-

Ve

nominal signs are added will be shown to be euphonic merely, not

fir]

structural ; and in the Malaydlam (in which the pronominal signs have

1y

ceased to be annexed), that part of speech which corresponds to the

iy

Tamil preterite verbal participle expresses by itself the past tense of

Ig

the verb.

Consequently, an inquiry into the Dravidian preterite tense

80y

s

=%

-

)

THE PRETERITE TENSE.

égr

tl

il

resolyes itself Ainto an: inquiry into the formation of the preterite verbal

participle. The preterite verbal participle is used in Tamil with a

I

wider range of signifi¢ation th

be

an in any other dialect, though its proper

and inherent meaning is that of the

13

preterite alone. The Tamil, being

destitute of a present verbal p

articiple, uses the preterite verbal par-

i1

ticiple instead, in consequence of which, in a Tamil sentence,. the

be

question of time is in abeyance till it is determined by the tense of the

I

final governing verb.

This is more or less the case in all the dialects.

Where there is a present participle as well as a preterite, the present is

11§

used to denote simultaneous actions, the preterite successive actions ;

i

but it'is the final verb which determines whether those actions, whether

e

future,

simultaneous or successive, belong to the

present, the past, or the

1t

This indeterminateness of time in Tamil applies to the verbal

I3

participle alone, not also to the preterite tense of the finjte verb, which

il

is restricted in Tamil to the expression of p

ast time, precisely as in

1§

other languages.

o

We have now to inquire particularly into the,Dr@vidian methods of

¢y

forming the preterite.

They divide themselves into two—(1.) by

(7

reduplication of the final consonant -

J

of past time.

and (2.) by suffixing a sign

/

1. TaE ForMATION OF THE PRETERIT

Finar Coxn

E BY REDUPLICATION OF THE

SONANT.—This mode of formin

g the preterite is adopted by

S

a very small number of verbs in each of

the Dravidian dialects ; but its

existence cannot be doubted, and it is

a mode which is as interesting

18

as it is remarkable,

In the Indo-European langu

terite is formed by means of redu

ages, when the pre-

id

plication, it is the root which is

Th

doubled, or

at least the first syllable of the root ; but in the Dr

avidian

e

dialects the reduplication is that of the

final consonant alone.. ' The

Il

verbal themes which form their preterite

$ in this manner are those

which end in d-u, g-

ash

u, or r-u, preceded by

a single short vowel—e.g.,

in classical Tamil pad-u, to suffer

)

pug-w, to enter ; and per-u, to obtain

i

—the preterites of which are pat

t-én, I suffered ; pukk-én, 1 entered ;

and pettr-én, I obtained.

e

In each of the above examples the final con-

one

Sonants—d, g, and r—are doubled, and being thus

doubled, are con-

DI0

verted by rule into the corresponding surds ¢¢, 4k, an

d rr (pronounced

¢tr). Whilst the above and simil

0t

ar verbs form their preterites in this

manner in the classical dialect of the Tamil, ir

AL

1 the modern colloquial

fhe

didlect some of those very verbs have

adopted the more ordinary

method of denoting

, (1

sonant.

past time by means of a suffixed particle or con-

150

Thus pukk-én, I entered, has been superseded in the modern

|

388

THE VERB.

dialect by pugu-nd-én, and nakk-én, 1 laughed, by nagei-tt-én. Canarese

forms the preterites of this class of verbs in exact agreement with the

classical Tamil—e.g., nakk-anu, he laughed, from nag-u, to laugh ;

and Telugu, though less systematic in this point, exhibits the operation

of the same rule, especially in the relative participles of the preterite.

This Dravidian reduplication differs materially in form from that of the

Indo-European languages, but it appears to proceed from a similar

principle, and it constitutes, so far as it goes, an interesting point of

resemblance between the two families.

9. Tag FORMATION OF THE PRETERITE BY SUFFIXING SOME PARr-

tioLe OR SieN oF PasT Time.—This, with the exception of the very

few verbs included in the previous'class, is the method of forming the

preterite which is invariably adopted by the Dravidian languages, and

which may be regarded as their characteristic mode.

For the purpose

of thoroughly investigating this subject, it will be desirable to inquire

¢

into the practice of each dialect seriatum.

(1.) The Canarese Preterite—The most characteristic Canarese pre-

terite is formed by annexing d (euphonically d-u) to the verbal theme.

This addition constitutes the preterite verbal participle—e.g., ¢fs-d-u,

havin‘g descended, nudi-d-u, having spoken ; to which the pronominal

terminations are suffixed to form the preterite tense—e.g., le-d-enu,

I descended, nudi-d-i, thou saidst. All verbal themes (both in the

classical and in the colloquial dialect, and whether transitive or intran-

sitive) which end in ¢ or e, form their preterites in this manner,

together with many themes ending in w. All the apparent irregulari-

ties that exist are merely modifications of the ¢ in question.

Thus,

sometimes ¢ is substituted for d—e.g., aritanu, he knew, instead of

aridanu (corresponding to the Tamil arinddn) ; sometimes the ¢ of the

preterite combines with the final consonant of the root, and converts it

into dd or tt—e.g., iddanu, he was, instead of drudanu (Tam. runddn) ;

B ot

eddu, having risen, instead of efudw (Tam. erunduw) ; wuttu, having

s

ploughed, instead of wludu (Tam. urudu) ; nent, ha,vi‘ng stood, instead

e

;

of niludu (Tam. nindru).

Another Canarese preterite is formed by suffixing ¢ to the crude

Between

verbal theme—e.g., mdd-¢, having done, from mdd-u, to do.

this ¢ and the pronominal terminations d is inserted in the formation

g

of the preterite tense—e.g., mdd-i-(d)-enu, I did, bdf-i-(d)-anu, he lived.

This mode of forming the preterite characterises most verbs ending in

% in the modern dialect.

The final % of such verbs is merely euphonic,

not radical, and is elided on ¢ being annexed ; and the ¢ which is

inserted between 7 and the pronominal signs, though possibly identical

THE PRETERITE TENSE.

389

eA6

e

in origin with the which constitutes a sign of the preterite, is merely

b

euphonic in so far as the use to which it is now put is concerned.

In a considerable number of instances the formation of the preterite

101

I

in % appears to be a modern corruption.

Intransitive verbal themes

fh

ending in » form their preterite in d in the classical dialect ; and it is

in the colloquial dialect alone that ¢ forms their preterite—e. g., instead

0

of bal- (coll.), having lived, the classical dialect has ddl-d-w ; and as

the classical dialect is undoubtedly more authoritative and probably

more ancient than the colloquial, d or d-z may be considered as the

AR

legitimate form of the preterite of this class of verbs.

This conclusion

i

il

is confirmed by the analogy of the Tamil, in which the corresponding

verbal theme forms its preterite verbal participle by suffixing nd, an

nd

euphonised form of d—e.g., vdr-nd-u, having flourished, which is the

0%

e

equivalent, not of the modern Canarese b@/-5, but of the ancient

bal-d-u.

How is this diversity in tlie formation of the preterite to be

iy

accounted for ?

¢

Can ¢ have been derived in any manner from d 2

An argument in favour of this supposition may be deduced from the

’Z[

circumstance that the classical bdl-d-en, I lived, which is in perfect

al

Il

dialectic agreement with the Tamil vdyr-nd-én, has in the colloquial

dialect become bdl-i-d-enw.

16

Even in the ancient dialect itself, though

this ¢ is generally unknown, it makes its appearance in the preterite

Il

relative participle, which may be bdJ-i-d-, that lived, as well as bdl-

1eli,

d-a, though the corresponding Tamil is always vdr-nd-a. If we could

Al

form a judgment, therefore, from these instances alone, + would seem

i

to have come into existence as a vocalic bond of connection between

of

the root and the sign of the preterite.

the

The future, both in Canarese and in Tamil, often makes use of % as

51t

4\

a bond of union between the verbal root and v, the sign of tense—e.g.,

)

bal-u-v-enu, coll. Can., and vdyr-u-v-én, coll. Tam. I shall live; instead

filg

of the ancient and more correct bdl-v-en, Can., and vdr-v-én, Tam. In

feal

this case the w is certainly euphonic, though it has not come to be

used, as ¢ has, to express grammatical relation, or in lieu of the sign of

qulé

tense which it is employed to euphonise.

If we had to account for

etk

the insertion of ¢ before d in such instances only as have been men-

gfi0l

tioned, we might be content with the Ssupposition of its euphonic

jved.

origin ; but the use of ¢ as a sign of the preterite has a much wider

range,

i il

All transitive verbs ending in u, both in the classical dialect

tODicv

of the Canarese and in the colloquial, form their preterite verbal par-

IR

ticiples by suffixing 4; and there is nothing to show that those verbs

ol

ever formed their preterites in any other manner.

A very large num-

ber of verbs of this class form their preterites in Tamil alsq by suffixing

390

THE VERB

1 ; and in Telugu the preterite is formed by suffixing + to the root, not

of one class of verbs only, but of all with the exceptxon of the small

class of reduplicative verbs.

This statement apphes it is true, to the preterite verbal participle

of the Telugu, not to the preterite tense of the verb, which ‘generally

suffixes or inserts, as a tense-sign, some additional consonant or par-

ticle

but in Malayalam the preterite verbal participle constitites by

itself the preterite tense, without the addition of any pronominal signs

and in that dialect ¢ is the only sign of past time which is used by a

large number of verbs

Thus pddi, which means having sung in the

other dialects, signifies in"Malayalam (he, she, or it) sang ; ¢ is, there-

fore, in that dialect a distinctive sign of the preterite in the‘class of

verbs referred to

and it is to be remembered that the addition of the

pronominal terminations, though the means of expressing personality,

effects no change in the means whereby time is expressed. The extent

and prevalence, therefore, of the use of ¢ as a sign of the preterite

seems to forbid our supposing it to have been in all cases derived

from an euphonisation of d ; and as d, on the other hand, cannot have

been derived from ¢, it appears probable that ¢ and ¢ are dlstmct" and

independent signs of past time.

Of these two signs of past time d is to be considered, if not the

We

older, yet at least the more: prevalent and more characteristic

have seen that in many instances in which the colloquial Canarese has

7, the classical dialect and Tamil have d. Not in those instances only

but universally, the Telugu uses ¢ as the sign of the preterite ; but the

great antiquity of the grammatical forms of the Tamil and the Old

Canarese precludes the supposition that their most characteristic sign

of past time has been borrowed from that of the Telugu

In addition

to which, it will be shown that in Telugu itself there are traces of the

existence of an old sign of the preterite agreeing with that of Tamil

and classical Canarese

It would, theréfore, appear that two modes of

forming the preterite being in existence, one in d, another in ¢, the

latter form has in many instances, particularly in Telugu, superseded

the former ; and the prevalence of ¢ in Telugu and Gond would seem

to prove that this form must be one of great antiquity

In the Indo-European family of languages we find similar inter-

g

changes amongst the sign of past time

and though in some instances

one form or mode may have been derived from another

yet this

cannot have been the case uniformly—e.g., the weak Germanic con-

Jugations cannot have been corrupted from the strong, or wice wversd

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

s

THE PRETERITE TENSE,

391

that the former mode has in very many instances been su

perseded by

the latter.

What. is the origin of the d which is inserted in Canarese between ¢

and the pronominal terminations, and also between 4 and the sign of

the relative participle t It appears to be used (whatevér be its origin)

merely for the purpose of preventing hiatus between concurrent, vowels

—e.g., mddi-(d)-enu, 1 did, mdd—i—(d)-.a, that did. Hiatus is generally

prevented in the Dravidian languages by the insertion of a nasal,.or of

one of the semi-vowels % and v, and it seems extraordin

ary that d

should be used for this purpose.

It is true that in some of the in-

flexions of Canarese nouns—e.g., mara-d-

@, of a tree, d might seem to

be used euphonically ; but it has been shown in the section on “ The

and is

Noun ” that that d is the remnant of a neuter delno'nétré,five,

used as an inflexional increment :

it is not, therefore, a precedent for

the use of ¢ for the prevention of hiatus merely. Possibly the use of

this ¢ by the Canarese verb may thus be accounted for :

a consonant

for preventing hiatus between the sign of the preterite and the sub-

sequent signs of personality and relation being required, the Canarese

preferred using for this purpose a sign of the

preterite which still sur-

vived. Thus d was not a new invention, but an old particle used for

& new purpose, and placed in a position in which it would not h

ave

appeared but for the use to which it had alread

s

y been put.

(2.) The Tamil Preterite.—The preterite i

s ordinarily formed in

Tamil, as in Canarese, in two ways—rviz, by suffixing either d or ¢

to the verbal theme,

In the former case, d itself is more rarely used

than some euphonisation of it or related consonant ;

“but such secon-

dary forms invariably resolve themselves.into d.

Thus, when a theme

with Z as its final letter is followed by d

as the sign of the preterite,

the compound becomes ndr—e.g., the preterite verbal p

articiple of pol,

like, is not pol-d-u, but pon-dru. Sometimes, however, when d follows

/, the compound becomes rr, pronounced ¢r—e.g., from kal, to learn,

comes, not fal-d-u, but karr-u (katir-u), having learned (Can. kali-d-u),

{ followed by d becomes nd—e.g., from hzdl, to die

, comes mdnd-u,

having died.

Sometimes, however, when d follow

s {, the compound

becomes ¢f—e.g., from %¢l, to hear, comes kétt-u, having heard. These

and similar combinations are merely instances of euphonis

ation, in

.

accordance with the fixed phonetic rules of the language

)

and in each

case 1t is in reality d alone which constitutes the sign of past time.

In some verbs the primitive ¢ still remains unchanged and pure—e.q.,

uru-d-u, having ploughed, from uru, to plough ; or with a conversion

of the dental ¢ into the cerebr

al d—e.g., kan-d-u, having seen, from

kdn, to see.

392

THE VERB.

The euphonisation of d which occurs most frequently, and is most

characteristic of Tamil, is its conversion into nd. This conversion

takes place without phonetic necessity, and solely through that fond-

ness for nasalisation which is so deeply inherent in the Tamil and

Telugu, especially in the Tamil, and by means of which the formatives

gu, du, and bu have so generally been changed to ngu, ndu, and mbu.

In the majority of cases in Tamil in which & (preceded by a vowel or

semi-vowel) once formed the sign of the preterite, it has been nasalised

into nd ; whilst Canarese, wherever it has preserved the primitive d,

has preserved it un-nasalised and pure.

Thus whilst the Tamil pre-

terite of iru, to be, is ¢ru-nd-én, I was, the corresponding Canarese is

tddenw (for tru-d-enw) ; and whilst the preterite of the Tamil verb vdy,

to flourish, is wdr-nd-dn, he flourished, the equivalent in classical

Canarese is bdl-d-am. The higher dialect of the Tamil retains some

traces of the primitive un-nasalised purity of this sign of the preterite

—e.g., viru-nd-u, having fallen, from wirw, to, fall, is occasionally

written by the poets vir-d-u. (vér is phonetically equivalent to wiru.)

It is curious to notice the progress of nasalisation which is apparent in

this verb on comparing the Canarese biddu (for bil-du), the high Tamil

vérdu, the modern Tamil virundu, and the Malayalam vinu.

Another change which ¢ undergoes in Tamil consists in its being

This

hardened and doubled in certain cases, so as to become ¢

happens to nd as well as to d,—a clear proof of the development of

the former from the latter; and when the d of nd is doubled, the

Just as the doubled form of ng is kk, and

nasal entirely disappears.

that of mb, pp, so the doubled form of nd is ¢. In some instances

this change is merely euphonic—e.g., padu, to lie, an intransitive verb,

takes for its preterite, not padu-d-én or padu-nd-én, but padu-tt-én, 1

lay. Such cases, however, are rare, and in general the use of # as a

sign of the preterite instead of d or nd, is a means of distinguishing

transitives or active verbs from intransitive—e.g., the & of tdy-tt-én, 1

lowered, is formed by the doubling and hardening of the nd (the

equivalent of d) of the corresponding intransitive ¢dy-nd-én, I became

low

See the further explanation of this subject under the head of

“The (Classification of Verbs.”

The second mode of forming the preterite in Tamil, as in Canarese,

is by suffixing ¢ to the verbal theme.

The themes which form their

preterite in this manner are those which terminate in u euphonic, and

of which the radical portion consists either in one long syllable or in

two syllables, whether short or long.

In this connection, as in prosody,

a vowel which is long by position is equivalent to one which is natu-

rally long. The following are examples of the classes of verbs which

S

393

THE PRETERITE TENSE.

take ¢ for their preterite :—(long syllable) pddu, to sing; (long -by'

position) pann-u, to make'; (two short syllables) erud-u, to write ; (one

All verbs

syllable short, and one long by position) &rupp-u, to turn.

of which the final consonant is a liquid semi-vowel (/, /, 7, 7, not » or

r), whatever number of syllables they may contain, form their preterite

by means of d or some of its modifications : such verbs are therefore

exceptions to the above rule.

Even in the class of Tamil verbs which take ¢ as their preterite

suffix, there are traces of the prevalence of d at a more ancient period.

Thus, whilst thou didst go is in the ordinary dialect pd-(n)-dy (properly

p8g-i-(n)-dy, from pd, or pé-gu, to go), in the poets pd-d-i is sometimes

used instead; so instead of d-(n)-dy (for dg-i-(n)-dy, from d-gu, to

become), thou becamest, the poets sometimes use d-d-z. In these

instances the Canarese also, even in the colloquial dialect, says pddi

and dds.

Even nd is sometimes ¢ only in Tamil poetry—e.g., varu-

d-i, thou camest, is found instead of the more modern va-nd-dy (for

varu-nd-dy) ; and it is evident that this form, varu-d-, exactly corre-

sponds to the forms quoted above, pd-d-¢ and d-d-e.

Notwithstanding, therefore, the prevalence of ¢ as a sign of the

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-

vation, or at least as a less characteristic and less widely used sign

than d.

n is inserted in Tamil (as d in Canarese) between the ¢ which

constitutes the sign of the preterite of certain classes of verbs and the

pronominal terminations, and also between the sign of the preterite

and the sign of the relative participle—e.g., from pdd-7, having sung

(the preterite verbal participle of pdd-u, to sing), is formed pdql-\z'-(n)—

dn, I sang; pdd-i-(n)-dy, thou didst sing; pdd-i-(n)-dn, he sang: so

also pdd-i-(n)-a, the relative participle, that sang. Whatever be the

b

origin of this #, it cannot be doubted that its use in Tamil is at present

i}

wholly euphonic; and this statement applies also to the use of the

same n in the preterite relative participle of the Telugu.

It in no

(9

respect contributes to the expression of grammatical relation; and

10

08

when used by the relative participle in Tamil, it may optionally and

elegantly be changed into y, which is one of the semi-vowels that are

systematically used for the prevention of hiatus—e.g., instead of

)

)l

pddi(n)a, that sang, we may write with still more perfect propriety

padi(y)a.

Probably y is in this connection older than 7.

(See

il

“ Sounds,” p.

.) We see a parallel use of # in the Turkish verb, in

n

the frequent insertion of an euphonic 7 between the theme and the

infinitival particle, and also between the theme and the sign of the

passive. ';‘he most weighty argument in confirmation of the euphonic

i

-

394

THE VERB.

origin of the Tamilian % in question is derived from the use of n ps

an euphonic fulerum, or means of preventing hiatué_in the Dravidian

languages generally, and even in connection with another part of the

Tamil verb. Thus, in the classical plural neuter of the present tense,

varugindrana (varu-gindr-ana), they (things) come, the » of the pro-

nominal termination ana is undoubtedly equivalent to the » of the

isolated plural neuter avei (for ava); and is used merely for the

euphonic prevention of hiatus between the first a, or the demonstratiye

vowel, and the final @, or the sign of the neuter plural. (a(n)a or

a(v)a is equivalent to a-a.) Native Tamil grammarians consider n,

not 4, the sign of the preterite ; but as ¢, never e, is the form used by

the preterite verbal participle, it is evident that they have given too

important a place to what is at present at least a merely euphonic

letter.

{

If Tamil and Telugu alone were concerned, we should perhaps be

justiﬁe& 1in considering the purely euphonic origin of the » in question

to be a settled point ; but a difficulty arises on comparing those lan-

guages with Canarese.

Wherever Tamil and Telugu use » in the

formzif:ion of the preterite tense and the preterite relative participle,

A

there Canarese, as has been observed, uses d—e.g., madi-(d)-enu, I did,

not mddi-(n)-enu,; and mddi<(d)-a, that did, not madi-(n)-a

N ow,

though this d of the Canarese is certainly euphonic in its present use,

it has been shown that there is reason for suspecting it to be derived

from d, the old sign of the pretetite ; and if this supposition be correct,

it would follow that the Tamilian 2, which corresponds so perfectly

to the Canarese d, is derived fror_ﬁ the same source as d, and euphoni-

cally altered from it. The # of the Tamil preterite, therefore, as well

as the d of the Canarese, may testify to the primitive universality of

the use of ‘d as a sign of past time,

Whether d (= n) was originally

a sign of the preterite or not, the conversi&y of d into » in this connec-

tion, viz., in the preterite tense, and especially in ;he preterite relative

participle, is analogous to the change of ta or de to na in the past

participle ‘of"the Indo—Europea,n tongues, esp.ecial_ly in German, from

which the final 2 of our own past participles (sucli as ‘fallen’) has

has been derived.

: (3.) The Malaydlam Preterite,— The Malayélam _preterite is sub-

stantially the same as the Tamil ; the only real difference _consists in

the disuse in Malayalam of the pronominal terminations. The sign of

past time is invariably the same in each Dravidian bl‘awng‘liage,'with only

such modifications of sQ‘und‘ as are dialectic and regular. That which

constitutes the preterite verbal participle in T

amil is in Malayalam

the preterite tense of the verb—e.g., nadandw in Tamil

signifies having

;’1‘2«3;,}1

THE PRETERITE TENSE

395

walked ; the corresponding MalayaAlam word nadannu, means (he, she,

it, or they) walked. Some confusion has been introduced in Malayilam

books by writing the preterite verbal participle nadanna, having walked

as if it were identical with the preterite relative participle nadanna,

that walked

The rendering of the sound of the latter word is correct

the final @ being the sign of the relative participle in all the Dravidian

languages, and, as ‘I conceive, identical in' origin with a, the sign of

the genitive

(See p

) nadanna, that walked, is therefore iden-

tical with the Tamil nadanda.

On the other hand, the final @ of the

preterite verbal participle ought either to have been u, corresponding

to the Tamil nadandu, having walked, or, being a very short vowel,

merely enunciative and euphonic, it should have been elided (as it is

when followed by another vowel), after the fashion employed in North

Malabar,

in which this word is written nadann,

In Dr Gundert’s

° Malayalam Grammar and Dictionary,” the short » is deroted by

in accordance with Lepsius’s system of transliteration.

This mode of

rendering the latter has also been adopted in Brigel’s ““ Grammar of the

Tulu,” in which language the short enunciative u has acquired a very

prominent place.

It is to be hoped, therefore, that this blemish in

Malay@lanl orthography, as Dr Gundert terms it, will now disappear.

(4.) The Telugu Preterite.—In Telugu all preterite verbal participles

without-exception, are formed by adding ¢ to the theme

Even those

verbs which form their preterites by suffixing d or some modification

of it in Tamil, Canarese, and Malayilam, form their preterites in Telugu

by suffixing <—e.g., kon-du, Tam. and Can., having bought, is in Telugu

kon-t, and kan-duw, Tam. and Can. havine seen. is kan-i

Notwith-

standing the universality of this rule, there are traces even in'Telugu

of the use of a particle corresponding to the d of the other dialects as

a sign of past time.

Thou0h the preterite verbal participle never takes

any suffix but that of 7, some ‘parts of the preterite tense of the verb

in the higher idiom of the language, viz., the first and second persons

both singular and plural, insert the particle # between the ¢ of the

verbal participle and the pronominal terminations

It cannot be

doubted, I think, that this ¢, which is found nowhere but in the pre-

terite, is allied to the d which is inserted in the same place in the

Canarese preterite

Thus, whilst both in'Canarese and in Telugu the

preterite verbal participle of dd-u, to play, is*dd-z, having’ played, in

both dialects # or d is suffixed to ¢ before adding the personal termi-

nations—e.g., compare Can. dd-i-d-enu, I played,Tel. dd-i-ti-ne

It has

already been shown to be probable that the d thus inserted by the

Canarese, though now used to so large an extent euphonically, was

originally a_ sign of the preterite, identical with the d which is still

396

THE VERB.

used for that purpose by many verbs.

This view derives confirmation

from the Telugu, in which the corresponding ¢z does not appear to be

used euphonically at all, and certainly is not used for the prevention

of hiatus; for there is no hiatus and no necessity for an euphonic

insertion between the aforesaid dd¢ and ni, the pronominal fragment,

or in the second person between dde and v

It therefore follows that

we must regard ¢ as a sign of past time, subordinate indeed to ¢, and

unused in the third person of the preterite, but immediately 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 ¢z, was one of the signs

of the preterite in Telugu as in the other dialects.

In some Telugu

verbs, ¢ is combined in such a manner with the final consonant of the

theme, as to prove beyond doubt its identity in origin and force with

the Tamil d—e.g., chés-to-ns, Tel. I did (for chési-ti-nz), is evidently

equivalent to the Tamil Sey-d-én, and kop-ti-ni, I bought (for koni-

ti-nt)y is equivalent to kon-d-én. So also when é, the Telugu conditional

particle, answering to the Tamil ¢/, is suffixed to the preterite tense of

a verb for the purpose of giving to it the meaning of the subjunctive,

it appears evident that the ancient sign of the preterite of the Telugu

must have been, not ¢, but & or t—e.g., compare the Telugu clést-é, if

(I, thou, he, &c.) did or do (abbreviated from chééi--¢), with the Tamil

Seyd-dl.

It is a singular coincidence that in Mongolian the gerund

du has been modernised into ju, and that again changed colloquially

/

into .

We have seen that Tamil inserts n between the preterite verbal par-

ticiple and the pronominal terminations in many instances in which d

is used for this purpose in Canarese.

The colloquial dialect of Telugu

makes much use of na in the same connection—e.g., dd-v-(n)-dnu, I played

(answering to the Tamil dd-i-(n)-én), instead of the more elegant and

probably more ancient dd-i-te-ne. Compare ay-i-(n)-dnu, Tel. I became,

d-(n)-én, Tam. (for dg-i-(n)-¢én), and d-(d)-énu, Can. (for dg-i-(d)-enu).

On the whole, it may be concluded that the Telugu agrees with the

other dialects in exhibiting distinct and deep-seated traces of the

ancient use of d or ¢ as a sign of the preterite, notwithstanding 'the

universal prevalence in Telugu at present of the use of 7, as the sign

of the preterite verbal participle.

I may here take occasion to guard against an illusory resemblance

to which my attention;was once called, viz., the resemblance which

subsists between the Telugu preterite verbal participle weichi, having

placed, and the corresponding Tamil participle vesttu, which is vulgarly

pronounced veichi. The ¢ of the Tamil ves-ttu, being simply the

hardened and doubled form of d, is the ordinary sign of the preterite ;

P

THE PRETERITE TENSE.

397

and if there were any real alliance between ¢t-u, through its provincial

pronunciation, and the Telugu ck-¢, we: should undoubtedly have here

an instance of the use of ¢#¢—rt.e., of d—in modern Telugu as well as in

Tamil, as a sign of the preterite verbal participle, and consequently of

past time.

The resemblance, however, is illusory. The ck of the

Telugu veichi corresponds, not to the ¢ of the Tamil veittu, but to the

kk which constitutes the formative of so many verbs and nouns in

Tamil.

kk makes its appearance in the infinitive of this very verb,

viz., vei-kk-a, to place, the Telugu of which is vei-ch-a. &k is vulgarly

pronounced c in the southern part of the Tamil country, and the same

pronunciation universally obtains in Telugu. The imperative or theme

of this verb in Telugu is not ves, as in Tamil, but veick-w (with the

addition to wes of the formative ckh-u, which is equivalent to the Tamil

kk-w); and from this wveich-u, the preterite verbal participle veich-z, is

regularly formed, in this as in all other cases, by the addition of ¢z. If

the corresponding Tamil verb formed its preterite in the same manner,

its verbal participle would be wei-kk-2, not vei-tt-u.

A case in point in

illustration of this is the Tamil ¢d-kk-u, to lift, to weigh (Tel. ¢d-ch-u),

the preterite verbal participle of which is ta-kk-c (Tel. td-ch-2).

(5.) The Tulu Preterite.—The Tulu preterite, like that of Gond,

divides itself into two tenses, an imperfect and a perfect, each regu-

larly inflected. The vmperfect tense is that which corresponds to the

ordinary preterite of the other dialects, and is formed in substantially

the same manner by suffixing to the root either the ordinary Dravidian

¢ or d, or the ¢, which is still more commonly used in several dialects.

Compare Tulu stte, I was, with idden, Can.; drundén, Tam.: Tulu’

kénde (kén’ for kél) with kétten (kél-tén), Tam.; kélidenu, Can. 4

appears in bidrize, 1 fell, from buru, to fall (Tam. viru, vir).

The per-

Ject tense seems to be formed by suffixing an additional d, with such

euphonic changes as the dialect requires.

Compare <tte, I was, with

it de, I have been,

(6.) Preterites of Minor Dialects.—It is difficult to make ou; the

Tuda preterite. % appears to be the sign of the past, corresponding

to the Tamil and Canarese d—e.g., compare dd-k-en, I dance, with

Ad-th-b-ine, I danced. This ¢4 is written ck by Mr Metz—e.g., bindch-

pung, I asked ; and, according to him, the same ck appears alike in the

present and the past, in each person except the first.

Dr Pope inserts

th before ch in the past—e.g., dd-th-chs, danced.

In the Kota dialect

the past seems to be represented by si—e.g., compare Zégape, I go, with

hosipe, T went.

In this it does not stand alone, as will be seen,

In

Gond, st or ji, apparently softened from ¢z, forms the verbal participle

PR R, el el

of the preterite ; but the perfect tense is formed by suffixing tt—e.g.,

398

THE VERB.

kew-tt-dn, I have called ; kei-st, having called. In Seoni Gond, also, the

preterite or conjunctive participle suffixes st—e.g., wunlk-si, having

spoken ; but the past participle'is formed by suffixing tdr—e.g.; wunk-

tir, spoken ; and the past tense simply suffixes t—e.g., wunk-t-an, I

spoke, wunk t-i, thou didst spe

ak. An imperfect or progressive tense

is formed by inserting und or ad, apparently the substantive verb,

between the root and the pronominal terminations.

These instances tend to confirm the supposition that o, or some

modification of it, is, if not the only, yet at le

ast the most characteristic

sign of the Dravidian preterite.

: OR'I;(.}"IN:OF THE DR}VIDIA& Stexs oF. Past TimE,

% The‘most probable conjecture I can offer ré’specting the ‘origin of

%, is one which would confirm the supposition of its second

ary char-

acter. I congeive it to have been originally

a vowel of conjunction,

employed for the purpose of euphonically connecting the verbal theme

and the true sign of past time, d or d-w. Where the theme terminated

in a hard consonant, euphony would require some such vocalic bond of

i ———

connection—e.g., the Old Canarese bdl-d-en, I lived, is undoubtedly

somewhat harsh to an ear that is attuned to Dravidian phonetics ; and

it was natural that it should be softened, as it has been in modern

Canarese, into dAl-s-d-enu.

We see a precisely similar euphonic insertion

of 2 in the Latin dom- tus (instead of dom-tus), tamed, and the S

anskrit

pid-i-tak (instead of pid-tah), pressed.

Subsequently we may suppose

the true preterite d to have graduall

-

y dropped off ; whilst ¢ remained,

as being the easier sound, with the adventitious signific

ation of the

preterite. There are many instances in all languages of euphonic addi-

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

second person singular-of the pronoun instead of 73, thou, though vu

was originally only an euphonic addition to n?, by which it w

as* con-

verted into nfvu.

It deserves notice that wherever ¢ is used in C

anarese or in Tamil,

instead of d, as a sign of the preterite, the use

of d would in that

instance be harsh and uncouth ; and th

at on comparing the Tamil verbs

which form their preterite in ¢ with th

ose that suffix ¢, no-reason but

euphony can be

alleged why the one suffix should be employed rather

than the other ;

consequently euphonic c

auses must have contributed

to the development of ;.

This supposition of the origin of ¢ from the

vocalic conjunction of d w

the circumstance that whe

ith the verbal theme, would also aceount for

rever ¢ is followed by a vowel (whether the

initial vowel of the pron

ominal terminations, or the « which consti-

TR,

THE PRETERITE TENSE

399

tutes the sign of the relative participle) it picks up again the d which

it had 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 of #», as in Tamil and Telugu.

The manner in which ¢ is sepa-

rated from the theme in some Telugu preterites—e.g., kon-i-ti- m (kon-

te-nz), I bought, confirms this supposition of the euphonic orwm of .

2. d, the more characteristic sign of the Dravidian preterite, presents

many interesting resemblances to corresponding signs of past time in

various Indo-European and Scythian languages

It may have an ulterio

though remote, connection with ¢ or ta

(alternating with na), the ordinary suffix of the Indo-European passive

particle—e.g., jid-ta-k, Sans. known ; Greek yvw-ré-¢ ; Latin (g)né-tu-s

blug-na-s, Sans. bent

Goothic bug-a-n(a)s

In Gothic this suffix is d

ort, in New Persian invariably d. In Sanskrit the participle which is

but a few traces

formed from ¢ is in general distinctively passive

exist of a preterite signification, only, however, in connection with

neuter verbs—e.g., ga-ta-s, one who went ; bhd-ta-s, one who has been.

A preterite signification predominates also in the active participles

formed by suflixing tcwcct (derived from the passive ta)—e.g., kri-tavat,

was making, and in the indeterminate past participle, or gerund

which is formed by suffixing twd—e.g., kri-tvd, having made or

through making

Though there may possibly be some ultimate connection between the

preterite d of the Dravidian languages and the passive (and secondary

preterite) ¢ of the Sanskrit, the use of this ¢ as a sign of the preterite

1s too essential a characteristic of the Dravidian languages, and too rare

and exceptional in Sanskrit to admit of the supposition that the former

borrowed it from the latter

The / which constitutes the sign of the preterite in Bengali has

been supposed by Professors Max Miiller and Bopp to be derived from

the past participial ¢ of the Sanskrit—e.g., karildm, I did, is derived

by them from Zkaria, Sans. done, followed by the personal termina-

tion dm.

This supposition is confirmed by the conforvmty of karildm

to the New Persian kardem, I did, and by the use in Marathi of a

similar preterite in /, uhlch i8 %upposed to be derived in like manner

from the Sanskrit passive partlclplal t—e.g., mi kelo-m, T did, min

gélo-n, 1 went,

The interchange of ¢ and 7 is of frequent occurrence ;

and posmbly the Sanskrit ¢ may have become d-before it was corrupted

into 7

There is no proof of this, however, and the ¢ which is used as

the equivalent of ¢ or d in the formation of the Slavonian preterite

byl (Pers. bidd, Sans. bhita-s), he was, shows that ¢ may have passed

into / immediately, without the middle point of the cerebral

400

THE VERB

Whether the preterite / of the Bengali and Marathi is derived

directly from the Sanskrit passive participial ¢, or whether it has

descended from the old vernacular of Northern India, it is interesting

to notice the fact of the conformity in this important particular

between the Dravidian languages and those of the Gaurian family

We should notice, however, this important difference between the two,

that whilst the Gaurian preterite /, in so far as it is derived from the

Sanskrit, appears to be only a secondary constructive preterite, the

Dravidian d exhibits no trace whatever of connection with any passive

participle

In the New Persian, d invariably forms the sign of the preterite—

e.g., bi-d-em, I was;

bur-d-em, 1 bore.

The participle which con-

stitutes the verbal theme in Persian, and which has a formative that

is passive in Sanskrit, has an active as well as a passive-preterite

signification—e.g., burdeh means either borne or having borne, accord-

ing to the context

The preterite tense has in Persian been developed

out of a passive participle

and this appears to-Lave happened through

the influence of the past time which is inherent in the perfect passive

In Gothic and in the modern Teutonic tongcues, d is used in connection

with a large class of verbs to denote the preterite ; but this ¢ has been

shown to be a relic of did, and this again to be reduplication of the

root do.

Consequently the @ of loved cannot really be related to the

¢ of the Sanskrit and Persian, still less with the d of the Dravidian

pretente though all three might naturally be supposed to be identical.

The formation of the preterite by suffixing d prevails also in the

Turkish and Ugrian tongues.

d is the sign of past time used by

Turkish—e. g., compare sever-im, 1 love, with sever-d-im, I loved ; and

this d is inserted, as in Tamil and Canarese, between the root and the

pronominal signs

Compare the present ém, I am, with the preterite

i-d-um, 1 was

Notice also 6l-d-um, I was, and the equivalent form

in Oriental Turkish, 66l-d-im

In Finnish, the preterite is regularly

formed by suffixing ¢

The preterite participle from which the perfect

tense is formed terminates in wuf, yt, et, &c.—e.g., oll-ut, having been

from the theme ol, to be

The Hungarian forms its preterite in a

similar manner—e.g., the preterite participle of le-nni, to become, is

le-tt, having become ; and from this is regularly formed the perfect

le-tt-em, 1 have become

It especially deserves notice, that these

Turkish, Finnish, and Hungarian sions of the preterite are totally

unconnected with the passive participle

They are signs of past time,

not of passivity; 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.

-

THE PRETERITE TENSE.

401

In this particnlar, therefore, the analogy between the Dravidian pre-

terite and the Turko-Ugrian is closer and more distinctive than the

Indo-European analogies which have been pointed out.

As regards

use, indeed, whatever be, or be supposed to be, the origin of each, it

may be said to amount to identity.

The Dravidian languages being so highly cultivated, and having been

cultivated from so early a period, we should be prepared to expect that

in developing their inflexional forms they availed themselves, as far as

possible, of words or particles which they had already in use, instead of

borrowing the inflexional particles of their neighbour.

May it not be

practicable, therefore, to discover the origin of d, the Dravidian sign of

the preterite, in the Dravidian languages themselves ¢

Dr Granl (in his ¢ Outlines of Tamil Grammar,” p. 42) says, “ The

verbal form in du (e.g., Seydu = éey-adu, perhaps ¢ something endowed

with what the root $ey signifies, 7., something doing’) originally

seems to have been used for all the forms of the finite verb in the sin.

gular (ndn Seydu, 1 doing, nt Seydu, thou doing, &ec.), and Seydum

(Seydu-wm), in the plural (ndm Seydum, ningal seydum, &e.

Seydu in

the sense of I did, and $eydum in the sense of we did, are still found

in the ancient dialect). Probably the personal affixes were added later,

—

. Seydu én = Seydén, 1 did, &e.

In Malayalam the personal affixes are

not yet used in prose.”

It would have been more correct to have said

the personal affixes have ceased to be used in Malayilam prose, for we

find them in the prose of ancient inscriptions ; but he is quite right in

‘what he says respecting the occasional use of the uninflected forms éeydu

and $eydum in the Tamil poets.

eydu is used both for the preterite

and the future, but at present only in the first person singular, and

Seydum in the plural—e.g., Seydu, 1 did, or will do, Seydum, we did, or

will do.

Dr Granl’s identification of the ¢, which is the sign of the

preterite, with the ¢ which denotes the neuter singular in adu, idu,

that, this, in Tamil, and adi, idi, in Telugu, is very ingenious. This d

is used largely in the formation of verbal nouns, and might easily be

turned to account for the purpose of denoting the present-future ; but

it is not so easy to see how it came to be used as the sign of the pre-

terite, the most distinctive of Dravidian tenses.

In the Tamil condi-

|

‘tional $eyd-al, if (ome) does, or did, deydu appears to express the

~meaning of ‘doing’ irrespective of time. In some connections, however,

‘1t will be seen that this conditional form connects itself distinctively with

the past. (See ¢ The Conditional.”) Every difficulty would be removed

e

if we supposed the particle originally appended to the root to have been,

i

not simply du, but adw, the remote demonstrative that.

It has been

+8een. that wute, the sign of the present in Canarese, is probably wtu,

2.0

THE VERB.

40;

this

There is something very enticing in the supposition of the origin of

one of the present tenses of the Dravidian verb from the demonstrative

‘this’ and of that of the most distinctive form of the past from ¢ that.’

The chief difficulty in the way of this supposition, as far as the preterite is

concerned, is the fact that the a of adu does not survive.

It might be

answered that this vowel might easily be lost after the reason for its use

had ceased to be perceived. True; but in this case another vowel, 7, has

asserted a place for itself instead of a, being used euphonically in Canarese

before d, and used by itself in Tamil, Malayalam, and Telugu as a sign of

the preterite ; and if ¢ is used demonstratively, or is a relic of a vowel

used demonstratively, the preterite must have been formed by the addi-

All that can

tion to the root of ‘this,” not ‘that,” which is very unlikely.

safely be concluded, therefore, is that the d of the Dravidian preterite

was probably in its origin a neuter singular formative, converting the

verbal root to which it was attached into a verbal noun ; not into an

abstract verbal noun, such as the future seems to have been formed

i

from, but into a concrete or conjugated noun, in which the action of the

verb was arrested and localised. If this supposition should be accepted,

é

it will follow that an agreement, up to a certain point, will be dis-

covered to exist between the Dravidian languages and the Sanskrit and

Persian. A demonstrative letter or particle will be found to be made

use of in both classes of languages for substantially the same purpose.

—— N

In one it is used to denote the preterite, in the other to form a passive

What renders it more

participle capable of being used as a preterite.

remarkable is that this demonstrative letter or particle is ¢ or d in both.

The di of the Turkish preterite (sever-di-m, I loved) is regarded by

Max Miiller (““ Lectures,” p. 324) as the relic of a possessive pronoun.

“ Paying belongs to me,” he says, “equals I have paid”—u.e., I have

or possess paying.

Ts the preterite d of Tamil also a possessive ?

It

maght take this force, seeing that whilst adw is a demonstrative, mean-

ing that or it, it is also a possgssive meaning of—e.g., adu enadu, that

is mine,

On the other hand, I can discover no trace of a possessive

signification in the Tamil preterite. It does not seem to get beyond a

demonstrative meaning.

It is remarkable that the Mongolian has a gerund, formed by affix-

ing d, which is used precisely in the same manner as the Dravidiam

d-u—e.g., onad, riding, from onihu, to ride.

This seems to be con-

nected in some way with the Turkish preterite d or d, if not also with

the Dravidian d, the Sanskrit ¢, and the Persian d.

The Mongolian

has another gerund in jz, which Mr Edkins thinks is derived from d,

the Mongol j having d for its equivalent.

So also as we have seen, the

Tamil du becomes $¢ in Telugu’.v Thg Japanesg gerund in e nearly

_=m—,

THE FUTURE TENSE.

403

agrees in form and use with the Mongol—e.g., aghete, lifting up, from

aghe, to lift up. The Japanese preterite tense also is formed by affixing

ta (apparently a.modification of the gerund fe)—e.g., mita, saw, from

me, to see.

3. The Future Tense.—The preterite tense of the Dravidian verb is

generally formed from the preterite participle by suffixing the pro-

nominal terminations, but the future is generally formed, not from a

future participle, but by suffixing to the verbal theme some particle

which is regarded, whatever its origin may have been, as a sign of

future time, and adding to that particle the pronominal terminations.

Generally these languages are destitute of a future participle.

The

exceptions are MalayAlam and classical Tamil, in both of which there is

a participle of the future in vdn or pdn, and Tulu, in which there

is a participle which may be used either for the present or the future.

‘In the Dravidian languages there are two future formations.

One,

which is called in Canarese grammars the conditional future, is found

in Canarese and Telugu alone ; the'other, which is contained in all the

dialects, incldsive of the Canarese and Telugu, is an indeterminate

tense, only slightly futuric, and is called by Telugu grammarians the

aorist.”

It should here be:-observed also, that the use of the present

for the future is exceedingly common in all the Dravidian dialects.

The future is the least distinctive of the Dravidian tenses.

It 1s

used to denote what is, was, or shall be habitually done, and it is

generally the connection only which fixes it to a particular time,

When used alone it denotes the future more commonly than any other

time, and hence is called the future by grammarians.

The particles by

which it is expressed seem to show that originally it was a verbal

noun, denoting abstractly the idea contained in the verb ; and if this

idea is correct it will account for its indeterminateness.

In Tamil there are several modes of forming the future, each of

which has its counterpart in one or another of the other dialects. The

oldest form of the future—of which a few traces only survive in the

poets

was formed by adding ¢ or £ to the root, with the usual enun-

ciative u—e.g., Sey-gu, I will do.

This is pluralised by the addition

of wm—e.g., $ey-gum, we will do, also Sey-gum vandem, we came in

order to do, in which $ey-gum has the force of a plaral participle of the

future.

I have no doubt we have here the origin of the gum or kum

which may be affixed to any verb in classical Canarese, to form an

aorist—e.g., géyu-gum, he, it, they, &c., do.

The sign of the future is

g

um, originally a conjunctive particle, can be used either as a sign

of comprehension, to give fulness to the sense, or as a sign of plurality.

The connection shows in which sense it is used.

S

In the next stage of

404

THE VERB.

the growth of this form of the future we find the personal terminations

suffixed to gu, but still only in the poets—e.g., Seygén (Seyg’-én), I will do.

In certain counections this g is hardened to kk—e.g., adeikkén, T will

obtain.

In both these cases v would be used in the ordinary dialect

instead of g.

This g or kk, though used in a futuric sense, seems to

connect itself naturally with the formative ¢ or &k, which constitutes

the ordinary formative of many verbs, and appears as such in the infi-

nitive and the neuter future, as well as in verbal derivatives—e.g.,

po-ga, to go; po-gum, it will go ; ru-kka, to be ; ru-kkum, it will be.

The future is ordinarily formed in Tamil, both in the poets and in

the colloquial dialect, by adding v, b, or pp to the root, in accordance

with the rule of euphony explained when treating of the causal verb.

After g, [, r, r and [, v is generally used—e.g., $ey-v-én, T will do ; ol-

v-én, 1 will say; sdr-v-én, I will lean upon ; vdr-v-én, I will flourish ;

mdl-v-en, 1 will perish. To this, however, there are exceptions in

regard to roots ending in / and [—e.g., kal, to learn, becomes in the

future karpén (= kal-ppén), and kél, to hear,becomes kétpén( = kél-ppén).

v is used after roots ending in » preceded by a long vowel, whether

long by nature or by position—e.g., pddu, to sing, becomes in the

future pddu-v-én, anuppu, to send, anuppu-v-én.

The nasals » and »

form their futures by suffixing 6—e.g., en, to say, becomes in the future

en-b-én, I will say ; un, to eat, becomes un-b-én.

This & changes some-

times in the poets to m—e.g., instead of enbar, they will say, the poets

are fond of using enmar.

Another and still more poetical form of this

future verb is enmandr.

(See Epicene Plural, p. 138.) & also makes

its appearance in those future participial nouns in which two s

would otherwise appear—e.g., varubavan, not varuvavan, he who will

come.

All other Tamil verbs (with a few unimportant exceptions)

form futures of this class by affixing pp—that is, by doubling b, which

then becomes pp by rule—e.g., vru, to be, becomes in the future #7u-

pp-én; nada, to walk, nada-pp-én; kadi, to bite, kadi-pp-én. Of all

these futuric particles or modifications of the same particle, the one most

largely used in Tamil is v, and this is the future suffix invariably used

in colloquial Canarese, and generally in the classical dialect. The Tulu

present, originally a future, also uses w.

I am inclined to consider

these signs of the future as originally nothing more than formatives of

verbal nouns.

According to this supposition, ¢, the oldest sign of the

future in Tamil, would naturally ally itself to v, b, and p.

The only

difference between the verbal noun and the future is that the verbal

noun affixes to the g, v, b, or p, only an enunciative vowel, generally #,

whilst the future is recognised by its affixing to the same formative letters

the pronominal terminations—e.g., compare kadu-gu, mustard, from kadu,

-

THE FUTURE TENSE.

405

to be sharp ; kuru-kku, athwart, from kurw, to be short ; are-vu, know-

ledge, from ars, to know ; $dr-bu, support, from $§dr, to lean upon ; tira-

PPy, an opening, from tixra, to open. The formatives most largely used in

the formation of these verbal nouns are v and PP, just as we have seen that

vand pp are the most commonly used signs of the future. That the

future was originally a verbal noun will appear still more clearly when we

consider the Tamil second future, or defective aoristic future, in um or w.

The Tamil future formed from v, b, or pp, is destitute of a relative

participle, and uses instead the aorist future in wm.

Generally also,

that aorist is used instead of the more distinctive future in the third

person singular neuter. Thus, whilst ‘he will be’ is tru-pp-n, ©it

will be’ is ordinarily wru(kk)-wm, not sru-pp-adu ; and forms like iru-

pp-adu are in general used only as participial nouns. In this respect

Tamil is less regular than Canarese, in which the ordinary third person

neuter singular of the future tense is @ru-v-adu.

In the classical dia-

lect of Tamil, however, we find varu-(n)a, things that will come.

Another or second future formation of the Tamil may be called the

defective aoristic future, inasmuch as its reference to future time is still

less distinct and determinate than the future in v, and as it is

ordinarily

restricted to two forms, the third person singular neuter, and the rela-

tive participle. This defective future is formed by suffixing wm to the

formed theme—e.g., pdg-um, it will g0 ; var-um, it will come ; rukk-

wm, it will be. The future in wm is not considered by Tamil gram-

marians as distinet from, and independent of, the future in v, but is

strangely enough considered as a part of it. Its claim, however, to be

regarded as a distinet future formation is confirmed by the

Malayalam,

in which it is the form of the future in ordinary use—e.g.,

7idm erud-um,

I will write, 7% erud-wm, thou wilt write ; the other form corre

sponding

to the Tamil future in v, b, P,

is used in Malayélam as in Tamil, but

not so commonly, except in conjunction with certain noun

s—e.g.,

dv'6lam, till (it) become, for Agu-

(v)-6lam or dgum-6lam ; marypp’ dlam,

till (it die), for marikkum-6lam.

In the Tamil of prose and conversa-

tion the future in wm is used in connection with the neuter of the

third person singular alone ; but in the poetry it occasionally t

akes a

wider range of application, and is sometimes construed even with the

masculine-feminine plural, as in Malayalam,

The future in wm, when

used in Tamil as a relative participle, does not differ from the form of

the same future which is used as the third person singul

ar neuter,

The

forms are identical—e.g., poOg-um,

it will go, pég-um, which will g0;

they may therefore be regarded as one.

um is added, not to the crude root of the verb, or that form which

is used as the imperative, but to the formed theme, or that verbal noun

406

THE VERB:

which forms the basis of the-infinitive, and the equivalent of which

constitutes in Telugu the inflexional basis of every part of the verb.

The base to which the future um is suffixed, may, therefore, safely be

assumed to be a verbal noun, even in Tamil, though it rarely appears

The following instances will show the relation

in a separate shape.

subsisting between the Tamil infinitive and the aoristic, impersonal

future, in virtue of the formation of both on the basis of the formed

verbal theme, or assumed verbal noun, in question :—compare pdg-a,

to go, pbg-wm, it will go ; ipflexional theme, pé-gu . pokk-a, to cause to

g0, to getrid of ; pokk-um, it will get rid of ; inflexional theme, po-kku :

In

irukk-a, to be ; irukk-um, it will be ; inflexional theme, wru-kku.

those cases in which intransitive verbs are converted into transitives by

doubling the. initial consonant of the tense-sign (e.g., valar-gie-én, 1

grow, hardened into valar-kkir-én, I rear), the infinitive and the aoristic

future of the transitive verb are formed upon the basis of a theme

which terminates in the formative kk-u (the equivalent of which 1s ch-u

in Telugu), whilst the unformed theme, or ultimate root, is the basis

of the corresponding forms of the intransitive—e.g., compare valar-a,

to grow ; valar-um, it will grow : theme, valar ; with valar-kk-a, to

It is evident from

rear ; valar-kk-um, it will rear: theme valar-kku.

a comparison of these illustrations, that the above g or % is no part of

the sign of future time ; it belongs to the 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 a place in every part of

the verb.

The conclusion we thus arrive at confirms the supposition

that the first Tamil future also was originally only a verbal noun, and

that it is indebted to usage for its futuric meaning.

The future in um is altogether impersonal ; no pronominal termina-

tions are ever added to it, and in consequence it is well adapted to be

used ‘as a relative participle, the relative participles being used alike

The particle um, which con-

by all persons, numbers, and genders.

stitutes the sign of future time, is identical in form; and is alsoy 1

believe, identical in origin and force, with wm, the conjunctive or

copulative particle of Tamil.

Tt is also identical with nu, the im-

personal suffix of the third person singular and plural of each gender

of the Telugu aorist,—a tense which perfectly corresponds with the

one now under consideration.

nu is an euphonised form of u, the

conjunctive particle of Telugu, corresponding to «, the ultimate base

of the Tamil =m,; and it is probable that this particle has been

chosen, both in Tamil and in Telugu, to be the characteristic sign of

the aorist, because of its suitableness for conjoining the future to the

present and past,—that is, for expressing the idea of continuity.

This

=

e

THE FUTURE TENSE.

407

tense, it is .true, frequently den‘otés the future ; but does this lonly in

a vague manner, and it is much more frequently used to express con-

tinuous action, or what is habitually done.

Thus, mdd-w pul tin(n)-

wm (Tam.) is to be translated, not the ox will eat grass, but the ox

eats (v.c., habitually eats) grass, or grass is the ox’s food.

When the relative participle of this aoristic future, coupled to a

noun signifying time, is followed by a finite preterite verb, the future

in Tamil takes the sense of the imperfect—e.g., ndn var-um porudu,

poret (k)kandén, when I was coming (which appears to mean literally

when I shall come), I saw the battle.

In respect of this capacity of

the aoristic future for becoming an historical preterite, it resembles the

future tense of the Semitic languages.

Classical Tamil, Malayalam, and Telugu ()ccasionaily form this

aoristic future by suffixing «» instead of wm—e.g., var-u, Tam. it will

come, instead of war-wm; wng-u, it will eat, instead of wng-um,

It is apparent from

parapp-u, it will spread, instead of parapp-wm.

these illustrations that «, like wm, is suffixed, not to the root or ultimate

base of the verb, but to the formed verbal theme, or primitive verbal

This future in

noun, which forms the basis of all forms of the future.

u is considered by native grammarians as an al-vare, or uninflected

form, and the circumstance that the » is sometimes elided gives colour

to this idea; but as the basis is not the bare root, but that root plus

the formative, it appears to me that to that extent at least it must be

The w is probably not the merely

regarded as an inflected form.

euphonic enunciative w, as appears from the position it holds in

Malayalam, but the « which constitutes the base of the conjunctive

particle wm.

The future in wm and the future in % are thus brought

.

into agreement.

Future Verbal Participle.—There is a verbal participle of the future

in use in classical Tamil, and still more largely used in Malayalam,

which is formed by adding vdn, bdn, or ppdn, either to the root or to

the inflexional base of the verb.

Another form found in Tamil alone,

3

and in it but rarely, is pdkku.

This 1is ¢

X

verbal participle, not an

infinitive, but is sometimes scarcely distinguishable from the infinitive

in use—e.g., Tamil, kolla (infin.) erunddn, means he rose up to slay ;

and 7coZ7)c‘1)7z_ (fut. part.) erunddn, means also he rose up to slay. It

might be rendered, he rose up being about to slay; but this would

The initial

be simply an awkward way of saying the same thing.

letter of this particle is », b, or pp, according to circumstances; and

those circumstances are precisely the same as those under which the

signi of the future tense, already considered, becomes v, b, or pp.

Whatever is the origin of the one sign must be the origin of the other.

L]

|

408

THE VERB.

The following are instances of all three initials :—waru-vdn, being about

to come; wun-bdn, being about to eat; nada-ppdn, being about to

walk,

I have not met with any instance of the change of & into m

i

after a nasal, in connection with this particle (though it was noticed

that the & of the future tense often changes in the poets into m—e.g.,

enbar = enmar, they will say); but this change, or the equivalent one

of v into m, is common in Malayilam, in which they would say, not

un-bdn, being about to eat, as in Tamil ; but un-mdn.

In Malayalam

the » is sometimes optionally omitted—e.g., var-dn, instead of varu-

vdn, being about to come.

dn, the second portion of this particle,

though apparently identical with dn, the pronominal termination of

the third person singular masculine in Tamil, has in reality no con-

nection with it.

I regard it as an euphonic or emphatic lengthening

of an, and this as equivalent to am, adu, the ordinary formatives of

Tamil neuter singular nouns. We have another instance of this change

of adu to an, and then to dn, in pdn, ten, which is a poetical form

of padu or pattu.

See “ Numerals ;” Ten.

ruppdn, Tam. being about

to be, is therefore, I conceive, the equivalent of #ruppadu, that which

1s about to be, it will be (Can. wruvadu).

Canarese forms its ordinary future, and the Tulu its present (by

analogy a future), by inserting v between the theme and the pronominal

L

terminations, in accordance with the first Tamil future—viz., that in

v

This Canarese future, like the Tamil, has often an indetérminate,

aoristic sense ; but it is more regular than the Tamil, inasmuch as it

never changes » into b or pp, in the modern dialect, but uses v as the

invariable sign of future time.

It is not obliged also, like the Tamil,

to borrow its third person singular neuter from another formation, but

forms it, like the other persons, by means of v—e.g., tru-v-adu, it will

be; and it has also a relative participle of its own—e.g., bdlu-v-a or

bil-v-a, that will live.

It is richer in this respect than the other

dialects.

The Tulu future, properly so-called, must be considered as

i S

simply a verbal noun, with the affixes of the personal terminations.

The Telugu tense which corresponds to the Tamil and Canarese

aoristic futures is still more distinctively an aorist than they, though

with an inclination in general to the idea of futurity. By English

grammarians this tense is commonly called, not the future, but the

aorist.

It is formed by inserting du between the theme and the

pronominal terminations ; with the exception of the third person sin-

gular masculine and feminine, and third person plural neuter, in which

nu alone, the equivalent of the Tamil wm, is added to the theme.

Compare the Tamil dg-um, it will become, it will be, with the Telugu

aorist avu-nu (he, she, it, they, neut., &c.), will become.

Possibly the

THE FUTURE TENSE.

409

Telugu aoristic formative du is allied to tu, the particle of present

time.

Gond makes use of £ as the sign of the future, in connection

with the first and second persons of the verb—e.g., wunki-k-a, I will

speak.

Compare the ¢ or %k which is sometimes used as the sign of

the future by the High Tamil.

9

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 ¢y, or %, or d, between

the theme and the pronominal signs, and lengthening the vowel which

immediately follows this future particle—viz., the initial vowel of the

pronoun—e.g., mdd-vy-énu, I will do, or nudi-d-énu, I will say.

In

Telugu also, this future assumes a twofold form, from the optional use

A

of two inserted particles, corresponding to the ¢y or

(2

, and d of the

Canarese.

One form inserts é between the theme and the pronominal

terminations—e.g., chés-€-nu, I will do—which é is optionally changed

to 4, in the third person neuter plural—e.g., chés--ns, they (neut.) will

do

The other form of the future, which is still more rarely used,

inserts eda—e.g., chés-eda-nu, I will do—except in the third person

singular, and the third person neuter plural, in which eds is used

instead of eda—e.g., chés-edi-ni, they (neut.) will do.

Afiinities of the Sign of the Future.—The most characteristic and

most extensively used sign of the future in the Dravidian tongues, is

evidently the v of the Tamil, Canarese, and Tulu.

It is remarkable

that in Bengali and Oriya, and also in Bhojpuri Hindi, the sign of

future time is v, pronounced b—e.g., rdkhiba, Beng. I will preserve ;

in Oriya, rdkhibi; in Bhojpuri Hindi, rdkhab—and this b has

been connected by Max Miiller with the & or o which forms the

most characteristic sign of the Latin future, and which is considered

to be a relic of an old substantive verb. The d of the Dravidian pre-

terite seemed to have so wide a range of affinities both in Europe

and Asia, that it need not be considered impossible, though I can

scarcely consider it probable, that the Dravidian futuric » also should

possess some ulterior affinities.

The nearest resemblances are those

of the Ugrian languages. In Finnish, wa or ve is the sign of the

future participle which is used as an auxiliary in the formation

of the future tense—e.g., ole-va, about to be ; and the sign of the

future infinitive is van— e.g., ole-van, to be, to be about to be ; with

which we may compare the Tamil future verbal participle in vdn.

In Hungarian, the future participle is formed b

y suffixing v6—e.g.,

lé-v6 (Finnish ole-va) being or about to be.

If I am right, however,

in considering the Dravidian future in », b, »

, as a verbal noun origin-

ally, and the signs of the future as the ordinary formatives of verb

al

410

THE VERB.

nouns, all such Indo-European and Scythian resemblances must be

regarded as merely accidental.

4. CoMpoUND TENsES.—It is unnecessary to enter into an investiga-

tion of the Dravidian compound tenses, inasmuch as in all the dialects,

except the Tulu and Go6ud, they are formed in the simplest possible

manner, by suffixing the various tenses of the substantive verb to the

verbal participles of active verbs.

Thus “doing I was’ will represent

the imperfect (also ¢ doing I came’) ; ¢ doing-keeping’ (i.c., keeping a

doing) ‘I was,’ a more continuative imperfect ; ¢ having done I am,’ the

perfect ; ¢ having done I was,’ the pluperfect ; ‘having done I shall be,’

the future perfect.

The last two compound tenses are formed in this

manner even in Tulu and Gond.

A vast number of auxiliary verbs are used in all the Dravidian

didlects, in conjunction with infinitives and verbal participles, for the

purpose of expressing compound ideas ; but as the use of those auxili-

aries pertains rather to the idiom or syntax of the language than to the

grammatical structure, and is sufficiently explained in the ordinary

grammars, it would be out of place to inquire into them here. (See

¢ (lassification of Verbs.”)

=

Tae RELATIVE PARTICIPLE.—It is a remarkable peculiarity of the

Dravidian languages, that they have mno relative pronouns whatever,

and that the place of the relative pronoun is supplied by a part of the

verb which is called the relative participle, or the adjective participle,

a participle which is invariably followed by a noun, and preceded by

the words or phrases that depend upon the relative.

The vernaculars of Northern India have relative pronouns derived

from the Sanskrit relatives yah, yd, yad, who, masc., who, fem., which,

neut. ; but of those pronouns they make little use, probably through

an under-current of Dravidian, or at least of Pree-Sanskrit, influences.

In those languages a sentence which contains a relative is ordinarily

divided into two members; and the demonstrative pronoun which

forms the nominative of the second member of the sentence, is used

SRR

instead of a relative.

Thus instead of saying, the man who came yes-

terday has come again to-day, they would prefer to say, a man came

The Dravidian languages some-

yesterday, he is come again to-day.

times make use of a similar idiom, but only in the hurry of conversa-

tion.

They are not obliged to have recourse to any such arrangement,

the ‘signification of the relative; together with that of the definite

article, being contained in, and distinctly expressed b}*, the relative

AT,

THE

RELATIVE PARTICIPLE.

411

Thus they would say in Tamil, vanda-df, the

participle of the verb.

In like manner they

person who came, literally, the-who-came person.

might use the present relative participle—e.g., varugira 4f, the-who-is-

coming person, or the future varum df, the-who-will-come person.

The name given to the relative participle by Tamil grammarians, 1s

peyar echcham, noun-defect, or noun-complement—ia.e., a word which

requires the complement of a noun to complete its signification. This

nawme 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

stands in the relation of a relative, and which it connects with the

antecedent clauses.

Like other Dravidian adjectives, it undergoes no

alteration on account of the number or gender of the related noun ; but

inasmuch as it is a verb as well as an adjective (i.e., a participle parti-

cipating in the nature of both parts of speech), it is capable of govern-

ing a preceding noun, equally with any other part of the verb to which

it belongs—e.g., nitler erudina pulavan, Tam. the poet who wrote the

book, literally, the-who-the-book-wrote poet ; kd¢tel terigira ydner, Tam.

the elephant that wanders in the jungle, literally, the-that-in-the-jungle-

wanders elephant.

The relative sufix most largely used in the Dravidian languages is

(A

a, which is appended to the verbal participle or gerund, to convert it

into a relative participle. Thus in Tamil, the (assumed) present verbal

participle of upu, to plough, is uyu-gir, ploughing ; from which, by

suffixing a, is formed the present relative participle wurugir-a, that

ploughs. The preterite verbal participle of the same verb is wru-d-u,

having ploughed (of which the final » is merely enunciative), from

which by the addition of the same a, is formed the preterite relative

participle urud-a, that ploughed. When the preterite verbal participle

ends, not in d-u, but in ¢, » (or more elegantly y) is euphonically

inserted between the concurrent vowels ¢ and a—e.g., from erud-i,

having written, is formed erud-i-(n)-a, or erud-i-(y)-a, that wrote. In

The

all these particulars Malayalam perfectly agrees with Tamil

future relative participle of Tamil is not formed from @, but terminates

in wm, and is identical with the aoristic future third person singular

neuter.

This is also the form of the future relative participle almost

invariably used in Malayalam.

Canarese has in this point the advantage not only of Tamil, but

generally of the other dialects ; inasmuch as it forms its future relative

participle by affixing the same a—e.g., mdadu-v-a, bdl-v-a, or bdlu-v-a,

which will live.

On the other hand, the relative participle of the

present tense in Canarese is defective, being formed by means of the

relative participle of the future used as an auxiliary

e.q., bal-utt-iruva,

e

PREES:

412

THE VERB.

which lives, literally, which will be living,

The preterite relative pat-

ticiple is formed, like that of Tamil, by suffixing « ; the only difference

is, that between the final ¢ of the verbal participle and the relative a,

d is inserted euphonically instead of g or n—e. g-, mdd-i-(d)-a, which

did, from mdd-z, having done.

Telugu agrees with Tamil in forming

its present and preterite relative participles by suffixing «, and in

inserting » between the ¢ in which the preterite verbal participle of

that dialect invariably ends, and the relative a—e.g., from avu-tu-nnu,

becoming, is formed avu-tu-nn’-a, that becomes ; and from ay-i, having

become, is formed ay-i-(n)-a, that became.

The suffix of the relative

participle of the negative voice of the verb is ¢ in Tamil, Malayalam,

and Canarese, in Telugu it is #.

It is now evident that ¢ may be

regarded as the characteristic relative suffix of the Dravidian languages.

The only exceptions are nz, the negative relative suffix of the Telugu ;

the suffix of the aoristic future relative in several of the dialects—viz.,

ne in Ku, wm in Tamil, and edu, edi, é, or & in Telugu ; and ¢ the

sign of the preterite relative participle in Ku.

The relative participles

of Tulu do not appear to differ from its verbal participles.

Not only are the greater number of relative participles formed by

suffixing @, but, as was observed in the section on * The Noun,” most

Dravidian adjectives also receive the same suffix.

Ultimate nouns of

quality or relation are capable of being used as adjectives, without any

change or addition—e.g., sex-u, small, per-u, great ; but more commonly

these nouns are converted into quasi relative participles, and rendered

thereby more convenient for use as adjectives—e.g., six-1-(y)-a, small,

per--(y)-a, great.- The preterite relative participles of regular verbs

are also frequently used as adjectives—e.g., wyar-nd-a, high, literally,

that was high, ¢dr-nd-a, low, literally, that was low.

Tamil adjectives

like per-i-(y)-a, agree so exactly with preterite relative participles like

pann-i-(y)-a (for pann-i-(n)-a), which made, that they may safely be

regarded as preterite relative participles in form, though unconnected

with the preterite or any other tense in signification, and grammatically

explained as relative participles of appellatives or conjugated nouns.

Another class of Tamil adjectives receive the suffix of the future or

aorist relative participle— .e., um, which is suffixed like ©-(y)-a, to the

crude noun of quality—e.g., per-um, great, pas-um, green. There is no

difference in meaning between these two classes of adjectival formatives,

7

the use of the one rather than the other being determined solely by

euphony or usage ;

but on the whole um is considered more elegant

than ¢-(y)-a. (See “ Adjectives,” p 208.)

Orgin of the Relative Suffizes.—The

Tamil aorist or future suffix

um, has already been shown to be identical w

ith the conjunctive or

===,

THE RELATIVE PARTICIPLE.

413

I

copulative particle.

I regard all the other relative suffixes as origi-

(6

nally signs of the wnflemion, or possessive case-signs, expressing the

{

significhtion of, endowed with, possessed of, having, which has, d&ec.

i

In the older Scythian languages, a relative participle is used, as in

|0

the Dravidian languages, instead of a relative pronoun.

Japanese

also has no relative pronoun, but uses a relative participle instead in

0l

a truly Scythian manner.

The existence of ‘a family- likeness in so

il

remarkable a particular tends to show the existence of some family

1

relationship between the Scythian group and the -Dravidian,

The

{3

particle which is affixed in the Scythian languages for the purpose of

}

forming a relative participle out of a verbal participle, is identical with

the sign of the possessive case.

Jo

In Manchu this particle is ngge or

ninge (corresponding to the Turkish ning); and the addition of this

possessive case-sign converts the verbal participle (i.e., the theme with

the tense-sign attached) into a verbal adjective or relative participle,

precisely as in Tamil or Canarese. * Thus in Manchu, from aracha,

written, which is the verbal participle of ara, to write, is formed the

relative participle aracha-ngge, which wrote, literally the-written-

having. Compare in Mongolian &: omsihu-ne bichig, the book 1 am

reading, in which phrase ne has the same force as a in Tamil, being in

itself a possessive, and converting the verbal participle to which it is

appended into a relative participle.

be is I; bichig, book. Hence the

literal meaning, as in the Tamil ndn vd$ikkindr-a nil, is ¢ the I read-

ing-having book.’

The Chinese construétion is similar,

Wo nien-ts

shu means the book I am reading. ¢ is the sign of the possessive,

and is added to nzen, read. The relative participle in these languages

is simply the verb in the possessive case ; and the fact that it has a

case shows that, pro tanto at least, it is treated as a noun. Mr

;‘J

Edkins remarks:—¢The Turanian intellect nominalises the verb.

Every verb is looked at as a substantive,”

This holds true of the

Dravidian languages also to a considerable extent.

The Dravidian

relative participle is treated, as we have seen, as a noun ; and if the

verbal participles had not been regarded as nouns, they eould not

have been converted, -as they are, into relative participles by the

addition of the sign of the possessive case.

It will be seen also that

the infinitive is a verbal noun, and that the neuter participial noun is

identical with the third person singular neuter of the verb, The only

light that has ever been thrown on the Dravidian relative participle

is that which emanates from the non-Aryan languages of Asia,

Mr Edkins illustrates the possibility of the same form of a word

being used even in the Indo-European languages, both

as a pre-

terite and as a possessive adjective, somewhat after the

Dravidian

414

THE VERB.

style, by the use of the words ¢ horned’ in the English ‘horned cattle.’

In this case, however, the ed is not a sign of the possessix@g case.

The language of the Scythian tablets of Behistun has a relative

suffix, pi, answering to the Mongolian /s, which is appended, as in

.

the Dravidian languages, to the theme in the formation of relative

participles.

Looking at the analogy of the Scythian languages, and at the genius

of the Dravidian languages themselves, I have no doubt that @, which

forms the most common Dravidian relative suffix, is identical with ¢,

The

the oldest and most characteristic sign of the possessive case.

other particles also which are used as suflixes of the relative will be

found to have a similar nature.

Dr Gundert identifies the a of the

relative participle with the demonstrative base a.

But T still prefer

the explanation I have given, unless, indeed, we feel warranted in going

a step further, and regarding the use of @ as a possessive as a secon-

dary use of the demonstrative a.

Though the sign of the relative participle in Ku differs from that

which prevails 'in the other dialects, yet =i, the sign of the aorist

relative participle, is identical with the sign-of the ¢nflexion or posses-

sive case, which is also =z

7Y

)

the sign of the negative relative

participle in- Telugu, appears to bear the same relation to 7z, a sign

of the Telugu inflexion.

t7, the sign of the preterite relative participle

in Ku, is the most commonly used sign of the inflexion in Telugu ;

and the various suffixes of the Telugu aorist relative participle are

apparently adjectival formatives, corresponding in origin to ¢, the sign

of the neuter inflexion in the same language.

Though the use of a relative participle, instead of a relative pronoun,

is characteristic of the Scythian tongues, yet both the Turkish and the

Finnish languages possess a relative pronoun as well. The use of such

a pronoun seems foreign to the grammatical structure of those lan-

guages, and is reasonably supposed to have been imitated from the

It is certain that

usage of languages of the Indo-European stock.

Turkish has been much influenced by Persian ; and Oriental Turkish,

though it has borrowed from Persian a relative pronoun, rarely uses

it, and ordinarily substitutes for it an appended particle of its own,

in a genuinely Scythian manner.

FORMATION OF MOODS.

The investigation of the structure of the Dravidian verb may 13A0w

be considered as completed ; for in each dialect of the family the verb

has, properly speaking; only one mood, the indicative ; and the forms

T,

‘

THE CONDITIONAL -OR SUBJUNCTIVE

415

which correspond to the conditional, the imperative, and the infinitive

\C,

moods of other languages, are verbal nouns or compounds, rather than

fe

moods

Nevertheless, it is desirable at this point to inquire into the

manner in which those moods are formed

I

(1.) The Conditional or Subjunctive—In most of the Indo-Euro-

pean languages, and even in Turkish and Finnish, the subjunctive is a

regularly conjugated mood, distinct from the indicative, with prono-

1§

minal terminations of its own

In the Dravidian languages the sub-

i

(l

junctive is generally formed by simply postfixing to different parts of

the verb, either a particle corresponding in meaning to sz, or ‘if,’ or the

conditional forms of the substantive verb

which includes the same

be

particle, and which signifies if it be

Different particles are used for

hc

this purpose in the different dialects, and they are not in each dialect

[t

suffixed to the same part of the verb ; but the principle on which they

I

are suffixed, and the use to which they are put, are the same in all.

Ul

In Canarese the conditional particle is re

This is supposed by Dr

Gundert to be abbreviated from dre (Tam. and Mal. dru, a way)

He

Jdv

compares Canarese banda-re, when he has come, with Malayalam

I8l

vanna-(v)-dre, commonly vann'dre, literally in the way of his having

Classical Tamil is

come, that 1s, in the event of his having come.

(4

vanda-(v)-dx

re is appended to the relative participle of the preterite,

1

and that pa1t101p]e being impersonal, the condition applies, without

le

change of form, to all persons, numbers, genders, and times—e.g.,

I

mddida, that did, on receiving this suffix becomes mddida-re, if (I

e

thou, he, she, they, &c.) do, did, or shall do

Person, number, and

g1

gender are expressed by the prefixed pronoun, and time by the sub-

sequent finite verb

The use of the relative participle—a form which

!

always requires a noun to complete its signification—shows that re

I

whatever be its origin, is regarded as a noun, and that a closer render-

jol

ing of the construction would be in the event of (my, your, &c.)

jall

doing, more literally in the event that (I, you, &c.) have done (so

B

i

and s0)

Canarese adds 7@ or dgyd to the relative participle, instead

il

of re, when the sense required is that of although

7 is re with the

it

——

copulative particle # annexed

dgyti is dgi, having been, with the

addition of the

ame U

The use of these participles is in perfect

il

agreement with dgelum, &ec., in Tamil

In Tulu there are two forms of the conditional

one called by Mr

The conditional is

Brigel the conditional, the other the subjunctive

a compound tense, formed by appending », the sign of the futuric

present, to the perfect participle

Compare malt'de, I have made

I

malt'dve (maltd-v-e),

should make

There is a negative conditional

“

in Tulu, as there is a negative form of every part of the verb

and this

L

416

THE VERB.

negative conditional appears to be formed by inserting a as a particle of

The sub-

negation—e.g., malt' dvaye (malt’d-v-a-ye), I should not make.

Junctive is formed by adding the particle da, if (corresponding to the

Tamil-Malayélam 4/, 4/, and apparently, like them, a locative in origin),

to every person in every tense-—e.qg., malpuve, I make ; malpuveda, if T

make.

The negative of this form of the verb inserts the usual j (from

the negative 4jj7) of the Tulu——e.g., malpu-jeda, if I do not make.

The most essential and ancient form of the Telugu conditional con-

sists in annexing na to the ultimate conjugational base—e.q., chiich-

wa, if (I, thou, he, &c.) should see.

This sna appears to be identical

with the ¢n which is used for the same purpose and in the same

manner in Tamil; and as the Tamil ¢» is a sign of the locative,

signifying in or in the event of, so is the Telugu #na or ni appar-

ently identical in origin with the na or nz which Telugu uses as a

locative.

In Telugu the various conditional particles which are in

ordinary use are parts of the substantive verb, more or less regular

in form, each of which is used to signify if it be.

The particle com-

monly used for this purpose in the higher dialect is é-nz, the con-

ditional form of the verb aww, to be or become,—a form which

corresponds to the Tamil dy-in, and means, as will be seen, in being—

i.e., in the event of being.

This particle or auxiliary, é-n, is appended

not to the verbal or relative participle, but to the personal termina-

tions of the verb. It may be appended to any teunse, as to any person;

but whatever tense it is attached to, the time of that tense is rendered

aoristic, and is determined, as in Canarese, by the-connection, espe-

cially by the tense of the succeeding verb. The manner in which éns

is postfixed in Telugu exactly corresponds to the use that is made of

ayil, 4gil, dyin, or Gdndl in Tamil—e.g., chésitin’-éni, if I did or do

(literally if it be (that) I did), and chésitem’-éne, if we did or do, are

equivalent to the Tamil $eydén-dyin, if 1 did, and Seydom-dyin, if we

did

Some grammarians appear to consider this particle identical

with é&mé, why, and to imply a question; but its resemblance in

sound and use to the Tamil dyen, if it be, seems too complete to

allow of this supposition.

—

In the colloquial dialect of Telugu, the conditional particle commonfy

used 1s simply &, which is suffixed, not to any tense at pleasure like é-n1,

but only to the preterite, and is not appended, as é-nz is, to the personal

termination, but to the root of the preterite, or as I conceive it to be,

the old preterite verbal participle—e.g., chési-t-¢ or chést-8, if (I, thou,

he, &c.) did or do. This é is considered by Mr Clay identical with the

interrogative ¢, interrogative forms being much used in Telugu to

express the conditional.

Did he do it? is equivalent to if he did it?

S

THE CONDITIONAL AND SUBJUNCTIVE,

41

1~

{

Another mode of expressing the conditional mood in the colloquial

dialect of Telugu agrees with the Canarese in this, that the particles are

suffixed to the relative participle.

The particles thus suffixed are aff-

ayuté and aft-Ayend ; the first part of both which compounds, aff-u, is

a particle of relation meaning so as, as if. ayité (ayit-8) is the ordinary

conditional of awu, to be, being an emphasised form of ayi-ti, the

impersonal preterite, or old preterite verbal participle of awvu. dyend

is the interrogative form of dyenu, properly ayenu, it was, the third

person of the preterite tense of aww, literally has it become ?

Telugu,

like Tamil, expresses the meaning of although by adding the conjunc-

tive particle » to the conditional particle na—e.g., chés-ina, if (I) do ;

chés-ina-(n)-u, although (I) do (= Tam. $eyd-in, Seyd-in-um).

In Tamil the most characteristic, and probably the most ancient,

mode of forming the conditional mood is by affixing the locative case-

signs ¢/ or 4n to the formed verbal theme—q.¢, that assumed verbal

noun which forms the basis of the infinitive and the aoristic defective

future.

Thus, from the formed theme pdg-u, going, is formed the

infinitive pdy-a, to go, and pdg-um, it will go ; and from the same base

by the addition of the locative ¢ or n, is formed the conditional pog-il

or pdg-n, if (I, thou, &c.) go.

From var-u, coming, is formed var-a,

infinitive, to come, var-um, it will come, and also var-i/ or var-in, if (I,

—

&c.) come.

In like manner, from dg-u, being, is formed the infinitive,

dg-a, to become or be, dg-wm, it will be, and also dg-il, if (I, &c.) be.

dg-in (the equivalent of dg-i/) has been softened into dy-in; and this

appears to be identical in origin and meaning with the Telugu é-n¢

referred to above, and is subjoined to the personal terminations of

verbs in the same manner as é-n1.

This conditional ¢/ or #» is undoubt-

edly identical with ¢/ or in, the Tamil sign of the ablative of motion,

which is properly a sign of the locative, signifying in, at, or on ; and

of this un, the Telugu equivalent, in accordance with dialectic laws, is

nt, which is also occasionally used as a locative.

This being the case,

the signification of dg-il or dy-in is evidently in being, <.e., in the

event of being; and this is equivalent to the phrase if it be.

Hence

dg-il, dy-in, and é-ne are well suited to be nsed as conditional auxiliaries,

and appended to the various personal terminations of verbs.

The second mode of forming the conditional in Tamil consists in

the use of the above-mentioned conditional forms of the substantive

|

verb, viz., dg-il and dy-in (and also a commoner form, dn-dl) as auxi-

liaries to other verbs ; and when thus used they are postfixed, like the

l

corresponding Telugu &-ni, to any person of any tense—e 9., Seydén-

agul, if it be that I did, or if T did, literally in the (event of its) being

(that) I did ; Seyvén-dgil, if 1 shall do, literally in the (event of its)

2D

418

THE VERB.

being (that) I shall do.

This mode of forming the Tamil conditional,

though not confined to the classics, is but rarely used in the colloquial

dialect : it is chiefly used in elegant prose compositions.

A third form of expressing the sense of a conditional mood in Tamil

is by appending the particle or noun £d/ to the past relative participle

—e.g., Séyda-(k)kal, it (I, &c.) do or did ; wvare olitta-(k)kdl, if the sea

should roar.

The conditional form which is most commonly used by

the vulgar is a corruption of this, viz., Seydakkd, or even Seyddkki ,

and the Ku conditional also is formed by appending kka.

kdl being

appended to a relative participle, it is evidently to be considered as a

noun ; and it may either be the crude Sanskrit derivative £dl (for kal-

am), time, used adverbially to signify when, a use to which it is some-

times put in Tamil ; or, more probably, the pure.old Dravidian word

kdl, one of the meanings of which is a place.

In the Malayalam loca-

tive this is abbreviated to kal.

All nouns of place, when generalised,

are capable of being used as signs of time.

Hence £dl, a place, comes

to mean when, and becomes a means of forming the conditional as

readily as 2/, a place.

The literal meaning, therefore, of Seyda-(k)kal

will be, when (I) do or did, a form which will readily take from the

context a conditional force—e.g., in the following Tamil stanza—

“ When you have done (Seyda-(k)kdl) a good action to any one, say not,

‘ When will that good action be returned ?’”—it is evident that when

you have done is equivalent to if you have done.

The signification of

when is still more clearly brought out by the use of %@/ in connection

with the future relative participle—e.g., Sey(y)un-kdl, if (he, they, &c.)

should do, literally when (they) shall do, or in the time when (they)

shall do. This mode of expressing the conditional mood is exceedingly

common in the Tamil poets.

The fourth Tamil mode of forming the conditional is by suffixing @/

to the abbreviated preterite relative participle—e.g.,$eyd-dl, if (I, &e.)

do

If we looked only at examples like $eyd-dl, we might naturally

suppose @/ to be suffixed to the preterite verbal participle ($eyd-u), the

final » of which is regularly elided. before a vowel ; and this form of

the conditional would then perfectly agree with the second Telugu

mode— e.g., chést é.

If we look, however, at the class of verbs which

form their preterite in 4, and their preterite relative participle in n-a,

we shall find that @/ is added to the relative, not to the verbal parti-

ciple, and that the two vowels (¢ and @) are incorporated into one—

e.g., the conditional of dg-u, to be, is not dg-i-d/, but dn-al, evidently

from dn-a (dg-i-(n)-a), that was, and a4l

Besides, the verbal participle

must be followed by a verb or some verbal form; but @/ is a noun,

and therefore the participle to which it is suffixed must be d relative

A

THE IMPERATIVE.

419,

n

participle, not a verbal one. In colloquial Témil, @l is suffixed to’

impersonal forms of the verb alone ; but in the higher dialect @/, or its

equivalent &/, may be suffixed to any person of any tense—e.g., $eydanei-

()-él, if thou hast done ; Seyguvén-¢l, if I shall do. Tt is also suffixed

to the relative participle, as T conceive @/ is in the ordinary dialect—

e.., Seygindra-(v)-Gl, Seyda-(v)-dl, if (I, thou, &c.) should de. This

Seyda-(v)-dl of the High Tamil illustrates the origin of the more com-

mon colloquial form seyd-dl.

This conditional particle @/, whatever its origin, seems to be iden-

tical with @/, the sign of the instrumental case in Tamil.

The best

supposition respecting the origin of this particle is that of Dr Gundert,

who considers it as equivalent to dgal, Can. when, which is literally a

verbal noun from dg-u, to become,

dgal is capable of becoming @/ in

Tamil, the primitive base of dgu being 4. @/ is rarely used as a sign

of the conditional in the higher dialect in Tamil, in which %dl is

generally preferred.

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

though I have done). This second form of the conditional is generally

expressed in the Dravidian languages by affixing the conjunctive particle

to one of the conditional particles already referred to. Thus, in Tamil,

Seyd-dl signifies if (I, &c.) do ; whilst Seyd-dl-um signifies though (I

7

&c.) do. wm, the conjunctive or copulative particle, having the sense

of even, as well as that of and—the literal meaning of this phrase is

even if (I) do. The same particle um is affixed to the preterite verbal

participle to bring out a preterite signification—e.g., $eyd-um, though

(L, &c.) did, literally even having done.

2. The Imperative.—In the Dravidian languages the second person

singular of the imperative is generally identical with the root or theme

of the verb. This is so frequently the case, that it may be regarded

as a characteristic rule of the language.

In a few instances in Tamil

there is a slight difference between the imperative and the verbal

theme ; but those instances scarcely constitute even an app

arent excep-

addition

tion to the general rule, for the difference is caused not by the

of any particle to the root, for the purpose of forming the lmperative,

but merely by the softening away of the formative suffix or the final

consonant of the theme, for the sake of euphony—e.q.,

var-u, to come,

takes for its imperative vd, Tel. »d ,

the plural (or honorific singular)

of which is in High Tamil vammen, in Telugu rammau.

It has been shown that there is a class of Tamil

verbs which form

their transitives by doubling the initial consonant of the sign of tenge.

Sach verbs also, however, use the simpl

e unformed theme as their

420

THE VERB.

imperative, and, in so far as that mood 1s concerned, make no distinc-

tion, except in connection, between transitives and intransitives. Thus,

ked-u is either spoil or be spoiled, according to the connection, whilst

every other part of the verb takes a form suited to its signification—

e.g., the infinitive of the intransitive is ked-a, that of the transitive

kedukk-a.

Telugu, on the other hand, generally makes a distinc-

tion between the imperative of the transitive and that of the intran-

sitive—e.g., whilst the intransitive be spoiled, is chedu, the transitive

is not also chedu, but cheruchu (for cheduchu), a form which would be

kedukkw in Tamil.

A large number of Telugu verbs use as their verbal

theme, not the ultimate root, but a species of verbal noun ending in

chu, pu, or mpu.

This accounts for the presence of chu, which is in

itself a formative, in the imperative cheruchu, and not only in the

imperative, but through all the moods and tenses of the Telugu verb.

The Tamil uses the equivalent verbal noun (ending in kku) as the base

of its transitive infinitive, and of the third person singular neuter of

the future or aorist of its transitive—e.g., kedulkk-a, to spoil, and

kedukk-um, it will spoil ; but in every other part of the verb it uses

the root alone (including only the inseparable formative, if there be

one) as its inflexional theme. Hence it is easier to ascertain the primi-

tive, true root of a verb in Tamil than in Telugu.

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

same practice obtains in Ku; and even in Tamil, mé is sometimes

suffixed to the singular of the imperative—only, however, in the

classical dialect.

In Telugu, nevertheless, 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 mw or mi, the only

remaining relic of some lost root, is added as an intensitive or precative,

like the Tamil én—e.g., kél-én, Oh do hear.

andi, which is added to

the root in Telugu to form the second person plural of the imperative,

is the vocative of an obsolete noun, sirs (used honorifically to mean

sir) ; and the other signs of the same part of the verb in Telugu (d,

udi, and udu or du), are evidently abbreviations of ande.

The second person plural of the imperative in Canarese is substan-

tially identical with the second person plural of the future tense—e.g.,

mddiri, do ye, mdduvire or mddire, ye will do.

The neuter participial

noun of the future tense, it will do, or it is a thing to be done, is also

In

optionally used for the imperative both in the singular and plural.

the classical dialect the most common plural imperative is formed by

adding m, probably a fragment of nim, the pronoun of the second

person plural, to the root—e.g., bdl-im, live ye, ili-(y)-im, descend ye.

.

=,

THE IMPERATIVE.

421

Tulu forms its imperative from the future form of the verb in both

numbers by appending la to the future in the singular and /e in the

plural —e.g., mafpula, make thou, malpule, make ye.

Dr Gundert

identifies this / with /@ (corresponding in meaning to the Tamil wm),

the conjunctive particle of the Tulu.

The imperative of the second person plural in colloquial Tamil is

identical in form, and possibly in origin, with the aoristic future ending

in wm—e.g., compare $ey(y)wm, it will do, with Sey(y)-um, do ye ;

vér-wm, it will flourish, with vdr-um, flourish ye.

This form is used

honorifically for the singular, and if this use of wm is derived directly from

the use of the same particle as a sign of the future, it would naturally

have been used originally for both numbers indiscriminately.

I have

no doubt that the imperative second person in classical Tamil, to which

we shall come presently, was originally a future; but there is some

difficulty in the way of concluding the um of the colloquial imperative

to be identical with the futuric ume.

The futuric wm is appended, as

has been shown, not to the ultimate root of the verb, but to the

inflexional base, originally, I conceive, an abstract verbal noun ; whereas

the wm of the second person imperative is generally appended directly

to the root.

This difference does not show itself in those verbs of

which the unchanged root itself is used as the inflexional base, such as

the two verbs sey and vdr, just adduced ; but it appears in that large

class of verbs which harden their formatives.

Thus, destroy ye, is

ked’-um ; but, it will destroy is not ked-um, but kedukk-uwm : be ye is

wr-um, but it will be is not ¢r-um, but wrukk-um.

Though, therefore,

wm may be, and I have no doubt is, the same wm in both cases; yet

in the imperative, as in the personal pronouns, it seems to be used as

a sign of plurality, whilst in the future tense it conveys the meaning

of the future.

A connection may perhaps be traced between these

meanings.

wm always appears to retain its original force as a con-

Jjunctive particle ; but in the case of the pronouns (and probably in

that of the second person imperative), it conjoins person to person—

that is, it pluralises, whilst in the future tense of the verb (properly, as

has been shown, a continuative tense), it conjoins a present or future

action to the past.

The plural imperative of the classical dialect of Tamil is formed

by appending to the root the particle min, which assumes sometimes

the more fully developed, or doubly pluralised, shape of minir.

This

particle cannot be explained from Tamil alone, but a flood of light

is thrown upon it by Malayalam.

In Malayalam the plural imperative

is formed after the plan of the first future, both in Tamil and Malay-

dlam, by appending to the root a particle which has for its initial

422

THE VERB.

letter v, m, or p, according to the connection.

Compare the Tamil and

Malayalam future participle varu-vdn, about to come, with the Malay-

alam imperative varu-vin, come ye ; kdp-mdn, about to see, with £dn-

min, see ye ; kél-pdn, about to hear, with 4él-pin, hear ye. It is clear

from this that the imperative is built npon the future, and indeed that

it differs from it only by changing the final dn to n.

The Tamil

future participle ases 4 iustead of m, after nasals ; on the other hand

1t uses m alone in other connections, whereas Malayélam uses v, m,

or p—e.g., for the Malayélam £él-pin, classical Tamil uses kén-min.

A

form of the negative imperative occasionally found in the Tamil

poets agrees with Malayalam in using p, it is arpir (al-pir), be not.

We are therefore warranted in concluding that the Malayalam and

classical Tamil plural imperative is formed by adding ¢n to the future

tense, or, perhaps it may be said, by changing dn to in.

This on (i,

in arpir, as above) appears to be a relic of the plural pronoun of the

second person, as I have supposed the corresponding classical Canarese

wm, to be.

Whatever their origin, the Tamil and MalayAlam % and

the classical Canarese ¢m appear to be identical.

The possibility of the future forming the basis of the imperative is

well illustrated by the example of the Hebrew.

Gesenius (““ Hebrew

Grammar ”) says, The chief form of the imperative is the same that

lies also at the basis of the future, and which, when viewed as an

infinitive, is likewise allied to the noun.”

3. The Infinitive—It has been customary in Dravidian grammars,

especially in Telugu, to call various verbal nouns infinitives ; as the

infinitive in wfa, the infinitive in adam-u, and the infinitive in éds

This use of terms is not sufficiently discriminative ; for though each of

those forms may be used with the force of a quasi infinitive in certain

eonnections, yet the two first are properly verbal nouns, and the third

is a participial noun.

Each is capable of being regularly declined, and

each possesses a plural,

The Telugu padu-ta, is identical with the

Tamil padu-dal, sufferin

DD

o

whilst the infinitive proper, to suffer, is in

both languages pad-a.

I have no doubt that the true infinitive was

originally a verbal noun also (as in the Scythian languages it is always

found to be), and this origin of the Dravidian infinitive will; T think,

be proved in the sequel; but the wusus loguends of grammatical nomen-

clature requires that the term infinitive should be. restricted to those

verbal nouns which have ceased to be declined, which are destitute of

a plural, and which are capable of being used absolutely.

In Malayalam the future verbal participle vdn, mdn, or pdn is much

used, as in classical Tamil, in a manner closely resembling the use of

the infinitive. There is a true infinitive however in a, identical with

S,

THE iNB‘INITiVE,

423

that of the Tamil, thoﬁgﬂx in less common use. The Dravidian infini-

tive, properly so called, is generally formed by suffixing a to the verbal

theme.

This is invariably the mode in which the infinitive is formed

in Telugu—e.q., chéy-a, to do.

Ordinarily in Tamil and Canarese the

infinitive is formed in the same manner ; but a verbal noun is alsé

much used in Canarese as an infinitive, with the dative case-sign

understood or expressed—e.g., instead of mdd-a, to do, they often say

mdd-al-ke (in the colloquial dialect mdd-ali-kke), for doing, or (without

the case-sign) mdd-al or mdd-alu, doing or to do.

Similar constructive

infinitives are often used in classical Tamil also, instead of the trie

infinitive in a—e.q., $ollarku (Sollal-ku), for saying, and $ollal, saying,

with the sigh of the dative understood, instead of $oll-a, to say. There

is also another infinitive or honorific imperative in ga or ya which is

much used in classical Tamil and Malayalam—e.g., ari-ga, to know, or

mayest (thou) know, vdri-ya, mayest thou flourish, a form which will

be inquired into presently.

Notwithstanding these apparent excep-

tions, « is to be considered as the regular and most ancient sign of the

infinitive in all the Dravidian dialects except the Gond and the Tulu.

The Gond infinitive is formed by appending dlle or ille to the root—

e.g., hand-dlle, to go, ke-ille, to call.

This form of the infinitive is evi-

dently identical with the infinitive in a/, which is used as an infinitive, but

is properly a verbal noun, in Canarese and classical Tamil.

In Tamil,

verbal nouns occasionally end in ¢/, though @/ is much more common-—

e.g., vey-il, sunshine, literally, a burning, from vey, to burn.

Tulu as

usual takes a course of its own, both as to the number and variety of

its infinitives, and as to the formatives it uses.

It has a first infinitive,

a present, an imperfect, and a perfect, all formed by appending 7z to

the participles, and a second infinitive, or supine, formed by appending

ere—e.g., bilrunz, to fall, bitring, to have been falling, barudini, to have

fallen ; supine bariyere, to fall.

Each of these infinitives is furnished

also with a negative, but these negative infinitives are formed by means

of the infinitives of the substantive verb appended as auxiliaries to the

negative participle—e.g., from birande, pert. participle, having not

fallen, is formed bélrande dttini, not to have fallen.

Professor Max Miiller, noticing that the majority of Tamil infinitives

terminate in ka, supposed this Za to be identical in origin with %,

the dative-accusative case-sign of the Hindi, and concludéd “thit the

Dravidian infinitive was the accusative of a verbal noun.

*It is true

that the Sanskrit infinitive and ILatin supine ih’ fum is correctly

vegarded as an accusative, and that our English infinitive to do, is the

dative of a verbal noun ; it is also true that the Dravidian infinitive

is & verbal noun in origin, and ‘never altogether loses that character 5

424

THE VERB.

nevertheless, the supposition that the final £a of ‘most Tamil infinitives

is in any manner connected with ku, the sign of the Dravidian dative,

or of ko0, the Hindi dative-accusative, is inadmissible.

A comparison of

various classes of verbs and of the various dialects shows that the ka

L

in question proceeds from a totally different origin.

The Tamil infinitive terminates in ga (g-a) only in those cases in

which the verbal theme ends in a formative gu (¢g-»), and in many

instances in which ¢ appears in the infinitive (as in the verbal theme)

in the ordinary dialect, » replaces it in the poets—e.g., ndga, to be

pained, is not so much used by the classics as ndva.

ppa is also used

in the higher dialect instead of kka-—e.g., nadappa, to walk, for

nadakka.

These interchanges of the formative consonant, which is

the termination of the verbal theme, and to which the infinitival «

is added, are in perfect agreement with Telugu; and from both it

is apparent that « alone is the sign of the infinitive.

Tamil verbs

ending in the formative g-u are intransitives; and when they are con-

verted into transitives, the formative is doubled for the purpose of

In such cases the

denoting the increased intensity of signification.

formative g-w is converted into kk-u, and, accordingly, the i{uﬁnitive

of all such verbs ends in kk-a.

Thus, the verb pd, to go, takes gu for its intransitive formative, and

hence its verbal theme is pd-gu, from which is formed the aoristic

future pdg-um, it will go, the verbal noun pdg-al, going, and the in-

finitive pdg-a, to go.

The corresponding transitive verb is pd-kku, to

drive away (guw being converted into kkw); and from this is formed

in like manner pokk-wm, it will drive away, and also the infinitive

pokk-a, to drive away.

In some instances the intransitive shape of

the verb has no formative ; and when it is converted into a transitive,

the initial consonant of the tense-sign is hardened and doubled—u.e.,

gir becomes kkir, d or nd becomes #, and v or b becomes pp.

In

such instances the verbal theme on which the infinitive is constructed

takes the doubled formative, kk-u—e.g., compare wvalar-a, to grow,

with valar-kk-a, to rear.

This formative (kk), however, appears not

only in the infinitive, but also in the aoristic future valar-kk-um, it

will rear.

A very large number of Tamil verbs, including many tran-

sitives, have no formative termination whatever ; and the infinitive of

such verbs is formed by simply suffixing @ to the root—e.g., vdr-a,

to flourish, and %dzn-a, to see.

In the event of the root of a verb of

this class ending in ¢ or ez, ¥ is inserted between the root and the sign

This

of the infinitive—e.g., ari-(y)-a, to know ; ades-(y)-e, to obtain.

7, however, is clearly euphonic.

When an intransitive root is con-

verted into a transitive by annexing #-w to the root—e.g., tdr-tt-u,

THE INFINITIVE.

425

to lower, the infinitive simply elides the euphonic %, and suffixes a—

e.g., tdr-tt-a.

From a comparison of these instances, it appears certain that « alone

is the normal suffix of the Tamil infinitive, and that the ¢ or k% which

so often appears, belongs to the formative of the verbal theme—not

to any suppositious case-sign.

What then is the origin of the infini-

tival suffix ga, which is occasionally used in classical Tamil—e.g.,

arv-ga, to know, instead of the ordinary ari-(y)-a; and $ey-ga, to do,

instead of Sey(y)-a?

This form is chiefly used as an optative, or as

conveying a wish or polite command—e.g., ni ari-ga, mayest thou

know !

It does not follow, however, from this, that it would be

correct to regard it as a form of the imperative originally; for the

ordinary infinitive in « is often used by the poets in the same manner,

and not unfrequently even by the peasants.

I am persuaded that the

The

g of ga is simply the usual formative g or g-u of verbal nouns.

same formative ¢ is found to be used by the poets in connection with

other parts also of the very verbs which are given as examples of this

rule.

Thus, not only is are-ga, to know, used instead of ari-(y)-a, but

ari-g-il-ir, you know mnot, instead of are-(y)-il-4r, or axé-(y)-ir ; and

Just as dey-ga, to do, is used instead of $ey(y)-a, so we find dey:-gu-v-én,

I will do, instead of $ey-v-én.

The g which makes its appearanee in

these instances, is in its origin the formative g-w, as appears by the

second example ; but has come to be used rather for euphony than

any other cause.

It is also to be noticed that the formative gu may

be appended to any verbal root whatever, as a fulerum to the inflex-

ional forms, provided only that the euphony is improved by it, or that

the prosody requires it.

This view of the origin of the ga in question

is confirmed by the evidence of Malayalam, for in that dialect ga is the

formative of verbal nouns, answering to the Tamil gei—e.g., chey-ga,

a doing; and yet the very same form is used as a polite imperative—

e.g., nt chey-ga (Tam. $ey-ga), mayest thou do !

Here we see not only

a verbal noun used as an imperative, but we see the infinitive of one

dialect treated as a verbal noun in another.

The Tamil verbal noun

which directly answers to the Malaydlam chey-ga, a doing, is $eyger ;

and dey-ga in Tamil has ceased to be used as a verbal noun, and been

restricted to the use of an infinitive and imperative; but it is evident

from the identity of both with the Malayalam chey-ga, that both are

verbal nouns in origin.

The Malayalam chey-ga is regularly declined

—e.g., chey-ga(y)-dl, through the doing. We thus come back to the

conclusion that «, not ga, is the true infinitival suffix of the Tamil.

On examining the Telugu, we shall find that the only sign of the

infinitive recognised by that language is a.

The various formatives

426

THE VERB

which, as we have seen, are inserted between the Tamil verbal root and

the suffixes of the infinitive, form in Telugu part of the verbal them°

itself, and are found not only in one or two ‘connections, but in every

mood and tense of the verb including the imperative

In

Telugu

y

therefore, the only difference between the imperative and the infinitive

f

is, that the latter elides the enunciative % of the former, and substi-

1i

tutes for it its own' distiuctive suffix «

Thus, whilst the imperativ

E

of the verb to open, is 1n Tamil tira, and the infinitive tira-kk-a

s the

0

formative /c]c which appears in the Tamil infinitive, and which mmbt

1l

be supposed to form part of the infinitival suffix, appears in Telugu (in

its dlalectically softened form of c¢h) not only in the infinitive, but also

(!

in the unpemtlve and throughout the verb—e.g., tera-ch-a, infinitive,

i

At the same time, the

to open;

tera-ch-u, imperative, open thou

(U

Telugu sign of the dative case fu or k¢ is never softened into ¢/ in any

d

connection

cousequently, - there is no possibility of connecting the

Iy

Telugu sign of the infinitive with that of the dative

Moreover, the

fig

formative ck is often replaced, especially in the imperative and infini-

[}

tive, by p—e.g., nadu-p-a, infinitive, to

Wk

instead of nadu-ch-a

(

corresponding to the colloquial Tam. nada-kk-a, and the classical Tam

1

nada-pp-a, of which the imperative and also the theme is nada,

1n)

Hence, it cannot be doubted that the Tamil ¢ and k%, and the corre-

N

sponding Telugu ¢k and p, alternating (after ¢) with 7ick and mp, are

RESSE )

be

merely formatives, without any special connection with the suffix of the

ki

infinitive, which is « alone

In most instances in (Canarese the forma-

Ty

tives referred to above are discarded altogether, and the @ which con-

il

stitutes the sign of the infinitive is suffixed to the crude verbal root.

o

Thus, whilst the verb -, to be, takes ¢ru-kk-a for its infinitive in

Tamil,

il

the simpler and evidently more primitive Canarese infinitive is 7r-a

Ele;

Origin of the Infinitwe Suffix

a.’—I conceive that we may safely

[t

We have seen that most

identify this ¢ with the demonstrative base

oy

of the formatives of nouns were originally demonstratives, appended to

(0

nouns for the sake of emphasis

To this class belongs especially the

Tey

formative ‘am (a + m), which sometimes assumes the shape of an (a + n)

ll(u

and also that of al (a + )

We have seen that a/, that, and a/, not, appear

]Jhl‘

to have been derived from «, al being the secondary form constituting

£

the word a substantive, and « the primitive base

The same explanation

oy

seems perfectly to suit the infinitive in @ or @/, and whether the nega-

tre1

tive @ may safely be derived from the demonstrative @ or not, I can

see no reason for thinking it improbable that the « which forms the

0f 4

suffix of the infinitive, and which is consequently to be regarded as

o |

the formative of a verbal noun. was originally identical with the

demonstrative

fmn

£

THE INFINITIVE.:

)

There cannot be any doubt, I think, that a/, the alternative suffix

of the infinitive, is a secondary form of a.

Use of the Infinitive—By Tamil grammarians it is defined to be “the

verbal participle common to the three tenses :” but if we look at its

force and use, we shall discover, I think, conclusive reasons for regard-

ing it as a verbal or participial noun.

It is not only used as in other

languages to denote a purpose or end—e.g., var-a (§)sollu, tell (him) to

come — but also in such connections as the following ——(1) The

majority of Dravidian adverbs are infinitives of neuter verbs—e.g., he

knocked down, would be in Telugu pada gottenw, in Tamil vira (t)talli-

ndn ; in which phrases down means to fall—i.e, so as to fall. Through

the same idiom dg-«, the infinitive of the verb to become (in Tel. k4

or gd), is ordinarily added to nouns of quality to convert them into

adverbs—e.g., nandr’-dga, Tam. well, from nandr-u, good, and dg-a, to

become.

(2.) The infinitive is elegantly used with an imperative signi-

fication (in accordance with the Hebrew idio‘m), or rather as an opta-

tive, seeing that it conveys a wish rather than a command-—e.g. , W8 vdr-a

(more frequently »dr-g-a or vdri-y-a), mayest thou flourish !

The infi-

nitive of the verb to be, also regularly forms an optative, or polite

imperative, by being annexed to the future tense of any verb—e.g.,

Seyvdy-dga, mayest thou do, from Seyvdy, thou wilt do,-and dga, to

become, literally may it be (that) thou wilt do. (3.) It is used as a

kind of ablative absolute—e.g., porudu vidind’ wukk-a, én tdngugiray,

Tam., the'sun having arisen, why sleepest thou? In-this instance,

vidind’ irukk-a (literally to be—having arisen) is in the perfect tense ;

but ¢rukk-a is not a preterite infinitive, but is the ordinary or aorist

infinitive of the verb #-u, to be.

(4.) A series of infinitives is often

elegantly used, somewhat as in Latin, to express minor actions that

take place contemporaneously with the principal action—e.g., they

would say in Tamil mugil erumba (whilst the clouds were rising),

vdnam vrul-a (whilst the sky was gathering blackness), mares porindu

pey(y)a (whilst the rain was falling abundantly), drds toru-vird nadatti-

ndrgal (the villagers celebrated their sacred festival). (5.) The redu-

plication of any infinitive expresses exactly the force of the Latin

I

gerund in do—e.g., pdg-a pdg-a, balai kolfum, vires acquirit eundo ;

)i

more closely, as it goes—as it goes (literally to go—to go) it gathers

strength.

1l

These illustrations prm}e that the Dravidian infinitive has the force

e

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

he

from Tamil, but parallel examples could easily be adduced from each

of the other dialects.

428

THE VERB.

In

Much use is made in Tamil of a verbal or participial noun ending in

fo

dal—e.g., alei-dal, a wandering, from aler, to wander; muri-dal, a

1y

breaking, from mure, to break.

In Canarese the final / of those and

al

similar verbal nouns is unknown—e.g., ale-ta, a wandering ; mura-ta, a

i

01

breaking.

In Telugu also such nouns end in ¢ alone, without /—e.g.,

compare the Tamil méy-(¢)tal, pasturage, with the corresponding Telugu

mét-a ; chét-a, Tel. an act, with éey-dal, Tam. ; and nada-ta, Tel. walk,

It

conduct, with nada-(¢)tal, Tam. Even in Tamil also, nada-(¢)tes (Mal.

(]

W

nada-tta) alternates with nada-(t)tal.

It has already been stated that the verbal noun in a/, with or with-

0

out the dative case-sign, is used instead of the infinitive in @ in both

a

dialects of Canarese and in classical Tamil.

In Gond also, it has been

¢

shown that one of the signs of the infinitive is dl/e, amplified from al—

A

e.g., atdlle, to be, which is evidently identical with the Tamil verbal noun

€Al

dgal, being—a form often used in the higher dialect as an infinitive.

(]

Now, as the Dravidian infinitive undoubtedly partakes of the character

g

of a participial or verbal noun, and is considered by native gram-

JUt

marians as a verbal participle or gerund of the three tenses, as it is

th

certain that it is intimately associated with a verbal noun in a/, one

fo

of the most characteristic in the language, and which denotes not the

the

abstract idea of the verb, but the act ; and as al in other connections

a0

has been found to be amplified from @, we seem to be justified in com-

ing to the conclusion that @, the infinitive suffix, is the basis of the alin

10

1)

question, and, consequently, that dg-a, to be, is simply an older and

purer form of dg-al, being.

Tey

There is a remarkable, but probably accidental, resemblance to the

1101

Dravidian infinitive in @/, in the Armenian, in which / is the infinitive

80

suffix—e.g., ber-e-l, to carry (compare Tam. por-al, bearing or to bear) ;

ten

ta-l, to give (compare Tam. ta(r)-al, giving or to give, imperative, id).

i

)¢

h

£X¢

FORMATION OF VERBAL NOUNS.

dn

Dravidian verbal nouns divide themselves into two classes—viz.,

g

participial nouns, which are formed from the relative participle of each

It

—

tense, and retain the time of the tense to which they belong, and

verbal nouns, properly so called, which are always formed directly from

lllig

the theme, and are indeterminate in point of time.

e

1. Participial Nouns.—The greater number of nouns of this class

o

Ifg

are formed by suffixing the demonstrative pronouns, or their termina-

tions, to the present and preterite relative participles—e.g., from

Clp1

$eygira, that does (the present relative participle of ey, to do), is

iy

formed $eygira-(v)-an, he that does; seygira-(v)-al, she that does, &c.

VERBAL NOUNS.

429

In like manner, from the past relative participle $eyda, that did, is

|

ingis

formed $eyda-(v)-an, he that did ; $eyda-(v)-al, she that did, &e.; and

il

by simply adding the appropriate terminations, participial nouns of

¢ dl

any number or gender (but always of the third person only) may be

made at pleasure.

A similar series of future participial nouns exists,

-,

or may be constructed if required—e.g., 6duvdn, he who will read, or

0}

who is accustomed to read.

The Tamil future in » or p is destitute of a

il

relative participle; but its existence is implied in that of future parti-

I

cipial nouns, like péva-du, that which will go, and kdnba-(v)-an, Le

who will see, and must have ended like the future relative participle

il

of the Canarese, in va or pa.

The Tamil aoristic future in wm, though

| 0o

a relative participle as well as a future tense, forms no participial

] b?au

nouns, probably in consequence of wm being in reality a conjunctive

] (o=

particle, not a true suffix of relation.

Negative participial nouns of

| nown

each number and gender are formed exactly like the affirmative parti-

ive

cipial nouns, by suffixing the various demonstrative terminations to the

racker

negative, instead of the affirmative, relative participle.

These partici-

g

pial nouns are declined like other nouns ; nevertheless, being parts of

Ii L

the verbs, they have the same power of governing nouns as the verbs

, o0

to which they belong—e.g., vitter (k)kattinavanuklu, to him who built

the house.

t; the

In these respects all the Dravidian dialects are so perfectly

1008

agreed that it is needless to multiply quotations.

Ol

There is a peculiarity about the words used as neuter participial

gl

nouns in Tamil which requires to be noticed.

Each of them is used

nd

in three different significations, viz.—as the third person neuter of the

verb, as a neuter relative-participial noun, and as a verbal-participial

(i3

noun.

Thus $eygiradu in the first connection means it does ; in the

IiITe

second, that which does; in the third, the doing or to do.

I have

beayr! l

termed it in the third connection ““a verbal-participial noun,” to dis-

i)

tinguish 1t from the ordinary verbal nouns, which are formed from

the theme, not from participles, and from which the idea of time is

excluded.

I

It is a verbal noun in use, though participial in origin.

am persuaded that of these three senses the original and most correct

one is the last—viz., that of the verbal-participial noun; for the

relative-participial noun ought by analogy to be seygira-(v)-adw, not

)t eﬂ(‘l

$eygir-adu ; and whilst it is certain that a participial or verbal noun

g ol

might easily be used as the third person neuter of the verb, in accord-

ymm

ance with the analogy of many other languages, it is difficult to see

how the third person neuter of the verb could come to be used so

s CM\

regularly as it is as a verbal-participial noun.

zlmm

This species of parti-

cipial noun, though neuter or without personality, includes the idea of

fron

time. It has three forms, in accordance with the present, the past, and

110): 6

65 v

430

THE VERB.

the future tenses of the verb

e.g., Seygiradu, the doing; seydadu,

Each of these

the having done ; and $eyvadu, the being about to do.

forms may be pluralised, as far as usage permits, when it is used as

»

the third person neuter of the verb, o

L

as a relative-participial noun ;

but when used abstractly as a verbal-participial noun it is not plural-

1sed.

The participial noun formed from the future is one of the most

commonly used forms of the verbal noun in Canarese—e.g., tliyu-v-adu,

or tlivu-du, the act of descending, from /¢, to descend.

Words of this kind have sometimes been called infinitives; and it

is true that they may generally be rendered in the infinitive on trans-

lating them into English—e.g., appadi seygiradu sar (y) alla, Tam.

(it is) not right to do so.

But this is simply because the English

infinitive itself is sometimes used as a verbal noun, and to do is

equivalent to the participial noun, the doing.

The phrase .might be

Verbal nouns

more closely rendered, the doing thus (is) not right.

of this class become more allied to infinitives when they are put in the

dative—e.g., seygiradu-kku, for the doing—u.e., to do.

As the pronoun

adw becomes in comstruction adan, so Seygiradan-ku, euphonically

$eygiradar-ku, is more common in written compositions, and considered

more elegant, than Seygiradu-kku.

Tamil and Malayilam alone possess an abstract relative-participial

noun, expressing in the form of a declinable participle the abstract idea

denoted by the affirmative verb.

It is formed by appending met

(Mal. ma), the suffix of abstracts, to the present or preterite relative

participle of any verb—e.g., from ¢rukkindr-a, ‘that is’ (the present

relative participle of #ru, to be), by the addition of mez, Tamilians form

trukkindra-met, being. Negative nouns of this description are also

formed in Tamil by appending met to the negative relative participle—

e.g., ird-met, the not being.

These negative participial abstracts are

in more common use in Tamil than the affirmatives, and are as largely

The use of the Tamil

used in Malayalam and Telugu as in Tamil.

affirmative me: is confined to classical compositions ; but the abstract

appellative mouns which are formed by annexing met to the crude

verbal theme (e.g., poru-mei, patience, from poru, to bear) are much

used even in the colloquial dialect of Tamil, as well as in Malayalam

Fhe relative-

and all the other dialects in a slightly altered shape.

participial noun in mei, whilst it is declined ‘like a noun, has the

governing power of a verb; but the corresponding appellative in mes

has the force of a substantive only.

The Tamil suffix mes is ma in Malayélam, me in Canarese, me i

Telugu.

In several of the Scythian tongues we find a suffix used

which bears a considerable resemblance to this.

The suffix of the

VERBAIL NOUNS.

431

participial noun in Finnish is ma or md : in Esthonian ma is the suffix

of the finitive : supines are formed in Finnish by suffixing man : the

Turkish infinitival suffix is mak or mek.

We may also compare with

this Dravidian me or mei, the old Greek infinitive in wev, and such

nouns as zoig-pe, Oso-wé-z, and oxio-pn, each of which exhibits an old

participial suffix.

9

“erbal Nouns.—Dravidian verbal nouns are indeterminate with

respect to time, being formed, not from participles, but from the verbal

root or the formed theme ; and they express the act, not the abstract

Ji

idea, of the verb to which they belong, and hence are called by Tamil

grammarians toril peyar, nouns of operation or einplby_mépt. Verbal

nouns are carefully to be distinguished from verbal derivatives, or sub-

10

stantives derived from verbs. The latter, though derived from verbs,

are used merely as nouns ; whereas the verbal noun, properly 50 called

(like the participial noun), is construed as a verb. As a noun it can

be used as the nominative of a subsequent verb ; and as a verb it may

be preceded by a nominative of its own, and may govern a noun in

case. In several Dravidian grammars written by Europeans this dis-

nslqer

tinction has not been attended to; and Tamil derivative nouns like

nader or nadappu, walk, have been classed with verbal nouns like

rtic

o

nadakker, nadakkudal, and nadakkal, walking. Though‘,‘ however,

it 1des

each of these words may be translated ‘walking,” the first two are

g (14

simply substantives; and adjectives, not adverbs, must be used to

el

qualify them ; whereas nadakkudal, the corresponding noun of opera-

‘ Pl‘éii’

tion, is a true verbal noun, and is qualified by adverbs, precisely as

)

the verb itself, nada, to walk, would be.

ans I

Thus, we can say #idi(y)dy

[t

nadakkudal, acting or walking justly ; but we could not use the

adverb #idi(y)dy to qualify either nadappu or nadei. It would be

racts &

necessary to qualify those words by the adjectival form widi(y)dna,

[t

there being nearly the same difference between nadappu and nadakku-

1l

dal that there is in English between behaviour and behaving.

e

A verbal noun in ge: or ket is often used in "l‘am‘i‘i——-e.g., vrukker,

the being; $eyger, the doin

2

,

o

but though this is used as a verbal

) e

noun—e.g., appade irukker-(y)-dl, seeing that it is so, more literally

\

through its being so, yet the forms which are most commonly used as

i

[

verbal nouns, and which have the best claim fo that character, are

those which terminate in al—e.g., sey(y)-al, or $ey-dal, doin

(=1

o

m, B

nadakk-

)

R

al, or nadakkudal, walking. Whether the suffix appended be a/ or

dal, it is generally suffixed, not to the crude root, but to the formed

g

verbal theme—i.e., to that which forms the basis of the infinitive and

quink

of the aoristic future—e.g., the verbal noun that is formed from

-,

‘_h\ [1)$

to be, is not ér-al, but ru-kk-al, being ; and frgm nad-a, to walk, is

432

THE

VERB.

formed not na-d-al, but nada-kk-al.

Notwithstanding this, al or dal

is sometimes added directly to the ultimate base—e.g., not only have

we pbg-al or pbgu-dal, going, but also pd-dal ; and not only dg-al or

dgu-dal, becoming, but also d-dal.

Probably, however, in these in-

stances the right explanation is, that the formative g of pd-gu and

d-gu has been softened by use.

The d of dal 1s clearly a formative

of the same character and force as the g of gew or kker,; and this is

proved by the circumstance that the d is doubled and converted into

¢t when the verb becomes a transitive instead of an intransitive, or

when euphonic considerations require-—e.g., comp. kurer-dal, intran-

sitive, a being curtailed, with Zures-ttal, transitive, a curtailing.

It

is evident that this ¢ is not intended in any way to denote the pre-

terite tense;

for the verbal noun in dal is as indeterminate with

respect to time as that in af or that in ger, kke:; and the corresponding

Telugu forms are fa and dam-u—e.g., chéyu-ta or chésu-ta, or more

The distinction which has been shown

commonly chéya-dam-u, doing.

to exist between verbal nouns, properly so called, generally ending in

al, and derivative nouns, furnishes, I conceive, some confirmation of

the hypothesis that a/, the Tamil suffix of verbal nouns, is a secondary

form of a, the sign of the infinitive.

It is remarkable that / or af is

used also in Mongolian as a formative of verbal nouns—e.g., chidal,

ability, from chedahu, to be able.

8. Derivative Nouns or Verbal Derivatives.— It seems scarcely

necessary to enter into the investigation of the formatives of werbal

derivatives, or substantives derived from verbs, most of those formatives

being merely euphonic, and their number in the various dialects,

particularly in Tamil, being very great.

It may be desirable, how-

ever, to direct the reader’s attention to the more characteristic and

interesting modes in which the Dravidian languages form nouns of

this class.

(i.) The first class of derivative nouns (if indeed it is correct to

consider them as deriwatives) consists in those that are identical with

verbal themes—e.g., compare katt-u, a tie, and katf-u, to tie.

(ii.) Some verbal themes become nouns by the doubling and harden-

ing of the final consonant— e.g., erutt-u, a letter, from erud-u, to write ;

pdtt-u, a song, from pdd-u, to sing.

This is especially a Tamil method

of forming derivative nouns, for some of the corresponding Telugu

nouns are formed differently ; and where they do resemble the Tamil,

the resemblance consists only in the hardening, and not also in the

doubling, of the final consonant—e.g., pdta, Tel. a song, from pdd-u,

to sing.

Telugu differs also from Tamil in changing the final or

enunciative « of the verbal root into a.

Compare df-a, play (Tam.

VERBAL NOUNS.

433

M‘

\(%

dtt-u), from dd-u, to })léy. The Tamil mode of doubling, as well as

o

hardening, the final consonant, seems most in accordance with Dra-

vidian analogy ; for it is when a sonant is doubled that it is naturally

i

converted into a surd, and when it is not doubled, it should be pro-

\{4

nounced as a sonant.

1§

It is remarkable how many purposes are served by the doubling of

110

Dravidian final consonants.

(i.) It places substantives in an adjec-

(r

tival relation to succeeding substantives; (ii.) it converts intransitive

all-

verbs into transitives; (iii.) it forms a sign of the preterite tense ; and

i

(iv.) it forms derivative nouns from verbal themes.

IE:

(ii.) A very interesting mode of forming derivatives is that of

1t

lengthening the included vowel of monosyllabic verbal roots—e.g., in

ng

Tamil, from pad-u, to suffer, comes pdd-u,

J

suffering

o)

from man, to

(4

glitter, comes min, a star.

Nor is this method found only in the

s‘.\j i

classics : it appears in words of the most familiar class—e.g., ndkk-u,

1l

the tongue, from nakk-uw, to lick.

Tamil simply lengthens the root

of

vowel in forming derivatives of this class, and leaves the final con-

ALY

sonant unchanged ; but Telugu and Canarese harden the final conso-

vls

nant, in addition to lengthening the root vowel—e.g., from pad-u, to

suffer, they form not pdd-u, but pdf-u, suffering.

See the section on

50 1 Rvoxonnst

Iy

4. Abstract nouns are formed from verbal themes by suffixing mei

)(ll

—e.g., poru-met, endurance, from porw, to bear.

The same suffix forms

(%]

abstracts also from nouns of quality or relation and pronominals—e.g.,

(15,

peru-mer, greatness, from per-u, great, and tan-mei, nature, quality,

[

from tan, self, literally self-ness.

This suffix is in Telugu mi—e.g.,

and

kali-mq, wealth, from kalu-gu, to accrue.

5 Ui

5. Many nouns are formed from verbs in Tamil by suffixing am,

and at the same time doubling and hardening the final consonant of

Ct 10

the verbal theme.

ng being the equivalent of ¢, nd of d, nd of d, and

W hh

mb of b, g on being doubled becomes kk, nd becomes tf, nd becomes

tt, and mb becomes pp—e.g., from tiig-u, to sleep, is formed tikk-am,

rden

sleep ; from tirund-u, to become correct, comes terutt-am, a correction ;

quites

from téngd-u, to dig, comes (I think) tétf-am,.a garden; and from

ot

virumb-u, to desire, comes virupp-am, a desire. In most instances the

Telugu (and the Canarese always) rejects the final 7 of the nouns of

lagd

this class—e.g., tidg-u, Tel. sleep, instead of* the Tamil takk am.

I‘aﬂ]ﬂ.

m fhe

Though the final consonant, if g, d, b (or their equivalents), is always

Ud(‘l,ilv

doubled before this am in Tamil and Malayalam, verbal themes which

ol OF

end in other consonants often become nouns by simply annexing am—

e.g., uyar-am, height, from wyar, to be high, dr-am, depth, from dr, to

(Tam,

be deep. Mr Edkins conuects this m Wi‘th' the m used in Hebrew

2 E

434

THE VERB.

to form participial substantives from verbs—e.g., mushpat, judg-

ment, from shdphat, to judge.

See, however, “ Case-signs : the Accu-

sative.”

6. A vast number of verbal derivatives in all the Dravidian dialects,

are formed by suffixing to the verbal themes those favourite and mul-

tifariously used formatives, g, d, b, under various modifications, and

with various vowel terminations.

i. The ¢ formative generally becomes in Tamil gei—e.g., $ey-ger, an

action, from $ey, to do ; it is nasalised to sigei—e.g., kd-(it)gei, heat,

from Ady, to burn; or it is doubled and hardened into kker—e.g.,

padu-kkei, a bed, from pad-u, to lie.

The corresponding Canarese

formatives are ke or ge, with not unfrequently the prefix of an euphonic

(2

The Telugu nouns which take this formative terminate in ka or ks

—e.g., éli-ka, government, from él-u, to govern, and wuni-ki, residence,

from wupdu, to be, to dwell.

ii. The d formative is in Tamil di—e.g., kedu-di, ruin, from ked-u,

to spoil; Being doubled and hardened it becomes tti—e.g., unar-tty,

sensibility, from wpar, to feel, to be sensible.

This ¢ is generally

softened into chi—e.g., pugar-che (instead of pugar-tti, in Malaydlam

pugar-cha), praise, from pugar, to praise. This formative is ¢ instead of d

in Canarese and Telugu.

It appears in Canarese under the forms of ta

and le—e.g., hogal-te, praise, from hogal (Tam. pugar), to praise ;

kdy-ta, producing fruit, from kdy, to fruit.

In Telugu we find ¢a or

ta and & or ti—e.g., alasa-ta, fatigue, from alay-u (alas-u), to be

tired ; tind-i, food, eating, from tin, to eat ; mi-ta, a lid, from mi-yu,

to shut ; and nadi-ti, conduct, from nadu-chu, to walk.

iii. The b formative is in Tamil generally softened into v—t.e., ve or

vu—e.g., kél-vi, hearing, from %é], to hear, and marei-vu, concealment,

from marez, to conceal.

In some instances, however, b is euphonised

into mb (mbu)—e.g., vé-mbu, the Margosa tree, from vé-g, to be umbra-

b cannot retaln its

geous ; pd-mbu, a snake, from pd-y, to spring.

proper sound before a vowel, and when single either becomes v or mb

and that the vz which is so common a formative in each Dravidian

dialect was softened from bu, appears from the circumstance that when

it is doubled it becomes ppu—e.g., nada-ppu, a walking, iru-ppu, a

being, md-ppu, old age.

In Telugu this formative is vu, v3, or pu—

e.g., chd-vu, death, from cha-chchu, to die (corresponding Tam. and Can.

$d-vu, from $d) ; digu-vu, the bottom, from dig-u, to descend ; teli-ve,

understanding, from teli-yu, to know ; chéru-pu, nearness, from ciér-v,

to draw near ; édu-pu, a weeping, from édu-chu, to cry (corresponding

Tam. ara-ppu, from ara).

Canarese generally uses in this connection

vu alone—e.g., 1ra-vu, a being, corresponding to the Tamil eru-ppu—

VERBAL DERIVATIVES

435

but sometimes it uses also pu—e.g., bidu-vu, or bidu-pu, an open

space.

7 A few derivative nouns are formed in Tamil and Malayalam by

Y

afﬁxmg certain particles, originally independent nouns with a meaning

|

1

of their own, which in process of time have come to be used convention-

ally Such derivatives would naturally be considered compounds, were

it not that the meaning of the second member of the compound is more

il

or less in abeyance

Thus by suffixing kan, the ordinary meaning of

i,

which is ¢an eye,’ but which in the classics means also ¢ place, and 1is

2

the ordinary classical sign of the locative case, Tamil forms tdu-(k)kan,

A

oppression, from 4d-u, to press, also uru-kan, poverty, from urwu, to

Il

suffer

These words are used only in the classical dialect, but there are

[

derivative nouns largely used in the colloquial dialect which are

4

formed by affixing pdd-u, a condition of being, from pad-u, to experi-

ence, and mdnam, perhaps meaning originally likeness, from mdn-u, to

l

be like, but, as actually used, merely a formative suffix, without any

1l

very definite meaning of its own—e.g., kattu-(p)pddu, a compact from

Iy

kattu, to tie; $ér-mdnam, junction, from Ser, to join also kattu-mdnam,

To these may be added

building, from %katfu, in the sense of ¢ build.’

words terminating in agam, house, place—e.g., vdnagam (vdn agam)

0

vdn-am or vén, the sky ; vetyagam (vei-(y)agam) = vei-(y)am or ves, the

earth (from've, to place, vei-gu, to rest).

I have a suspicion, however,

or

that in these cases the words end simply in am, and that ¢ is inserted

he

euphonically, as is certainly the case in the colloquial pronunciation of

i

some words—e.g., andrddam, daily, which is commonly mispronounced

andrddagam ; lanjam (a word borrowed from Telugu), a bribe, mis-

j O

pronounced lanjagam

Dr Gundert derives from this agam the

xent

Malayalam ndragam, an orange tree, literally, fragrance holder, from

nsEd

ndr-u, Tam.-Mal. to be fragrant, Sans. ndranga

rk

The following will be found, I think, a complete list of Tamil

y 16

derivative nouns formed by suffixing formative particles

I do not

Iﬂb )

include in this list any participial nouns, whether derived from

Jian

verbs or from appellatives, or any verbal nouns, properly so called,

il

or any nouns of agency, a class of nouns which will be considered

[/il, &

further on

The nouns in the list are derivative substantives ;

but

1)7&’

there are three classes even of these which are not 1ncluded——v1z

nouns which are absolutely identical with verbal roots—e.g., nidu,

(a

fll Ul

length, from nédu, to be long ; nouns which are formed by doubling

a letter

et

the final consonant of verbal roots—e.g., eruttu

from

and nouns which are formed by lengthening the

ﬂdmg

rudw, to write

included vowel of the verbal root, without any other change—e.g.,

yoti00

min, a star, from main, to glitter

I include in this last only that

o

436

THE VERB.

class of derivative nouns which are formed by means of an addition

to the root.

The addition too is not one of - an. independent

word—in which event we should have a new compound noun—but

that of a mere particle, a relic doubtless of some old independent

word, but at present holding the meaner position of a suffix, either

without any meaning at all, or without any definite meaning now dis-

coverable.

A very large number of the nouns belonging to this class

are used also as verbs.

Though verbal derivatives in origin, and still

used as such, they have become also secondary verbal themes.

T have

excluded such nouns as far as possible, retaining only those which are

either never used as verbal themes, or at least very rarely. I have

preferred also nouns derived, by the addition of a formative, from

older nouns, where such could be had, to nouns derived from verbs,

for the purpose of keeping the list as clear as possible from verbal

Pouns, properly so called.

FORI\IA;I'IVE,

Nouw.

Roor.

mag-a, a éhild.

mag (pl. ma]c/cq,_l).

$ey(y)-a, to do; type of infi-

$ey, to do.

nitive, probably an old

verbal noun.

$ur-@, the shark.

probal;ly $ur-u, quick.

vir-d, a festival.

vir-t, to keep awake.

kar-v, charcoal.

kar-u, black.

$ér-, a village.

$ér, to join.

(A

pir-er, the waxing or waning

pir, other, after; pira,

moon.

to be born.

tol(l)-ex, trouble.

tol, old.

qu

nan-gu, goodness.

nal (nan), good.

pira-gu, afterwards.

pir-a. (= pin), after.

ngu

kwra-ngu, a root.

kir-a (= kir), below.

ti-ngu, evil.

tZ, bad.

kku

kiru-kku, craziness.

vru-kirw, giddy.

kodu-kku, a sting.

probably Zod-w, crooked,

cruel.

ger

pandi-ger, a feast.

pandu, Tam. ancient;

!

pandu, Tel. to be ripe,

|

to be accomplished ;

|

ultimaterootpar-u,old.

teri-ger, a mill.

|

| tird, to turn.

nge

kd-nger, heat.

kdy, to burn.

kker

paru-kkei, a pebble, a grain

|

of rice.

|

par-u, large (= per-u).

f

vdpr-kker, felicity (il-vap-kier, ‘vdr, to flourish.

domestic life ; ¢/, house).

VERBAL DERIVATIVES.

437

FoRMATIVE

Noon.

Roor.

S T

St

/¢

pa-§t, moss, sea-weed.

pd-vu, to spread.

iy

koru-#iji, a shrub.

kor-w, tender (koru-ndu,

chehe

a tender twig).

| ires-chehi, flesh.

wret, to flow, issue.

SU

i tari-$u, fallow land.

tari, to remain,

chehu

|

| amer-chchu, the office of a

amer, to settle.

|

minister.

$er

| poli-$ei, interest.

poli, to increase.

dz

| pada-di, chaff.

= padar, chaff, the same,

nde

du

kara-ndi, a spoon, a trowel.

= kara-ner, the same,

|

kura-du, pincers.

kura-ndu, to be crooked,

from kur-u, short.

kwru-du, blindness.

kur-u, tender.

de

uru-du, strength.

ndz

on

A

dz, a lizard.

ur-u, to be strong.

tte

.

= 0dr, the same.

|

| paru-tés

, cotton.

par-u, to expand.

du

paru-du, defect.

par-u, old.

ndu

ttu

maru-ndw, medicine.

mar-u, sweet-smelling.

kwru-ttu, young shoot of palm.

kuru, tender,

der

wu-dez, a lie.

wr-u, to swerve.

|

nder

|

|

kura-ndet, an infant.

kur-a, young.

[Euphonic changes of the formatives s, du, and

des, after consonants. |

dv

kat-chi (kdn-di), a spectacle. | kdn, to see.

tér-chchi (tér-du), intelligence.| tér, to ascertain.

ural-chehi(ural-dr) ,awhirling| ural, to whirl.

nan-dri (nal-di), a benefit.

nal, good.

ver-re (vel-di), victory.

vel, to conquer.

pugar-chchi(pugay-di), praise

pugar, to praise.

dt-cha (41-dz), possession.

@l, to possess.

dt-t» (@l-di), a woman,

@/, a person.

du

ton-du (tol-du),

tol, old.

ton-dru (tol-du),

} antiquity.

der

pet-ter (pen-dei), a hen.

pen, female.

parat-tes (parand-det), shag- | parandu, to scratch.

giness.

ton-dei (tol-der), the throat.

tol, to perforate.

dt-ter (#in-det), uncleanness.

in, flesh.

kad-u, harsh? fkad-a, to

kad-an, debt (= lcad—am).-

pass over.

ar-an, virtue ( = ar-am).

‘ ar-u, to cut, to define.

e e A s e e SR T R

THE

VERB.

438

s

FORMATIVE

|

NouN.

Roor.

|

|

e e e e e e e

bu

mara, ancient ?

| mara-bu, usage.

pan, fit for use.

| pan-bu, quality.

en-bu, a bone.

= elum-bu, the same

B

mbu

|

|

nara-mbu, a vein, fibre.

= ndr, fibre.

id-u, to press.

=

| idu-mbu, haughtiness, oppres-

|

sion.

seva-ppu, redness.

se, sev, red.

o

kar-u, black.

kaxu-ppu, blackness.

pper

i

kala-ppet, a plough.

= kala-m, a vessel.

am

par-am, a ripe fruit.

par-u, old, mature.

=l

nal-am, a benefit.

nal, good.

|

ding in am, which double and

[Illustrations of nouns en

ant of the root before am. ]

harden the final conson

g = kk + am

Akk-am, increase.

dg-u, to become.

vikk-am, a swelling.

ving-w, to swell.

ng = kk + am

asij-w, to fear.

7ij = chch + am

achch-am, fear.

kdtt-am, a company.

kid-u, to join.

d=.t+am

tond-u, to dig.

nd = tt +am

tott-am, a garden (= tod-u).

nind-w, to swim.

nd =t + am

nitt-am, swimming.

virupp-am, a desire.

virumb-w, to desire.

mb = pp + am

am

kuyr-dm, a company.

Four-u, to gather together. |

mer

murer-met, order.

murer, a turn.

¢i, to be close (the num-

|

ev-met, closeness.

ber five).

kur-dy, a tube.

comp. kur-t, a hole.

dy

pd-vu, to spread.

pd-y, a mat.

E

ar

$ud-ar, brightness.

$ud-u, to be hot.

pud-w, new, fresh.

\\

pud-ar, a thicket.

pug-u, to enter.

al

pug-ar, fog.

1

kul-ir, cold.

comp. kul-i, to bathe.

ug-u, to shed.

ug-ir, a finger-nail.

kud-t, to leap

rér

kudi-ret, a horse.

amongst the following nouns end-

[T do not include

bal nouns properly so called, which

ing in al ver

retain the force of a verb, and m

ay be preceded

by a nominativ

e.

The nouns I cite as specimens

forms of still more primitive

are secondary

nouns ; or else the verbs from which they are

formed are uncertain. |

al

pei-(y)-al, a boy (=peid-al). | per = pasu, green, fresh

ud-al, the body.

ud-u, to put on.

pgsf-al, a hurricane ( = puyal).| puy, to seize ?

VERBAL DERIVATIVES.

439

FORMATIVE.

Noun.

Roor.

e

ur-al, a mortal.

= ur-am, strength.

vay-al, a rice field.

ver, to place ?

vand-al, sediment at bottom

of tanks.

aler

$ud-aler, a burning ground.

$ud-u, to burn.

may-aler, childhood.

mar-a, young.

nd-u, to leave.

vidud-ales (=widu-ttal), re-

lease).*

2l

mug-il, a cloud.

comp. mug-ir,to fold up,

as a flower its petals.

tott-+l, a cradle.

= tof¢-4, a trough.

wittil, a grasshopper.

vett-u, to cut, to clip?

ul

alg-ul, the female waist.

alg-u, to diminish (ulti-

mate base a/, not).

vt

kuru-ve, a small bird.

kwr-w, small, tender.

U

tura-vu, a large well.

comp. tures, a ford.

vér

tda-vei, a lane.

comp. td-am, place.

para-ver, a large bird.

par-a, to fly.

ar

vd-ar, a petal of a flower

?

ag-ar, a fort ditch.

& agxar, to dig.

al

ad-al, skin.

wl

ar-ul, grace.

ar~z.a, to trickle down, to

be precious.

por-ul, substance, wealth

por-u, to unite with,

wler

wr-uler, a wheel.

= wur-ul, a wheel.

ru

kina-ru, a well.

= kén-v, a well, a mine ?

vels-ru, paleness.

vel, white.

4. Nouns of Agency.—The participial nouns of the Dravidian lan-

guages are largely used as nouns of agency ; but such nouns are also

formed in each of the Dravidian dialects in a more direct and primitive

manner by suffixing ¢ to the verbal root—e.g., un(n)-+ (Tam. and Can.),

an eater, from un, to eat ; kol(l)-+ (Tam. and Can.), a killer, from kol,

to kill.

The Dravidian languages in borrowing feminine derivative

nouns from Sanskrit, change the final ¢ of the Sanskrit feminine

into short i—e.g., sunda-ri, Sans. a fair woman, becomes sundars.

But this final 7 of feminine derivatives, which is directly borrowed

* Talei, head, place, is a good deal used in the classical dialect as a sign of

the locative case; but the other words ending in alei=:al, seem to show that

vidudalei is formed, not from vidu-taler, but from vigudal-ei.

The form vidudal

is a verbal noun, properly so ealled, in common use.

440

THE VERB.

fﬁé)ﬁ Sanskrit, is not to be cénfouhded_with the more distinctively

Dravidian ¢, by suffixing which nouns of agency or operation are

formed, without reference to gender, whether masculine, feminine, or

neuter.

It is also to be distinguished from the ¢ which in Sanskrit is

sometimes used as a suffix of nouns of agency, generally masculines—

e.g., kdr-v-n, a doer, kav-i-s, a poet, literally, a speaker, in borrowing

which from Sanskrit, the Dravidian languages invariably reject the

sign of the nominative, and use the crude theme (e.g., kavt) instead.

Possibly 4, the Dravidian suffix of nouns of agency, may have sprung

from the same origin as the ¢ by which similar nouns are sometimes

formed in Sanskrit ; but it appears certain that it has not been directly

borrowed from Sanskrit, and it does not appear even to have been

introduced into the Dravidian languages in imitation of it.

Its

independence of a direct Sanskrit origin will sufficiently appear from

the following statement of the manner in which it is used.

(1.) Dravidian nouns of agency formed by suffixing ¢, are destitute

of gender ; their gender depends entirely upon the connection—e.g.,

paner-(y)-ér-i, Tam. a Palmyra climber (from panei, a Palmyra, and

ér-u, to climb), may be considered as masculine, because men only are

climbers of the palmyra ; man-vett-i, Tam. a native spade, a hoe (from

man, the ground, and veff-u, to dig or 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 point of view, are destitute

of gender in themselves, and may be applied at discretion to objects of

any gender.

(2.) Nouns of agency may be formed in this manner from primitive,

underived nouns, as well as from verbal roots—e.g., ndr-kdl-;, Tam. a

chair, literally that which has four feet, from ndl-w, four, and kdl, a

foot.

(3.) 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 aorist—

e.g., ung-t, Tam. (as well as un(n)-2), an eater.

(4.) My chief reason for regarding this suffix as a true and ancient

Dravidian form, and as not directly borrowed from Sanskrit, whatever

may 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 connections, and to a much

larger extent in all these varieties of use, than in Sanskrit itself.

The

NOUNS OF AGENCY.

441

following Tamil examples cannot be supposed to have been derived

from Sanskrit precedents :—Zka](/)-i, euphorbia,¥from %al, toddy, sweet

!

sap ; wvel({)-t, silver, from wvel, to be white ; pul-<, the cheetah, or

leopard, from pul, small ; /¢, a person or thing that has nothing, from

@, not ; dr-, the sea, from dr-u, to be deep.

Compare also the follow-

ing compounds : vari-kdit-i, a guide, literally, a way-shower ; vdnam-

(4

bad-i, the lark, literally the heaven-singer ; foftdl-vdd-i, the sensitive

plant, literally, if (one) touch, the witherer, or as we should prefer to

§

say, touch-me-and-I-wither.

8

ADVERBS.—It is unnecessary in a work of this kind to enter into

y

1

the investigation of the Dravidian adverbs, for, properly speaking, the,

13

Dravidian languages have no adverbs at all. Every word that is used

as an adverb in the Dravidian languages is either a noun, declinable or

I

indecliﬁable, or. a verbal theme, or the infinitive or gerund of a verb ;

(]

and illustrations of the manner in which those words acquire an ad-

f

verbial force and of their use will be found in the ordinary grammars

of each of the Dravidian dialects.

Much use is made in each of the

d

dialects of a peculiar style of adverb formed by means of reiterative,

mimetic syllables, to which is added the verbal participle saying, or,

the infinitive to say, or so as to say. Thus mada-mada(v)endru ids

virundadu, Tam. it thundered terribly, literally, the thunderbolt fell,

saying mada-mada.

These mimetic adverbs may be invented at

pleasure, though some of them are so commonly used that they have

acquired a place in dictionaries.

4

16l

hat

ifed

jen

ovel

jgive

piry

oy

e

]U,ICh

The

COMPARATIVE PARADIGM OF A DRAVIDIAN VERB. WHERE LANGUAGES CONTAIN TWO DiALrcTs, A HIGHER OR MORE

ANCIENT AND A LOWER OR COLLOQUIAL THE CONJUGATIONAL FORMS HERE GIVEN ARE THOSE OF THE FORMER.

N

Root : Tam. $ey, to do

Mal. chey ; Tel. chéy-w; Can

gey,; Tulu, malpw (

Can. mdd-u), to do or make

Coorg key

AFFIRMATIVE

Moop.— Present Tense

TAMIL

MALAYALAM

TELUGT

CANARESE

TurLu

Coore

s

I do

ygindrén, Sey-

cheyyunnén,

chéyuchun-

malpuve

keyuve, keyuvale

gindranen

nany

} geydapem

seygmdwdy, sey-

. Thou doest.

chéyuchun-

geydapay

malpuva

keyuv

gndre, Seygin-

(cheyyunndy)

navw

dranez.

Seygindran,

sey-

chéyuchun-

He does.

gmdwanan

cheyyunndn

nadu

|

geydapam

malpuve

She does.

Seygindrdl, Sey-

cheyyunndl

§

chéyuchun-

geydapal

malpuwval’

b keyuva, keywvala.

gindranal.

nade

It does.

$e ng%dﬂld u.

(cheyyunnadu) l

geydapudu

malpundu

=

sejgmdv om, se/—

We do.

gendrém,

Sey-

cheyyunndm, chey-

chéyuchunnd-

geydapevu

keyuva, keyuvala

gindram,

Sey-

yunnénial

mu.

geydapem

} malpuva

gmdmnam

Ye do.

Seygindrir

sey-

(cheyyunnir)

geydaprr

malpuvar

keyuvira

gendranir.

chéyuchun-

(Persons

They

Seygendradr, sey-

cheyyunndr,chey-

gendranar.

yunnor

( ' ndru

geydapar

malpuver

keyuva, keyuvala

gg

iﬁ;é

T ——

Ao

\

GLILALT AT XT -

chéyuchun- |

:keg/zwa, , keyuvala

seyqindra,

(cheyyunnava).

nave.

geydapuvi. | malpuva.

(Things) They do. {

gindrana.

Sey- }

J

PRESENT VERBAL PARTICIPLES.-

geyutum,

$eya, Seyya (also

geyvutum,

chéyuchu,chéy-

geyutte,

keyuta, kejynd .

Doing. {

future).

wuchunnu.

geyyute,

&e.

;} maltondu.

PRESENT RELATIVE PARTICIPLES.

geyva (also

malpu.

That does.

Seygindra.

| cheyyunna.

chéyuchunna.

‘ keyuva (also future).

|

futmfe).

1

Tamil poets use also

Instead of the

regularly inflect-

iig'

a present formed from

ed form of the

Wit

dmandru — e.g.,

I

5

verb, geygum is

ydnindrén,

also used in all |

1

Every

termination

num-

taken by gindru is

genders,

taken also by dnindrw.

bers, and per- |

sons, and for the l

past and future,

as well as the

|

present tense.

-

e

~Ew )

A ot et /

SHTITO ELITV

ALLVIHAIL LSV

2220/ >, /

PIrp 3wqg.,y,

*

WP UL

vuaphos ‘phfiss

2oy {

Dajou

1joUL }

npliob

289’1{9

nphayo

vhifias

{

nQlias

nplias

} auop SUIA’BH

;

STTIIDILAVI TVIITN ISVJ

vp gjvw

YjOU

nanplioh

72/&695‘9'1[9

(-ounpliays)

vupplias ‘vplhiss

DU

prp Loy, (sSuryy,)

|

2P 2jOUW

L2y OUL

plioh

ADUDPLESS ‘applios

pIp L1, (suosioy)

pualloy

4

DD 2joUl

-opliays ‘uppliayo

}

LDYjOUL

£pliob

e

(waplioyo)

wunplias ‘uplias

PIp oX

wouU

242905970

wap

|

-0plas ‘UWauvplios

PIP oA

oy

P 2jous

DIjOUL

woplhiaryd

wpplias

{

-fiob ‘naopliab

} UPS9YD

{

‘wapliss ‘wgpliss

pU°

nyvPhab ‘nyp

wlly {

P IfoU

DU ou

il ‘npnplioh

—

“(npoplionyo)

nPOPLias

REPal

‘70[[97 j

PP Fjout

Jorinw

joplisb

nuasayo

jopliayo

‘uUDU

jouDplios ‘jpplss

PIP 9yg

‘vunlloy ‘vlloy 1

op jour

2j0UL

woplhiaob

uDUDPLIS “UPPLhos

-Opliayo ‘uppliayo

PIP o

nﬁz[faol

op 2jow

DjOUL

wUDPLhas “wplhs

hivpliob

202225912

(hpplioyo)

{

wnlloy

ap oL

2pjou

woplioh

wphias ‘lipphs

} 1SPIp noyp,

S s

S

i

0

100110 ‘j0eyroduuy

UYL Yo

"UQUDPLY ‘U Py

UIUDPL2S ugplias

PPy

|

e T

DY00))

2710,

ASTAVNY])

apaTa,

RVIVAVIVI

TINV,

e S SN i

SN

ISULL ISDJ—'AOOTY HAILVIWATLIY

ponupuo)—qUIA NVIAIAVIA V 40 WOIAVEVd TAILVIVIINOO

SR TS

o

2/

A2

rcoyee

Having done. \\

Sez,

Seyy

Seyd

\ chezydee

K|

«

PasT RELATIVE PARTICIPLES

That did

Seyda

cheyda

chésina

maliy

malt'd

geyda

malt’ de

N.B. — Instead of

} kejja

the more fully de-

geygum also

veloped preterite, the

used in all gen-

ders

numbers

poets use also Seydu

and persons, in-

for I did, Seydum for

stead of the re-

we did.

gularly mﬁected

ver

AFFIRMATIVE MooD.— Future Tense

(dorist.)

sey Jven

seyven

|

I will do.

l

$e yvanen, Sey-

cheyvén, cheyvan

chéyudunu

geyvem

malpe

keyuvam

van, $ey Jval

Thou wilt do.

Seyvdy, spym sevez

(cheyvdyr)

chéyuduvu

geyvay

malpa

keyuviya

He will do.

seyvdn Seyvan,

Seyvanan.

cheyvan, cheyvon

geyvam

malpe

She will do.

Seyvdl, Seyval,

cheyvdl, cheyval

J

chéyunu,

geyval

malpal

Seywmal

keyu

It will do.

seyyum Sey _/?)adu

cheyyum

|

geyvudu

malpu

Seyvom, Se /venz,

seyvdm se yvam,

We will do.

cheyvom

geyvevu

Seyvanam, Sey-

chéyudumu {

geyvem

}

malpa

keyuva

vanem.

Ye will do.

$ eyvzr Se yvamr

geyver

malpar

keyuvira

Seyvdr, Seyba (en,

|

cheyvdr, cheyvas

(Persons.) They

to say, takes

cheyvor.

chéyudury

geyvar

malper

will do.

also enmar, en-

mdr, enmandr.

(enmarasinTam)

|

(Things.)

They

ey, Yygum,

seyva,

keyu

will do

§

Seyna.

}g

cheyyum

chéyunu

geyvury,

malpa

COMPARATIVE PARADIGM OF A DRAVIDIAN VERB—Continued.

FuruRE VERBAL PARTICIPLES.

TAMIL.

MALAYALAM.

TELUGU.

CANARESE.

TuLu.

CoORG.

Gl

i

e

B R e

maltondu (also pre-

\ keyuta, kejj'nd’

About to do.

Seyvan.

cheyvdn.

J

(also present).

{

sent).

FuTURE RELATIVE PARTICIPLE.

| $eyyum ; also the

f

|

geyva (also

malpuw (also pre-

| keyuva (also pre-

That will do.

uninflected root

cheyyum (cheyva).

chéyu.

{

present).

sent).

J

sent).

sey

J

|

(1.) Instead of the

more fully inflected

form of thefuture,the

poets also use gu and

dw in the first person

sing. (and gum and

dum in the plur.)—

e.g., Seygu, Seydu, 1

will do; Seygum, Sey-

| dum, Wewill do. See

| also the paradigm of

| the past tense.

1

(2.) The poets also

|

often insert gu be- |

tween $ey and the sign |

of tense—e.g., Seygu- |

ven for Seyvén, I will |

;

do ; seyguva for Seyva,

|

they (neut.) will do.

|

—

-

Wi

TMPERATIVE MooD

|

Do thou

Sey, Seyydy,seymd,

chéyumu, ché- |gey, geyya

ma,lpul a

keye

|

/

sqdz (seygu)

} chey

{

yumo, chéyr

geyvudu

se j?/%

r; $e ﬂmn l

chéyundu, ché- | geyyvm, gey-

keyurey

Do ye

l

Se szﬂ i,

Sey-

yunds

vudu

} malpule

f

é

dir* (Seygu).

J cheyvin

{

InFINITIVE MoOOD

present, |

(| malpuni

to make

maltine

perf.,

to %

have made

Seyya, Seyga, Sey

geyyd, gey

To do

L | cheyya,

cheyga

cheya

{

yal, geyye

{ |maltidini,pluperf.,to| { keyuvak

guba, Seyyiya

have had made

second infinitive or

|

supine, malpere

!

to make

L

L

NEGATIVE MoOD.— 4 orest

(Common to all tenses, but most used with a future signification.)

I do not, did not,

Seyyén

cheyyén.

chéyanu

geyyem

or W111 not do.

k)

Thou

do

Seyyay

cheyyd (impers.)

chéyavu

gy uoy

He

do

$

cheyydn

chéyandu

geyyam

;

eyydn

She

do

eyydl

cheyydl

geyyal,

It

do

!i

z:

eyyddu, Seyyd.

cheyyd (impers.)

} chéyadu

{

geyyadu

|

* 1 regard these two forms rather as preterites than as imperatives

COMPARATIVE PARADIGM OF A DRAVIDIAN VERB—Continued

NEGATIVE Moobp.— A orist— Continued.

o T ¥ A R

TAMIL

MAUAYALAM

TELUGU

CANARESE

Turu

CoOORG

Imperfect. Perfect

We do not, did not, | $eyyom

Seyyém

geyyeva, gey-

or will not do

cheyyd (impers. )

Ye

Seyydm

}

chéyamu {

yem.

|

do

Seyyir

cheyyd

do

:

gejyzr

(Pers.) They do

Seyyar

cheyyar

chéyarw

| | geyyar.

(Things) They do

Seyyd, Seyydvana

cheyyd (impers.)

chéyavu

geyyavu

NEGATIVE VERBAL PARTICIPLE

Not doing,

not

having done

Seyyd

Seyyddu

or not bemfr

|

Seyydde,

sey-

cheyyd, cheyydd

geyyade

| malpande

keyate

ydmal

|

cheyydde

} chéyaka

about to do

.

NEGATIVE RELATIVE PARTICIPLE

That does not

cheyydda,

chey

did not, or will

geyyada

malpande

keyata

not do

5

Seyyd, Seyydda {

ydde, cheydtta

} chéyani

|

NEGATIVE IMPLRATIVE

74

| Seyydde,

seyg/el

Do not thou

Seyyal, sqan-

cheyydyga (depre- | chéy Jalcuma

mb, Seyarka (n

cative, also infi- | chéy _/akumo,

|

|

i

n1t1ve)

chéyaka.

and r for /).

”i

ana T Iox

s

————

=S

&

S

eyyddéyum’ $eyd-

man, Seyanmain,

chéyakundu,

Do not ye.

J

cheyydyvin.

$eyarplr ; also

{

]

l

|

seyarka.

cké‘ya/ca?,zdi.

|

NEGATIVE MOOD.—-;Present Tense.

BN

I do not.

Seygindrilén®

=

malpu.

Thou doest not.

:

malpuja.

).

cheyydyinnu (im-

{ keya, keyule,; also

He does not.

sfeg/gin.c?“’-z'l

}

malpuje.

future.

She does not.

pers.)

malpujal

It does not.

malpuge.

We do not.

malpwa.

J

Ye do not.

malpujar

cheyydyinnu (im-

malpujer’

| keya, keyule, also

(Pers.) Theydo not.

pers.)

}

future.

(Things) They do

malpwa.

not.

jji

e e

NEGATIVE Moop.— Past Tense.

Seydilén,

ceydén-

cheyydfifiu

I did not.

en

A

maltys.

malt duji.

pers.)

o

Thou didst not.

do

cheyydiiiv

(do.)

maltya. malt'diya.

He did not.

do

cheyydiiidn

maltye.

malt' dyje.

- kejjile.

She did not.

do

cheydnnidl.

maltyal’ . malt di-

jal.

cheyydiiiu

do

maltyr.

malt diji.

s

\

pers.)

(im- }

25

e

et

* This form is properly a compound, the negative portion of which is the conjugated noun élén or tlan, I am onf;i;sr’lgo is not :I zrxmr not

It ma}; Vl‘)e

used in each number and person like any other conjugated noun.

- " COMPARATIVE PARADIGM OF A DRAVIDIAN VERB—Continued.

) ]

NEGATIVE Moop.— Past Tense—Continued.

TawMmiL.

TELUGU.

CANARESE.

CooRra.

MALAYALAM,

TuoLv.

We did not.

Imperfect. Perfect.

Seydilén, ceydénilén.

cheydfifiu (impers.)

maltya. malt dya.

Ye did not.

ao

maltyar’ . malt di-

cheydniiia

(do.)

Jar,

Pers

.) They did

not

do

cheydninidr.

maltijer’. malt di-

2

- kejjile.

Jer

(Thinés) They |

do

did not.

cheydfisiu (impers.)

|

maltya. malt’dya.

NEGATIVE MooD.— Future Tense.

N

I will not do.

| Seyyalén.

|

|

mahﬁage.

|

I

Thou wilt not do.

1

do

malpaya

He will not do.

i

do

cheyydyum, chey-

| keya, keyule; also

She will not do.

f

do

ydyw (impers.)

|

malpaye.

present.

malpayal

It will not do.

do

malpand’ .

We will not do.

do

malpaya.

Ye will not do.

do

malpayar’

;

]

(Pers.) They will ‘

do

cheyydyum, chey-

malpayer’

keya, keyule, also

|

not do.

ydyw (impers.)

}

g

present.

(Things)

They

do

will not do.

|

— o )

malpaya.

i

S—

N

W

nNot Ao

NEGATIVE VERBAL

PARTICIPLES

See Neg. Aorist

See Neg. Aorist

|

Pres., Not doing

Past, Not having |

do

cheydiiiiu

%

See Neg. Aorist

See Neg

Aorist

done

Fut

|

Not being |

do

cheyydyvan

!k

:r

about to do

J

NEGATIVE RELATIVE PARTICIPLES

Pres

That does

| See Neg. Aorist

not

{

Past

That did

|

See Neg

Aorist

cheyydiiia

not do.

|

‘ See Neg. Aorist

S e

Hut:,

That will

See Neg, Aorist

not do.

1

N e —"-Y——"—

|

i

452

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

% T~\ el ¥l

——p—me

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

THE comparison of the words of languages used to be conducted in

so loose a manner, without definite principles, without regard to

dialectic changes, and to the neglect of the comparison of grammatical

forms and structure, that this branch of philology long fell into not

undeserved disgrace. A comparative vocabulary, however carefully

prepared, appears to me to be of much less philological value than

a comparative grammar. Isolated nouns and verbs are very apt to

get corrupted in the lapse of time, and to adopt one phase of meaning

after another, till the original meaning is overlaid or forgotten ; whilst

declensional and conjugational forms—the bones and sinews of a

language—retain for ages both their shape and their signification with

greater persistency. Nevertheless, I regard the comparison of words,

when carefully and cautiously conducted, as an important help to the

determination of lingual affinities; and it will be found, I think, that

e —— ¢ ————

the following vocabularies bear independent testimony,

in their own

degree, to the same result at which we arrived by grammatical com-

parison—viz., that the Dravidian idioms exhibit traces of an ancient,

deep-seated connection with Pree-Sanskrit, — the assumed archaic

mother-tongue of the Indo-European family,—whilst at the same

time the traces they exhibit of relationship to the languages of the

Scythian group, especially to the Ugrian tongues, are, on the whole,

closer, more distinctive, and more essential.

SECTION I.—INDO-EUROPEAN AFFINITIES.

1. INDEBTEDNESS OF SANSKRIT TO THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES.

Before entering upon the comparison of Dravidian with Sanskrit

words, it is desirable to disentangle the subject from extraneous

questions by a preliminary examination of words which appear to

have been borrowed by Sanskrit from.the Dravidian languages, I

ey

SANSKRIT,

453

have long felt persuaded that some words of Dravidian origin have

found their way into Sanskrit vocabularies ; and I have no doubt that

a still larger number of words have been introduced into Sanskrit from

various other extraneous sources.

I have already discussed the ques-

tion (in Part I, on “Sounds ”) whether it was from the Dravidian

languages that the Sanskrit derived its “ cerebral ”

or lingual con-

sonants,

There is probably almost as large a proportion of Dravidian words

in Sanskrit, as of British words in English : but this probability has

generally remained unnoticed ; and wherever any word was found to

be the common property of the Sanskrit and any of the Dravidian

tongues, it was at once assumed to be a Sanskrit derivative. Doubt-

less, the number of Sanskrit derivatives, properly so called, which have

been introduced into the Dravidian languages, is very great ; but those

words are almost always recognised and admitted to be derivatives by

Tamil and Telugu lexicographers, and carefully distinguished from

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-

ticular word was borrowed by the Sanskrit from the Ta

mil, or by the

Tamil from the Sanskrit.

Sanskrit lexicographers and grammarians

were not always so discriminate as their Dravidian brethren ; and if

any writer had happened to make use of a I

ocal or provincial word,

that is,

a word belonging to the vernacular of the district in which he

resided (and it was natural that such words should oce

asionally be

used, for variety of metre or some other cause, especially

after Sanskrit

had ceased to be a spoken ton

gue), every such word, provided only it

were found written in Sanskrit characters, was forthwith set down in

the vocabularies as Sanskrit. Some words of Greek or Roman origin,

such as denarius, doa, Nimwriy (in the sense of a minute of

a degree),

and even the Greek names of the signs of the Zodiac, have f

ound their

way into Sanskrit. If so, it may safely be concluded that a more con-

siderable number of words belonging to the old Dr

avidian vernaculars

must have obtained a footing in the Sanskrit vocabularies.

The grounds or conditions on which T think any word contained in

the Sanskrit lexicons may be concluded to be of Dravidian o

rigin, are

as follows :—

(i.) When the word is an isolated one in Sanskrit, without a root

and without derivatives, but is surrounded in the Dravidian 1

zmguages

with collateral, related, or derivative words s

(ii.) when Sanskrit pos-

sesses other words expressing the same idea, whilst the Dravidian

tongues have the one in question alone ; (iil.) when the word is not

found in any of the Indo-European tongues allied to Sanskrit, but

)

i

p

454

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES

is:found in every Dravidian dialect, however rude

(iv.) when the

derivation: which the Sanskrit lexicographers have attributed to the

word - is- evidently a fanciful one, whilst Dravidian 'lexicographers

deduce (it from some native Dravidian verbal theme of the same or

a similar signification, from which a variety of words are found to be

derived ; (v.) when the signification of the word in the Dravidian

languages is evidently radical and physiological, whilst the Sanskrit

signification is metaphorical

or only collateral

(vi.) when native

Tamil and Telugu scholars, notwithstanding their high estimation of

Sanskrit, as the language of the gods and the mother of all literature,

classify the word in question as a purely Dravidian one;—when any

of these reasons is-found to exist, and more especially when several

or all of them coincide, I conceive we may safely conclude the word in

question to be Dravidian, not a Sanskrit derivative

Words probably borrowed by Sanskrit. from the Dravidian tongues

akkd, a mother

For the wide Scythian relationship of this word, and

proof of its derivation by the Sanskrit from the Indian vernacu-

lars, see the list of Scythian Affinities

“ Apparently a foreign

word.”—Williams

Sans

Dict

Comp. Acca Larentia, Lat

Mother of the Lares.

See

attd, atti, a mother, an elder sister, a mother’s elder sister.

Scythian Affinities.

“Probably a word borrowed. from the

Deccan.”—Williams’ Sans. Dict.

The root of this word is represented by

atavi, a jungle, a forest

Sanskrit pandits to be af, to roam, because a forest is a place

where people and animals roam, which is evidently a fanciful

derivation

All the Dravidian languages contain a primary

root ad, the radical signification of which is nearness, close-

ness : .and this monosyllabic root is modified and expanded so

as to signify 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 there can be little

doubt that it was from this verbal root, not from any native

Sanskrit one, that afav: (in Tamil and Telugu adavs) was

derived. Even the formative »z is one which is distinctively

Dravidian—e.g., kélve, Tam. hearing, from £é/, to hear

ane, ént, the pin of the axle of a cart; derived, native pandits say,

from an, to sound

On comparing this word with the Tamil

dne, a nail, a pin or peg of any kind, it seems evident that they

are not different words, but one and the same

and the only

e

J

)

SANSKRIT

455

\

The Tamil word is con-

question 1s, which is the original ?

nected with a family of roots, each of which has a real affinity

iu signifieation to that of a nail, considered as a fastening—e.g.,

an-et, to embrace, to tie

an-t, to put on ; an-avu, to cleave to

an-u, to touch

The derivation of the Sanskrit word from this

Dravidian root is, therefore, much more natural than that which

Sanskrit pandits have devised

Dr Biihler derives dne (after

the analogy of pdni, hand

parnt) from the root ar, the

He' com-

original meaning of which was, he supposes, to fit

The Dravidian derivation seems to

pares also ara, a spoke

me preferable

ambd, amba, father, mother

voc. ambe, amba

This word is found

also in some of the Western Indo-European dialects—e.g., Old

High German and Oscan amma,

Icelandic amma, grand-

mother

German amme

nurse

Notwithstanding this

it has

so many collateral forms in the Dravidian languages, that I

am inclined to believe it Dravidian.

See illustrations of its

Scytho-Indian character in the Scythian Affinities.

dlz a woman’s female friend.

Compare @li, Tel. a wife ; dlu, a femi-

nine affix ;

Gond, diz, a wife

katuka, katu, sharp, pungent, fierce ; assumed Sarskrit derivation kat

to go

The corresponding Dravidian word “is in Tamil kad-w

the root meaning of which appears to be ¢ excessive

Dr Biihler

derives katw from krit, to cut, and. thinks %afw stands for

kartu

The word kagu is deeply rooted "in Sanskrit, and is

@ priory unlikely to have been borrowed from the Dravidian

tongues ; and yet it can scarecely be doubted, I think, that its

origin is Dravidian

Not only are the direct derivatives of this

word more numerous in Tamil than in Sanskrit, but collateral

themes and meanings are also very abundant, whereas in San-

skrit no correlative root exists

kad-w, Tam

to be sharp, is

one of a cluster of roots which are united together by a family

resemblance

Some of those are kad-w-gu, to make haste

kad-i, to cut, to reprove; kad-i (with another formative), to

bite ; kari, probably identical with kads, curry ; kadu-kadu (a

mimetic word), to appear angry ; kddw, and also kadam, kadaru

a forest

Moreover, the Sanskrit katuka, pungent, appears to

have been derived from the Tamil kadugu, mustard

Nouns

formed from verbal themes in this manner, by suffixing the for-

mative ku, pronounced gu, are exceedingly abundant in Tamil

kald, any practical art, mechanical or fine

assumed derivation %al. to

sound, to count

'amil makes use of the same word (kalev for

456

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

kald), but includes in the signification every science, as well as

every art.

We cannot, I think, doubt the derivation of kale:

or kald from the primitive Dravidian root %al, to learn (another

derivative of which is kalve, learning).

The other meanings of

the Sanskrit word %ald are so entirely unconnected with this,

that it is evident that two different words spelled in the same

manner (one of them Dravidian) have erroneously been sup-

posed to be one and the same.

k@vér-i, turmeric, also the river Kavéri (Cauvery), (from its muddy

colour) : assumed root kaw, to paint.

Greek name of the same

river, xdBnzos.

Possibly this word may be of Sanskrit origin.

I may suggest, however, the possibility of the origin of the

name of the river Kavéri, from the Dravidian kdwi, red ochre,

or kd (kd-vu), a grove, and ér-u, Tel. a river, or &r-s, Tam. a

sheet of water.

A celebrated temple on the banks of the river

exhibits this latter word kd—viz., Tiruvanei-(k)kd, near Trichin-

opoly, ‘the sacred grove of the elephant.’

kugi, a house ; related words kutira, kutire, also kutéra, a cottage, a

hut, and Aufumba, a family: assumed derivation kut, to be

crooked. There can be little doubt of the derivation of Zuta-m,

a water-pot, from Zuf, crooked ; but the other words are pro-

bably of Dravidian origin.

In Tamil Zude means a house, a

habitation ; root kud, to be together, a lengthened form of

which is dd, to come together : related Tamil words are kudsl

and kudide, a hut ; a provincial form of the latter of which is

NS— B\

Fuchchu.

In Tel. and Can. gudi means a temple, and gudise.

In Can. also gudasal-u, a hut. In Hindus. gu¢i means a house.

By native grammarians these words are considered to be of

Dravidian origin ; and the existence of the same root in all the

Finnish tongues favours the supposition that it was not bor-

rowed by the Dravidian languages from the Sanskrit. Compare

the Finnish kota, Cheremiss kuda, Mordvin kudo, Ostiak ckot,

—each signifying a house.

Was the Teutonic cot, cote, &c., also

derived from this same Scythian or Finnish source ?

Jewna, kv, having a crooked or withered arm,—a cripple ?

Compare

this with Z#n, Drav. crook-back; a derivative from kun, to

stoop, an undoubtedly Dravidian root, from which it seems pro-

bable that the Sanskrit kuni or kdnz has been derived.

kila, a pond or pool, also a bank ; assumed derivation k#l-a, to cover.

Compare the Tam.-Mal. kuf-am, and the Tel. kol-anu, a tank,

a pool.

The Tamil kul-am, a tank, is derived from kul-z, to

bathe, ultimate root ful-w, to be cold, a pure Dravidian recot.

SANSKRIT.

17

kbtta, kdta, a fort, a stronghold ; assumed derivation kut, to be crooked.

The Dravidian dialects make use of the same or a similar word

for a fort, viz., kéta in Tel., kéte in Can., and kdffer in Tam.

Tamil having another and very ancient word for a stronghold,

viz., arazn, which is certainly a Dravidian root, it might be con-

jectured that £d¢ter had been borrowed from the Sanskrit. But

where did Sanskrit itself obtain this word? Probably from

a Dravidian root after all ; for we could not desire a better or

more natural derivation than the Tam.-Mal. kéd-u, a line, a

diagram, a line of circumvallation, which is sometimes used,

especially in Malayalam, to denote also a walled town, a fortifi-

cation—e.g., Kol-kodu, Mal., Calicut.

kodu itself is a verbal

noun from kod-u, crooked, as in kodun-Damar, bad Tamil, lite-

rally crooked Tamil.

kdd-u, when used adjectivally, becomes

kott-u.

khatvd, khattd, a couch, a cot; assumed derivation k4

d;;, to séreen.

Compare the Tam.-Mal. katt-il, a cot, from katt-u, to tie or

bind. The word kagt-w is thoroughly and essentially Dravidian,

and one which abounds with derivatives and related words.

i

ndnd, several, various, multiform. No good Sanskrit derivative for this

word can be assigned. Bopp derives it from certain assumed

obsolete demonstratives signifying this and that.

May it not have been derived from the Dravidian ndl-u (class.

Tam. ndn-gu), four, this numeral being constantly used in the

Dravidian languages to signify several, various, or an indefinite

number of moderate extent?

By a corresponding usage the

numeral ten is taken to represent any large indefinite number.

Thus a Tamilian will say, I was told so and so by four persons

—1.e., by several persons; or, We must do as ten people do—

v.e., as the world does.

A numeral adjective ndld (from ndi-u,

four), is occasionally used in Tamil to signify various, though

literally meaning fourfold.

The Tamil Dictionary gives us, as

fy

30

an instance of the use of ndld@, one which is identical with the

instance of the use of ndnd given in the Sanskrit Dictionaries,

(7

viz., ndld vidam, in various ways, literally in a fourfold way ;

f0

with which compare the Sanskrit ndnd vidha, in various ways.

10

It must be mentioned, however, that Tamilians consider this ndld

a mistake for the Sanskrit ndnd. With respect to the Dravidian

el

relationship of this word, the testimony of Tamil usage, such

ﬂl‘v

as it is, stands alone ; for in the Tamil dictionaries, and also in

the Canarese and

4|

A

;

0

elugn dictionaries, ndnd is regarded as

Sanskrit.

458

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES

nira, water : assumed derivation 2?2, to guide

This derivation shows that

the word was not familiar to the Sanskrit pandits

Bopp derives

it from ndra, water, and that from snd, to bathe

nira and ndra

may have been originally identical, but a reference to the Dra-

vidian lancuages will show that nira must have been the older

form

The Dravidian nir may perhaps be traced to nira, Tam.-

Mal

to be level

another derivative of which is nér, Tam

straight

nira is rarely used in Sanskrit in comparison with ap

(connected with agua), and uda (connected with wnda and "Gdwg)

jala, another Sanskrit word for water, is supposed to have been

borrowed from the Pree-Sanskrit northern vernaculars

whilst L

have little doubt that to nire a Dravidian origin should be

ascribed

The corresponding Dravidian word is 7ér or nir-u,

and as ‘this is the only word properly signifying water which the

Dravidian dialects possess, they cannot be supposed to have

borrowed it from Sanskrit. Telugu ordinarily uses n#/Ju for niru

—1t.e., the. plural (nirulu, corrupted to n#//u) for the singular;

nir is in Gond

but #fru, the singular, is also occasionally used

softened to ir,

and in Brahui it has become diz.

Malayalam

Do

alone comm only uses for water another word, viz., ve/fam, which

properly means a flood. This word is used in Tamil to denote

the waterwith which rice-fields are flooded; and it has pro-

bably thence come to signify water in Malayalam. Even in

},{l” i

il

that dialect, however, 24r is also used

In Tamil the adjective

tan, cool, is so frequently prefixed to n#r, that in the colloquial

dialect the compound fanpér, water, literally cold water, has

superseded the original and simple noun

The Tamil #nindu

(base n?), to swim, seems to be closely related to nir, water

If

s0, it may have an ultimate relation with the Greek vé-w, Lat

no, nato, and also to nau, Sans. a boat

Probably nér may also

have some ulterior connection with the Greek wn2és and vegog,

wet (and through them with the modern Greek vzgd, water),

b

though these words are supposed (and perhaps correctly) to be

ha/; t

derived from vaw, to flow.

ly

pattana, pattana, patta, a city, town, or village: assumed derivation

pat, to surround. Beames derives it from patra, a leaf, thatch

The Dravidian languages have probably borrowed the word

pattanam as it stands, from Sanskrit; and yet, as in the case

of kéta

a fort

it will be found, I think, that the Sanskrit

word itself was derived originally from an older shape of the

word retained in the Dravidian vernaculars

Professors Wilson

and Williams conjecture that paffa is probably identical with

i

SANSKRIT

DY

)

(4

the pettah of Southern India

but the word from which I

conceive it to have been derived is patti, 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

In

villages in the south -—e.g., Koévil-pattr, Temple-town

Canarese the same word is Aaffi—e.g., Dim-hutty.

The ulti-

| il

mate root of patte is probably padu, to settle down, to sink.

1

Sanskrit seems to have adopted this word patfs, in addition to

its own pura (which is a true Indo-European word), and formed

i

from it first patta, and then pattana

Iy

The word pettah, a suburb (Tam. péfter), which is referred to

by Wilson and Wllhams belongs probably to the same root

o

Ve

as patte, though 1t is not so likely to have been the origin of

U

the Sanskrlt pattam,

pétter is derived from pédu, Tam. a

suffix to the names of villages ;

which, again, is identical with

i

]oddu and pdd@, a place a settlement, from padu, to settle down,

each of V\hlch is suffixed to names of villages like pédu.

panno,

Praknt gold This word is supposed by Ellis to be derived

1

from the Sanskrit suvarpa.

May it not have been adopted

1nto Prakrit from the Tamil pon, or the Telugn ponn-u, gold?

pallz, a mty, a town, a village, especially an agricultural village.

This

is without doubt identical with the Dravidian word pallt, which

is added to various names of places in the south—e.g., Trichi-

nopoly, properly Tirisirdppalli, ¢ the city of the three-headed

B

Asura

fu

The Dravidian origin of this word is indicated, if

not proved, by the circumstance that it is chiefly, if not ex-

It

clusively, used to denote places which are within the limits

b

of the Dravidian tongues.

From this word I derive the word

J50

palla, the name of the principal tribe of agricultural labourers

10,

or serfs in the Tamil country.

g

bhaj, to share

be

bhdg-a, a portion

I am doubtful whether to regard these words as

derived from the Tamil pag-u, to divide, to share, or to suppose

ton

10

both the Sanskrit and the Tamil to be derived from a common

el

and earlier source

Probably the former supposition is in this

gord

case the more correct

At all events the Tamil-Malayalam

Ca(?

pag-u is a pure, underived Dravidian root

A noun formed

gkt

from it, signifying a share, is pang-u (g for g, as is often the

]

16

case) ; and a collateral root is pag-ir, meaning also to share

ilson

The Sauskrit word pasigu means lame, and is altogether un-

gith

connected with the Tamil one

Other derived nouns are pagal

(el

a

portion ; and pdde

a division, daylight

pal (= pagal)

(pagudr), half

460

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIE S

mina, a fish ; assumed derivation mt (méndti), to hurt.

The Dravidian word for fish 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 Dravidian words contained in the Rajmahal dialect.

|

Gond has mind.

It seems much more probable that the

Sanskrit-speaking people borrowed this word from the Indian

aborigines, and then incorporated it in their vocabulary with

other words signifying the same object, than that the Dravidian

wlpy

inhabitants of the Malabar and Coromandel sea-boards were

lpy

indebted for the word which denoted so important an article

of their food and commerce, to a race of inland people coming

fm,

from the North-West. Moreover, the derivation of min, which

iy

)

is supplied by the Dravidian languages, is as beautiful as the

Sanskrit derivation is uncouth. The root of min, a fish, is

min, to glitter, to be phosphorescent.

Hence the glow-worm

is min-mint by reduplication ; and mén, a verbal noun which

is formed from min by the lengthening of the included vowel

(like tn, food, from tin, to eat), signifies in poetical Tamil a

star, as well as a fish—e.g., vdn-min, a star (literally a sky-

sparkler) ; and aru-min, the Pleiades—u.e., the six stars. Who

that has seen the phosphorescence flashing from every move-

ment of the fish in tropical seas or lagoons at night, can doubt

‘Wi b

the appropriateness of denoting the fish that dart and sparkle

through the waters, as well as the stars that sparkle in the

¢

midnight sky, by one and the same word—rviz., a word signi-

fying that which glows or sparkles?

valaksha, white ; assumed derivation vala, to go. May not this word

be derived from the Dravidian vel, white ?

Compare also the

related Dravidian words veld, space, the open air ; vells, silver ;

b

velichcham, light. The Hungarian vildg, a light, appears to be an

I thﬁ |

allied word. Has the Slavonian wveli, white, been borrowed

Yol

from a Scythian source? or is it one of those ultimate analogies

fhe

.\an

which bind both families together ?

g 1

val-a, to surround.

Words 1§

valaya-m, a circlet, a bracelet.

The Dravidian languages seem to have

borrowed the Sanskrit noun, with or without modification ; but

b

the verb from which the noun has been formed was itself,

8

b i

apparently, borrowed by Sanskrit from the Dravidian lan-

% (Mm

guages. The corresponding Dravidian root is val-ez, to bend,

Ty

to crook, metaphorically to surround.

10

This word has a larger

store of secondary meanings and wider ramifications than the

try

SANSKRII

461

Sanskrit verb.

It is also used as a noun, without any for-

fomd

mative addition, when it signifies

a hole, a sinuosity—e.g.,

elv-vafes, Tam. a rat-hole.

Whilst the Tamil makes occasional

niffy

use of the Sanskrit valayam, a bracelet

» an armlet ; it also

ik

il

uses valeryal, a verbal noun formed from valer, its own verbal

ot e

root, to signify the same thing, Taking these various circum-

stances into consideration, I conclude that the Dravidi

an verb

Indin

h

as certainly not been borrowed from the Sanskrit, and that the

y v

Sanskrit verb has probably been derived from the

anid

Dravidian.

valgu, handsome.

5 e

valguka, sandal-wood.

This word seems to resemble ‘the Tamil-

arick

'

Malay-

&lam aragu (pronounced alagu), beauty.

0oy

$ava, a corpse.

id

$dva, adj., relating to a dead body.

a3 e

These words are said to be derived from

sav, to go; but

fih, i

this derivation is surely much

-0

less probable than the Dravidian

verbal root to die, which is ¢4 in Tam.

lih

; chd, Mal. ; $4, Can. “

set, Tulu; cha-chu, Tel.; Tel. infinitive,

chdvadama,

The

vorl I

gl &

vowel of $d is short in Telugu ; and in Tamil, Malayalam, and

Canarese is short in the preterite tense.

) sl

pure Dravidian root.

$@ is undoubtedly a

.

Tho

Compare the Samo

iede chawe, dead.

10Ve-

Probably also the Sanskrit she; (styatz),

to waste away, and

shd, to be destroyed, have some ulterior co

nnection with it,

Joubt

§zt]cti, a

curl. Tam. $wttru, Can, Suttu,

Tel. chuttu, anything round, as

)arkle

a ring, a coil, a roundabout wa

n the

y. Root, Suttru, to g0 round.

'

sdya, the evening ;

assumed derivation, s, to destroy,

sigur

to

to put an end

The Tamil-Malayalam $dy,

to lean, to incline (a pure

Dravidian word),

s o

seems to be a much more natural derivation,

the evening being the period when the sun inclines to the west,

Jso fhe

sive

in

In the foregoing list of Dravidian words which have found a place

obedl

the vocabularies of Sanskrit, I have not included the names of

o

various places and tribes in Souther

n India which are mentioned in

g

the Sanskrit historical

poems, and which have, in consequence, found

a place in the dictionari

€s

In general, the vernacular origin of those

words is admitted by San

skrit lexicographers.

In one case, however,

f ae

a Sanskrit origin has erroneously been attribute

of this class,

d to a Dravidian word

ol

o

Malaya,

India, is represented ag

a mountain or mountainous range in Southern

g 1t e‘l

being derived from mal, Sans. to hold or con-

al Jan

tain (sanda,l-wood).

The real origin is unquestionably the Dravidj

an

b bt

mal-a, or mal-e;,

country ;

a hill or mountain, and also a hilly or mountainous

farg

and the range of mountains referred to under the name of

jhi“" tl

462

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

Malaya is doubtless that of the Southern Ghauts or the Malayilam

country, which was called Male by the later Greek and early Arabian

geographers.

g

Tn some remarks on the first edition of this book in the Journal of

the American Oriental Society for 1862, presumably written by the

editor of the Journal, I find a misapprehension of the point of the pre-

ceding paragraphs. The writer says—¢ We should have expected sound

philological method, if anywhere, in the comparison of Dravidian and

Sanskrit, considering the accessibility of the material, and the position

of the author as an Indian philologist ; but of the Sanskrit words com-

pared, at least four-fifths would at once be recognised by a Sanskrit

scholar as not ancient or genuine constituents of the language.” This

is precisely the idea I wished to establish, so that here the writer of

those remarks and I do not differ, as he supposed we did, but are quite

at one. The object I had in view was to show that there is a class of

words, usually regarded as Sanskrit, which are not really ancient or

genuine constituents of the language,” but have been introduced into

it from the Dravidian vernaculars.

The indebtedness of Sanskrit in some particulars to the Dravidian

languages seems now to be generally admitted. Professor Benfey says,

in his “ Complete Sanskrit Grammar,” p. 73 (I quote from Dr Muir’s

translation, ¢ Sanskrit Texts,” Part IL., p. 461)—* Sanskrit is a lan-

guage of great antiquity and of wide diffusion. Long after it had

ceased to be vernacularly spoken, it ¢ontinued to be employed as the

organ of culture and religion, and in this capacity it “prevailed over

extensive regions where there existed alongside of"it, not merely a

variety of dialects which had been developed out of it, but also several

popular dialects which were originally quite distinet from it. From

these circumstances it has resultéd, not only that forms which have

been admitted into the Prakrit dialects have been afterwards adopted

into Sanskrit, but, further, that words ‘which were originally quite

foreign to the Sanskrit have beeh included in its vocabulary. To

separate these foreign words will only become quite possible when an

accurate knowledge of the dialects which have no affinity with Sanskrit

shall have been attained.”

Dr Gundert, the eminent Dravidian scholar, has turned to good

account his “accurate knowledge of the dialects” referred to by Pro-

fessor Benfey. He expresses himself thus (in an article on the Dra-

vidian elements in Sanskrit,” contained in the Journal of ‘the German

Oriental Society for 1869)—* It inight have been expected beforeha,nd

that a great many Dravidiaﬁ Words vYould have found threir“‘w:.i?" into

SANSKRIT.

463

iyl

Aty

Sanskrit.

How could the Aryans have spread themselves all over

India without adopting a great deal from the aboriginal races they

Ol

Oltgl

found-therein, whom in the course of thousands of years they have sub-

i)

dued, partly by peaceful means, partly by force, and yet imperfectly

Uy

after all up to this day?

In like manner no one can study the Dravi-

i

el

Vi

dian langnages without perceiving that Aryan elements are so deeply

idan

imbedded in them that their original nature can be discovered only

with difficulty. Long labour and careful comparison of the principal

0 Plr

Oras &

dialects are needed to bring those elements to light.

In the beginning

, AR

of the investigation it may appear easy to distinguish what has been

borrowed. Soon, however, it appears how wonderfully the Aryan

! |

Al

i

elements have spread themselves in every direction, so that they pre-

are (i

sent themselves now-a-days in the strangest disguises, and often go far

to lead the inquirer astray.

Something similar to this appears in San-

4 0N

skrit alse.

Dravidian words have not only got themselves naturalised

et

1100

therein, but have allied themselves so intimately to similarly sounding

words, that through the passion for etymologising and the overvaluing

of their sacred tongue by which the Brahmans are distinguished, they

Drarl

either derive those words anyhow from genuine Aryan roots, or cut the

nfey

knot by representing the Dravidian roots themselves-as Sanskrit.

We

Dr \[M\

scarcely ever meet in India a native philologist who would be willing

15 8 I

i

to acknowledge the existence of Dravidian elements in Sanskrit ; whilst

we meet with many, at least in Malabar, who boldly take upon them-

"ed a I

selves to derive from corruptions of the Sanskrit thefwhole' of the

iled 0%

We

et

Dravidian vocabulary, and even Arabic and European-‘names.

Europeans, .on the other hand, look simply at the nature of the case.

dSO séYEf:

Where peoples speaking differing languages are in constant intercom-

I

munication with one another—when they trade or fight with one another,

ﬁ'hiﬁh J]

and have many joys and sorrows in common, they naturally borrow

s e

much from one another, without examination or consideration.

And

¥

this must have happened to the greatest extent in the earliest times,

]

when those nations still stood face to face in their primitive condition.:

o

“ It might be anticipated, therefore, that as the Aryans penetrated

ith

Qu

further and further to the south, and became acquainted with new

objects bearing Dravidian names, they would as--a matter of course

el

adopt the names of those things together with the things themselves.”

dt()tr‘

I

fhe

Selections from Dr Gundert's lust of worcés win'ch )’w thinks have pro-

e ;

bably been borrowed by Sanskrit from the Drowvidian languages.

(i

el

ol W

Urunda, the name of a demon, round or rolling, from wrul (pret.

urundu), to roll.

464

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

éda, edaka, a sheep or goat ; Drav. ddu, a sheep or goat ;

ro?t (2(] l,‘.’ to

frisk ; Tulu édu.

karabdla, karavdla, a sword ; compare Drav. kai-vd/, a hand-sword ;

vdl, a sword, may be from va/, to bend.

Karndtaka, Kar-ndi-agam, interior of the black country, from kar, black,

ndt (ndduw), conntry, and agam, interior—the black cotton soil

of the Dekkan.

nddu means properly the cultivated country,

from nad-u, to plant.

kunda, a hole ; Tam. kundu ; Tel. gunda ; Can. kunt; Tam. kupe.

kurkwra, a dog ; Drav. kura, to make a noise ; ultimate root %, to cry.

kéytra, a bracelet worn on the upper arm ; Drav. kez, hand, arm, urt,

to be used.

kbkila, the cuckoo ; Drav'. kuyil. The Dravidian word is generally

regarded as a corruption from the Sanskrit.

Probably neither

Drayv.

word is derived from the other, but each is mimetic.

root ku, to cry, with the formative ¢/, place.

ghota, a horse ; Tel. gurram.

Compare Tam. kudeiraz, a horse, pro-

bably from Audz, to leap.

(See my own list.)

champaka, the Michelia champaka, a tree with a yellow fragrant

flower.

Also jambu, the rose-apple ; Drav. sembu, red.

ndranga, the orange ; Drav. ndr, to smell ; Mal. (ndrasia) ndrai-gay

Compare also, however, Sans. ndgar-

(kdy, fruit), an orange.

anga, an orange.

pita, pitaka, a large basket ;

Drav. ped, to cafch, to hold.

putra, son ; Drav. root pud, new ?

punndga, a tree from the flowers of which a yellow dye is prepared ;

Drav. pon, gold.

péta, a basket ; Drav. pette, a box or basket ; root, Tel. pet, to place.

[¢d, to hold, contain.]

phala, fruit ; Drav. param, palam, ripe fruit ; root par, to become old.

(Tel. panduw is from the same root.)

marutta, a medicine-man, a sorcerer ; Drav. marundu (oblique ma-

ruttu), medicine.

markata, a monkey ; Drav. root mara, a tree.

Probably both Sanskrit

muktd, a pearl ; Prakrit muttd ; Tam. muttw.

{

and Tamil words are from mu¢, the equivalent of Tamil mudal,

first ; root mu or mi, to be first—the first of gems.

(

Bhillas, probably Billas, from the Drav. v, bil, a bow, bowmen.

r@tre, night ; Drav. ird, ¢rave ; Tel. 78 ; root, ¢, to be dark (¢r-ul,

darkness).

virala, loose ; Tam.-Mal. viral, expansion, from v, to expand.

héramba, a buffalo ; Drav. eruma, erma.

ptemy

fg

SANSKRIT.

465

$ringavéra, ginger.

The whole of this word seems to be Dravidian.

Ginger is in Tamil and Malay&lam ¢nji or ¢nchd, and this word

seems to have commenced with s originally, as in Clanarese the

k

]

parallel word is $unte.

(See Indian Antiquary, Nov. 1872,

-----

lJ,

contribution by Dr Burnell.) In earlier times, Dr Burnell

says, the Greeks procured this article almost exclusively from

Malabar.

enchi, ginger, would naturally take the addition of

1

vér, the Dravidian word for root (from ver, to expand) ; also

M

Sans. véra, saffron.

véra in both words seems to have been

intended to mean a bulbous root.

Dr Gundert adduces many other words which I do not insert here,

lly

et

as they appear to me too conjectural.

I am doubtful indeed whether

oY,

much dependence can be placed on several of the words I have

quoted.

The following additional illustration, however, which he gives in a

)

different connection, is worthy of consideration.

The Sanskrit ripa,

anf

form, is in Tamil wruvam, wruve, which seem undoubtedly tadbhavas.

But there is also in Tamil an independent verb, uru, to be firm, solid,

&c., of which another shape is urwu, and from this wru comes the

dy

I

Tamil noun uruppu, a member of the body, the body itself, a form—

e.g., the sign of a case is called the uruppu of the case.

Dr Gundert

does not doubt that the Sanskrit »@pa is derived from this Dravidian

uruppu, even though wruvu may be a tadbhava of ripa.

The following instances of words probably borrowed by Sanskrit

ed;

from the Dravidian languages are selected from a list of such words

beginning with a, d, contained in an article by Mr Kittel in the Zndian

lace

Antiquary (No. for August 1872) on “The Dravidian Element in

Sanskrit Dictionaries.”

ol

atta, an upper loft ; Drav. affa, the same ; root ad, to place one thing

upon another.

o Ml

atta, boiled rice, food ; Drav. ad, to cook, past participle atta.

atta (properly hatta), a market, a market-place ; Drav. hatta (hatti),

a hamlet, properly patts.

See pattanam in my list.

mskr'!t

dm, yes; Drav. dm, yes, literally it is or will be, the aorist future

mlldﬂl'f

(neuter singular) of d-gu, to become.

dra-kdta, brass, a combination of metals ; Drav. kdtta, union ;

root

kud, to join.

| 'if‘“

dta, dda, as a suffix, playing with, tending after—e.q., vdchdta, talka-

tive ; Drav. ddu, to play, to use.

dla, as a suffix, possessing—e.g., Malaydla, mountain possessin

g, asva-

vdlda, horse possessing ; Drav. @/, to possess.

dlz, a ditch ; Drav. dli, a deep place ; root d/, to be deep.

BO

G

166

GLOSSARIAL AEfé:IlQl’l‘lES.

all

A few words are appended by Mr Kittel which do not begin with

of

a

I quote those that have not been adduced already.

il

pdlana, the milk of a cow that has recently calved ; Drav. pdl, 11111k.

(U8

valli, a creeper ; Drav. valli, the same ; root val, to bend, to surround.

4

mukura, mukula, a bud ; Drav. mugul; root mug, to shut up as a

Wit

flower.

il

kuta, an earthenware vessel ; Drav. root kud, to take in, receive.

000

kuthara, an axe ; Drav. kade, to cut.

it

The other words adduced by Mr Kittel appear to me to belong, not

i

to the class of words actually borrowed by Sanskrit from the Dravi-

dian languages, but to that of words which are the common property

of both families.

not

This is shown by the number of Mr Kittel’s illus-

{he

trations derived from one initial vowel alone to be a very large class ;

hu

and it is evident that in many instances the Dravidian use of the word,

adg

or its relationships, throws light on the use of the word in Sanskrit.

o

of

2. SANSKRIT AFFINITIES.

I now proceed to point out the existence of another class of Sanskrit

affinities in the vocabularies of the Dravidian languages.

The words

L

contained in the following list are true, underived Dravidian roots,

yet they seem to be so closely allied to certain Sanskrit words, that

i,

they may reasonably be concluded to be the common property of both

|

U{] 4

families of tongues.

Possibly one or two words may have been

borrowed at an early period by the one language from the other ; but

(78

in most cases, if not in every case, there is a preponderance of evidence

in favour of the mutually independent origin of both the Sanskrit

(U

word and the Dravidian one, from a source which appears to have

I

been common to both.

The various words appear to be too deeply

seated in each family of languages, to have too many ramifications,

iy

and (whilst they retain a family likeness) to differ too widely, either

in sound or in signification, to allow of the supposition of a direct

f.‘aglii

derivation of the one from the other.

Moreover, notwithstanding the

]iw']\

general resemblance of the Dravidian words contained in the following

list to the Sanskrit ones with which they are compared, and notwith-

standing the prejudice of native grammarians in favour of everything

Sanskrit, these words are invariably regarded by native scholars as

independent of Sanskrit, and as underived (dé$ya) national Dra-

vidian words.

Consequently, if a connection can be traced, as I think

it can, between these words and the corresponding Sanskrit ones, it

must be the connection of a common origin.

I place in another and

subsequent list those Dravidian words which appear to be more directly

o

=

~

SANSKRIT

40 4

l

allied to Greek or Latin, Persian, or some other extra-Indian member

of the Indo-European family, than to Sanskrit

In this list I place

those Dravidian words which appear to be allied to the Sanskrit alone,

or more directly to Sanskrit 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

will, I think, lead to the conclusion that the Indo-European elements

contained in the Dravidian languages were introduced into those lan-

I

guages before Sanskrit separated from its sisters, or at least before Sans-

krit, as a separate tongue, came in contact with the Dravidian family

The Dravidian words which follow are quoted from Tamil, if it is

not expressly mentioned that it is otherwise

Where it is certain that

the final vowel or syllable of a Dravidian word is no part of the root

but is a separable formative accretion, or a particle which has been

added merely for euphony, or for the purpose of facilitating enuncia-

tion, I have separated such vowel or syllable from the genuine portion

of the word by a hyphen.

Words w/nc/z ‘appear to be the common pr operty of S(mskmt and, the

Dravidian tong qgues.

adv, to strike, 40 beat, to kill

ud-et, to kick, to stamp ; wd-es, od-i, to break. Comp. ugh, dth, Sans

to strike, to knock down

ad-er, to get in, to attain, to possess

Comp. ad, Vedic-Sans. to per-

vade, to attain

an-u, Tel., en, Tam., to speak, to say. Comp. an, Sans. to sound

(4

ar-u, to be scarce, precious, dear

Comp. Sans. arh. to deserve

argha,

value

ur-u, to creep; in the higher dialect of the Tamil, to ride (as in a

el

palanquin)

Comp. Sans. ur, to go.

ol

kad-a, to pass by or over.

Comp. kat, Sans. to go.

I

lcad-u to ache, to be hot, pungent, fierce, swift.

This is one of a

cluster of roots united together by a family resemblance

Some

L]

of these are the following :—kad-:, to bite ; kad-s, with another

formative, to cut, to reprove; kad-u-gu, to make haste : kar-

5

»

(probably identical with kad-i), curry; kadwkadu, an intensi-

tive form of kad-u

[

kad-am, kad-aru, more commonly kdd-u, a

forest

kad-u-gu, mustard

Supposing kad-u to have meant

119

originally to be excessive, or to have acquired that meaning,

if

!

another root will then appear to be related to it, viz., kad-a, to

pass ;

S

i

Sans. kat, to go. Comp, Sans. kafu, katuka, sharp, pun-

468

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

gent, vehement ; assumed root kaf, to go.

Dr Biihler’s deriva-

tion of katw (in his paper on the origin of the linguals of the

Sanskrit, see p. 35), from krit, to cut (kartu =kagu), seems

much more probable ; and supposing this derivation to be cor-

rect, the connection between the Sanskrit and the Dravidian

words turns out to be one of primary, and not merely of second-

ary, meanings.

The word £ tu is deeply rooted in Sanskrit,

and is unlikely to have been borrowed from another tongue. It

is still more unlikely that tlie Dravidian languages borrowed

the word from Sanskrit.

Not only are the direct derivatives of

this word more numerous in Tamil than in Sanskrit, but collat-

eral themes and meanings also abound, whereas in Sangkrit no

collateral root exists.

It seems therefore clear that this root,

meaning primarily to cut or bite, must have been the common

property of both Sanskrit and Tamil.

Probably the Sanskrit

secondary word kafuka, pungent, mustard, has been directly

derived from the Tamil kadu-gu, mustard ; nouns like this,

formed by appending gu to the verbal theme, being specially

characteristic of Tamil.

karuder, an ass; Tel. gddide, Can. katte.

Comp. Sans. khara, an

ass,

The Sanskrit word is borrowed and used by the Tamil

poets ; but it is never confounded with karuder, which is con-

sidered to be a purely Dravidian word.

Nevertheless, karuder

appears to be allied to Zhara in origin, and also to the Persian

char, and the Kurdish kerr.

Comp. the Laghmani karatik, a

female ass.

kinna, Can. small, Tulu kine, Tel. chinna, Tam. sinna.

Comp. kana,

Sans. a minute particle; also kanika, kaniya, small, young.

There is no doubt of the Tamil sinnae having been softened

7 has not been

from kinna ; but I have some doubt whether the

corrupted from r, for the ultimate root to which $inna is referred

by Dravidian scholars is sir-u.

key, Coorg, to do; Tuda ker, Kota £¢, Gond %%, Old Can, gey, Coll. Can.

géy, Tel. chéy, Mal. chey, Tam. sey.

ker, hand ; all Dravidian dialects.

Telugu has in addition kélw and

chey-v or chéy-.

The harder form is probably the more ancient; hence the

words we have to compare with corresponding words in other

languages are key, to do, and kez, hand.

It cannot be doubted

that these words were originally identical, like %ar, to do, and

kar-a, hand, in Sanskrit.

key would naturally become kez, of

which we see an appropriate instance in gei-du, having done, in

AN

SANSKRIT.

469

i

it {he

eells

colloquial Canarese, which is the shape the older and more

classical gey-du has taken.

Though it seems certain that these

)6 (01

words were originally identical, it does not seem quite so clear

vidien

eqonl:

which of the two meanings, ‘to do’ or ‘the hand,’ was the

s

riginal one.

It would be very natural to call the hand the

doer ; on the other hand, ‘to do’ is

an abstract word, which

e I

cannot well have come into use until

a large number of doings

vl

Some word

ves

and doers had been provided with special names.

for hand would be required at a much earlier stage, and it is

ool

¢

g

conceivable that to do meant first of all to use the hand.

116 10

Compare these words with kar (kr¢), Sans. to do, and kar-a,

§ 1008

hand.

[0

00

The % of Zre is changed to ¢/ in some of the tenses of

the verb (e.g., chakdra, I did), just as we have seen above that

a‘«[

the Dravidian £ changes (still more systematically) into ch.

rectly

The r of kar (or kri) always retains its place in Sanskrit ; and

Ihl!,

cially

it appears in the corresponding Zend kar, to make (e.g., kardits,

he made; compare Sans. karéti, he does), and also in those

western Indo-European languages in which this root appears—

all

alll

e.g., Irish caravm, I perform). It is retained in the New Persian

kar (kardam, I did), but seems to have disappeared in the

00D

Old Persian £z, to do, and also in some inflexional forms in

)

the North Indian vernaculars—e.g., Prakrit ka-da, and Marathi

rsia

ké-1d, made, the former supposed to be a weakening of kar-da

i,

or kra-da, the latter for karild.

The included vowel of kar,

Sans. changes in some inflexions to kur.

Though there are

!\ll il

traces of the existence of kar, to do, in most, if not all, of

joung

the Indo-European langnages, it is not certain that there are

Lie1e

any traces of kar-a, haud.

The Greek x.% (gen. xes-6<), and

I

Deel

the Old Latin £er, hand, are supposed to be connected rather

giel

(44

The Sans-

with kar (kyi), to take, than with kar (kri), to do.

krit saya, lying down, one of the meanings attributed to which

LG

is ¢ hand,” seems to me to have no connection either with far-a

or the Dravidian kev (Tel. chey).

But it seems impossible to

i A

avoid the conclusion that between the Sanskrit pair of words,

kar, to do, and kar-a, the hand, and the Dravidian pair, key,

10!

p Ut

to do, and fkes, the hand, a close connection subsists.

The

p 08

existence of kar, to do or make, in Zend, shows that the Sans-

i

foudt

krit word was not borrowed from the Dravidian ; besides which,

o, ﬂn‘iv

it occupies too important a place in Sanskrit to allow that

5 ﬂvl.o

supposition to be entertained.

It is equally impossible to

fone

suppose that the Dravidian languages borrowed ey, to do, and

ker, hand, from Sanskrit.

kei, hand, is found in every Dra-

/

~J

=,

GLOSSAI.{IAL‘ AI{\‘FINITIES}.

vidian dialect, however rude; and key, to do, or its equiva-

fents, is found in every dialect except the Tulu, which shows

by its retention of the noun /ei that it must originally have

possessed the verb also.

Each of these words key and ke

holds as essential a place in the Dravidian languages as kar

and kar-a in Sanskrit, and each of them has developed a host

of derivatives and compounds.

The Sans. kara, hand, and

karma, work, are freely borrowed by the Dravidian dialects ;

but these words are never confounded with their vernacular

equivalents, kes, hand, and $Seyges, $eyal, $eydi, Tam. action,

occurrence.

There is also an old tadbhava of karma in use in

all the dialects, viz., kam (also kammam in Tam.), meaning

“work,” especially smith’s work, from a comparison of which

with $eyger, &c., we see how easily the Sanskrit derivative can

be distinguished from the Dravidian word. Comp. Sans. karma-

kdra, a mechanic, a blacksmith, with kammdra, the tadbhava of

the same in Canarese.

This proves conclusively that kam is

not Dravidian, but Sanskrit.

If, then, it may certainly be concluded that the Sanskrit

pair of words and the Dravidian are closely connected, and if

it may be concluded with equal certainty that neither of these

languages borrowed them from the other, we cannot, as it

appears to me, escape from the conclusion that they are the

common property of both.

If this be the case, they bear testi-

mony either to the intimate association of the Dravidian and

the Sanskrit speaking peoples in very early times, or to their

original oneness.

This oneness, however, does not stop here,

nor does it prove the Dravidian languages to be exclusively or

distinctively Aryan ; for it will be shown hereafter, under the

head of Scythian affinities, that this same pair of words is

found in the Tatar and Finnish languages as well as in the

Aryan and Dravidian, and in particular that the Dravidian word

for ‘hand’ reproduces itself in all those languages with an

almost perfect exactness.

,lm?*-al,

Tam. noise, voice ; root kur, to make a noise.

Comp. Sans.

kar, to shout; gar, to sound. Possibly the Tam. kdrs, the

gallus gallinaceous, is connected with kur ; and if so, the word

gallus itself will appear to be related to e, gallus being in-

stead of garrus, comp. garrulus.

The ultimate root of the

Tam. Zur appears to be ku, to sound (probably a mimetic word),

as in ku-y-il, the Indian cuckoo.

==

.,

Fudirei, a horse ; Can. keudure, probably from Zuds, to leap. Comp.

S

ANSKRIT

471

17

Sans. ghota, a horse

The Dravidian Iauwuaves have borrowed

SHO

ghéta from Sans. (in Tamil g goram, r/oda/mn) said to be from

but kudirer is 1e<nuded as an underived,

Jare

qghut, to retaliate

(0l 1t

indigenous Dravidian word

It is probable, however that the

g h

!

two words are Ultmmtely related.

2 o

kir-v, to tear.

Comp. Tehur,

Sans. to cut, to scratch.

ked-w, to spoil or destroy, or (intransitively) to -be spoﬂed or destroyed ;

at

verbal noun kéd-u,

ruin ;

Jo

0l

relative participle ketta (¢t for dd)

bad

Tel. ched-u

il

Comp. Sans. khed, to suffer pain or misery,

qtion

and its verbal noun khéda, sorrow, distress

Comp. also khs

156 10

to terrify, and its derivative kAéf, bad, low ; Greek x7dog, sorrow

If these words are allied to the Dravidian one, as they appear

alllg

to be, it must be in virtue of a common origin, for there is not

S\Lu‘ﬂ

g (Al

a more distinctively Dravidian word in existence than ked-u

kod-u

Ay

Tam.-Mal. fierce, extreme, rough, literally crooked—e.g., kod-

thekw, Tam

the claws of the crab

kod-il, Mal. pincers

Comp

i Of

Sans. kut, crooked

18

$ul-vr, to tremble, to have the hair standing on end

Comp. chél, Sans

to shake, to tremble

See also subsequent list under kulir, cold

it

de, to be red ; Can. kena, ken

chem

chen

This root forms the basis

i if

of many adjectives and nouns (e.g., $en, red), but is not used

hese

anywhere in its primitive, unformed shape

Comp. sona, Sans

3 it

to be red

- the

sevy, Tam. ; cheve, Mal.-Tel

he ear

Can. ki, Tulu keppr

Comp

testl

$rava, the ear

Sans., from $ru, to hear

| ant

tatt-u

tad-1, a stick, a club ; verbal theme, ¢tade, to be thick or heavy

fher

to hit

Comp. fad, Sans. to strike, to beat

ey

¢, fire

Comp. Sans. d%, the base of dip, to shine

dy

(f

tidv-u, to sprinkle gently (as dust)

o e

tdr-u, to drizzle, to scatter, to spread abroad (as a report)

rldD :

The transitive of ¢dr-w is tdrr « (pronounced tdélru), to

p

winnow

The

ultimate root of all these words evidently

I WOTd

also a Tamil form of the root

is #, which is

Comp. dhi

10 @

Il

Sans. to

shake,

to

wo1tate

a derivative from which is dhAiils

dust

Comp. also tdsta, dust (derivative tus, to sprinkle), with

S

which our own word dust is evidently identical

From Sans

fly

¢

but

dhilz, Tamil has borrowed tdle, ¢/, dust, and also tds-z

) “0[0

there cannot be any doubt of the Tamil verbs {ﬂu w and ldr-u

J

g

being underived Dravidian themes.

dlil or 14 appedrs there-

i

fore, to be the common property of both families of languages ;

WOld,}

whﬂst it “is'in the Dravidian tamily that the urlonml meaning

of this root appears to have been most f‘ut’lfully preserved.

(o

47

9

~

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

%

nad-a, to walk. Comp. the Sanskrit theme nat (said to be from nrit),

to dance, to act; derivatives from which are nata, dancing,

|

ndtaka, a drama, a play.

It seems improbable that the Sans-

|

krit word has been borrowed from the Dravidian tongues ; and

yet it seems certain that the Dravidian word has not been

borrowed from Sanskrit; for Telugu and Canarese make a

broad distinction between the Sans. derivative natinchu or

nafisu, to dance, and their own theme naduchu or nads,

to walk; and whilst Sanskrit has many words signifying

walking, the Dravidian languages have nad, alone.

nad-u, to

plant, means also in Malayalam to enter, to walk, probably

to plant the foot; nadér (nadei), a way, a derivative from this

root, is one of the words adduced by Kumarila-bhatta as speci-

mens of the non-Sanskritic words contained in the Dravidian

languages. Probably, therefore, the Sanskrit nat, nrit, and the

Dravidian nad, have been derived from a common source.

ney, to

weave.

Comp. Sans. nak, to spin, originally to join together.

Comp. also Greek v7dw; German nahen, to sew ; Latin necto.

ndl, Tam. thread, to spin, seems to be a verbal noun from a

lost root nw, which must have meant to join together, like the

Sans. nak.

pal, many ; as a verb, to be multiplied. Comp. Sans. pu/e, much, more

commonly puru.

pad-u,

Drav. to sing.

Comp. Sans. path, to read, to recite.

The

Sans. path, is, I have no doubt, the theme from which the

corresponding Tel. path-¢, and the Tamil pad-i, to read, have

been borrowed ; and the Tamil pdda-m, a lesson, is clearly

derived from the Sans. pdiia, reading.

pdd-u, to sing, how-

ever, and pdft-u, a song (Tel. pdta, Can. pdt-u, Gond pdtd),

do not seem to be derivatives from Sanskrit; but I suspect

them to be ultimately related to pati-a and pdtha, as descended

from some ancient source common to both. The ideas expressed

are nearly related; for the reading of all Hindfis (and all

Orientals) is a sort of cantilena ; and even the Sanskrit deriva-

tive padz, to read, often receives in colloquial Tamil the mean-

ing to sing.

pdl, Tam. Mal. and Can. a portion, a part, a half.

Comp. Sans, phal,

to divide; also Latin par-s, a portion. pd/ appears to be

identical with pagal, Tam. a division (also daylight), from

pag-u, to divide.

The medial g was softened away, as in pddy,

half, originally pagudi, from the same root pag-w. See Semitic

affinities of this word.

SANSKRIT.

+

1~

{

3

)

pire, other—e.g., pira-n, another man.

Comp. para, Sans. in the

o))

sense of other, different, foreign, a sense which it often bears—

§

e.g., para-désa, a foreign country.

It is with this preposition,

i

and not with pra, before, forward, that I think the Tamil pira,

ll

other, should be compared.

The use of the Tam. pira, and

that of the Sans. para (in the signification adduced above) are

O

identical ; and we might naturally suppose the Tamil word to

l

have been derived from the Sanskrit.

Tamil, however, whilst

\}g

it admits that para was borrowed from Sanskrit, regards pra

as an indigenous theme. The r of pira is unknown to Sanskrit,

y

and is considered to be a distinctive mark of Dravidian words.

1§

Tamil has another word, pir-a-gu, after (ultimate base pir),

1

which is generally considered to be independent of, and uncon-

Il

nected with, pira, other; and yet that this very meaning,

16

after, is one of the many significations which are attributed to

para 1n Sansgkrit.

Possibly both in Tamil and in Sanskrit,

ave been the first meanine

after, may h

() )

other, the secondary

)

one.

Comp. also pira, Tam. to be born = to come after.

It may be concluded, I think, that para and pira are

radically allied; and yet the supposition that the one is

derived from the other is inadmissible.

Each is too deeply

seated in its own family of tongues to allow of this supposition,

and we seem, therefore, to be driven to conclude that both

have been derived from a common source.

por-u, to bear.

Comp. Sans. bhyri (bhar), to bear.

It is impossible

to suppose that either of these words has been borrowed by

|

the one language from the other; yet they appear to be nearly

related.

See next section.

)

pal, milk. The Dravidian languages do not seem to contain the verbal

theme from which this word is derived.

f

We may compare it

o

with the Sanskrit pdyasa, milk, and also with pdya, water,

.

ed

Zend péo, Affghan poi

) .

a

11 of which words are derived from

ll

pd, Sans. to drink—a root which runs through almost all the

[

Indo-European languages.

Possibly the Dravidian pd/, milk,

il

may be a verbal noun formed from this very theme ; for a

large number of verbal nouns are formed in Tamil by simply

i)

adding al or [ to the root.

Notwithstanding this, the purely

he

Dravidian character and connections of this word pdl, preclude

n

the supposition of its direct derivation from the Sanskrit Pa4.

If pdl, milk, could be considered as identical with pdl, a

(]?1

o

portion, its root would be pag-u, to divide. It is difficult, how-

ever, to see why milk should have been called a portion, a

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

474

share.

A poetical, but very common, name for @rigi, unboiled

rice, in Tamil is amudu-pade, the ambrosial portion or allow-

ance.

Was it in some such sense that milk was called pdl ?

pes-u, to speak ; Can. pél-u.

Comp. bhdsh, Sans. to speak.

p, a flower, or to blossom, Tam., Tel., and Can.

Comp. phull-a,

Sans. to blossom, and puskpa, a flower.

Leoking, however,

at the Mardthi phil, a flower, from phulla, the Dravidian pd

seems likely to have been derived from the Sanskrit after all.

Tamil has an ancient word of its own for flowers, malar.

val, stron

S0

o

val-met, strength.

Comp. Sans. bal-a, strength.

See also

next section.

3. ExTRA SANSKRITIC OR WEST INDO-EUROPEAN AFFINITIES :

Dravidian words which appear to be specially allied to, or. specially to

resemble, words that are contained in the languages of the Western

or A‘Ton-S(ms/u)"éti_c branches of the Indo-European famaily.

Some of the words contained in the following list*have Sanskrit as

well as West-Aryan analogies; but they have been placed in this,

rather than in the preceding list, because the West-Aryan affinities

appear to be clearer and more direct than the Sanskrit ones.

The

greater number, however, of the words that follow, though apparently

connected with the Western tongues, and especially with Greek and

Latin, exhibit little or no analogy to any words contained in Sanskrit.

If the existence of this class of analogies can be established, it may be

concluded either that the Dravidians were at an early period near neigh-

bours of the West-Aryan tribes, subsequently to the separation of those

tribes from the Sanskrit-speaking people; or, more probably, that both

races were descended from a common source.

The majority of the

Dravidian words which exhibit West-Aryan resemblances, do not

belong to that primary, rudimental class to which the words that the

Dravidian languages have in common with the Scythian are to be

referred.

Nevertheless, they are so numerous, many of them are so

interesting, and, when all are viewed together, the analogy which they

bring to light is so remarkable, that an ultimate relation of some kind

between the Dravidian and the Indo-European families, may be ve-

garded as probable.

As before, the Dravidian words are to be regarded as Tamil, except

it is stated that they are taken from some other dialect.

as-er, to shake.

Comp. cei-w, to shake, to move to and: fro.

aru-vi, a waterfall; from ar-u, to- trickle down.

Comp. 7tv-us, Lat.

e

4

.

SANSKRIT.

47

5

¢l

a brook, Eng. river ; also the verbal theme of those words, gt-w

W

or gv-w (as in ¢7), to flow ; Sans. sru or ru, to run.

al-ez, to wander, to be unsteady : aler, as a noun, means a wave. Comp.

‘ahd-owas, to wander, &Az ; Germ. welle, Armen. alik, a wave.

0,

av-d, desire ; also dv-al, a verbal noun, derived from an obsolete root

Jr‘

dv-u, to desire,

Comp. Sans. aw, of which one of the rarer

i

meanings is to desire.

The affinity between avd and the Latin

l

ave-o, to desire, is still more complete, inasmuch as this is the

only meaning of the word in Latin, as in Tamil.

See also

150

Semitic Affinities.

Idvv—a, Tel. a grandmother. In Tuda av means a mother. In Canarese

awva or avve means either a mother or grandmother, or gene-

rally, an old woman.

The ordinary Tamil form of this word

1

18 auv-ei, an honorific term for a matron, an elderly lady, but

7! ”

avv-er 18 also used. Comp. the Latin av-us, a grandfather ;

avi-a, a grandmother ; av-unculus, a maternal unele,

dve,

spirit, literally vapour, breath; then life, and also a spirit :

8

verbal theme dvi, to yawn, to breathe.

Comp. the Greek dw,

b

to blow ; also Sans. »d, to blow.

w-u, to draw, to pull Comp. él-w, to draw. Comp. alé)o ele, the

16

Canarese equivalent of 4w, with #Ax-w, to drag, a word which

|

is probably related to éi-w, through that alliance of » to I

ud

which is apparent in all languages.

1t

wu-mbu, iron ; from ¢rw, 4, the ultimate root, and mbu, a formative

e

euphonised f;jOl‘n bu or wvu . Tel. numu.

Comp. the Lat. ces,

ol

wr-is, Saxon iren, Danish iern, Old Ger. ér, Armen. erketh,

1058

The » of these words appears to have been hardened from 8,

Joth

as may be concluded from comparing them with the German

e

eisen and the Sanskrit ayas.

Though I compare this word

0

with Sanskrit, I do not suppose the one to be derived from

the other.

the

The root of the Tamil word (4) appears to mean

0}9

dark ; and 7w/, darkness, appears to be another derivative

¢ &

from it ; perhaps also ¢rd, night.

fhey

in-u, to bring forth young, Tam. Can., said of cattle especially. Comp.

Eng. to ean or yean (Shakspeare ean), Anglo-Sax. eanian.

il

0 1%

wyar, high ; when used as a verb, to raise (ultimate root probably w,

that). Comp. dsig-w, to raise up; also asg in aég-ny (Aor.

ot

pass.), and in’ the adverb aég-0my, lifted up. Comp. also dng,

the air; Armenian wor, high ; Ossete arw, heaven.

ur-, Can. Tulu, to burn; Tam. er-i. Comp. wr-o, Lat. to burn p

Armenian or, fire; Afghan or, wur.

There are also some

i

Semitic analogies—e.g., Hebrew 4r, fire, and or, light.

476

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

wl-¢r, mire.

Comp. ér-0g, a marsh.

#l-er, howling. Lat. wululo, to howl; Greek 6rorilw ; Engl-ish. izxozpi

(mimetic words).

>

-

ey, to shoot (an arrow), to cast (a dart).

Comp.

10

2

an arrow, iw, to

shoot, to cast, ¢w, to send.

eru-

er-u, to rise, to get up.

Comp. Lat. ore-or, to rise, to get up.

fidyirw, Tam. the rising sun, may be compared with the Latin

ori-ens sol.

ell-a, all.

The classical Tamil forms el-dm, all we, el-ir, all ye, show

:;

that the root is el.

Tel.-Can. ella, all ; colloquial Tam. elld.

The meaning of e, from which that of ‘all’ was derived,

appears to have been ‘boundary.’

The primitive meaning

seems to have been ¢ where 7’

Comp. Ossete al, ali, all ; Saxon eal, old High German al,

English all.

Probably the Greek ér-o¢ and the Hebrew kol are

allied rather to our own ¢ whole,” Lat. sal-vus, Sans. sarva, than

to the Dravidian and Germanic e/, all.

ér, a plough ; also in classical Tam. the work of ploughing ; Can.-Tulu

ér-u, a plough. We find also in Canarese dr-u, a plough, which

appears to be a different form of the same word.

Judging by

analogy ér must be a lengthened form of er, a verbal root, of

This verbal

which the meaning must have been to plough.

root no longer exists in a separate shape, but it seems to sur-

vive in erud-u, the ox, erumed, the buffalo, literally, as appears,

the ploughing animals. In Tulu both animals are called & (er”).

In Tam. er-u, in Tel. ér-u, means also manure, especially cow-

dung.

There is in Tamil a secondary verb, er-ukku, to hew, to

cut, which seems to contain a reminiscence of the primitive mean-

ing of ér.

This meaning appears more distinctly in the classical

Canarese @r-u, a plough, which seems to be a lengthened second-

ary form of ar-w, to cut, to sever, a root still in common use in each

dialect (comp. ar-u, dr-u, six).

The verb meaning ‘to plough’

in actual use at present is Tam.-Mal. up-w ; Can. ul-u; Tulu wr.

Comp. Lat. ar-o,; Greek dgi-w, dgo-rog ; Lith. aru.

I do not

feel sure of the existence of any relationship between these and

the Dravidian words, but the resemblance is worthy of notice.

Dr Schlegel in his “ Sinico-Aryaca” (Batavia 1872) connects

all the Indo-European words which designate the plough and

its uses, and which contain the root ar, er, 1, or, with the

Sanskrit ar (ri or r), signifying to cut or hurt, and ultimately

with the Chinese 7, sharp, ground to a point, whence are

J—

derived various compounds, also pronounced /i, with the signi-

o

SANSKRIT.

477

fication of to plough, &ec.

From this basis he derives the

renowned designation of Aryas or Aryas, as meaning ‘the

ploughing people.’

If the Sanskrit 72 or s ordinarily or

naturally meant to cut, or even if it could be clearly proved

to have ever meant to cut at all, this explanation of the

meaning of the words used for plough and ploughing in the

Indo-European languages would have carried more weight.

I

should then also have felt surer of the relationship of the Dra-

vidian words with the Indo-European ar’, to cut, being an

undoubtedly Dravidian root, and probably the origin of dr,

Can. a plough.

The radical meaning of 74, however, seems

rather to be to run.

0r-am, border, brim, margin, coast.

Comp. Lat. ora, border, margin.

or-am has no connection with any Dravidian word signifying

mouth ; probably therefore its resemblance to the Latin ora is

accidental.

The corresponding word in Gujarathi, Marathi,

and Hindi, is £ér.

kad-z, to cut, to rend, to reprove; katti, a knife, a sword.

Comp.

Sans. kret, to cut, but especially the English cut; Norman-

French cotu ; Welsh cateia, to cut ; Lat. caed-o.

The Persian

and Ossete kard, a knife, and probably also the Dravidian katta,

a knife.

kattiry, scissors, is from kartari, Sans., a derivative

of krut.

kan, the eye ; kdp (in the preterite kan-du), to see ; also secondarily, to

mark, to consider, to think.

In the latter sense it becomes

kanpu in Tamil, but the base remains unchanged.

In (kanw,

kannwu) Telugu, the ordinary =, the nasal of the dental row, is

used instead of 7, the cerebral nasal. Comp. the Welsh centaw,

to see ; English ken, view, power or reach of vision, to ken, to

know by sight.

In Webster's “ English Dictionary” kanna

was said to be ‘an eye’ in Sanskrit ; whereas it is exclusively

a Dravidian word. This error may be compared with Klap-

roth’s representing kuruta, blind, as a Sanskrit word, instead

of referring it to the Dravidian languages, to which alone it

belongs. There is a curious word in Sanskrit kdna, one-eyed,

which seems to have some Dravidian relzationship.

It becomes

in Bengali £dnd, blind, which, in form at least, is identical with

the Dravidian negative kdnd, that sees not.

Possibly the Dra-

vidian kdn, to see, kapnu, to consider, may have some ulterior

connection with the Gothic Aunn-an, to know ; Greek YVé-vai ;

Sans. 7id ; Latin gna (gnarus) ; Old High German chan. The

different shades of meaning which are attributed in Greek to

~

4

8

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

yva-ver and éi0é-vas, seem to corroborate this supposition ; for

the latter is represented as meaning to know by reflection, to

know absolutely, whereas the former means to perceive, to

mark, and may therefore have an ulterior connection with the

Dravidian root.

karade, a bear, from karada, rough, knotty, uneven, the ultimate base

of which must be kara or kar.

The Tuda word for ‘a bear’ is

karsh (kar).

Comp. the Persian chars, Kurd /%arj, and even

the Latin wrs-us.

Comp. also the Samoiede korgo, and the

Tungusian Lute.

karug-u, an eagle.

Comp. Persian kergish, Ossete kartziga ; also

Sans. garuda, the mythical eagle ; gridhra, a vulture.

kal-a, Can. to steal ; Tam. kalavu, Mal. kall-am, a theft.

Comp.

Lat. clep-o, to steal ; Greek xAam-e/s.

See also Scythian

Affinities.

gav-2, Can. a cave, a cell, kapp-u, Can. a pit-fall ; keb-Z, Tam. a cave.

i

The equivalent Sanskrit words are guhd, a cavern, from guh,

to conceal, and gaha, a cave, from gah, to be impervious.

guhd has become in Tawmil Zuges.

It seems doubtful whether

the Canarese gave and the Tamil kabe are not both tadbhavas

of guhd. On the supposition that they are independent words,

AN}

comp. the Lat. cave-a, a cavity, a den, from cav-us, hollow ;

theme cav-0, to hollow out ; and with this the Telugu kapp-u,

i

to cover over, probably the origin of the Tamil kapp-al, a ship.

See also Scythian Affinities.

kdy, to be hot, to burn.

The Tel. kd-gu (also kd-lu), Can. kdy-u, to

burn, and the Can. Zdge, heat, compared with the Tamil Adsi-

get, show that the ultimate root is £d, to which y or gu is added

dialectically as a formative.

The only Sans. word which

seems to be related to this Drav. one, is kdm-a, to desire;

and we should not, perhaps, have suspected this to be related,

h

were it not for its connection with the Hebrew Zdm-ad, to

desire, and the derivation of that word from Adm-am (base

hdm), to be warm.

Comp. with the Dravidian kd or kdy, the

The words seem

Kty

Greek xai-w (Attic xd-w), to burn, to be hot.

identical.

Liddell and Scott represent xaiw to be connected

}01]1

with the Sanskrit suck, to dry.

How much more nearly it

appears to be' connected with the Dravidian kdy / Besides,

the Dravidian languages have another word which seems to

have a real relation to sush-a—viz., sud-u, to burn,

kind-u, to stir, to search, to turn up the ground. Comp. xevr-éw, to

prick, to goad, to spur on.

e

b

e,

SANSKRIT.

479

kira, old (not by use, but with respect to length of life); ultimate

root kir, beneath, that which has gone down.

Comp. Sans.

Jar-as, age, but especially the Greek words signifying age,

aged — viz. yipa-¢, yrpou-ic, VeS¢, yEg-mV.

See

also the

Scythian affinities of this word.

kira-mes (base kira), a week, literally property, possession, each portion

of a week being astrologically regarded as the property or in-

heritance of some planet.

Comp. Ossete kuri, kdre, a week ;

Georgian fuire.

Possibly these words are derived from the

Greek zvz-axs, Sunday, the Lord’s day; but whence is the

Greek word derived ? from xzlgi-og, a lord, a possessor, the base

of which may perhaps be allied to the Tamil ira, possession.

The ultimate root of kira is doubtless Zir, ordinarily lengthened

to kir, beneath ; hence kira-mei means that which is beneath

one, under his power, in his possession.

kil-et, a young branch.

Comp. Ossete kalius,; Servian galusa ; Greek

#hedog, a young shoot, a branch.

The theme of the Greek

word is xAd-w, to lop, to break ; and the Tamil %il-es, con-

sidered 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-er, sweepings, refuse, dung, a dung-heap.

Comp. xémpog, dung,

dirt, a farm-yard.

kur-u, short, brief : derivative verb kuru-gu, to diminish: collateral

root kur-ei, a defect, to be or make defective.

Comp. Persian

chord, short; German kurz, Latin curt-us; short, small, de-

fective.

On comparing the Latin word ecurt-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 be identical with the Tamil Zaux-u.

Comp. Greek

VAV

0¢, curved.

kuru-du, blindness, blind : ultimate base kuru (like kera, the ultimate

base of kiradu, old). Comp. Persian kdr,; Kurd kor; Ossete

kurm, blind.

kuri, Can. a sheep, Tel. gorre, Tuda gur

chhure.

)z Comp. Irish kaora, Georg.

kul-ir, cold, Tam. and Can. : ultimate base, by analogy, kul-u; Telugu

and Canarese chal?, cold : collateral root, §ilsr, Tam. to tremble

with cold.

kidal and kudir, cold, are doubtless derivative or

allied words.

Comp. German Fkihl

Saxon cyl, col, cele,

Russian cholod ; English cool, cold ; Latin gelu , English ehall.

See also Scythian Affinities.

kél, to hear, Tam. and Can.

Comp. Latin aus-cul-to, to hear, to listen

480

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

also the Greek xal-w, to hear; Welsh ¢/yw, hearin

(=)

o

Irish

cluas, the ear; Lithuanian klaw, to hear; Latin clu-o, to be

called..

See also the Scythian Affinities.

kol, to kill.

Comp. Russian Zolyu, to stab ; and especially the English

kill and quell.

See also Scythian Affinities.

$att-w, to close a door, to shut; Saxon scytt-an, to shut in; Dutch

schutt-en, to stop ; English to shut.

$dd-i (pronounced jddz), a jar. Probably from Port. jarra,; English jar.

$al, a bucket, a furrow.

Comp. enr-iz, any flat board or tray with a

raised rim.

See also Semitic Affinities.

$tvar-u, Can. a splinter.

Comp. English a shiver.

str-u (pronounced siéir-u), to hiss; Can. str-u, to be angry.

Comp.

ovg-i{w, to pipe, also to hiss; Latin sw-surr-us, a whispering,

or whistling.

Our English word hiss’ 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 : secondary theme sud-ar,

Tam. to shine.

Comp. Persian sus-an,; Kurd sodj-an, Ossete

suds-in, to burn. Comp. also Sans. susk, and Latin sicc-o, to dry.

$uver, taste, flavour.

Comp. English sap, German saft.

$urung-u, to shrink. Comp. English shrink, German schrumpfen.

$epp-u, to speak. Comp. ¢7-w (for Tézw), to speak.

sel, to go, to proceed. This is unquestionably a Dravidian root, and

abounds in derivatives—e.g., $e/, the white ant; $el-avu, ex-

penditure ; $el-vam, prosperity.

It forms its preterite also in

a manner which is peculiar to pure Dravidian verbs.

It is

obviously allied to the Sanskrit $al, to go or move; $el, to

move, to tremble; chal and char, to go, to shake, to totter;

and also to the Hindustani derivative chal, to go.

Close as

these analogies are, sel appears to bear an equally close resem-

blance to cel, the obsolete Latin root, signifying to go, from

which are formed celer, and also ex-cell-o and pree-cell-o.

The

same root is in Greek zeA—e.g., %eA-n¢, a runner ; and xeAAw,

1

to urge on.

[

tag-u, fit, proper, worthy. Comp. German taug-en, to be fit for ; Gothic

dug-an,; German tugend, virtue; tichtig, fit, able; English

doughty.

tayir, curds.

Comp. Greek

vg-o¢, cheese; Sans. dhayi, drinking,

sipping, sucking.

|

tin, to eat, to eat light food, to eat away; tindri, eatables.

Comp.

rév0-w, to nibble, to eat daintily; révdng, a gourmand.

tir-a (pronounced mnearly like ‘ora), to open ; tira-vu, an opening, a

way,

a means.

!

Comp. Greek fise, a ¢

A

oor ; German thiir,

481

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

Old High German for; Gothic daur, Sans. dvdra; Vedic-

Sans. dur.

These words are commonly derived from the Sans.

181

theme dvrs, to obstruct, to cover; but as they all mean not

e

the door-leaf, but the door-way, and metaphorically a way, or

means, this derivation of them from a root meaning to close

i

seems less natural than that of the Dravidian ¢ira or tora (Can.

~

tera), to open.

Comp. ¢r?, Sans. to pass ; teras, through.

tind-u, to touch, to kindle.

Comp. Gothic tandya, I kindle.

Possibly

i

there may be a remote connection also with the Sans. danh,

to burn, the intensitive of which is dandah.

On the other

1}

“ ({

hand, the 7 of the Tam. ¢ind-» is probably euphonic, for it

disappears in the Can. ¢id-u, and in the Tam. transitive form

of the verb ¢i¢¢-w, to whet.

tel, clear.

Comp. 0%A-0g, clear, manifest.

1)

As a verb, tol-ev signifies to end,

0f,

tol-es (base tol), distance, limit, end.

or come to an end.

Comp. Greek rer-o5, an end, and 77A-¢,

0

far off, which Buttmann derives from r&A-og.

1l

tripp-u, Tel. to turn ; from which, by corruption, ¢ppu, the ordinary

i

form of the word, has been derived ; Can. tiru-pw; Tamil

10

toru-ppu.

These are causal or active verbs, and the correspond-

Y

ing neuter or intransitive verb signifying to turn, is in Tel.

Canarese has ¢ru-hu, toru-vu, and

tiru-gu, in Tam. toru-mbu.

ru-gu.

There are also a few related themes—e.g., teru-gu,

Tam. to twist or turn, and ¢ere, the same ; from which is derived

i

tiriger, a mill.

From a comparison of these words, it is

manifest that their common base is #r, to turn, to which

10

various formative additions have been made, for the purpose

;8

S

gor-

of expressing modifications of meaning.

Comp. Greek 7o

w,

10

to turn ; which bears a remarkable likeness to the Tel. ¢ripp-u,

el

and the initial portion of which (with that of our English turn),

N

seems closely allied to the Dravidian base

Possibly also the

3l

Sans. tarku, a spindle, is either a collateral word or one which has

ol

been directly borrowed by Sanskrit from the Dravidian tongues.

The

,' naé-u, to crush, to squash. Comp. veao-w, to squeeze close, to stamp down.

i

nar-a, Can. a tendon, a sinew ; sometimes, but improperly, a vein or

artery ; adjectivally wiry, stringy.

Tel. naramu, Tam. nar-

U

Ji

ambu, R4jmahal ndru.

A secondary form of the word is ndr,

|

J

gl

fibre, from the base nar ; with which compare the Latin nerv-us

and the Greek veUp-ov, a tendon, a ligament.

i0g)

nin-er, to think, to remember; Can. nen-e, nen-a.

This word is un-

doubtedly a Tamil primitive, and is probably the basis of neiij-u,

il

Tam.-Mal. the mind, the heart; also the diaphragm.

[in th

2. H

g &

i

482

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

respect to this double signification of the word nefij-u, compare

the twofold meaning of @e7y, in Greek, viz., the diaphragm or

chest (supposed to be the seat of the mental faculties), and also

the mental faculties themselves.] If there is any analogy be-

tween the Dravidian nen or nen, and the Sanskrit man, to think,

it comes to light only by comparing it with the corresponding

Greek word vé-cw, by reduplication vevé-nue. wve-owas, to think

on, to remember, and wé-oc, wish, are in perfect accordance

with the Sanskrit mana, and are probably mote ancient than

!

vé-¢w ; of which the initial » has been changed either from w or

from yv (yvavar). The Dravidian nen or nén may in like manner,

I conceive, have been changéd from an’ older men or min, allied

to man-a and wév-og.

nind-u

(also nifj-u), to swim ; nichch-u and nitt-al, swimming ; Tel.

td-u, Can. is-u, %-u, Tulu ndndu, to swim: Tel. derivative

noun, 4te, swimming. A comparison of these words shows that

the final ndwu of the Tamil verb has been euphonised from

du

The base of this verb seems to be simply nid or 2%, of

which mi, Can. to bathe, is probably a collateral form.

Comp.

nt with the Latin no (navi), to swim ; Greek vé-w, also vi-xw ;

Sans. nau, Greek vad-, a boat. Comp. also néd-u (the suppo-

sititious original of both nind-u and id-u) with the Latin second-

ary verb nat-o.

Bopp derives these Indo-European words from

snd, Sans. to bathe, and that from snq, to flow ; but it is only

in the Dravidian tongues and in Latin and Greek that we find

the meaning of swim.

ney, to weave. Probably mil, a thread, and also, a,sva verb, to spin, is

a word of collateral origin.

As ], dust, from 2, to scatter,

so nil, a thread, may be supposed to be derived from an obso-

lete nu, to spin ; and this root would naturally be concluded to

be a correlative of ney, to weave.

Comp. Greek 1é-w, to spin,

vi-me, a thread ; and more especially the Latin neo, which not

only means to spin, to entwine, but also, secondarily, to weave

—e.g., tunrcam quam molli neverat auro.—Virg. A collateral

b

root, and one which bears, perhaps, a still closer analogy to the

Dravidian ney, to weave, is that which we find in the German

nal-en, to sew : Latin nec-to, to knit, to join; and Sans. nah,

to bind, to tie.

pad-u, (1.) to suffer, to receive or feel an impression ; a word which is

used as an auxiliary in all the Dravidian languages in the for-

mation of passive verbs; derivative noun pd¢-u, Tel. and Can.

a suffering. Comp. Sans. bddh, to give trouble ; bddha, trouble.

v

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

483

16

Especia}'ﬂy .comp. Latin pat-tor, and Greek 7ad-civ, each of which

has precisely the same meaning as the Dravidian verb.

(2.) To

or

fall, to sink, to settle down.

This verb is identical with the

30

preceding one ; but the meaning, to fall, which it bears more or

)

less distinctly in each dialect, in addition to that of to suffer,

k

suggests a different set of affinities.

Comp. Slavonian pad, to

)

fall ; Sans. pat (Prakrit pad), to fall, to fly ; Zend pat, to fly ;

Ik

Latin pet in vm-pet-o, to fall upon ; Greek wér-omau, to fly, and

06

also wimr-w, to fall.

all

pan, Tam.-Mal. to make, to work, to produce : colloquial form panpu ;

or

Tel. pannu.

This word is evidently allied to the Sanskrit paz,

oy

to do business, to negotiate ; the noun corresponding to which,

o

pana, means business, hence property. This noun, pana, has

been borrowed by the Dravidian languages ; but the signification

)|

it bears is money. Whilst pana-m, money, is always admitted by

e

Dravidian grammarians to be a Sanskrit derivative, they regard

at

pan(n)-u, to make, to work, as a primitive Dravidian word ;

i

and this view is confirmed by the circumstance that it stands

0f

at the head of a large family of derivatives and collaterals,

‘some of which are panan-er, tillage, a rice-field ; pan-2, service,

Iy

humility ; in Mal. it means also difficulty, toil ; panz, Tel. work ;

pantkku, Tam. a clever performance.

It is especially worthy

of notice that pan-7, as a verbal root, signifying to be subser-

|

vient, to obey, to worship, has become in its turn the parent of

a host of derivative words.

This word is not to be confounded

with panz, Tam. to say, to order, a tadbhava of bhan, Sans. to

speak ; from which also the Tulu panpu, to say, is probably de-

1§

rived. Another form of the latter word in Tam. is pannu, to say.

Iy

I have no doubt that pan, to make, to work, has an ulterior

connection with the Sanskrit pan, to negotiate ; but it appears

i

to have a still closer connection with the Greek wov-éw, to toil,

I,

to work hard, wdv-os, work, a task, and wé-ouas, to work, to toil.

0

Comp. also the Babylonian ban-as, to do, to make.

\(4

pamp-u, Tel. to send ; also as a noun, a sending.

Comp. Greek wéuww,

This resemblance amounts

il

to send, and woum-7, a sending.

e

almost to identity, and yet it is very doubtful whether it is not

merely accidental.

The form this word takes in Tamil and

al

I

Malaydlam is anapp-u, and in Telugu it takes two forms, one

with an initial p and one without—e.g., anuch-u, anup-u, amp-u,

1§

ampifich-u, anichipuchch-u, to send or cause to send, and

panuch-u, panup-w, pamp-w, pampiich-u, the same.

We have

I

“also ampakam and pampu, dismission.

Probably ampa, Tel.

484

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

an arrow (ambu, Tam.), is a related word.

It seems clear from

a comparison of these words in both languages that the word

we must compare with #éus-w is not pamp-u, but panup-u,; and

that the p of panup-u does not belong to the root, but is a

formative, alternating, according to the custom of the language,

with ch, as in panuch-u.

The resemblance to the Greek is con-

siderably lessened hereby ; but it would disappear altogether if

the initial p of pampu should have to be given up.

It appears

to me uncertain whether anup-u or panup-u were the original

form, but the analogy of the Tamil and Malayalam leads me to

assign the preference to anup-u. If so, the change from anup-u

to panup-u must be regarded as a corruption, and no argument

can be built upon it.

Dr Gundert supposes the root of this

word to be an (= en, Tam.-Mal.), to say, and considers anuppu,

!

to send, Tam.-Mal., as meaning to cause to say. To cause to

say in Canarese is endsu. Another word meaning to say in Tamil

is pamn-u, another again pana.

See previous word pa.

In

Tulu, panpu is to say.

par-u, to be old, to become ripe; para-m, a ripe fruit; Can. pala (r

changed into /) ; Tel. pandu (r changed dialectically into d and

then nasalised).

Comp. Persian ber, fruit; Armenian perk;

117

Latin fru-or, fru-x.

Comp. also the Sans. phala, fruit, a word

I

which has been borrowed by the Tamil in the sense of effect or

profit, but which is never confounded by it with its own

para-m.

I suspect phala, however, to be identical in origin

[l

with the Drav. para, pala.—See also the Semitic analogies of

this word. Another form of this word, with a slightly different

meaning, is para, Tam., pale, Can. old,long in use, of ancient date.

Comp. Greek woAar-ig, old, ancient ; wohas, in olden times.

The

pal, many, various; pal-ar, many people ; pal-a, many things.

ordinary adjectival form of this word, which is used in the col-

loquial dialect without 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.

There is probably a connection between this word

and the Sans. pulu, more correctly puru, perhaps for paru,

much [from prg, to fill (pi-par-mz)]; but it still more closely

resembles the Greek moAlg, word, many, much, the Latin plus,

and the Goth. and Old Germ. filu, much,

Comp. palar, many

persons, with é/ oArds, the many, the majority.—See Scythian

Affinities.

palli, a town, a village, a school, a place of worship for foreigners,

i

1o

WEST INDO=-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

485

Wond

Al

especially in Malayalam.

Trichinopoly = 7%risird-ppalle, the

1§

city of the three-headed (ZRdkshasa).

Comp. wiAsz, a city, from

7woréw, to haunt, to frequent.

g

palle is found in Sanskrit dictionaries, but I consider it to be

00l

a purely Dravidian word ; root probably pa/, hollow.

et

piy-kk-u, to rend in pieces, to card, to comb cotton, to pick.

Comp.

Jears

7ex-w, to comb ; English to pick (%)

i

Comp. Sans.

16 10

pir-i, to divide ; also pdr, to cleave, and pd/, a portion.

phal-a, to divide; but especially the Latin par-s, a portion;

) I

Dt

also portio, from the supposititious root por-o or par-o, to appor-

tion, to divide.

The Greek wés-w, in the sense of im-par-ting,

this

is doubtless an allied word.—See also the Semitic Affinities.

i

pill-et, Tam. a child; Tel. pilla, Can. pille, Latin puell-us, puell-a,

36 10

a boy, a girl ; compare with pullus, the young of an animal.

il

If the Latin word is derived from puer-wlus, it is probably

ln

Perhaps a more reliable affinity is

unconnected with pill-er.

that of fil-ius, fil-ia, a son, a daughter, supposed to mean liter-

oy

ally a suckling.—See also the Scythian Vocabulary.

' and

pugay, to praise.

Comp. Old Prussian pagir-u, I praise, and the cor-

16}'15;

responding noun pagir-sna, praise,

pord

purudi, also pdyi and pdrdd, dust; Can. pulel, sand.

Comp. Latin

for

pulvis.

)\\: 1

pur-am, a side, especially the outside, the exterior, the back—e.g.,

1g111

appuram, that side ; {ppuram, this side : adjectivally pur-atiu,

g of

external : adverbially purambdga (puram-b-dga), externally ;

penf

as a verbal theme purappadu. (pura-(p)-padu), to set out; Can.

late

pora-ge, outside ; pora-du, to set forth. There is, doubtless, an

ulterior connection between pura-m, the outside, externally, and

The

pira, other, after ; yet they are not to be regarded as one and

) 0k

the same word ; and puram has affinities of its own, as well as

) 1§

meanings of its own.

Comp. Greek wagd, beside, in which one

jil

of the meanings of the Dravidian word appears, whilst the mean-

i

ing of ‘side’ is not conveyed by the correlative Sanskrit para.

ol

Comp. especially the Latin foris, abroad ; forum, a public place ;

jith

fors, the decks of a ship, with the Canarese pora, outside. This

]

seems a more natural derivation of foris than the Greek 8iga,

vy

P’ Il

Sans. dvdra, a door, a word which I have compared with the

Al

Dravidian ¢ira, to open. In the Dravidian languages f is:un-

s

known, and p is always used instead.

In

pils-er,

a cat, especially in the South-Tamil idiom ; Mal. pdchcha.

(4 §

the Cashgar dialect of the Afghan, pusha siguifies a cat.

Comp. Irish pus, a cat ; English puss.

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

pull-1, Tel. a cat. pul-i signifies a tiger, or more correctly a cheetah, or

hunting leopard, in all the Dravidian dialects.

Comp. Persian

pelang, a tiger, but especially the Latin feles or felles, a cat, a

word which is a'so used to denote various animals of a similar

character.

pen, a female.

Comp. Lat. femina.

per-u, great ; another form of the same adjective in Tamil, and perhaps

a more ancient one, is par-u. Possibly pal-a, many, is a related

root, seeing that there appears to be the same relation between

per-w or par-u, great, and pal-a, many, that there is between

§ir-u, small, and $il-a, few.

per-u, great, is also used as a

verbal theme, and in that connection it signifies to increase, to

grow.

Comp. Sans. purw, pulu, much, barh, varh, to be pre-

eminent, but especially the Zend berez and barez, great, berezaits,

to grow.

]}er-u, to obtain, to get or beget, to bear, to bring forth ; verbal noun

péxr-u, a bringing forth or birth, a thing obtained or a benefit.

pur-a, to be born, to proceed from, is doubtless a related word ; and

there is probablya relationship between these words (especially the

latter) and pira, other, pir-agu, after, pura-m, the exterior, and

even por-u, to bear or sustain. Comp. the Lat. par-to, pe-per-i, to

bring forth, to acquire.

Possibly the ultimate base of all these

words is the Indo-European preposition, pra, signifying progres-

sive motion, expansion, excess, &c. ; and the Zend form of this

preposition, fra, indicates the propriety of classing the Latin

See also the Semitic Vo-

Jru-z with the other derivatives.

cabulary.

pei-(y)-an, a boy, a servant ; also pei-(y)-al and pei-dal ; Mal. pei-dal ;

Can. hei-da.

The termination al, dal, is that of the abstract

verbal noun ; and consequently pesyal might be applied to a

youth of either sex, a child, though restricted in Tamil to the

masculine.

Malayalam has dn pei-dal, a boy, peidal-dl, a girl :

root pas = pei, green, fresh, young.

Comp. Greek walg, waid-Og,

a boy or girl, a servant; Laconian #érg ; Latin puer ; Persian

bach, a boy, puser, a son ; Swedish poike ; English boy. The

Sanskrit putra, a son, has also been supposed to be derived

from this theme.

See also Scythian Affinities.

por-u, to sustain, to bear, to suffer patiently, por-u-ppu, responsibility,

por-u-mer, patience.

Comp. Sans. bhre (bhar), to bear ; Gothic

bair-an, bdr, béram, to bear ; Old High German béran, péran.;

English bear, bore ; Old English bearn, a child ; Greek pés-w ;

Latin fer-o.

Tamil distinguishes between this word and pir-a,

P

—

WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY.

48%

to be born, though both are probably from the same .base,

\l, 0

Latin in like manner distinguishes between par<io and fer-o,

:réian

whilst the Teutonic tongues make no difference between bear,

at 8

to sustain, and bear, to bring forth.

They constitute one word,

llr

from which is formed the past participle to be born or bprne,

and also the noun birth.

por-u-du, pér-du, time ; theme por, probably to divide.

Comp. Sans.

haps

var-a, time ; Pers. bdr, the theme of bdri, once; Lat. ber, the

Jafed

suffix of time, which appears in the names of the months from

Septem-ber to Decem-ber.

een

pb, to lgo ; also pd-gu (with the usual formative addition of gu). The

el

a4

imperative of pdgu is péd.

Laghmani (an Afghan dialect) pdk,

£, 10

to go; Greek Ba-w, to go ; Lat. va-do, to march ; Heb. b8, to

come, occasionally to go.

ré

ol

pod-u, to put.

Comp. Dutch poot-en, to set or plant ; Danish pod-er,

to graft ; English to put.

10U

bil-u, Can. to fall ; Tam. vir-u.

Comp. English to fall ; German

Sall-en.

eft

mag-an, a son, a male,

Comp. Gothic mag-us, a boy, a son, from the

il

verbal theme mag, originally to grow, then to be able ; Gaelic

ytha

mak, a son ; Tibetan maga, son-in-law.

Comp. also Lat. mas,

and

), f0

a njale,

1686

man, to remain, to abide (root of manéi, house). Comp. Lat. manere.

18

may-ir, hair, Probably from mayé, Mal. black =Tam. mez. Comp.

Persian mui, Armenian mas, hair.

this

mar-a, to forget. - Comp. Lithuanian mersz, to forget.

afiD

md, a male, particularly the male of the lion, elephant, horse, and

To

swine—e.g., are-md, a male lion.

Comp. Lat. mas, a male.

mdrg-u, to die, to languish, to mingle, mdr, to be confused, to be lazy ;

ful;

mdl, to die, to perish.

Comp. Lat. marc-eo, to wither, to be

rack

faint, to be languid or lazy, and also the Greek pmagaivw, which

fo &

the

in the passive voice signifies to waste away, or die.

Possibly

all these words have a remote connection with mre (mar), Sans.

]

to die.

It would seem, however, that there is a closer connec-

I’J\)n

tion between the Latin and Greek secondary themes here

sl

adduced and the Tamil than between the Sanskrit and the

The

Tamil.

marka, Vedic Sans., according to some, means dying

il

away.

mefij-u, to

maig-u, much, great: as a verbal theme, to be much.

I

Related

abound (from m2j, nasalised), is a collateral root.

e

words, Tel. migal-u, remainder, that which is too much ; me-

iy

gula and migala, adverb and adjective, much, exceedingly, also

W

»r'(Y

488

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

makkili, the same ; Can. meg-u, to exceed, also migel-u, both as

a verb and as a noun ; ancient dialect of Can. migal, much,

mogga, and also moggara, mokkala, a mass, a heap, an assem-

blage.

The Sanskrit mahd, great, from mah (originally perhaps

magh), to grow, is frequently used in the Dravidian dialects,

but it is always considered to be a Sanskrit derivative, not the

%

original base from which the above-mentioned Dravidian words

have been derived.

This view is confirmed by the circumstance

that the Dravidian languages have no word signifying much,

The Dravidian words

except mig-u, and its correlatives.

quoted above, bear a much closer resemblance to the corre-

sponding words in the Classical and Germanic tongues than to

the Sanskrit.

Thus, the Latin mag-nus, mag-ts ; the Persian

mih or meah ; the Greek wéya or msydros ; the Old High Ger-

man mehhil, michil; Norse mikil, Danish megen ; English

magh-t ; Scotch mickle, appear to be more closely connected

with the Tam. mig-u, the Can. migal and mokkala; and the

The

Tel. migala and makkili, than with the Sans. mah-at.

final al of the Dravidian words is one of the most common for-

matives of verbal nouns.

See the section on ¢ Roots.”

midr-gu, muru-gu, to plunge, to sink.

amir appears to be a softened

form of the same word ; and probably the ¢ of mdrgu is only

a formative.

Comp. Lat. merg-o, to plunge, to immerse.

margo, however, is supposed to bear the same relation to Sans.

majj that frango does to Sans. bhanj (originally perhaps bhranyg).

mugil, Tam. and ancient Can. a cloud.

Comp. Sans. mégha, a cloud,

from meh (méhatr), to sprinkle.

The word mégha has been

borrowed from Sanskrit by the Dravidian languages, and is

now more commonly used than mugal.

The latter, however, is

found in the classics, is much used by the peasantry, and

appears to be a pure Dravidian word.

Doubtless mégha and

mugil are ultimately allied; but there seems to be a special

connection between the Dravidian word and the Greek 0’-fo7\"§’

a cloud, the Lithuanian migla, the Slavonian mgla, and the

Gothic milh-ma ; in each of which the [ of mugil retains its

place.

Dr Gundert derives mugil from Can. muchch-u (mug),

IEPR

to cover over, to shut in, with the addition of the formative 4.

muyal,

to labour, to endeavour.

Comp. Lat. mol-ior, to endeavour, to

strive ; Greek w@i-os, the toil of war ; Eng. to motl, to labour

or strive,

4

murwnuru, to grumble, to murmur.

A very similar word morumor,

e

e

489

., WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAl‘sI[L"ilfb.

48

to murmur, would naturally be regarded as identical with

murumury ; but a different origin is ascribed to each.

moru-

I

morw 1s said to be simply and solely a mimetic word, one of a

large class of imitative, reduplicated exclamations—e.g., he said

ps

moru-moru—ri.e., he spoke angrily ; his head said kiru-kiru—

-z

3

z.e., 1t went round.

murumuru, on the other hand, it is said,

{

is not purely imitative, but is supposed to be regularly formed

i

by reduplication from murw, the base of muru-kku, to twist, to

106

chafe ; and the signification of grumblin

to bl

o

and being discon-

i

Whatever be the

tented, has arisen from that of chafing.

1ds

derivation of the Tamil word, it may be compared with the

[6

Latin murmuro, to mutter.

The Latin word is evidently an

{0

1mitative one, the reduplication of the syllable mur being used

1l

to signify the continuance of a low muttering sound.

mur has

il

doubtless some connection with the base of musso, mussito, to

sh

mutter or grumble.

Comp. also the Greek expression to say ui

fel

w3, to mutter, to grumble.

The Old Prussian murra, to mur-

the

mur, is evidently related.

See also the Scythian Affinities.

The

The Tamil word means not only to utter a muttering sound, but

for-

also ‘to express discontent, to be angry ;’ and in this it goes

beyond the meaning of the corresponding Latin murmuro.

ned

Muttering is in Tamil expressed by muna-muna, a somewhat

similar, yet independent, imitative word.

;nly

midkk-u, the nose : theme mug-ar, Tam.-Mal. to smell. Comp. Greek

[$6

The Greek word is said to be derived from

J11S.

wvzrse, the nose.

’ﬂ])

wilw, to moan, to mutter, to suck in, or from wvfw, the dis-

oud,

charge from the nose (Latin maucus).

It is worth consideration,

heel

however, whether the Dravidian derivaﬁion is not, after all, a

more probable one.

[d 1§

mel, fine, thin, soft, tender ; mell-a, softly, gently. Comp. Latin moll-

o, 18

is, soft, tender, pliant; Greek wmarards, soft, gentle, tender.

an(%

and

The derivation of the Latin mollis, from movilis, seems incon-

sistent with the connection which subsists bétween mollis and

;ecial

poraxéc ; and the resemblance of both to the Dravidian mel is

remarkable.

Comp. Sans. mridu, soft, which is in Tamil med-u.

| the

LR

I can scarcely think mel, like med-u, derived from myidu.

Tel. a stone.

7@y,

Bearing in mind the mutual interchange of » and

i

I, we may perhaps compare this word with the Greek Ad-ag or

il

ai-e, a stone.

rdy seems to correspond to Tam arer (another

1l {0

form of pare!), a rock.

gt

val, strong ; val-i-ya, van-mer (val-mei), strength.

The Dravidian lan-

guages have borrowed, and frequently use, the Sans. bala (in

490

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

Tamil balan, balam, and even valam),; and it might at first

be supposed that this is the origin of valz, &e.

I am persuaded,

however, that the words cited above have not been derived

from Sanskrit, but have been the property of the Dravidian

languages from the beginning.

The Dravidian val has given

birth to a large family, not only of adjectives and nouns, but

also of derivative verbs, which have no connection whatever

with anything Sans.—e.g., val-am, the right hand ; wal-, to

drag, to row ; val-u, to grow strong ; val-iya, spontaneously, &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 »al-eo, to be strong, and

val-idus, than the Sanskrit bala-m.

val, fertility, abundance; val-ar, and many related verbs, to rear, to

cause to grow.

Comp. Latin al-o, to nourish. Connection

doubtful.

vdngu, to receive, to take.

Comp. German (emp)fangen.

vind-u, the wind. .Comp. Latin vent-us; English wind. The Tamil

word seems to be derived from vip, the sky : its resemblance

to vent-us and wind is, therefore, probably accidental, the root

of those words being vd, to blow (Sans.), and their Sans. equiva-

lent vdta.

viret, to shiver from cold, to grow stiff from cold. Comp. Greek @gro6-w,

to tremble, to shiver ; giy-¢w, to shiver or shudder with cold ;

gry-og, frost, cold, a shivering from cold ; also Latin frig-eo, to

be cold ; frig-us, cold ; rig-eo, rig-or, to be stiff, as from cold ;

English to freeze.

vin, useless, vain.

Comp. Latin van-us, empty, unreal, frivolous, vain.

vénd-u, to wish, to want.

Comp. English want from Saxon wanian,

to fail.

The corresponding Can. word is bédu, but this has

also the shape of béndu.

Another Can. form is béku, from an

older bélku.

The root must have been vé/, which means in

High Tam. to desire.

vér-u, different, other.

Comp. Latin var-us, the secondary meaning of

which is different, dissimilar ; also var-ius, diversified, various,

different from something else.

Root of vér-u . ver-u, void ; the

primitive meaning of which seems to have been * distant.’

SEMITIC.

i

491

d

il

‘

{

S

ECTION IIL—SEMITIC AFFINITIES,

4l

(4

OR DRAVIDIAN WORDS WHICH APPEAR TO BE ALLIED TO HEBREW AND

I

ITS SISTER TONGUES.

Vel

fo

- The number of such words in the Dravidian languages is not great ;

G

and it might be objected that in attempting to establish the existence

iy

of this class of affinities, in addition to affinities of the Indo-European

f0

and Scythian classes, I prove nothing by attempting to prove too

w}

much.

I answer, that I do not attempt to establish anything or to

md

prove anything.

I content myself with adducing facts,

I submit

to the reader a list of words which exhibit some interesting points of

I

(

resemblance between the Dravidian vocabulary and the Hebrew.

(i)}

am doubtful whether any of those resemblances is of such a nature as

to furnish evidence of relationship, but I am not doubtful of the desir-

ableness of giving them a place in this list.

They will serve at least

il

to show whether further investigation in this direction is likely to be

106

rewarded with important results or not.

In some of the instances

which will be adduced, the Semitic words appear to resemble Indo-

ot

Vi

European words, as well as words belonging to the Dravidian lan-

guages ; but it will be found that the Dravidian analogies appear in

by

general to be closer than the Indo-European, and it is for that reason

d;

that the words are inserted in this list rather than in the preceding

fo

one.

In some instances, again, the only resemblances to the Semitic

I

words are such as are Dravidian.

If the existence of Semitic affinities in the Dravidian languages

could be established, it would not be possible to explain those affinities

all

by supposing them to have been introduced by the Jews who have

il

Jas

settled on some parts of the Malabar coast; for the Jews, whether

| 4l

“black ” or “wwhite,” have carefully preserved their traditional policy

10

of isolation ; they are but a small handful of people at most; they

have never penetrated far into the interior, even on the Malabar coast,

whilst on the Coromandel coast, where Tamil is spoken, they are

g Oi

entirely unknown ; and the Dravidian languages were fully formed,

o1,

and Tamil, it is probable, had been committed to writing, long before

il

N

the Jews made their appearance in India.

\

/

hatever words, therefore,

might appear to be the common property of Hebrew and the Dra-

vidian languages, would have to be regarded either as indicating an

anclent, pre-historic intermixture or association of the Dmvidiz}ns with

the Semitic race, or rather perhaps as constituting traces of the original

oneness of the speech of the Noachide.

{92

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

This word for father is found

app-d, father!

vocative of app-an.

unaltered in all the Dravidian dialects, except the Tulu, in

which, strange to say, appe means mother ; amme, father.

This

appe may possibly be a hardened form of awve.

Comp. Can.

avve, a mother, or grandmother.

amme, Tulu father, is allied

to the Tam. ammdn, mother’s brother, also father, though

The Mech,

a Bhutdn dialect,

rarely used in the latter sense.

has appa for father; the Bhotiya aba, the

Singhalese appd.

Analogies will also be found in the Scythian vocabulary.

In all the languages of the Indo-European 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, from the Sans. roots pd, to protect ; md, to

make (a child in the womb) ; whilst in the Semitic languages,

those consonants are preceded by a vowel—e.g., Hebrew db,

father ; ém, mother.

Comp. also, however, ambd, Sans. mother.

In this particular the Dravidian languages follow the Semitic

rule—e.g., Tam. app-an, father ; amm-d], mother.

The resem-

blance between appan (vocative appd), and the Chaldee abbd,

father (Syriac d60), is remarkable.

It is so close, that in the

Tamil translation of Gal. iv. 6, abba, father, there is no differ-

ence whatever, either in spelling or in sound, between the

Aramaic word abbd (which by a phonetic law becomes appd in

Tamil), and its natural and proper Tamil rendering appd ;

in consequence of which it has been found necessary to use the

Sans. derivative pidd-(v)-¢, instead of the Tamil appd, as the

translation of the second word.

amm-d, mother! vocative of amm-er or amm-4}, mother. Comp. Heb. ém,

mother ; Syr. dmd.

See also the Scythian and Indo-KEuropean

affinities of this word, which are still closer than the Semitic.

Aar-u,

a river ; Tel. ér-u . correlative root éri, Tam. a natural reservoir

See also

l

of water.

Comp. Hebrew y’or, a river ; Coptic jaro.

Scythian Analogies.

al, not.

{

In all the Dravidian dialects al negatives the attributes of a

thing ; ¢/, its existence; &/ (and sometimes al), is prohibitive.

{

The vowel is transposed in Telugu, and ¢ (the base of lédu),

used instead of 2/

Comp. the negative and prohibitive particles

of the Hebrew, al and /4, also the corresponding Arabic and

Chaldaic /4.

I6 in Hebrew negatives the properties of a thing,

like @/ in Tamil, and another part‘icl‘e, ain, a substantive mean-

S

SEMITIC.

493

ing nothing, is used to negative the existence of it. This idiom

is one which remarkably accords with that of the Dravidian

languages.

Comp. also the Chaldee 7éth, it is not, a compound

§

of ld, the negative particle, and #¢h, the substantive verb ¢it is’

(a compound resembling the Sans. ndsti), with the corresponding

!

Tel. lédu (Tam. dladw), it is not, which is compounded of /¢, the

negative particle, and du,the formative of the third person neuter

1l

of the aorist.

See also Sanskrit and Scythian Affinities.

av-d, desire: a related word is dwal, also desire, which is a verbal

noun derived from the assumed root duv-u, to desire (MarAthi

dvad, love). The Telugu form of this word is dkals. % between

10

two vowels often becomes w.

)

Comp. Heb. awah, desire, a

verbal noun derived from dvdh, to desire.

The ultimate base of

16

the Hebrew dv or av is identical not only with the Tamil dv or

av, but with the Latin aw-eo, to desire, and the Sanskrit av-a,

0

of which to desire is one of the rarer meanings.

Comp. also

Heb. dbdh, to will.

wr-u, to be; Brahui, ar.

Comp. Babylonian ar, to be; also Coptic

1)

er or el, and the Egyptian auxiliary ar.

The Dravidian word

2t

appears to mean primarily to sit, secondarily to be-—4e., to be

10

svmpliciter, without doing anything.

ir-a, the ultimate base of ¢ra-ngu, neut., to descend, and its transitive

wra-kku, to cause to descend. Comp. Heb. ydrad (biliteral base

4

yar), to descend.

ur-i, Can. to burn ; Tam. er-:.

Comp. Heb. #r, fire, 6r, light.—(See

16

also Indo-European Affinities.)

n

@r, a city, a town, a village.

Comp. Heb. dr or ’ér, a city ; Baby-

lonian er, Assyrian wrw, Accadian ’ure.

¢

er-t, to cast, to shoot. Comp. Heb. ydrdh (biliteral base yar), to cast,

he

to shoot.

erum-er, a buffalo, especially a cow buffalo; Tulu, ermma.

Comp.

il

Heb. rém, a buffalo or wild ox.

Resemblance probably acci-

ol

dental.

Root of the Drav. word er (obsol.), to plough ; root of

[

the Heb. probably r@m, to be high.

o

kdr, a sharp point.

Comp. Heb. %dr, to pierce, to bore ; Sans. khur,

15

to cut.

$dy, to lean, to recline.

Comp. Heb. shd’an (biliteral base, sha’ or

16

sha), to lean.

iz

$ina-m, anger : verb, Sina-kku, to be angry.

Comp. Heb. sdné,; Chald.

sené, to hdte; Heb. sinah, hatred.

llf}y

The corresponding Can.

(les

word being kinz, to be offended, $ina-m is probably softened

from kina-m.

l

Analogy doubtful.

1|

gl

494

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

$ur-u, to hiss.

Comp. Heb. shdrak (biliteral base shar), to hiss ; Greek

ougilm, to pipe, to hiss.

$um-ei, a burden : verb. swma-kku, to bear, to carry.

Comp. Heb.

sdmak (biliteral base sam), to support, to uphold, to weigh

heavily on.

$uv-ar, a wall.

Comp. Heb. shir, a wall.

$evv-er, equal, level, correct: base sev or Se.

A nasalised, adjectival

form of the same root is sen—e.g., sen-Damar, correct Tamil,

the classical dialect of the Tamil language. From $e, $ev, or

den, is formed Semm-et (Sem-mez), an abstract of the same mean-

ing as Sevver.

Comp. Heb. shdvdh ; Chald. shevd (biliteral base

shav or shev), to be equal, to be level.

If the Sanskrit sama,

even, is at all connected with the Tamil éev or $en, the connec-

tion is remote ; whereas the Tamil and the Hebrew words seemn

to be almost identical.

ndtt-u, to fix, to set up, to establish :

ulterior verbal Hlellle nad-u, to

plant.

Comp. Heb. ndtd@’ (biliteral base nat), to plant, to set

up, to establish.

nitt-u, to lengthen, to stretch out ; formed by causative reduplication

of the final consonant from néd-u (also n#/), long.

Comp. Heb-

ndtdh (biliteral base nat), to stretch out.

71-67;]0—1;, to look direct at, to address. Comp. Heb. ndkal (base nok),

straight forward, over against.

a ripe frui£. Comp. Heb.

par-u, to become ripe, to fruit; para-m,

pérdh, to be fruitful, to bear fruit ; pdrak, to blossom, to break

1

forth (biliteral base of both, par). - Especially comp. pert, fruit.

Doubt,

Comp. also Armenian perk, and Persian ber, fruit.

however, is thrown upon the affinity of these words with the

Dravidian par-u, in consequence of the root-meaning of par-u

(par-a) being, to become old, to be accustomed.

pdl, a part, a portion, a class; -Can. pdl-u, Tulu per’ ; collateral Tam.

roots pir-i, to divide; pil-, also por, to cleave.

Comp. Heb.

pdldh, pald, pdlah, pdlag, pdlal ; and also (by the interchange

of » and ) pdrash, pdras, and Chald. perds, to separate, to

divide, to distinguish, dc.

All these words (like the Tam. pd/

and per-t, and also pagi‘r; to divide), include the idea of separa-

tion into parts.—See also the Indo-European analogies of these

roots—e.g., Sans. phal-a, to divide; Latin pars, and por-tio,

a portion.

per-u, to obtain, to bear or bring forth, to get or beget; verbal noun

th

pér-u, a bringing forth or birth, a thing obtained, a benefit :

0

collateral root, pir-a, to be born; pir-e, Tam. other, after;

0

SCYTHIAN,

499

74

pur-a, outside. Comp. Heb. pdrdh, to be fruitful ; pers, fruit ;

0,

pdrak, to blossom, to break forth.

The connection between

ol

par-am, Tam., and pers, Heb. fruit, cannot be depended upon ;

but there seems to be an intimate relation between pexr-u, to

bear, pir-a, to be born, and the Semitic words which are here

adduced, as well as the Latin par-io, pe-per-.

»Jl

6d, Can. to come; Tam. vd. Comp. Heb. 44, to come, to come in ;

i,

or

Babylonian, ba, to come.

mdy, to die, to put to death.

Comp. Heb. maiith, to die.

ii

Comp. also

muwo, dead, in the Lar, a Sindhian dialect.

56

)l

mdir-u, to change ; Can. to sell ; base mar-u, other. Comp. Heb. mar,

i

to change or exchange, of which the niphal is ndmar, as if

from a base in mdrar or mdr ; mdéhar, mdhar, to change, to

il

buy

The corresponding Syriac mér means to buy.

t0

misukka-n, a poor, worthless fellow ; misukk-ei, a worthless article.

Comp. Heb. miskén, poor, unfortunate.

The Hebrew word is

el

derived from sdkan ; but Gesenius says a new verb arose from

0]

this in several Semitic languages, the initial m of which was

radical.

It is singular that it has also found its way into

Tamil ; Mal. maskén. This word muskén has found its way (pro-

q

bably by means of the Saracens) into several European lan-

guages—e.g., French mesquin.

Tamil does not contain the

root of this word ; it may therefore be concluded to have been

\,1\.

borrowed from the Arabic or some Semitic dialect.

mett-a,

Tel. (Tam. mettes, Can. motte), a bed, a cotton bed, a cushion.

1t

The Dravidian word appears to be derived' from mel, soft.

0l

Comp., however, the Heb. mittdh, a bed, a cushion, a litter,

e

from ndtdh, to stretch out ; Latin matta.

R

SECTION III,—SCYTHIAN AFFINITIES;

il

éh

OR,

[l

f0

Dravidian words which appear to exhibit a near relationship, or at least

a remarkable resemblanée, to words contained in some of the lan-

fl

it

guages of the Scythian group; particularly to the Ugro-Finnish

dralects.

ps0

il

The majority of the affinities that follow are clearer and more direct

than the Indo-European or Semitic affinities which have been pointed

)}ln

out in the preceding lists.

Many of the words which will be adduced

il

as examples are words of a premary character—words which carry a

il

certain amount of authority in comparisons of this kind. A consider-

~

496

GLOSSARIAL AFFINTTIES,

able number of the Dravidian words in the following list have Sanskrit

or Indo-European affinities, as well as Scythian ; a very few also have

Semitic affinities; but I have preferred placing them in this list,

because the Scythian affinities appear to be either the most numerous

or the closest.

Such words, though they are but few, are of peculiar

interest, as tending to prove the primitive oneness of the Scythian and

Indo-European groups of tongues.

In some instances I have given a

place in this list to words which I have already placed in the Indo-

European list, and the affinities of which T have stated #n loco I con-

sider more distinctively Indo-European than Scythian. I have inserted

them here also, in order to make the comparison more complete.

I have already said that I consider the comparison of words of less

importance towards the determination of affinities than the comparison

of grammatical forms and spirit.

It may be capable of proof that two

languages are as nearly related as Latin and Greek, whilst the bulk

of the words in each of those languages, including many of those that

are most essential to the expression of the wants of daily life, may be

found to be totally different from the corresponding words in the

other.

If this is the case with the Aryan languages, most of which

exhibit traces of having been highly cultivated from, and even before,

the first dawn of history, much more is it to be expected in the case

of the uncultivated, or but recently cultivated, languages of the so-

s it A

called Scythian stock.

The earliest cultivated language of this family

(the Medo-Scythian of the Behistun inscriptions) has passed away

altogether from the world, or been absorbed by other languages ; and

those inscriptions are the only proof of its existence which it has left

behind. The Finnish, the Hungarian, and the Turkish languages

have been cultivated only within the last few centuries; whilst a far

greater number of the Scythian dialects have up to the present day

received no literary cultivation whatever.

They are spoken by roving

hordes leading a rude pastoral life, by agricultural serfs, or by still

more barbarous tribes living by fishing or the chase; and the only

literary records the languages they speak contain consist of a few

songs, with the addition perhaps of a recently executed translation of

one of the Gospels.

Consequently, whilst those languages exhibit

distinct traces of a common origin, or at least of development in the

lines and in accordance with the rules of a common formative force,

they differ from one another in details in a degree which it is hardly

possible for a student of other families of tongues to conceive.

R

SCYTHIAN

497

in the long-isolated and far move highly developed Dravidian tongues

especially if it be supposed, as I have always supposed, that the

Dravidian tongues exhibit traces of their existence at a time prior

TS

to the final separation of the Indo-European tongues from the Scy-

thian, when words and meanings of words did not belong exclu-

anl

sively to the one rather than to the other, but were the common

el &

It may be objected that the argument derived

property of both

100

from Scythian affinities is weakened by the fact that the Scythian

(Ol

words which correspond with certain words in the Dravidian tongues

[l

are not found altocether in one dialect, but exist some in one and

I admit that such

some in another of the Scythian languages

but I must remind the

169

coincidences are not perfectly conclusive

1500

reader that he is obliged to be content with such partial coinci-

w0

dences with regard to the inter-relationship of the Scythian languages

LK

|

themselves

that

For the Scythian affinities apparent in the Dravidian pronouns and

V 06

numerals, see the sections devoted to those parts of speech

fh

and Tel. elder sister

Tam

akker

alkd

and akk-dl

fiicl

k-a

Can

[0re

Marathi akd

In Sans. akkd signifies a mother

and an im-

(3%

probable Sans. derivation has been attributed to it by native

1 S0

scholar

I believe this word to be one of those which the

it

Sans. has borrowed from the indigenous Dravidian toncues

A

and this supposition is confirmed by its extensive use in the

and

Scythian group. The Sans. signification of this word, a mother,

Je

differs, it is true, from the ordinary Dravidian meaning, an

elder sister

but mother is one of its meanings in poetical

31

al

Tamil, and a comparison of its significations in various lan-

iy

guages shows that it was originally used to denote any elderly

it

s

female relation, and that the meaning of the ultimate base was

i

probably

old.

The following are Scythian instances of the

use of this root with the meaning of elder sister, precisely as

(L

farr

in the Dravidian languages:—Tungusian okz or akin,

Mon-

(.

Tibetan achche ; a dialect of the Turkish eg

o

golian achan

The Lappish ((M

puo

Mordvin aky ; other Ugrian idioms tggen

the

signifies both wife and grandmother.

The Mongol aka, Tun-

whilst

0106,

gusian akt, and the Uigur acha, signify an elder brother ;

the signification of old man is conveved by the Ostiak z/w the

aIdJ

Finnish wkko, and the Hungarian agg

Even in the Ku

Q

Dravidian dialect, akke means grandfather.

The ultimate base

of all these words is probably ak, old

On the other hand

akka, in Osmanli Turkish, means a younger sister

and the

PR

498

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

same meaning appears in several related idioms. It may, there-

fore, be considered possible that aklae meant originally sister ;

and then elder sister or younger sister, by secondary or restricted

usage.

The derivation of akka, from a root signifying old,

would appear to be the more probable one.

It is proper here to notice the remarkable circumstance that

the Dravidian languages, like those of the Scythian group in

general, are 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.

att-an,

father ; att-er, mother ; also d¢t-an, a superior (masc.); dtt-dl,

mother.

We find in the Sans. lexicons a#td, a mother, an

elder sister, a mother’s elder sister; also attz, in theatrical

language, an elder sister.

I regard this word also, as used in

Sanskrit, 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 wide range of usage throughout the Scythian

tongues.

The change of ¢ in some Dravidian dialects into $s

or cheh, is in perfect accordance with generally prevalent laws

of sound.

Hence the Malayilam achch-an and the Canarese

ajj-a, grandfather, are identical with the Tamil a¢t-an,; and pro-

bably the Hindi and Marathi djd, a grandfather, is a related

word, if not identical.

atter, mother (Tam.), is achcha, also

achche, in Mal,

att-er, Tam., att-e, Can., ati-a, Tel., have also

the meanings of mother-in-law, sister-in-law, paternal aunt ; and

the corresponding Singhalese aft-¢ means a maternal grand-

mother ; meanings which are not found in Sans.

In South

Malayalam dchche means mother, matron.

For the Scythian analogies of these words, compare Finnish

aitt, mother, together with the following words for father—

viz., Turkish afa; Hungarian atya ; Finnish déita,; Cheremiss

dtyd,; Mordvin atat; Ostiak afa.

Comp. also Lappish ava,

It is remarkable that atta is also

grandfather, and also aréje.

found in Gothic—e.g., attan, father; authein, mother.

Comp.

also drra, and Latin atfe, a salutation used to old men, equi-

valent to father.

If we might seek for a Dravidian root for

this widely used word, we may perhaps find it in the Tamil

attu, to join, to lean upon.

ann et,

mother ; honorifically, elder sister.

ann-er and amm-e¢ are pro-

bably correlative forms of the same base, m being sometimes

softened into =.

Comp. however Finnish and Hungarian

o

—

SCYTHIAN.

499

he

anya, mother; Mordvin anaz; Ostiak ane,; and also anna

st

and ana in two dialects of the Turkish.

The Hindi anni, a

leel

nurse, is possibly the same word.

i

app-an, father.

Comp. the following words for father-in-law—viz.,

Ostiak #p, 6p ; Finnish appi ; Hungarian p, tpa, apos.

See

that

also Semitic Analogies.

LA

amm-dl, amm-et, amm-an, mother : the word is also used honorifically in

ster,

addressing matrons.

Another form of this word in Malay4lam is

010

umma, mother.

The following are correlative words, amm-dy,

ther,

maternal grandmother, aunt by the mother’s side, and amm-dn,

mother’s brother, also sometimes father’s.

Comp. Samoiede

If il

amma, mother ; Jenesei amma or am ; Estrian emma ; Finnish

il

emd.

Comp. also Ostiak ¢n-a, woman, wife ; Hungarian eme.

rial

(4

The Sans. ambd

See also Sanskrit and Semitic Analogies.

d i

or ammd, mother, properly a name or title of Durgh, seems to

JUld

be derived from the Dravidian word.

The bloody rites of

I O

Durgd, or Kali, were probably borrowed from the demonola-

n1al

trous aborigines by the Brahmans; and amma, mother, the

"

f0 s

name by which she was known and worshipped—her only

Jas

Dravidian name—would naturally be borrowed at the same

1686

time. Comp. also the Scindian amd and the Malay ama, mother.

PTO

It is remarkable that in Tulu the words which denote father

afel

and mother seem to have mutually changed places.

In: Tulu

al

80

amm-e, is father, appe, mother.

See an explanation of this in

al

50

the Semitic Analogies.

Comp. the Mongolian ama, father ;

and

also Sans. amba, father.

In Tibetan and its sister dialects, pa

an

or po denotes a man ; ma or mo, a woman ; and these words

are post-fixed to nouns as signs of gender—e.g., Bot-pa, a

Tibetan man, Bot-ma, a Tibetan woman.

s

ar-u, dr, precious, dear, scarce. Comp. Hungarian aru, dr, price ; Fin-

g

nish and Lappish arwo.

Comp. also Sans. argha, value, price,

AN

from argh, arh, to deserve.

It

al, él, the prohibitive particle, noli—e.g., kodél (from kod-u, give),

y i

give not ; Santil prohibitive d/d.

Comp. Lappish ale or ele ;

\‘m

1)

Ostiak /@, and Finnish dld.

See also Semitic Analogies.

eth

The Sans. alam cannot properly be called a prohibitive particle;

f 100

it means enough.

f:unﬂ

avva, Tel., a grandmother ; Tam. ave-a, a matron, an elderly woman ;

Can. avve, a mother or grandmother ; Tuda av.

Comp. Mord-

vin ava, mother.

P

See also Indo-European Analogies.

e

al-ei, a wave ; Can. ale,; as a verbal theme aler means to wander, to

ulull

500

GLOSSARIATL AFFINITIES.

be unsteady.

Comp. Finnish allok, a wave; comp. also Ar-

menian alik.

See especially West Indo-European Affinities.

dr-u, a river; Tel. éru. Comp. Lesghian or,; Avar wor; Yakutan

(Siberian Turkish) oryas ; Lappish wiro ; Ostiak jeaga. Comp.

also Armenian aru ; Coptic jaro ; and Hebrew or, yedr.

dm, it is, yes; root d, to become.

Comp. Vogul dm, yes; Hung.

dm, yes, surely.

vru-mbu, iron. Comp. Motor (a Samoiede dialect), wr, iron.

See also

Indo-European Analogies.

td-u, Tel. to swim ; Can. 7j-u,; Tam. niij-u.

Comp. Hung. wusz, to

swim ; Ostiak @dem ; Finnish wen.

dr, a city. Compare Basque ¢, a city.

See Semitic Analogies.

uf, to be in, to be; as a noun, a being, an entity, a thing ; as a post-

position, in, within ; Ancient Can. /.

As a verb w/l is very

irregular ; and the /, though radical, is often euphonised into 7.

The primitive form and force of the root are apparent in the

Tamil appellative verb w/ladu (ul(l)-adw), it is, there is; the

Can. ullavu (zcl(;l)-aavu), there are ; and such nouns as kadavul

(kada-(v)-ul), Tam. God, literally the surpassing or transcendent

Being ; and w/(/)-am, the mind, that which is within.

ulladw

(ul-dw) has in Tamil been euphonised into undu (like kol-du,

having taken, into kondu), and this euphonised appellative

forms the inflexional base of the Telugu verb wundu, to be.

Comp. with «/, to be, the Ugrian substantive verb ol, to be—

e.g., Cheremiss olam, I am ; Syrianian voli, I was; Finnish

olen, I am.” Comp. also the Turk. 6/, Hung. wol, to be.

The primitive meaning of the Dravidian u/, seems to be

¢ within,” in which sense it is still used as a postposition in

Tamil.

erud-u, to write, to paint.

Comp. Hung. 7, to write ; Manchu ara

Fin. kir.

Tel. vrdyu, to write, corresponds, not to the Tamil

erud-u, but to vares, Can. bare, to draw lines.

elu-mbu, bone.

Comp. Fin. lua ; Samoiede lugy, bone.

okk-a, Mal. all ; oka, Tel. one.

Comp. Mordvin wok, all.

kad-z, kar-i, to bite.

Comp. Lapp. kask, to bite ; Hung. Zarap (h in

See Indo-

Hungarian corresponding with % in Finnish).

European Affinities.

katt-u, to bind, to tie.

Comp. the following words, each of which has

the same signification : Hung. 4oz ; Ostiak kattem (to fasten, to

k

catch) ; Syrianian kuta ; Finn, keitt ; Lapp. Karet ; also Hung.

kottel, rope.

k

RS

-

SCYTHIAN.

501

kr

kan, an eye.

Comp. Chinese ngan, yen.

kannir, tears.

Comp. Finn. kényv; Hung. kinny. The Tamil word

fan

(kan-nir) literally signifies eye-water, so that this resemblance is

I

probably accidental.

kapp-al, a ship, a vessel, probably a verbal noun from kapp-u, Tel. to

g,

cover over; derivative Telugu noun kapp-u, a covering.

The

verb is not found in Canarese or Tamil, but the Canarese noun

150

kapp-u, a subterraneous room, a pit-fall for catching elephants

(covered over with branches of trees and grass), and the Tamil

]

noun kappal, a ship, properly a decked vessel, in contradis-

tinction to padugu, an open vessel, are evidently identical in

origin with the Telugu verb and noun.

The Malay word for

)

¢ship’ is kapdl,; but this has probably been borrowed direct

eIy

from Tamil, and forms one of a small class of Malay words

)1l

which have sprung from a Dravidian origin, and which were

the

introduced into the Eastern Archipelago, either by means of

the

the Klings (Kalingas) who settled there in primitive times, or

by means of the Arab traders, whose first settlements in the

)

16 I

Bast were on the Malabar coast, where the Malayailam, the

10l

oldest daughter of the Tamil, is spoken.

The following Scy-

thian words for ¢ ship ’ appear to be analogous to the Tamil,

and have certainly not been borrowed from it : Vogul Zap or

kaba ; Samoiede kebe,; Jenesei kep, Yerkesian kaf,; Ostiak

chap. See also the analogies adduced under the word kebi,

|

a cave.

kar-u, black, an euphonised form of which is kdr ; Gujarathi Zaro.

Comp. Turkish quara or kara; Calmuck chara ; Mongolian

)

Eara ; Japanese kurot.

One of the eight words belonging

n il

to the language of the ancient Turks of the Altee, recorded

by the Chinese, was koro, black. See Introduction.

These

(W

Scythian affinities are too distinet to admit of the smallest

llm‘

doubt.

There is evidently a connection between this Scytho-

Dravidian root and the Sanskrit Zdla, black; Tamil kdlam ;

from which there is a derivative, kdragam, that throws light

on the relation of kdla to kar-u.

Pro-

h

Comp. Greek xéA-amog,

bably also &r¢ (kar), the radical portion of krishna, Sans. black

[do

(adjectival form kdrshna), is related to the same Scythian

theme, and ultimately to Zd/-a.

e

kara-de, a bear, from Zkara-du, rough.

Comp. Samoiede korgo, Tun-

7, 10

gusian kute, kuuti.

See also Indo-European Affinities.

[

karu-gu, an eagle.

Comp. Ostiak Zuruk, an eagle.

See also Indo-

European Affinities.

002

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

karutt-u, the throat; also kur-al, the wind-pipe.

Comp. Vogul

kuryd, the throat; Finnish kurkku, kero, kerri; Kurd geru

Lappish karas, kirs.

Comp. also the Slavonian gorlo,; Sans.

griva, gala.

kal, a stone.

Comp. Lappish kalle, also kedke or lkerke; Lesghian

gul ; Kamtschadale kual, kualla.

Probably these words have

an ulterior connection with the Finnish kews; Hungarian ko ;

Ostiak key, kaiick.

Comp. also (through the interchange of I

and 7) the Tamil &dr, gravel, a pebble, with the Greek so-dsg,

gravel, and yxep-ude, a stone, and the Armenian £'ar, kuar, a

stone.

The Dravidian root cannot be traced further than kal,

a stone ; but the corresponding Lappish %kalle appears to be

derived from, or connected with, kalw-at, to become hard.

Comp. also karra, Lappish, hard, rough.

kall-am, kala-vi, a theft.

Comp. Lappish keles, a lie ; Hung. tsal, to

cheat ; also Sans. chhala, fraud.

kdrr-u (pronounced kdttr-u), wind.

Probably from ZdZ, one of the

meanings of which is wind, with the formative addition of dw

(kdl-du = kattru); Tel. gale.

Comp. Kangazian (a Turkish

dialect) kat, wind ; Sojoten (a Samoiede dialect) kat, other

Samoiede dialects chat, kada (also a storm, charru),; Georg.

kare,; Jurazen chada.

kdy, to heat, or be hot, to burn to boil.

Comp. Finnish keste, keitta,

to boil, to cook ; Hungarian kesze!.

Comp. especially the Indo-

European affinities of this word.

kaly foot ; Tuda kol ; Tulu kdr.

Comp. Mongol &ul ; Ostiak kwr,; Tun-

gusian chalgan, halgan,; Permian kok; Ossete kach, koch; Vogul

lal; Korean pal ; Canton-Chinese kok ; Hung. gyalog, on foot.

kira, old, aged.

Comp. Hung. kor; Oriental Turkish charc ; other

Turkish idioms, kar, kart; Wotiak keres; Lesghian heran.

See the Indo-European analogies of this word.

kil, Can. below ; Tam. %% ; ultimate base kir.

Comp. Wolgian kulgs,

kelga, deep. From the Tamil ki is derived kir-angu, a bulbous

root, with which we may perhaps compare the Slavonian koren,

Jenesei koryl, a root.

kudir-ei, a horse; Can, kudur-e.

The Sanskrit ghdta, a horse, may

possibly have an ulterior connection with the Dravidian word ;

but I cannot suppose the Dravidian word to have been bor-

rowed from the Sanskrit one, for the Tamil occasionally borrows

and uses ghdta (in Tam. ghéram, also godagam ; Tel. gurram-u),

in addition to its own kudir-et; besides which Tamil provides

us with a probable derivation of kudirei, viz., kudi, to leap.

—

SCYTHIAN.

203

il

The Scythian analogies are Jenesei Zu¢ and Lesghian #kota.

Ml

Comp. also Malay kuda.

JIN

kud-i, a habitation ; kud-il, kudis-er, a hut, a cottage ; probably from

kud (base of kid), to come together.

In Tel. and Can., gud-¢

140

means a temple.

A similar word, kuta or kute, is also con-

AV

tained in Sanskrit.—See Sanskrit Affinities.

It has a place in

I]‘.[Ij /I‘

each of the dialects of the Finnish family—e.g., Mordvin

f |

kudo, a house; Cheremiss Auda, Finnish kote, Ostiak chot,

fl

Lappish kata.

I suspect the Saxon cot had a similar origin.

I\

kul-sr, cold, to become cold

ultimate base kul ; related words kdd-al

il

and kdd-ir, cold ; also Tel. and Can. chalz, cold.

$il-ir, Tam.

to tremble, seems to be a collateral root.

With Zul-er comp.

06

Lappish kal-ot, to freeze ; Finnish cyl-ma ; and with chale (Tel.

«}l]

and Can.) comp. Permian chelz, cold.—See also Indo-European

Affinities.

]

ker, hand.

key, to do.

In all the Dravidian dialects %es is hand.

In Telugu

the

d

kélu is also found. The most common form of this word in

18

Telugu is chey-¢ or chéy-..

The word signifying to do is almost

identical, viz., key, chey, &c.—See Sanskrit Affinities.

Comp.

her

the following words in Scythian dialects ;—Hungarian kéz (pro-

i

nounced kees), Finnish kehési (root kd—e.g., genitive kd-an),

Estnian k&dsi, Ostiak ket, Lappish kd¢, Permian ke, Lasian ke,

f/!‘

Mingrelian che, Quasi-Qumuq (a Turkish dialect) #ya, Turkish

10

kol, Mongol ghar, Tungusian gala.

The Hungarian has both

(i

kar and %éz; but the former is used to signify arm, the latter

hand—a distinction which seems to prove that those roots,

il

though perhaps ultimately related, have long been independent

)t

of one another.

The words in the various Scythian languages

i

signifying to do appear to stand in the same relation to the

il

word for hand that they do in the Aryan and Dravidian lan-

guages.

Comp. the Turkish Zyl, to do; Mongol 42, Manchu

I

gaz, Mordvin £d.

These words resemble the Aryan kar, to do,

0US

but still more closely the Dravidian %, e, &ec.

The substantial

el

identity of the Indo-European words for hand and to do, with

the Scythian words, and of the Dravidian with both, seems to

It

furnish us, as I have shown under the head of Sanskrit Affini-

i;

0t

ties, with a reliable illustration of the original oneness of a,lyl

these languages.

i

kapp-w, Can. a subterraneous room, a pitfall; Tam. %keb-z, a cave.

i)

Comp. Mongol and Manchu kob:, a cavity, a cave; Ostiak

des

kaba, kebi, kave, a chamber.

Comp. also kapp-al, Tam. a

i)

¢

504

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

.

ship, from Zapp-u, Tel. to cover over.—See Indo-European

Affinities.

PISHSR

ki, Can. the ear; Tam. and Tel. (euphonically softened) chevi, Tulu

keppt, Tuda kevi, Brahui khajf : probably related words kdd-u,

the ear, and £é/, to hear.

Comp. the following Scythian words

signifying the ear :—Samoiede dialects %o, ku, kus; Korean kuz,

Ossete &'us, Kurd ¢’ok, Turkish dialects kulak.

With the soft-

ened Dravidian form $eve, comp. also Sans. $ravas, the ear.

kél-w, Tel. the hand.

Comp. Kuralian %ell and Ceorgian chels, the

hand.

See also keu.

kél, to hear ; kél-vi, hearing. Comp. Finnish Zwul-en, to hear ; Syryan-

ian kyla, Cheremiss kol-am, Hung. halla, also ker, to ask,

Notice the

Lappish kull-et (kullem, hearing), Ostiak kiddj-em.

change of the final I of the other Finnish dialects into dj in

Ostiak, a sort of cerebral consonant, somewhat similar in sound

See also the

to the final 7 of the corresponding Tamil %él.

Indo-European affinities of this word.

Tool, to kill.

Comp. Finnish kuol, to die; Cher. kol-em, Syry. kula,

Hung. Aal.—=See also Indo-European Analogies.

kén, a king, a ruler; in honorific usage a shepherd, or man of the

shepherd caste ; kdn-mei, royal authority. Another form of the

same word is 46, a king, a god.

koyil in ordinary Tamil

means a temple; in the Old Tamil of the Syrian inscriptions

It is hard

it means a palace, literally £6-i/, the king’s house.

to determine whether 46 or Zén is to be regarded as the primi-

tive form of this word. Comp. the Turkish and Mongolian

khdn, also khagdn, a ruler ; Ostiak khon.

kor-i, the domestic fowl; Can. kéle, Tulu, kori, Tel. kodi, Gond kér

(from Au or kd, to call, to cry as a bird (from which comes

This word is

kagil, Tam. the cuckoo, and kwral, the voice).

the common term which is used in the Dravidian languages for

both the cock and the hen.

If it is required to express the

gender, séval, Tam. a cock, or petfer, a hen, is prefixed adjec-

tivally to the common term £dse.

The Sanskrit kukkuta, a

cock, may possibly be derived by reduplication from Z£u, to cry

as a bird, and if so it is identical in origin with the Drav. ko,

both words being formed from a mimetic verbal theme.

The

Scythian analogies, on the other hand, seem closer and more

direct.

Comp. Vogul kore, Ostiak korek, kurek, Permian

korech, kuryg, kuraga.

It looks as if the North-Asian tongues

borrowed this word directly from the Dravidian; for the

domestic fowl had its origin in India, where the wild variety

~

SCYTHIAN.

o0

9

il

still exists; and when it was introduced into Upper Asia, the

name by which it was known in India would naturally be intro-

i

‘duced along with the fowl itself.

That name being, not San-

{ﬂ

skrit, but Dravidian, it would almost appear as if the domestic

fowl had been introduced from India into Central and Northern

rdls

Asia prior to the irruption into India of the Aryan race, and

i

the consequent cessation of intercourse between the Dravidians

and the Scythians.

The Dravidian word seems to have found

the

its way into two languages of the western branch of the Indo-

European family, viz., the Persian and the Russian.

Comp.

al

Persian %hor-os, a cock ; kour-ek, a poulet ; and the Russ Adr,

5k,

a cock ; kur-itsa, a fowl; diminutive, kdr-otchka, a chicken.

the

$dral, rain driven by the wind: in the usage of the Southern Tamil-

Bl

ians, the rain brought by the south-west monsoon. Comp.

nd

Samoiede sarre, Permian ser, Votiak sor, rain.

the

$a, or $dg-u, to die; Tel. chachu (base cha).

Comp. Samoiede chawe

and chabbi, dead.—See Sanskrit Affinities.

z/’v!

chér-u, mud. Comp. chedo, zerta, chots, and cha?’, Lesghian words for

clay.

the

tal-a, Tel. the head ; Can. tal-e, Tam. tal-e:.

Comp. Mongol zolo-gaz,

fho

Calmuck’ tol-go, Buriat ful-gai, Samutan (a Tungusian dialect)

doll ; other Tungusian dialects diill, del, deli, Turkish ¢or.

jul

it, fire.

The more commonly used Tamil word for fire is neruppu, Tel.

o8

bt

nippu, nippuka ; but ¢4 is the more classical Tamil word, and

rink

it is much used by the mass of the people in the southern dis-

tricts of the country ; classical Can. 7, Tulu td.

The Scythian

olim

affinities of this word for fire, are peculiarly distinct—e.g.,

| fr

Samoiede tu, tus, ti, ty, Manchu tua, Hungarian ¢z, Ostiak #dt,

Tungus. togo, Lesghian tze, zt, zie, Finnish tule, Lappish tall,

omes

Mongol dul.

Comp. also Gaelic tetne, Welsh t¢dn, and Persian

tigh.

Sans. téjas, brilliancy, is from ¢, to be sharp. Comp.,

U

however, div, Sans. to be bright, and especially d? and dip,

3t”

to shine.

dje

tér, chariot.

Comp. Mongol ¢ereg, chariot.

| :7’41, b

to0l, skin ; Can. togal-u.

Comp. Vogul toul, towl, skin.

0 01f

nakk-u, to lick ; derivative noun ndkkw ; ultimate form 7d, the tongue.

i

Comp. Ostiak nal, to lick, and nd/, the tongue ; Samoiede nawa,

e

the tongue ; ndlige, Can. the tongue.

Comp. Hung. nyelo.

m()l"a

Comp. Ostiak ndg-am, to laugh ; ndch,

nag-et, to laugh, laughter.

mllﬂﬂ

laughter ; Hung. nevet.

pgues

ndy, a dog; probably from nd, the tongue=the animal that licks.

p il

Comp. nohat, a dog; Calmuck nokot, nockor. In Telugu, a fox

aritlf

506

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

is nakka, from nakku, to prowl.

Another word for dog in

classical Tamil is nayakkan, from naya, to be affectionate.

nerre (pronounced nettri), the forehead (from ner, to stand upright) ;

Tel. nud-ur.

Comp. Lesghian nata, nodo, nete-bek, the fore-

head.

noéd-u, Can. to see, to perceive; ndkk-u, Tam.-Mal.

Comp. Mongol

niidu, the eye.

dyir-u, néyir-u, Tam.-Mal. ; nésar-u, class. Can. the sun. Comp. Hung.

nydr (=#fdr), summer ; nap, a day; also Mongol nar-an, the

sun ; Ostiak na?, Afghan nmar.

pasu, green ; pul, grass,

Hung. pazsit, grass; Vogul piza, Ostiak

pady.

pei-(y)-an, pei-(y)-al, Tam.-Mal. a boy, a servant ; pei-dal, Tam. and Mal.

but especially the latter, a boy or girl, a child; Can. keida (for

peida), a boy or girl.

petyan is a masculine ; the words in af

and dal are verbal nouns, and therefore neuters.

dal 18 as

common a formative of verbal nouns even in Tamil as a/, and

the two forms are mutually convertible.

peryal and perdal

being abstracts, are therefore capable of denoting either sex.

The theme or base of these words is evidently pez, a softened

form of pas-u (pas-u=pay-u= per).

Hence paéan-gal, Tam.

the older form, is often used as the colloquial plural, instead of

peryan-gal, which is now reckoned more correct.

Comp. the following Ugrian words for son:— Vogul py,

pu; Mordvin and Syry. pz,; Votiak pyes; Finnish poika ;

Hungarian fix,; Estrian poeg,; Ostiak pach, poch, pagul, pagam,

pyram,; Lappish patja.

The Swedish potke appears to be

derived from the Finnish potka,; and the Greek =af¢, the

Latin pu-er, and the English boy, are evidently related words.

See

The Dravidian languages

Indo-European Affinities.

appear to contain the ultimate theme of all these words—viz.,

pet, Tam. to be green or fresh, a word which has been softened

from pas-w (pay-u, convertible into pe:), green, by a common

Dravidian law.

par-a, old (by reason of use); Can. pala-ya, old, what is old.

Comp.

See Indo-

Mordvin peres ;- Syry. porys, Ostiak pirich, old.

European Affinities.

pal, tooth (pandr:=pal-di, Tam. a hog, the animal with a tooth or

tusk).

Comp. Lappish pane, padne; Wolgian padne, pai,

pin ; Ostiak pank, penk, pek; Cher. py.

pal, pala, many, various.

Comp. Finnish palyo ; Manchu fulu.

2dl, a part, a division, a half.

Comp. the following Ugrian words

SCYTHIAN.

507

signifying a half:— Samoide pedled,; Cher. péle; Lappish

See also Semitic Affi-

bedle; Ostiak pélek; Hungarian fél.

)

nities.

[t

pid-d, to catch.

Comp. Finnish pidan, to catch.

pir-agu (base pir), behind, after.

Comp. Ostiak pir, pira, behind,

(

hindermost ; Finnish pera.

See Indo-European and Semitic

Affinities.

What is the

L

pill-ei, a child. Comp. Yarkand Tartar b¢lla, a child.

See also Indo-

h

origin of the Hindi pilld, a cub, a pup!?

European Affinities.

bl

pu-get, smoke (Tel. pog-a).

Comp. Hung. fis, smoke ; also the follow-

ing words signifying vapour in the Turkish dialects : bug, buck,

[l

bugu.

Comp. also the English fog.

0

pen, a female ; Can. henn-u.

Comp. Lappish %ene, a female.

1(!{

pokkil-i, Tel. the navel (ultimate root probably poy, Tam. hollow).

®

Comp. Ostiak puklam, the navel.

d

bayir, Can. the belly ; Tam. vayir-w; Gond per.

Comp. Kangazian

M

(a Turkish dialect) bar, the belly ; Armenian port; Albanian

¢

bark ; Ostiak perga ; Mordvin pak.

Comp.

jed

bdl, Can. to exist ; Tam. »dr, to flourish, to live prosperously.

it

Oriental Turkish 64/, to exist ; Hung. boldog, happy.

0L

man-a, Can. a house: class. Tam. man-e.

Comp. Samoiede men, a

house ; Vogul unneh. Theme of the Drav. word man, to abide,

Pl

to exist ; manike, Tel. existence, home.

Comp.

0

mar-am, a tree, wood ; Can. mar-a ; Tel. mdn-u (for mrdn-w).

Lappish muor, muorra, a tree, wood ; Quasi-Qumuk Turkish

(1

murm, murch ; Mongol modo; Tomsk. madji,; Finnish metsa ;

D:l

Lettish mes.

the

mar-t, offspring, the young of certain animals, as the deer, the horse,

I

the

a

D

Q

s, &c.; also.in Can. a young child ;- Mongol mori, a

|06y

horse ; Manchu morin ; also German mdhre,; Old German

Vil

marah; Gaelic mare.

According to Aug. Schlegel (Sinico

el

Aryaca), the root of the Mongol mori, &c., is found in the

ol

Chinese ma, a horse, with the addition of »¢ as a suffix.

Pro-

bably the Drav. word is from mar-u, other.

)l‘f}"

mal-a, Can., Mal., Tel. a hill, a mountain ; Tam. mal-e:.

This Drav.

]‘llU

root has found its way into the Sans. lexicons as the base of

Malaya, the Sans. name of the Western Ghauts—Malaydlam,

il U’

or as the later Greek and Arabian geographers called i,

e

¢“Male.” It has probably given their name also to the M4l-

dives or Mal-dives, the dives (Sans. dwipa), or islands, pertain-

ing to Male or Malayilam.

Comp. Albanian malli, a hill ;

s

008

GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES.

Vogul molema ; Permian mylk; Volgian (by a change of 7 into

7), mar; Samoiede mary; Avar mehr; Finnish mdke

murumury, to grumble (not wholly a mimetic word).

Comp. Finnish

See also Indo-

muraj, and Hungarian morog, to murmur.

European Affinities.

mun, before ; Hung. emun, umun, before.

The ¢ or » of the Hung.

word is prosthetic.

Chinese for face is mzen or man.

vdn, heaven; also mdn.

Comp. Mordvin mdnel, heaven ; Tungus.

fiyan ; dialect of the Kukies in the Chittagong hills, van.

vdy, the mouth.

Comp. Samoiede azw-a, mouth; Lappish sawwe;

Hung. ayak, lip ; szay, mouth.

vir-i, to watch, to keep awake.

Comp. Finnish vir-ot, to watch;

Hung. vir-ad.

velich-am, light ; vilakk-u, a light.

Comp. Hung. »ildg, a light.

I append a list of Hungarian affinities kindly furnished me by Dr

Gundert, in addition to those which have already been adduced.

The

Dravidian words cited are Tamil, if it is not mentioned that they are

otherwise.

Houna.

Hunwa.

dla, Can. deep.

ala.

tonru, to appear.

tinna.

keserd.

por.

kasappu, bitter.,

pode, powder, dust.

Firw, Can. little.

Fis, Tits.

por, battle.

per.

kozel.

besze.

kitta, near.

pés-u, to speak.

$dppu, to suck.

820p.

betta, Can. mountain.

bertz.

szed.

Magzat.

$ér, to gather.

magu, child.

Serippu, shoe.

tzupello.

mdl, to perish.

mul.

$iragu, wing.

szarny.

muyal (Tulu nosa-

nyl.

$ol, speak.

szol.

lu), a hare.

!

melly.

$6r (Can. and Tulu

tsorge.

mules, breast (woman’s)

soru), to leak.

ve, to boil.

buz-in.

$udu, to heat.

s, toroast;

vinet, action, sin.

bidn, sin.

st to bake.

verY,

to

vir, to unfold.

dawn.

sil, pregnancy.

szil,tobring

%

forth.

wrdg,

to

blossom.

Suruklku, narrow.

szorit, szdck.

tarei, to sprout.

terem.

virw (Tula bur), to

fall.

bulkne.

tiler, to be full,

( tel, tol, full,

D e o P

1

fill.

vit, to sow.

vet.

The following Chinese, Japanese, and Mongolfan affinities are chiefly

selected from lists contained in Mr Edking’ ¢ China’s Place in Philo-

logy.” There is a remarkable amount of agreement, especially between

the Dravidian languages and the Mongolian, in principles and forms ;

but I notice few traces of resemblance in the vocabulary.

e,

SCYTHIAN.

009

0

CHINESE.

CHINESE.

sive auxi-

kan, eye.

ngan.

sign of the pas-

sive,

I

$ey, chey, to do. tsu.

liary.

|

b

mek. Comp. Greek

JAPANESE.

mez, ink. {

LENCLS.

akka, elder |

(' are, vre, ore, ury, t0

it

aka, elder brother.

wru, to be.

1

be, to dwell.

sister.

J

karw, black

kuré or kuror, black.

pad-ar,toex- |

to

I

bat, to extend.

para,

barw, harw, to ex-

pand.

tend.

spread.

f

katt-u, totie,

para, old.

burui, furue, old.

(4

a tie.

} kit, to tie, & tie.

MoNGOLIAN.

$id-ar,

tol

sat, to scatter, to

sow. Comp. Lat.

by

fearu, black.

kara, black.

scatter, f

ser-o.

pad-ar,toex- |

badarahw, badaral,

pad-u, to suf-

bad, but, to spread,

pand.

extension.

used

then to be acted

fer,

-gar.

Comp. Sans,

as

a pas-

kara.

upon ; used as a

kei, hand. {

Dr

he

I trust the reader will remember that in comparing Dravidian words

e

with words belonging to other families of speech,—Semitic, Indo-

European, and Scythian,—I am quite aware of the danger of mistaking

accidental assonances for proofs of relationship.

“If,” as Max Miiller

Justly remarks (ii. 283), “instead of being satisfied with pointing out

the faint coincidences in the lowest and most general elements of

speech, scholars imagine they can discover isolated cases of minute

coincidence amidst the general disparity in the grammar and dictionary,

their attempts become unscientific and reprehensible.”

I am fully

persuaded that many of the resemblances I have tabulated in these

lists will turn out to be resemblances and nothing more.

It will be

found also that the resemblance diminishes or disappears in the course

of inquiry, and therefore that it must have been accidental.

I am

equally persuaded, however, that all the resemblances I have pointed

out will not be found to be the result of accident; and I consider it

f0

an aid to further, more extended, and more searching inquiry, and

0

therefore not unscientific, to draw the attention of scholars to such

Ol

1

It is desir-

resemblances as exist—whatever their nature or degree.

able, in the interest of scientific inquiry itself, to indicate the various

directions in which such inquiry should be made, and to furnish some

means of forming an idea as to whether it is likely to be rewarded

with success or not.

oy

il

o6l

I3

el

R

R

D

e

—

E—

(

AP FrigaN Iy o

I.

EVIDENCE tHAT THE TUDA, KbTA, GOND, KHOND OR KU, RAJMA-

HAL, AND ORAON LANGUAGES ARE DRAVIDIAN TONGUES, AND

THAT THERE IS A DRAVIDIAN ELEMENT IN BRAHUI

TeE Tuda, Kota, G-C)nd,'Khond or Ku, Rijmahal, and Orion lan-

guages being rude, uncultivated idioms and little known, it appears to

be desirable to furnish the reader with proofs of the assertion that

those languages belong to the same Dravidian stock as Tamil and

Telugu, Malayalam, Tulu, and Canarese.

It seems also desirable to

point out the evidence on which the assertion that there is a Dravidian

element in Brahui rests.

The substance of this chapter was included

in the introduction in the first edition of this work, but I have now

thought it best to place it in the Appendix.

1. Tuna.—It used to be supposed that the language of the Tudas was alto-

gether sui generis, or at least that it was unconnected with any of the languages

of the neighbouring plains. In adopting the conclusion that the Tuda language

belonged to the Dravidian stock, and giving it a place, in consequence, in the first

edition of this work among the Dravidian dialects whose grammar was about to

be compared, the evidence on which I placed most reliance was that of a list

of words and short sentences kindly communicated to me by the Rev. F. Metz,

of the Basel Missionary Society, missionary on the Nilgherry Hill

Mr Metz’s

acquaintance with the Tuda language was even then greater than that acquired

by any other European ; but in the eighteen years that have elapsed since then it

has become still more extensive and perfect.

I am indebted to him for many

valuable communications respecting the hill tribes and their languages.

The

Rev. Dr Pope has also applied himself very zealously to the study of the Tuda

language ; and the publication, in Colonel Marshall’s book on the Tudas, of Dr

Pope’s ¢ Outlines of the Grammar of the Tuda Language,” with copious lists of

words, constitutes an era in the history of the language of this rude but interest-

ing tribe.

I cannot do better than refer the reader to that grammar for fuller

information.

I shall content myself here with transcribing the concluding

paragraphs.

D)

APPENDIX.

51

~

¢¢§ 44, On the whole, I venture to think that

¢(1.) The Tuda is a language which was once 'highly inflexional ; but having

lost most of its inflexions, the people, who have evidently degenerated in every

way as the result of isolation, have not replaced them by significant particles or

auxiliaries to the same extent as the other South Indian tribes, and the language

has thus dwindled down to a mere skeleton.

It now barely suffices for the pur-

poses of a very barbarous people.

€9, The language seems to have been originally old Canarese, and not a dis-

tinct dialect.

The Tudas were probably immigrants from the Canarese country,

A few Tamil forms were

and have dwelt in the Nilagiris for about 800 years.

introduced by the Poligars. Intercourse with the Badagars has probably modern-

ised a few of the forms, and introduced some words.

Of Telugu influences I see

no trace.

Nor can I trace any resemblance in Tuda to Malayalam in any of the

points where that dialect differs from its sisters.”—‘“ Qutlines of the Tuda Gram-

mar,” included in Colonel Marshall's ¢¢ Phrenologist amongst the Todas.”

2. Kbra.—Whilst the language and customs of the Tudas have always been

regarded with peculiar interest, the Kotas (a tribe of craftsmen, residing from an

unknown antiquity on the Nilgherry Hills), being exceedingly filthy in their

habits, agnd addicted beyond all other low-caste tribes to the eating of carrion,

have generally been shunned by Europeans ; and, in consequence, their language

is less known than that of the Tudas.

Notwithstanding this, the following para-

digm of the Kota pronouns, and of the present and preterite tense of its verb,

furnished me by Mr Metz, will show that the language of this tribe is essentially

Dravidian :(—

PRESENT—FUTURE,

PasT,

Go, or shall go.

Went.

1

dne hogape.

hésipe.

hodz.

nt hégapr.

avane hégako.

héda (it went, hdte).

hosipéme.

ndme hogapéme.

nive hogapire.

" hésipirt.

hasiko.

avare higako.

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 Tamil; the other

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

present tense of the verb. In the use of % instead of p (hégu, to go, instead of

pbgu), the Kota accords with the modern Canarese.

The third person of the

Kota verb, which is formed both in the singular and the plural, by the suffix %o,

seems at first sight entirely non-Dravidian, but in reality it is in perfect agree-

The sign of the

ment with several poetic forms in Old Tamil and Old Canarese.

genitive case in Kota is a, of the dative ke, of the locative olge,—all which forms

correspond with those which are found in the other dialects. The preterite is

formed by changing ga into ji—e.g., kégako, he goes ; hdgiko, he went. -In this

also we see a family resemblance to the manner in which the other dialects, espe-

cially the Telugu, form their preterites.

The Kota forms its infinitive by the

The infinitives of the

addition of alik to the root—e.g., tin, eat ; tinalik, to eat.

corresponding verb in Canarese are ¢inna, tinnalu, tinnalike.

On the whole,

though certain analogies with Tamil and also with Tuda may be observed in the

Kota, I regard this language as more nearly allied to the Canarese than to any

other Dravidian idiom.

/:%

RUDER DRAVIDIAN TONGUES.

613

;

3. G6ND.—A grammar and vocabulary of the Génd language were published ni

flog

1849 by the Rev. J. E. Dribery, at Bishop’s College, Calcutta, and a paper on the

Ui

language of the Seoni Gdnds, by Dr Manger, including ‘‘ The Song of Sandsum-

jee,” appeared shortly after in the Jowrnal of the Bengal Asiatic Society. A

translation of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark into Géndi by the Rev. J.

gt

pur

Dawson, of the Free Church of Scotland Mission, published in 1872-3 at Allaha-

bad, throws much new light upon the language of this tribe, besides forming an

[ul

interesting commencement to its literary history ; and this has been followed up

1T,

by an epitome of Gond Grammar and a list of words by the same author in the

B. A. S. Journal. These publications contain so many proofs of the close affinity

ere

eI

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

cessary to prove in detail that it is a member of the Dravidian family. It is not

I

)

S0 easy to determine to which of the cultivated Dravidian dialects it is most

i

nearly allied. In many respects it accords most with Telugu, its neighbour to

the south and east; but, on the whole, it seems more closely allied to Tamil,

oeell

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

that the claim of Tamil to be considered as the best representative of the primi-

04l

tive condition of these languages is not destitute of foundation.

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

Tion,

Tamil or with Canarese, are as follows :—

nge

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

Compare mikun, Gond, to you,

plural, have most resemblance to Telugu.

Telugu, mtku, with the Tamil wmalkku, and the Canarese nimage.

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

nine 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 st to the root, instead of the du, which is so largely employed by

Tamil and Canarese.

(4.) A considerable number of roots of secondary importance have been bor-

rowed by the Gond from the Hindi; and a small number of Sanskrit tadbhavas

seem to have been borrowed by it from the Telugu—e.g., nattur, blood, from the

Telugu metturu, a corrupt derivative from the Sanskrit ractam.

et

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

oibet

infinitive is in dlé or #lé.

In Telugu and Tamil the infinitive is invariably in @ ;

the Tamil has a verbal noun ending in al, of which the dative is used as a

i t”

supine; and the High Tamil occasionally, but Canarese ordinarily, uses this very

&

form «l as an infinitive.

Gond also like Canarese sometimes prefers k£ where the

Telugu has ¢k and the Tamil s—e.g., the ear, is in Tamil sevé, Telugu chevi,

Canarese kivi, in Gond also kaus.

To do, is in Tamil $ey, Telugu chéy, Canarese

1of

géy (g hard), Gond k.

Such agreements of the Goénd with the Canarese are rare ;

fort

but the particulars in which the Gond agrees with the Tamil, though the Telugu

country lies between it and the country in which the Tamil is spoken, are nume-

rous and important.

The following are specimens of this agreement :—

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

he

Tamil has two, ar and gal, the former epicene, the latter neuter : Gond also has

J

two, d0r and k.

f

U

(2.) Gond, like colloquial Tamil, makes much use of a double plural for personal

ol

e

pronouns and the personal terminations of verbs, by combining dr and %, like the

}1e colloquial

) a0y

Tamil ar and gal—e.g., compare the Gond ér and drk, they, with ¢

z K

514

APPENDIX.

Tamil avar and avargal ; dndur, dndurk, they are or were, with the Tamil dndr,

dandrgal.

(3.) The instrumental case in Telugu is formed by the addition of chéta : Gonds

like the Tamil, uses dl.

(4.) Gond differs from Telugu, and accords with Tamil in retaining unaltered the

initial vowel of its pronouns in the oblique cases.

Thus, from adi, Telugu, it,

comes déni, of it ; Tamil adin, of it; Gond adend.

(5.) The Telugu negative particles are lédu, there is not, and kddu, it is not ; the

corresponding particles in Tamil are ¢llez and alle; in Gond hillé and hallé.

(6.) Telugu systematically uses ¢ instead of Tamil vocalic 7 ; the Gond retains

the » of Tamil ; e.g., édu or adalu, Telugu, to weep ; Tamil ara, Gond ara.

So

also compare édu, Telugu, seven, with Tamil éru and Gond yér-ung.

(7.) Goénd, like Ancient Tamil, forms its future by appending & to the root.

Compare Gond kt-kd, I will do, with Ancient Tamil $ey-gu ; compare also Ancient

Canarese gey-gum, used for all tenses and persons.

(8.) A number of Génd roots denoting objects of primary importance correspond

with the Tamil rather than the Telugu—e.g.,'

TeLUGU.

TAMIL.

GOND.

three,

miadu,

mandru,

mind.

tree,

mdna,

maram,

marrd.

par

great,

pedda,

peru, paru,

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

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

This will appear on comparing the following Tamil and G6nd words :—

TAMIL.

GOND

boy,

peidal,

péndgdl.

to fall,

vira,

ara.

to fill,

nira,

niha.

light,

wvelicham,

vercha.

many, much,

pala,

valle.

district,

ndr (a village).

nddu,

dew,

pani,

plne (cold).

wréha.

break,

adet,

Notwithstanding the affinities between the Gond and the ‘other Dravidian

dialects which have now been mentioned and illustrated, Génd possesses a large

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

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

distinet dialect.

The difference existing between Tamil and Telugu sinks into

insignificance when compared with the difference between the Gond and every

other dialect of the Dravidian family.

The principal particulars in which the grammatical structure of the Gond

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

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

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

(2). It has lost the relative participle of the other Dravidian dialects, and uses

instead b4, the relative pronoun of the Hindi.

Here we have an indubitable

instance of the grammar of one language being affected by the grammar of an-

other.

It is remarkable that the relative participle is retained by the Ku.

S,

RUDER DRAVID IAN TONGUES.

515

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

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

(1]

(4.) The remote and proximate demonstratives (¢{lf, hz) which in Tamil are

avar, war, in Telugu wdru, viru, are in Génd corrupted into ér and ér. The

18

neuter plurals, which in Tamil are awei, ives, in Gond are d#, t@ ; but a form

1A

more in accordance with Tamil is preserved in some of the oblique cases—viz.,

ave and ve.

itd

(5.) The base of the interrogative pronouns in Tamil, Telugu, Canarese, Ma-

layalam is y, often softened into e.

In Gond it is b—e.g., b0r, who? (masculine

i

singular), bdd, who, which ¢ (neuter-feminine singular) ; plurals, bdrk, bdd@, what

This Gond ba resembles the Tulu

%

men ? what women and things? bd, why ?

interrogative v, which Dr Gundert derives from e-v-u.

0

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

b

Gond forms its negative verbs by simply prefixing the negative particles Aille or

7wclle, to the verb. For example, thou art not, or thou becomest not (in Tamil

uhd

dgdy, in Telugu kdvu), is in Gond halle Gyvi.

A similar use of the negative par-

The only thing in the other dialects which

ticle is found in the Kota language.

at all corresponds to this is the occasional formation in poetical Tamil of a neg-

ative verb by the insertion of the negative particle al between the root of the

verb and the pronominal suffix—e.g., pés-al-én, I speak not, for pés-én.

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

the (6nd and the other Dravidian dialects, consists in its peculiarly elaborate and

complete conjugational system.

In this particular it is rivalled by the Tulu

the

alone.

sell

(See ““The Verb: Conjugational System.”) Tamil, Malayalam, and

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

more or less aoristic.

Telugu, in addition to these tenses, has a regularly

formed aorist.

The indicative and the imperative are the only moods which

these 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 Gond boasts in a system of

verbal modification and inflexions almost as elaborate as that of Turkish.

It

has a passive voice: in addition to the indicative and the imperative moods,

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

tenses, it has a present, an imperfect definite, an indefinite past, a perfect, a con-

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

dlu‘l

In these

it has a causal verb, but it stands alone in having also an inceptive.

Jarge

particulars the Gond grammar has acquired a development peculiar to itself,

i?s ild

perhaps in some degree through the influence of the highly inflected Santal, its

U

Kolarian neighbour to the northward.

g imD

There is a peculiar refinement in the grammar of the Génd which is deserving

everf

of notice.

The possessive forms of the personal pronouns agree in number

and gender with the substantives they qualify. Thus, whilst ‘ my hand’ is ndvd

Gl

ket (Tel. nd kei, Tam. enadu kei), ‘my son’ is ndvér marri, in which ndwvor, my,

meus, is a masculine singular formed from md@v’, abbreviated from mavd, with

y O

the addition of dr, he (or they, the plural being used for the singular, like Tel,

varu, Tam. gvar). The corresponding Tam. enadu (in enadu magan, my son) is in

g uses

itself distinctively a neuter, formed from du, the affix of the neuter singular ;

biwbze

and yet it is used without distinction of gender (or number in the colloquial

of AV

dialect) to qualify masculines and feminines.

In the Tamil poetical dialect

516

APPENDIX.

enadu, my, is replaced in the plural by ena—e.g., ena keigal, my hand. The

Gond possessive of the personal pronoun has all four forms complete :—

ndwor.

tammunr.

my brother (masc.)

ndwd.

seldr.

my sister (fem.-neut.)

ndwork.

tammurk.

my brothers (mase. plur.)

ndwing.

seldrk.

my sisters (fem.-neut. plur.)

4, Ku.*— The Khond, Kandh, or Ku language, undoubtedly a Dravidian

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 Gonds and the Khonds are totally distinet races.

Notwithstanding this, prior to the publication of the first edition of this work, I

had not met with any account of their languages in which they were regarded as

different, though in truth their differences are numerous and essential.

In many

particulars Ku accords more closely than Gond with Tamil, Telugu, and the

other Dravidian tongues ; in some things less so.

For example :—

(1.) Gond forms its infinitive in @lé¢ or #¢; Ku, like Telugu, Tamil, and

modern Canarese, forms its infinitive by suffixing @, sometimes vo or pa.

Thus,

A

to become, is in Gond dydl

(34

in Telugu %d ; in Canarese dgal or dga ; in Tamil

dga ; in Ku dva.

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

dian dialects, in contradistinction to the elaborateness of the Gond.

(3.) Gond forms its negatives by prefixing to the indicative aorist the separate

negative particles Zille or halle.

In this point Ku differs from Gond, and agrees

with the other dialects. Thus, I do not, is in Gond %ille ktyon ; in Tamil Seyyén ;

in Telugu chéyanu ; in Canarese géyenu ; in Ku giénu.

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

though locally very remote, than with its nearer neighbour, Telugu.

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

oblique forms of the ‘rational’ demonstratives.

Ku, like Tamil, makes a dif-

ference between the plurals of nouns which denote rational beings, and those of

nouns of the inferior class.

The Tamil suffix of the first class of plurals is ar,

of the second class kal ; the corresponding suffixes in Ku are dru or ru, and

kd.

(2.) Telugu forms its masculine gingular by means of the suffix du - Can;n‘ese

and Tamil by anu and an.

Ku by means of the suffix dfiu or dnyu.

Thus, com-

pare vddu, Telugu, he, with the Tamil avan, Canarese avanu, Ku avdfiu.

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

the Telugu and Génd, as will appear from the following comparative view :—

TeLUGU.

GoND.

TaMIL.

CANARESE.

Ku

dnat.

I,

nénu.

and.

ydn (ancient).

dn (ancient).

we,

mému.

amdt.

ydm

(do.)

am

(do.)

dmu.

tnu.

thou,

nivu.

1M,

nt

ninu.

* See a lucidly arranged grammar of this language prepared by Mr Lingam

Latchmaji, Deputy Translator to the Ganjam Agency, and published in Oriya

characters in the Calcutta Christian Qbserver for May and June 1853.

I have

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

tion to our knowledge of the Indian languages.

AN

—

RUDER DRAVIDIAN TONGUES.

517

(3

TELUGU.

GOND.

TAMIL

CANARESE.

Ku

ye,

miru.

wmat.

nir.

nivu.

iru.

or.

avan.

avanu.

he, remote.

vadu.

avdi.

he, proximate. vidu.

&

wan.

Wwanu.

i,

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

particle to any verbal tense, person or number.

This subjunctive suffix is in

Ll

It

Telugu éni, or é ; in Canarese re, 74, or dgyu.

One of the suffixes employed in

i

the Tamil is £dl, which in the speech of the vulgar becomes kd ; and this very

particle /kd, added, as in Tamil, to the preterite, is the suffix by which the Ku

(63

(1

also forms conditional or contingent verbs—e.g., If I do, is in Teluga nénu

14

chéyudunéni ; in Canarese ndnu géyidare ; in colloquial Tamil this is ndn chey-

ddlkkd ; in Ku also (from the root gz, to do), it is dnu gitekkd.

)

the

On the other hand, in the following particulars Ku agrees more closely with

Telugu than with Tamil or Canarese.

d

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

10§,

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

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

il

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

Telugu.

Al

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

e

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

persons plural end differently, the one #r, the other dr ; in Telugu they end alike

o0

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

Ity

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

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

)

have the same ending.

In Telugu the relative participle of the indefinite or

aoristic tense ends in edi or efi; and in the Ku also the relative past participle

he

exhibits this ending. Thus, dna,;Tamil, that became ; in Canarese dda ; in Telugu

it

(indefinite tense), ayyéti ; in Ku the same form is d#i.

The various particulars now mentioned prove Ku to be distinet from Goénd ;

(f

and though it is allied to it, it is allied only in the same manner as to the other

i

Dravidian languages.

In some points this language differs from all the other

dialects of the family; for example, it forms its past verbal participles not by

it

means of the suffixes du, 4, or si, the only suffixes known in the other dialects,

o

but by suffixing to the root d, sometimes sd or jd, after the manner of some of

the languages of Northern India.

In the other dialects of this family, with the

exception of the Tulu, the negative verb possesses only one tense, an aorist; the

Ku, in addition to this negative aorist, has also, like the Tulu, a negative pre-

terite—a decided advantage over the other dialects.

The Ku suffixes of the

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

other Dravidian dialects.

The formative suffix of the present verbal participle

is in Telugu chu or tu ; in the Canarese uta or ute ; in the Ku it is 4 or pi.

5. RAsmanAn.—The lists of words hitherto published do not go a great way

towards proving this language distinctively Dravidian.

The evidence of the

\galll

pronouns and lowest numeral is clear; but the other distinctively Dravidian

words found in the lists are not numerous.

il

For the present, perhaps, all that

have

ean be said with certainty is that the Rajmahal contains a distinctively Dravidian

jou

element. When it has been examined as carefully as the Ordon, it may be

possible to speak of its relationship in stronger terms. Itis commonly stated that

|

518

APPENDIX.

it is almost the same as the Ordon ; but this opinion, though probably correct,

requires confirmation.

The principal and most essentially Dravidian words I have noticed are as

follows :—

I,

en

eye,

kdné.

Drav. kan.

do

madkku.

we,

en (nam, om).

nose,

muna.

thou,

nine.

tooth,

pdla.

do

pal.

you,

nina (nima in nemki, yours).

ear,

kédu.

do.

kcic.lu.

dth.

kekha.

do

ket

he, she, it,

hand,

they,

oviar,

hair,

tale.

do

‘head.’

ih.

man.

do

man-w.

this,

tree,

that,

ah.

flower,

phip.

do

pa

here,

no.

fish,

min.

do

min.

there,

ano

dove,

plrah.

do

purd.

one,

art, ort.

scorpion, tulah.

do

tel.

endhar.

do

why,

pain,

ndge.

nég.

dative suffix, ku.

above,

méktha.

do

mél.

do

mother,

aya.

aye.

daughter, moks.

do

mag-al.

man,

al, alla

do

al.

come,

bar-en.

do

bar-a.

£0,

ek-en.

do

ég-a.

Unfortunately the inflexions of the Rijmah4l noun and verb are not given in

any of the lists, so that with the exception of a very few incidental particulars

the grammatical construction of this language remains unknown.

In the parti-

culars that follow the construction is Dravidian.

The dative postposition is Zu ;

m is the sign of the plural of the pronouns of the first and second person, replac-

ing n of the singular; ar is the sign of the plural of pronouns of the third

person.

6. OrRAON.

Much light has been thrown on the construction and vocabulary

of the Orfon by an article on that language in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic

Society, vol. xxxv., by the Rev. F. Batsch, a missionary who has laboured amongst

the Ordons in Chatid Nagpar.

The personal pronouns, which are very regular and distinctively Dravidian, are

as follows :(—

I

WE.

TraOD,

You.

nom

en

em

nin.

NnTM.

gen.

engha.

emhaz.

ninghaz.

nimhaog.

dat.

engage.

emage.

ningdge.

nemdge.

acce.

engan.

eman.

nININ.

NIMAN, NUMARUIN.

abl.

engustr.

emgustin.,

nAnGuste.

nIMGUSLINY.

instru

enganty

emantz.

ninante.

nimanta.

loc

engms.

emanu, emanun.

ningani.

nimgana.

agent.

entim.

emim.

ninTm.

NIMIM.

(1.) em, we, is the ordinary plural of the first person, used when we means

more than two. ndm, which is equally Dravidian, means, it is said, ¢ we two.’

This use of ndm as a dual may throw light on the origin of the plural inclusive

of the other Dravidian languages.

Hé

o~

THE BRAHUI.

519

(2.) The third person is represented only by ds, he, ad, it or she, dr, they.

Notice the Dravidian epicene plural in . What ? is end.

(3.) Postpositions. ge, to, for ; nu, upon; mund, before ; mechla, above ; kuti,

besides; katha, beyond ; menya, up ; kinya, beneath. These are purely Dravidian

words. gusti, from, I cannot identify.}

(4.) Numerals.

One, onta ; two, enr ; three, mund ; four, ndch.

fAdjectival

numerals—ort dlao, one man, ¢rib dlar, two men,

The rest of the numerals are

borrowed from the northern vernaculars.

(6.) Words certainly Dravidian are dl, man, pal, tooth, khan, eye, boi, mouth,

moy, nose, bar, come.

(6.) With the exception of the words cited above, the rest of the Ordon nouns,

adjectives, and verbs present scarcely any point of resemblance to Dravidian

words.

The mass of the words in the Orfion vocabulary may be Kolarian, but do

not seem to be Dravidian.

This instance tends to show that languages may be

cognate, whilst yet the proof may survive only in the pronouns, the first few

numerals, and the structure.

7. DrAvVIDIAN ELEMENT IN BRAHUL—In many of the particulars in which the

Brahui is found to be allied to the Dravidian tongues, it is equally allied to each

of the families of tongues included in the Scythian group, so that to that extent

it would be safest to content ourselves with saying that the non-Aryan element

contained in Brahui—the element which is incapable of being affiliated to the

Indo-Persic—appears to be Scythian, using the term Scythian in its widest sense.

Thus in Brahui, as in the Dravidian dialects, and in the whole of the Scythian

i

tongues, the cases of nouns are denoted by postpositions. The gender of nouns

is expressed, not by their inflexions, but by prefixed separate words.

The

number of nouns is ordinarily denoted by the use of separate particles of plurali-

sation, such as many, several, &ec.

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 more characteristic of Tamil than of the other

Dravidian idioms.

Adjectives are destitute of comparatives and superlatives.

On the other hand, there are certain particulars in which the Brahui appears

to me to present traces of the existence of a distinctively Dravidian element.

The observations I made on the Brahui in the first edition of this work were

founded on a brief grammar and vocabulary of the language contained in vol. vii.

(]

of the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society. A fuller grammar and vocabulary

has now been supplied by Dr Bellew, in his book entitled “ From the Indus to

the Tigris” (Triibner, 1873), and it appears to me that the theory I advocated—

(not that the Brahui was a Dravidian language, but that ‘it evidently contained

a Dravidian element, an element which was probably derived from the remnant

of some ancient Dravidian race incorporated with the Brahuis ”)—has been con-

firmed.

(1.) The Brahui pronoun of the second person singular is %, thou, precisely as

in ell the Dravidian tongues. The plural of this pronoun—rviz., num, you (numd,

of you), is also wonderfully in accordance with old Dravidian forms. The Canar-

ese i8 nim, you ; the Orfon nim ; the old Tamil possessive is num-a, you (in which

I

we see traces of an obsolete base num or niém, you) ; and the ordinary bage of the

oblique cases of this pronoun in Tamil is um.

It has been objected that there is

nothing distinctively Dravidian in these forms, seeing that n¢, thou, appears in some

(7

shape in the Australian dialects, in Chinese, and in many of the languages of High

APPENDIX,

620

Asia. This pronoun of the second person has undoubtedly a very wide range, as

has been shown in loco, but it is remarkable that throughout India and the

countries adjacent to India it is found only in the Dravidian languages and the

Brahui. The change from «f in the singular to num in the plural appears to me

still more distinctively Dravidian.

(2.) Whilst nim or ném is to be considered as the most classical form of the

plural of the Dravidian prenoun of the second person, nir is the form ordinarily

used in a separate shape in Tamil, mfru in Telugu; and in consequence of this

plural termination in #, in nearly all the Dravidian idioms the second person

plural of the verb in the indicative mood ends, not in em or wm, but in %r, erw,

dru, iri, &c. The same peculiarity reappears in the Brahui. Whilst the separate

pronoun ends in m, is the pronominal sign of the second person of the verb—

e.g., areri, ye are, arer, they are; with which compare the Canarese iru(tt)ire, ye

are, wru(tt)dre, they are.

(3.) A remarkable analogy between the Brahui and the Dravidian languages is

apparent in the reflexive pronoun ten, self, se.

In the Dravidian languages this

pronoun is tan or tdn, and is regularly declined, whilst the nominative is also

used adverbially in the sense of ‘indeed.” In Brahui ten is similarly used, not as

a particle, nor only as an adverb, but as a pronoun, and is declined as regularly

ag the other pronouns.

(4.) Nouns form their plurals by adding k., as in Gond—e.g., huli, a horse,

hulik, horses.

(5.) The root of the substantive verb in Brahui is ar, in Tamil and Canar-

ese r.

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

The truth of this remark is illustrated by several

into any country by foreigners.

circumstances of which Bopp could scarcely have been aware. From five upwards

the numerals of the Orfon are foreign.

From four upwards the Brahui numerals

are of Indo-European origin (e.g., char, four, panj, five, shash, six); and in the

compound numerals twenty-one and twenty-two, the words for one and two are

also Indo-European, but the separate numerals one, two, three, are totally uncon-

nected with the Sanskrit family, and two of them are identical with Dravidian

numerals. In Brahui, two is ¢rat ; compare Can. eradu, two; Tam. wat-(tu),

twofold or double. In Brahui, three is musit ; compare Can. mdr-u ; Tel. mid-u ;

Tulu maye.

The Dravidian bases of these numerals are ir, two, mu, three ; and

if we notice the terminations of the Brahui numerals (one, asit, two, irat, three,

musit), it is obvious that the second syllable of each of these words, ¢ or at, is

merely a neuter formative, like that which we find in the Dravidian languages

(e.g., compare 4r, the base and numeral adjective ¢ two,” with ¢radu, the abstract

neuter noun)

consequently the agreement of the Brahui with the Dravidian

If we remember

numerals, both in the base and in the formative, is complete.

the interchangeable relation of s and », and if we regard the Canarese mar,

three, and the Brahui mus, as an instance of this interchange, as I think we may

safely do (illustrated as it is by the Tulu mdj7), we may also venture to connect

the Dravidian numeral base or, one, with the Brahui as.

This connection, how-

ever is doubtful, whereas there cannot be any doubt respecting two and three.

It is worthy of notice that one is ackat in Pehlevi.

(7.) In the class of auxiliary words (prepositions, conjunctions, &c.) coﬁupare

the Brahui mont, opposite, with the Tamil munné, before.

The number of nouns and verbs in Brahui which can with certainty be identi-

-

THE BRAHUI.

021

fied with Dravidian roots is not considerable, but it is equal to the number found

in the Ordaon vocabulary.

Branvur.

DRAVIDIAN.

BranUul

DRAVIDIAN

eye,

khan,

khan, kan.

kal.

stone,

kﬁaﬂ

mouth,

bd,

bay, vdy, boz.

bow,

bil

)

bil, bir, vil

ear,

khaf,

kive, kdd-u, kdd

saw,

ara,

ara-m.

face,

mon,

mumn, before.

scorpion,

telt,

tél.

brain,

malt,

mdler.

to cut,

hare,

arv, art.

son,

mdr,

marry (Gond).

to beat,

khal,

kol (to Kkill)

mother,

daz,

dye.

to do,

ke, kar,

ke, ge, chey

water,

dir,

nhr.

to come,

bar,

bar, var.

milk,

pahlt,

pdl.

to be,

ar,

.

The al'mlogies between the Brahui and the Dravidian languages which have now

been pointed out, are much closer than any analogy which subsists between the

Dravidian languages and the Bodo, the Dhimal, and the languages of the other

tribes on the north-eastern frontier of India which were termed . Tamulian’’ by

Mr Hodgson.

Those analogies appear to me to be almost as remote 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 discoverable between

the Kodlarian tongues and the Dravidian. Compare the following list of Dravidian

words of primary importance with analogous words in the Brahui, and with the

words in the Bodo and Dhimal which correspond in signification :—

DRAVIDIAN.

Branvur.

Bopo.

DHIMAL.

thou,

nb,

nt,

nang,

na

you,

num,

num,

nangchidr,

nyél.

we

7

ndm,

nin,

Jony,

kyel.

self,

tan,

ten,

gouz,

tas.

one

or,

<

2

as-it,

ché,

€

two,

wrad-w,

wrat,

gné,

gne.

three,

mir-u,

mus-it

sum.

thdm,

eye,

kan

)

khan,

mi.

mogon,

ear,

krve,

khaf,

khomd,

ndhdthony.

water,

nir,

dir,

dsi,

cht.

d

stone,

kal,

khal,

onthdi,

anthir.

)

It seems unnecessary to give a larger number of instances ;

for whilst the

18

Brahui does appear to a certain extent to contain Dravidian forms and words, the

)

Bodo and Dhimal, and to them may be added most of the other dialects of the

(

north-eastern forests, present no special analogies whatever ; and contain only a

all

few of those structural affinities which they have in common, not only with the

el

Dravidian, but with the Tibetan, and with every language and family of languages

i

of the Scythian group.

il

0

\f

20

o

1l

()9

~ &

APPENDIX,

IL

OF MR

REMARKS ON THE PHILOLOGICAL PORTION

GOVER'S “FOLK-SONGS OF SOUTHERN INDIA.”

Real nature of the theory respecting the relationship of the Dravidian

languages to the languages of the Scythian group, advocated in the

Jirst edition of this work.

WaAT follows is the principal porﬁion of an article contributed by me

to the Madras Mail in 1872.

In reprinting it here, I leave the third

person, as used in the article, unchanged.

It was with much regret

that I heard a few months afterwards of Mr Gover’s sudden, untimely

death, which was a great loss in many respects to Southern India.

Mr Gover's “Folk-Songs of Southern India” tooic the Indian

public by surprise.

A few slips and inaccuracies—perhaps we might

safely say, not a few

are inevitable in a work professing to illustrate

the ideas and feelings of five or six different peoples by means of

poetical translations of the most popular songs current in the different

languages and dialects spoken by them; but the plan of the work is

so novel, the execution on the whole so able, the style of the accom-

panying prose dissertations and explanations so vivid and graphie, and

the sympathy of the writer with the better qualities of the mass of

the people whose songs he translates so warm, that his book may

safely be characterised as one of the most interesting contributions to

the knowledge of the people of Southern India that have yet appeared.

The writer has struck a new vein in the literary mine, and his remark-

able success will, we doubt not, lead other labourers in that mine to

turn their efforts in the same, or a similar, direction.

The defects of

the book are the shadows of its most conspicuous merits.

If the

writer had been less ardent and—if we may be permitted to say so—

less exaggerative, he would probably have been less appreciative.

If

he had evinced more caution and less confidence, if he had used quali-

fying expressions more freely, his work would probably bave had less

attraction for the majority of readers.

The songs translated by Mr Gover do not, as he himself remarks,

touch the question of roots and derivatives.

His main object is, by

means of those songs, to bring more fully into view than has yet been

MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL.

)

[5)

~

3

done the better siée of the moral nature of the Dravidians. Notwith-

standing this, philological questions are occasionally referred to through-

out the book, and the greater part of the introduction is devoted to

the discussion of the most interesting philological question affecting

Southern India—viz., the relationship of the Dravidian languages to

other families of tongues.

The remarks we are about to make relate

exclusively to this question, and in making them we hope it will not

be supposed that we wish to detract in any way from the merits of

I

the book before us, viewed as a whole.

7

Mr Gover informs us that Dr Caldwell, in his “ Comparative Gram-

mar of the Dravidian Languages” (that is, the Tamil, Telugu, Can-

1

arese, &c.), was mistaken in classifying those languages with the

u

Scythian or Turanian group (which, by the way, he did in the main

only, not absolutely), and that the advance of philological science

el

I

since that book was written has proved those languages to be simply

and purely Indo-European, or Aryan.

This position was taken by

Mr Gover, it appears, in some papers read by him two years ago

before the Royal Asiatic Society, and also in an article in the Corn-

al

lall Magazine for November last year.

In a letter to the Athenwum,

i

he adduces, in confirmation of his theory, the high authority of Dr

18

Pope’s name ; but pending the publication by Dr Pope of the materials

of

Mr Gover says he has prepared, we must be forgiven for dealing ex-

clusively at present with what Mr Gover himself has written.

il

18

Mr Gover appears to us to be labouring under some misapprehension

Il

with regard to the enormous advance he supposes philological science

il

has made since Dr Caldwell’s book was published. During the sixteen

(3

years that have elapsed since then, he says, “new means of analysis

0y

have been furnished by the great German writers on language, new rules

of classification have been adopted, the whole science of philology has

10

l

been recast, Max Miiller has won his fame.

As it had been shown

\[4

that Wilkins and Carey were wrong in deriving the Dravidian lan-

guages from the Sanskrit, so it is now known that Caldwell and Rask

y £0

were equally wrong in holding the theory of their Scythian origin.

SV

fle

This theory was an error, leading to gigantic mistakes, but it has been

dispelled by the progress of philological inquiry.”

“The science of

1=

language, which seems to have sprung into the world like Minerva,

‘L

fully grown and armed, has during the past few years thrown vast

l

light upon this dark subject.”

If all this advance has been made

IS

since Dr Caldwell’s book was written, Mr Gover’s statement that it

was written sixteen years ago must have been a slip of the pen.

He

kS

by

must have meant to say that the book was written sixty 'years ago, in

the pree-scientific age, seeing that the first portion of Grimm’s German

heelk

524

APPENDIX.

Grammar, in which the laws of sounds were for the first time analysed,

was given to the world in 1811 ; that Bopp’s Comparative Grammar,

by far the most important work of the kind that has ever appeared,

was published in 1833 ; and that Max Miiller, who had long already

had an European reputation, must surely be considered to have won

his fame by 1849, when the first volume of his great edition of the

“Rig-Veda” appeared. Dr Caldwell’s book, which appeared as late

as 1856, is only of yesterday in comparison with the works of those

masters of philological science.

It may be added—though this does

not of itself suffice to prove Dr Caldwell’s theory to be right—that

Max Miiller was, and we believe still is, an upholder of that theory.

It is also to be remembered that the enormous advance in philo-

logical science which Mr Gover dilates upon, though a real and great

advance as far as it goes, is, after all, confined within very narrow

limits.

The range within which philology has learnt to deal with its

materials, and pursue its objects in a tolerably scientific method is

still, we believe, in a considerable degree confined to the intercom-

parison of the principal languages of the Aryan family. Each of those

languages is so thoroughly known, that no scholar, however fond of

theorising he may be, can expect to be able to pass off his assumptions

about anything connected with it as facts.

Beyond the intercom-

parison of those languages * very little philology worthy of being called

scientific has yet appeared, and when people attempt to go further we

generally find them amusing themselves with accidental resemblances,

and indulging in ingenious guesses pretty much as of old. Within the

Aryan range, not more than one grain of assumption to four grains of

fact is considered admissible.

Beyond that range, we may consider

ourselves fortunate if we find ourselves favoured with one grain of

It would have been no loss to science if

fact to four of assumption!

Dr Caldwell had contented himself with comparing the Dravidian

languages one with another, and calling attention to the parallelisms

and coincidences which he found between them and other languages,

without attempting to build any theory thereupon respecting their

ultimate relationship. In this particular Mr Gover has improved upon

Dr Caldwell.

He does not theorise !

He would not consent to con-

sider his view of the Aryan relationship of the Dravidian languages

as a plausible theory,—a theory supported by a certain number of

facts,—a theory which may eventually be proved to be true,—all

which we are prepared to consider it.

He evidently regards it, and

* o which' must be added Dr Bleek’s “ Comparative Grammar of the South

African Languages.”

S

MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL.

9}

)

insists on our regarding it, not as a theory, but as a truth which has

already been scientifically demonstrated !

It would have been well if Mr Gover had made himself quite sure

of perfectly apprehending Dr Caldwell’s Scythic theory, before regard-

|

ing its refutation and the establishment of his own Aryan theory in

its place, as not only of considerable moment from a philological point

of view, but as of vast moral and political importance.

According to

him, Dr Caldwell’s theory was that the Dravidians are a Turanian

A

people, an offshoot of the Finnish tribes, and their languages purely

lf

and simply Turanian.

In reality his theory was not so different from

Mr Gover’s as Mr Gover appears to suppose. For this misapprehension

Dr Caldwell himself was partly to blame.

He used expressions at

times implying his belief in the affiliation of the Dravidian languages,

b

i

not to the Aryan family, but to the Turanian group of families,

w

whilst, in those portions of his book in which he discussed the question

in greater detail, he attributed almost as much importance to the Aryan

1§

affinities as to the Turanian, contenting himself with holding that the

I

Turanian affinities were more numerous and more essentially charac-

N

teristie.

of

He felt it hard, we presume, to be obliged always to use a

round-about mode of expression, and so laid himself open to misap-

1]

prehension by often using the word “ Scythian” alone for short.

His

I

lists of Glossarial Affinities would almost satisfy Mr Gover’s views.

i

He adduced eighty-four Dravidian roots which he considered Scythian,

{4

g,

and of these he stated that twenty-five appeared to be also Aryan.

On the other hand, not including words which appeared to him to

he

have been borrowed by the Sanskrit from the Dravidian vernaculars,

o

he gave a list of twenty-one roots common to the Sanskrit and the

i

Dravidian, and a hundred and six roots common to the Dravidian and

a

the western representatives of the Aryan family.

He considered also

ol

that those hundred and six roots “must have been introduced into the

Jall

Dravidian languages before the Sanskrit separated from its sisters, or

Jilbl

at least before the Sanskrit as a separate tongue came in contact with

I

the Dravidian family.” These roots, he said, “are so numerous, many

helt

of them are so remarkable, and when all are taken together the analogy

pOIl

which they bring to light is so distinct that an ultimate relation of

!

some kind between the Dravidian and Indo-European families may be

“0

f{\'ei

regarded as conclusively established ” (p. 453).

In the same page he

fﬂf

suggests two alternative suppositions as to the nature of this relation-

4l

ship, one of which is that ‘it must be concluded that both races were

ad

descended from a common source.” *

He did not, however, consider

* The following might also have been adduced : —* A consideration of the Dra.

\Cun

vidian demonstrative and interrogative vowels tends to confirm the supposition

526

APPENDIX,

the Aryan origin of the Dravidian languages capable of being proved

by glossarial affinities alone, such as he had adduced. He considered

grammatical structure, methods of dealing with materials, and vital

spirit, as of more importance in determining the relationship of long

separated tongues than mere verbal resemblances, many of which might

turn out on further investigation to be fallacious; and, in consequence

of the preponderance of the evidence that appeared to him to be

furnished from this quarter, he considered “the propriety of placing

these languages in the Scythian group rather than in the Indo-

European indicated ;” yet, notwithstanding this, he called attention,

in connection with almost every point discussed in the book, to the

¢ Jeep-seated Indo-Europeanisms ” which he found imbedded in the

The fullest statement of

grammatical structure of these languages.

his theory is in page 50 of the Introduction.

¢ Whilst, therefore,” he

says, “I classify the Dravidian family of languages as essentially and

in the main Scythian, I consider them as of all Scythian tongues those

which present the most numerous, ancient, and interesting analogies

to the Indo-European languages.

The position which this family

occupies, 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 1it.

If this view be correct (as I think it will be shown

to be), the Indo-Europeanisms which are discoverable in the Dravidian

languages carry us back to a period beyond all history, beyond all

mythology, not only prior to the separation of the western branches of

the Indo-European race from the eastern, but prior also to the separa-

tion of the yet undivided Indo-Europeans from the Scythian stock.”

«On the whole, we appear to have reason to conclude that the

various forms of the pronoun of the first person singular which have

now been compared, are identical, and that this word was the common

property of mankind prior to the separation of the Indo-European

“ A similar

tribes from the rest of the Japhetic family” (p. 306).

form of the accusative being extensively prevalent, as we have seen,

I have already expressed that the Dravidian family has retained some Pree-

Sanskritic elements of immense antiquity, and in particular that its demonstra-

tives, instead of having been borrowed from the Sanskrit, represent those old

Japhetic bases from which the primary demonstratives of the Sanskrit itself, as

well as of various other members of the Indo-European family, were derived”

(p. 345).

“Tnstead of supposing the Dravidian dialects to have borrowed these

demonstratives (which are still purer than the Persian) from the Sanskrit (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 demonstratives of the Sanskrit and of all other Indo-Europe

been derived” (p. 340).

jan tongues have

MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL,

027

»

in the Scythian tongues, it would be unreasonable to derive the Dra-

vidian case-sign from the Indo-European.

In this instance it is better

to conclude that both families have retained a relic of their original

oneness” (p. 221).

“The hypothesis of the existence of a remote

original affinity between the Dravidian languages and the Sanskrit,

or rather between those languages and the Indo-European tongues, 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 a direct derivation of those languages from the Sanskrit.

The

hypothesis of a remote original affinity is favoured by some interesting

analogies both in the grammar and also in the vocabulary, which will

be noticed in their place” (p. 29).

“ Indo-European analogies are

so intimately connected with the individuality and vital essence of the

Dravidian languages, that it seems impossible to suppose them to be

merely the result of early association, however intimate.

It is only

on the supposition of the existence of a remote or partial relationship

§

that they appear to be capable of being fully explained ” (p. 340).

T

In another passage the theory of spontaneous development ab inéra

was advanced for the purpose of accounting for certain tendencies in

1

the Indo-European direction observable in the treatment of the gender

I}

-

of nouns :—¢ (These tendencies) are not the result of Sanskrit in-

flnences, of which no trace is perceptible in this department of Dra-

i

|

vidian grammar, but have arisen from the progressive mental culti-

f

vation of the Dravidians themselves” (p. 171).

The pages are those

of the first edition ; and respecting the real nature of the theory of Dra-

vidian relationship advocated therein, some degree of misapprehension

seems to have been entertained by some other persons besides Mr

he

Gover.

\(4

00

If Mr Gover had noticed these and similar passages, he could hardly

have supposed the difference between Dr Caldwell’s theory and his

4l

own to be so great and essential, and pregnant with such momentous

It

consequences to the governors and the governed as he has done,

Jel‘

There is no reason why an upholder of Dr Caldwell’s theory should

not hail with pleasure any well-considered attempt to bring the Indo-

Pre

Europeanisms of the Dravidian languages more fully to light.

The

gird:

) Jld

question between Dr Caldwell and Mr Gover is only one of less or

more.

f,8

Dr Caldwell’s theory is so wide—it takes us so far back into

»édl

the mist of ages—that there seems to be room in it for as many new

hest

theories as are likely to be invented.

Room could be found in it even

ik

for Mr Gover’s theory, if only its sharp corners were a little smoothed

: {he

b

away.

One of those sharp corners is the exclusiveness of his theory,

pat?

as it is held by him at present.

He will not consent to give and take,

528

APPENDIX,

but must have all.

We are not sure whether his theory will fare

better for this in the end, when it comes to be carefully scrutinised by

Doubtless Mr Gover will hold that so

the great scholars in Kurope.

much of Dr Caldwell’s book as advocates the existence of Aryan ele-

ments in the Dravidian languages is perfectly sound. His only objec-

tion doubtless will be that it does not go far enough. Yet it was pre-

cisely this part of the book which met with the severest criticism. The

editor of the Journal of the American Oriental Society, whilst attributing

some weight to the evidence adduced by Dr Caldwell from correspon-

dences of form and spirit in favour of the relationship of the Dravidian

languages with the Scythian, thought all that part of the work which

concerned the comparison of those languages with any other than the

Scythian so nearly destitute of scientific value that its omission would

have been a gain rather than a loss!

Here, as we often see, doctors

differ ; and here, it is evident, that Mr Gover may expect to find rocks

ahead in his exclusion of all Scythian elements from the Dravidian

languages, and his affiliation of them, simply and absolutely, to the

Aryan family. In comparing the Dravidian languages with the Aryan,

he will enjoy many advantages, in consequence of the facilities afforded

him, not only by the grammars and dictionaries, but by the exten-

sive, ancient literatures of the languages compared ; but freedom from

criticism will not be one of the advantages he will enjoy. The evidence

he adduces must be capable of enduring a far more searching examina-

tion than that adduced by Dr Caldwell in support of his elastic Scythic

theory. It is much more easy to discover an error in a comparison

when both terms are accurately known, than when one only is accu-

rately known, and the other is known only very imperfectly. When

Dr Caldwell wandered off, in search of Dravidian affinities, over the

trackless steppes of Central Asia, and amongst the fogs and fens of

Siberia, whilst it would be extremely easy for him to go astray and

lose his way, it would not be so easy to follow him up and prove,

point by point, where, when, and how he had gone astray. But when

Mr Gover attempts to prove the Dravidian languages as distinctively

Aryan as the Sanskrit, or the Greek, or even as the Celtic, he works

at our own door, before our own eyes, in the full light of the most

carefully elaborated works of the best masters in philological science ;

and if he should happen at any time to speculate a little too wildly,

or to make too positive an assertion about something not perfectly

warranted by the evidence, plenty of scholars will be ready to be down

.

upon him in a trice.

Mr Gover says that it is probably not extravagant or untrue to say

that there is not one true Dravidian root common to the three great

/I‘*\

929

MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL.

[1

T,

branches

Tamil, Telugu, and Canarese—that cannot be clearly shown

|

to be Aryan,

He takes as a specimen the word pey, devil, and tells

)

us that the true meaning is not “devil,” but “light,” and signified

originally “the bright one,” that is, the deity.

The name being Aryan,

the deity denoted by this name was also Aryan, and was identical with

[¢

the element light.

But some of the Dravidians, cut off from the better

e

teaching of the fathers of their race, degenerated in their worship, and

Il

thus a god was changed into a devil !

This idea is plausible, and it

Ol

is ingeniously worked out ; but its accuracy depends on the nature of

il

the evidence on which the alleged original signification of the word

(0}

is based.

It is an interesting question of roots and derivatives, and

Mr Gover’s discussion of it is earnest and vigorous.

Our only doubt

i

[

is as to whether his argument is conclusive.

This is a point, however,

on which Mr Gover feels no doubt at all.

01

CKS

He argues first that the root of the Tamil word péy is identical with

the first part of the Sanskrit word for devil, pe$dcha, which was derived

ﬁan

from a root signifying ‘light ;” and then, that the Tamil relationships

the

il

bt e

of this word combine to show that ‘light’ was its original meaning.

éed

We may remark, at the outset, that, even if these statements were

gl

correct, they would not prove that the being now worshipped as a

ol

devil was originally a bright being, a god.

It would be necessary to

know something of the history of the words ; to ascertain whether the

108

root meaning had remained unchanged up to the time of its applica-

11

hie

tion to the worship of this god or devil ; or whether it might not have

01

sustained one of those accidental twists so common in all languages,

which are found to act as the starting point of new and unexpected

e

1

meanings.

It would not be safe to assume that, because the oldest

nen

shape of the root of the English word ‘money’ is the Sanskrit man,

i

it

‘to think,” therefore money acquired this name because it is some-

33 0F

The ultimate derivation

thing that people ¢ think’ a great deal about.

at

might be correct, yet the assumption founded upon it would be

10\6,

erroneous.

It would be found that the word ‘money’ received an

phel

il

accidental twist in the direction of its modern meaning.

We should

1elf

be taken to the temple of Juno Moneta in Rome, the M%nt in which

oIk

money was first coined, and there we should see how the change of

m(m

meaning took place,—the goddess's name being derived from moneo,

Ik

to warn, and this probably being an offshoot from man, to think,

j

\I

Where the modern meaning of a word differs very widely from the

)

root meaning, we must always be on the look-out for some such acci-

d«)“ I

dental change.

We have, therefore, to ask not only whether it is a

fact that the Sanskrit piddcia comes from a root meaning to adorn,

o9,

to shine, but also whether that was the sense in which the word came

grow

b

930

APPENDIX.

to be so applied.

It looks extraordinary that the name of the very

worst class of spirits known to the Sanskrit-speaking races should have

been intended to have a meaning so much better than that of the

names of the half divine Asuras, Daityas, Danavas, Nigas, Rakshasas,

and Yakshas, and equal in beauty, as well as similar in signification,

When we seek

to that of the Devas, the divine beings, themselves.

for an explanation of the reason why the term ZPu$dcha came to be

applied to malignant beings, Sanskrit authorities supply us with

derivations which differ widely from Mr Gover’s.

Dr Rost derives

piddcha from api + Sach, to attack, and says that when api is used as

a preposition it generally loses its initial a.

Native scholars supply

us with a derivation which is in accordance with native ideas as to the

character and habits of the piédcha.

Pusdcha, according to them,

means an ‘eater of flesh) and is substantially identical with the

regular compound, pisit-ast, a word which has the same meaning.

This view is corroborated by the fact that pedi, a noun regularly

formed from the root pe$, means both a lump of flesh, and the name

of a female fiend.

Compare the Tamil péycichi, a female devil.

How

a noun signifying ‘flesh’ comes from a root signifying ‘to adorn,’

is the only question that remains, and that ceases to present any

difficulty when it is remembered that that root signifies also to ¢form,’

to ‘figure,’ to ‘organize,’ and even to ‘put on,’ to ¢cover.’

We now come to the consideration of the Tamil word péy, and here

our course is comparatively clear. Whatever may be said for or against

the idea that the Sanskrit pisdcha was originally a ¢bright being,’

Mr Gover does not consider péy derived from piédcha by corruption

The

or abbreviation, but holds merely that the roots are identical.

Dravidian tongues, he ‘says, do not need these foreign analogies to

show that pey, a devil, comes from a root meaning light.

He might,

we think, have made out a plausible case for the direct derivation of

péy from pisdcha. [Dr Gundert is in favour of this derivation.] Some

Sanskrit words have in this way got abbreviated, and both the abbre-

viated form and the unabbreviated are in use.

Probably, however,

Mr Gover was right in not committing himself to the direct derivation

of péy from piddcha.

Though the words are, to a certain extent, inter-

changeable, yet people who are skilled in diabolical refinements draw

a distinction between them.

Péy, they say, means the ghost of a

It has a

human being that has become powerful and malignant.

name and a place of residence, and is systematically worshipped.

The

pisdcha, on the other hand, they say, has no home, or name, or wor-

ship. The bAdta, they add, is a demon of a somewhat higher order, an

attendant on the Brahmanical demon-gods.

It is still more worthy

e

Yy

MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL.

531

of notice that péy has meanings which piédcha has not.

In combina-

[

tion with names of plants, péy means ¢ wild, uncultivated, useless for

Iy

human food ;’ in combination with names of animals it means ¢ mad.’

N

Yy

We often find that the use of a word in combination throws light on

Il

its original meaning.

This may be so in this case—or it may not—as

ek

it is possible that this application to plants and animals may be only

g

a metaphorical transfer of the older meaning of ‘devil’

Still, in

il

either case, the direct derivation of péy from piddcha, a word which is

()

never used in this way, may be regarded as uncertain, though possible.

N}

We have now to deal with the Dravidian evidence adduced by Mr

y

Gover to show that péy comes from a root meaning light.

He begins

his argument by stating that another form of the word in Tamil is

il

pénam, a devil, and this he says appears in Khond as pennu, the name

he

of the deity, the meaning of which name is the ‘sun’ or ‘light.” Its

147

ultimate connection is with the Sanskrit pims and the Greek paivw.

tly

From this he argues, that whether amongst the Khonds or the Tamil-

16

ians, the worship of the devil was originally the worship of the light

OV

of the sun.

Unfortunately for Mr Gover’s theory, there is no such

[Nl

word for devil in the Tamil language as pénam, though it is true that

in Malny&lam there is a word meaning devil, péna, which would in

m;:

i

Tamil be péner.

In Tamil, however, we have a corresponding word

pé, a word meaning foam, froth, which is represented as identical with

ere

pénam, a fuller form of the same word; and this pénam in turn is

identical with the Sanskrit phena, froth.

It looks as if the two words

HSI.

19

pty, devil, and pe, froth, with the more correct form of the latter,

ol

pénam, were somehow connected.

From pé, foam, would come péys,

The

one who foams, one from whose mouth pé comes, and péyi would

{0

naturally be abbreviated into péy.

What more natural origin than

this could be desired for péy, devil ?

Mr Gover may possibly object

I

that, however plausible it may be, it leaves the Tamil word for devil

ome

as far as ever from the sweetness and light it ought to denote,*

e

After discussing the inferences that may be drawn from pénam being

Vel

a Tamil word for devil, he proceeds to adduce examples of Dravidian

100

words beginning with p, b, or », and meaning light, for the purpose of

)

proving that pey also must (could, would, or should) mean light. One

Jran

of the words he adduces is veyyil, the heat of the sun.

The root of

of &

this word, however, means not light, but heat.

It is from ve, to be

s

Il

* Mr Beames suggested to me the possibility of the derivation of péy—if

derived from Sanskrit at all—from préta, a corpse, also a ghost, one of the Pra-

!

krit forms of which would, according to the usual rule, be Péya. preta (in Tamil

1-7 all

pirédam) occasionally has in Tamil the meaning of ghost ; but P8 never means

corpse.

péyam is unknown in Tamil.

‘ltll‘r

|

03

APPENDIX.

hot, one of the commonest roots in the language, and very prolific of

derivatives.

The two Tamil roots that really mean light, o/, a shining

light, and wvel, a diffused light, cannot be brought into any harmony

with péy.

Another word which he adduces is pres, which he says

¢“1in ancient Tamil was the moon.”

It looks as if he had been follow.

ing Dr Hunter’s authority here, as we find that in his ¢ Comparative

Dictionary of the Non-Aryan Languages,” Hunter puts pire:, for

moon, under the head of Ancient Tamil

The word, however, is

equally modern and ancient, and it means, not the moon itself, except

by poetic licence, but the waxing and waning moon, the crescent moon.

And to this the derivation of the word points.

The most natural

derivation is per, the root of pira, other, and pirar, to change.

The

meaning of pirer is doubtless ¢that which changes,” ¢the changing

phases of the moon.’

The word on which Mr Gover appears to place his chief dependence

is pagal, day, ¢the light time,” which he divides quite correctly into

pag, the root, and a/, a formative termination.

He might have quoted

the same word in all the Dravidian dialects, but he contents himself

with the Tuluva, and three Dravidian dialects of Central India

the

Madi, the Rutluk, and the Madia

evidently following Hunter herein.

If pag, the verbal root of this word pagal, day, really meant light, it

would be an interesting, if not a perfectly conclusive, argument in

favour of Mr Gover’s view.

And why should not this be its meaning ?

It is certainly very natural that the word for the day, as distinguished

i

from the night, should mean light; and it is natural also that a per-

son, finding light placed first in the list of meanings in most diction-

aries, should conclude that this was regarded by the authors of those

dictionaries as the root meaning of the word.

But however natural

these assumptions may be, they are mere assnmptions after all ; and

the second of the two, the assumption that Tamil dictionaries are

accustomed to place the root meaning first, and to follow this up by

derivative meanings in the order of their development, is notoriously

erroneous.

‘We are persuaded that the author of the “Chaturakaradi,”

the most classical Tamil dictionary, saw quite clearly that it was a pure

old form of verbal noun. He gives the form of the same verbal noun in

common use as an equivalent, and two other verbal nouns nearly equi-

valent ; and yet he places these words in the middle of the list of mean-

ings, instead of at the beginning. We shall adhere to his meanings, but

shall take the liberty of arranging them in the order in which he himself,

if he had studied the matter, must have supposed them to have been deve-

loped. The succession of meanings will be found to afford some interest-

ing examples of the association of ideas.

Pagal, verbal noun, from the

—

MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL.

533

)

1)

root pag-u, to divide: meanings—1, pagutial, ¢ division ;

~J’

“a divi:

sion ;’ 3, piridal, ¢ partition ;’ 4, pilattal, ¢ splitting,’ ¢ cleaving a thing

into two equal portions;’ 5, ¢middle,” the middle of anything being

the point where the division or cleavage takes place; 6, ¢the middle

pin of a yoke’ ¢a particular application of the new meaning ‘ middle’) ;

7

, ‘the middle of the day,” ¢ midday,” ‘ noon’ (another and more impor-

I

tant example of the same); 8, ¢the sun,” the cause of noonday bright-

15

ness; 9, ‘light; 10, ¢the whole period of daylight, the day, as

)i

distinguished from the night; 11, ¢the day,” inclusive of the night ;

]

12, ¢ time.’

That pagal meant, and still means, especially midday, is

Ll].

well illustrated by the fact that the phrase Pagaleikku mél (and the

16

0

corresponding Telugu phrase) means, not ¢ after the day is over,” but

simply ¢ afternoon.’

We see now that the root meaning of pagal is not light, as Mr Gover

06

supposed it to be, but division, and with this disappears every trace

0

of evidence from Dravidian sources in favour of the supposition that

’Ll

the Tamil péy was not so black as he has been painted, but was origin-

i

ally a bright being, a deity.

Mr Gover informs us that a hundred

I[7

other examples might be adduced in favour of this meaning of the

I

word péy ; but it is impossible, of course, for us to deal with them

10

until we know what they are.

It is evident that Mr Gover was dili-

i}

gently looking out all over India for words for light beginning with

J l

the letter p, and in this inquiry he appears to have found only a very

d

Of the seventeen South Indian words

little help in Dr Hunter’s lists.

1

for light given by Dr Hunter, none begin with a p, so none could be

I

made use of ; but amongst the twenty-one words for light contained in

N

the list of words belonging to the dialects of Central India, fortunately

ul

one word beginning with a p was found, and here it is.

“In another

i

dialect,” says Mr Gover, “ peymoro is the light.”

The Keikadi of Dr

16

Hunter’s lists is that other dialect.

There are two letters different in

0y

Dr Hunter.

He gives the word as paymaro, not as peymoro.

This

\‘\

makes the resemblance of the first syllable to the Tamil péy a little

by

more doubtful ; but apart from this, one would like to know the signi-

11

fication of the second portion of the word, and the literal meaning of

1l

the entire word.

It looks like a compound, and therefore requires

11,

LY

explanation.

One of our reasons for thinking so is that it resembles

il

so much a word for day (not light) in another Central Indian dialect, the

nt

u

Yerukala of Dr Hunter’s lists.

The word is given in two shapes, pam-

|

marw and panrgamar.

This word must surely be a compound ; and

Ve

if so, it is only when we come to know the real meaning of each part

of the compound that we shall be able to determine its ulterior relation-

Je

ship.

In this particular Dr Hunter’s lists of words cannot always be

534

APPENDIX

trusted

When the questioner does not know the langnage of the

person questioned, and the person questioned is equally ignorant of the

language of.the questioner, the result will sometimes be of an amusing

rather than a satisfactory nature

“It has always been easy,” Mr Gover says, “to change a god into a

devil

The last word used is an illustration, for devil is a clear deriv-

ative from deva, and is closely related to deity. That gods have ere

now been changed into devils is certain, of which perhaps the best

proof is the fact that the word deva, a god amongst the Sanskrit-

speaking race, denotes a demon amongst the monotheistical Zoroas-

trians

Mr Gover’s

illustration of this change is a remarkable, if not a

satisfactory one

He evidently considers the derivation of our English

devil—like that of the French diable, the Ttalian diavolo, and the Ger-

an teufel, from the dieConos of the Greek New Testament—as an old-

world theory which the advance of science has annihilated. As the

final / in devil keeps its place in all the European languages, we should

be tempted to advise Mr Gover to retain it, and then he would be ab

to give the word an interesting extension

Deval is the Hindustani

for a temple, and the name must denote, not the house of God, but a

place where devils are worshipped !

Mr Gover’s philology is used throughout to support his ethnology.

-

He considers it of great moral and political importance to prove that

the Dravidians are an Aryan, not a Scythian race

The Scythian

—

theory, he says, ““shuts up the doors of sympathy and fellow-feeling

between the Dravidian peoples and their English conquerors, and rele-

gates the former to that particular human race which is lowest in the

scale of humanity, and therefore farthest from their Aryan fellow

subjects

Whether the Scythic theory be ever refuted on philological

grounds or not, we think Mr Gover need not distress himself by attri-

buting to it such deplorable consequences

He quotes Dr Farrar’s

estimate of the Scythian or Turanian peoples, as if it corroborated his

own ; but the exceptions mentioned by Dr Farrar deprive his estimate

of the value it might otherwise have possessed.

The exceptions, he

says, are the Chinese, Finns, Magyars, and Turks.

He ought to hav

added the Japanese

This 1s an extraordinary mode of stating an

exception, though whether it is correctly attributed to Dr Farrar we

know not

It is as if he had said, the T

‘uranians belong to the lowest

strata of humanity, with the exception of nineteen-twentieths of their

number who occupy a very respectable position among the upper strata.

It may have been meant that whatever be said of the intellectual

advancement of certain Turanian peoples, yet in so far as their moral

nature is concerned, it is undeniable that all Turanians are inferior to

A

SUNDARA PANDYA.

535

6

all Aryans.

Even when thus limited, this statement is still far too

sweeping.

Few people consider the Turks morally inferior to the

[

modern Greeks, and no one would dream of placing the (Hungarian)

Magyars either morally or intellectually below the Roumanians or the

4

Croats.

Progress in civilisation depends not only on race, but also,

and perhaps in a still greater degree, on climate and external circum-

[¢

stances.

Moral development is profoundly affected by religion and

political history.

If the Gonds, the Khonds, and the other Dravidian

U

tribes of Central India are Aryans, as the civilised Dravidians are now

asserted to be, it is plain that Aryan blood alone is not all-sufficient,

and that isolation amongst forests and mountains makes Aryans some-

h

times look marvellously like Scythians.

Those ¢ Veddahs of Ceylon’

(in Tamil Védar, huntsmen), who are introduced as examples of Turan-

il

ian “imperfectibility,” are probably the Dravidian aborigines of the

16

island. According to Mr Gover, therefore, they must be Aryans,

On

d

the other hand, this discussion ceases to have any special importance

16

or significance, when Dr Caldwell’s Scythic theory is correctly appre-

hended.

If the Dravidian race separated from the great primitive

Il

!

Asian hordes before the final separation from the same hordes of the

Aryan tribes,—if we suppose it to have taken its origin at so high a

point as this in the stream of time,—it is evident that every attempt

to differentiate between Aryans and Turanians, in so far as the Dravi-

\l

1l

dians are concerned, may almost as well be abandoned.

In physiolo-

gical characteristics and capacity for intellectual and moral develop-

5‘

ment, the Dravidians are probably fit to be classified with the most

favoured race; and, being a primitive race themselves, it is of little

16

importance to what other primitive races we affiliate them.

i

T

t

SUNDARA PANDYA.

7

)l

TuaE following are the extracts from the Muhammedan historiang

referred to in the Introduction, with Colonel Yule’s remarks, and a

19

few additional particulars.

Passages from Polo’s contemporary, Rashiduddin, quoted in Sir H.

II

Elliot’s ¢ History of India” (new edition, p. 69).

“M’abar, from Kiilam to Sildwar (should be Nilawar = Nellore), extends

il

300 parasangs along the shore

The king is called Dewar, which

il

means in the M’abar language ¢ the Lord of wealth.”. ... Within the

036

APPENDIX.

last few years (written towards 1300) Sundar Bandi was Dewar, who,

with his three brothers, obtained power in different directions, and

Malik al-Taki-uddin, brother of Shaikh Jumaluddin, was his minister

and adviser, to whom he assigned the government of Fatan, Malefatan,

and Bawal (read Kéil as it is in some MSS.)” Here, says Colonel Yule,

we have Polo’s Senderbandi Dewar and his brothers.

Moreover, in

Yamusio’s edition of Polo, the brother princes are not five, but four, as

i}l Rashid. .. .

. “In the year 692 a.H. (A.D. 1293) the Dewar died,

and his wealth and possessions fell into the hands of his adversaries

and opponents, and Shaik Jumaluddin, who succeeded him, obtained, it

is said, an accession of 700 bullock-loads of jewels,” &c

The Persian history of Wassaf has some particulars the same and some

The third volume of the new edition of Elliot contains some

differing.

of those passages from Wassaf, which Von Hammer embodies in his

¢ History of the Ilkhans of Persia.’

It is plain from these that Rashid-

uddin copied from Wassaf, or vice versd.

“ Mabar is the coast which

stretches from the Persian Sea, through a length of 300 farsangs, to

Nilawar.

Its princes are called Diwar or Lord.”

He then gives

exactly the same account of Sundar Bandi being Dewar of M’abar and

dying in A.H. 692 (A.p. 1293) as that given by Rashiduddin.

There

is a difference only as to his successor.

Instead of making the Muham-

medan Jumaluddin succeed, Elliot’s translation from Wassaf ran, Tt

is related by Malik 4l Islam Jumaluddin that out of that treasure (left

by Sundar Bandi) 7000 oxen, laden with precious stones and pure

gold and silver fell to the share of the brother who succeeded him.”

At a later date we have the following :—

S

‘ Kales Dewar, the ruler of M’abar, enjoyed a highly prosperous life,

extending to forty and odd years, during which time neither any foreign

enemy entered his country, nor any severe malady confined him to bed.

His coffers were 1‘eplete with wealth, insomuch that in the treasury of

the city of Mardi [this is what Von Hammer has as Shahrmandi=

Shahrpandi = the city of the PAndi, Madura] there were 1200 crowns

of gold, &ec., &e.

This fortunate and happy sovereign had two sons,

the elder named Sundar Pandi, who was legitimate, his mother being

joined to the Dewar by lawful marriage, and the younger named Tira

Pandi [Pirebendi of Von Hammer = Vira Pandi 1], was illegitimate. . .

As Tira Pandi was remarkable for his shrewdness and intrepidity, the

ruler nominated him as his successor.

His brother, Sundar Pandi,

being enraged at this supercession, killed his father in a moment of

rashness and undutifulness, towards the close of the year a.H. 709

(1310 A.p.), and placed the crown on his head in the city of Mardi

[Madurei is often mispronounced by the vulgar Marudei], and

o

Y

SUNDARA PANDYA

DO

0

induced the troops who were there to support his interests, and con-

i

veyed some of the royal treasures which were deposited there to the

WL

.

.

.

Upon this his

city of Mank@il (Menkpu in Von Hammer)

\l

brother Tira Pandi, being resolved on avencing his father’s blood, fol-

e

lowed to give him battle, and on the margin of a lake which in their

Il

language they

all Talachi (Ham

Telaji), the opponents came to

(]

action. . . . . Tira Pandi, wounded, fell into the hands of the enemy

l,

Manar Barmul (Ham

Permel), the son of the daughter of

165

Kales Dewar, who espoused the cause of Tira Pandi, being at that

I

time at Kardmhatti, near Kaltl [Von Hammer, Kiramjetti, in the

country of Kail], sent him assistance both in men and money, which

me

was attended with a most fortunate result

Sundar Pandi . . . at last

il

met with the chastisement due to his inoratitude ;: for in the middle

hi

of the year A.H

10 (a.p. 1310) Tira Pandi, having collected an army,

il

advanced to oppose him ; and Sundar Pandi, trembling and alarmed

ich

fled from his native country, and took refuge under the

protection of

{0

Alauddin of Delhi, and Tira Pandi became firmly established in his

s

hereditary kingdom

Colonel Yule remarks—¢ This Sundar Pandi

1s quite different from the man of four brethren

first, because the

nd

16

latter had been dead eighteen years before this escape to Delhi

second,—but no more reasons seem wanted after that!

The notion

il

It

that floats in my mind is that the real kings of Madura were Kales

el

and his sons Sundar and Tira Pandi, and that \Iqrco Polo’s Sender

Bandi, Asciar, and brethren, were a separate family, probably of adven-

e

turers, who had got possession of the coast country, and perhaps paid

some nominal homage to Madura.

But then Kales’s name oucht to be

118,

in the Madura lists as predecessor of Sundara Pandi.”

With reference to the Kales Dewar of Wassaf, circa 1309-10, 1t is

1011

deserving of notice that according to the Singhalese records the Pandyan

il

kino at that time was called Kulagékhara

and that this was a different

701

Ii=

Kulagékhara from the one already mentioned in the Introduction ap-

I

pears from the fact that he is represented, not as being conquered by the

Singhalese, but as carrying the war into the Singhalese territory. Bhu-

013,

wneka Bahu the first, as I am informed by Mr Rhys Davids, began

!

g

to reign in A.D. 1303, and died in 1314 ;

and at the end of his reign

[ir

)

Agachakmv‘utl, in command of an army sent by the Pandyan king

Kulasékhara, took the capital of Ceylon and carried off the celebrated

the

tooth-relic

The names of Sundara and Vira are not mentioned by the

iy

Sinchalese narratives in connection with this Kulasékhara

I hav

!

many inscriptions in my possession relating to the reign of Kula

70

khara, but as none of them contains any date, except the year of the

aldl

king’s reign, I am unable to determine when he lived, or whether there

aud

Hd

APPENDIX.

were one or two of the name.

From the tenor of the inscriptions it is

my impression that they all refer to one and the same person, and

probably the second king of the name, rather than the first.

1 have

al

—

two inscriptions of one Vira Pandya ; but this Vira could not have

1l

been the Vira represented by the Muhammedan historians as Sundara’s

o

brother and rival, er by the Singhalese annalists as his rival, for these

i

inscriptions, unlike his, are dated, and according to them the date of

all

this Vira Pandya’s accession was A.D. 1437.

The discrepancy be-

K

tween Rashiduddin’s statement that the Sundar Pandi, who died in

\if

A.D. 1293, was succeeded by his Muhammedan minister, and Wassaf’s

ot

statement that he was succeeded by his brother, is not a very serious

K

one.

Both statements may have been in a measure true.

There 1s a

I

discrepancy, however, in Wassaf’s own account of his two Sundars

Tl

which seems to me at present irreconcilable.

According to him, as to

i

Rashiduddin, Sundar Pandi, the Dewar of M’abar, died in A.D. 1293,

Ul

the year after Marco Polo’s visit; yet Kales, the father of the other

(ie

Sundar Pandi and Tira Pandi, who was murdered by Sundar in A.D.

(s

4]

1310, had been Dewar of M’abar for forty and odd years, and during

i

the whole of that time had enjoyed unexampled peace and prosperity !

il

Wassaf here seems somehow to have misapprehended his authorities,

for he provides no room for his first Sundar during Kales’s long

I

reign.

After the above was written, an interesting extract from the Sin-

il

ghalese historical records, regarding the invasion of Kulasékhara’s

¥

territory by the Singhalese, was published in the Journal of the Asiatic

1]

Society of Bengal, No. 2,1872, by Mr T, W. Rhys Davids, then district

(0

judge, Anurddhipfra, Ceylon, an eminent Singhalese scholar,

This

y

extract is too long to give here in extenso, but the substance of it is as

d

follows :—

The Pandu king Parfkrama, of the city of Madura, became terrified

?

by the army with which King Kula$ékhara was preparing to attack

§

him, and sent ambassadors to the great king of Ceylon, Pardkrama

h

Bahu, to supplicate his help. Before anything could be done, Kula-

g

$ékhara, the king, had surrounded Madura with a large army, and

taken prisoner the PAndu king and his army. On hearing this, Pard-

)\

krama Béahu, the great king, sent his general, Lankéarapura, with a

§

great army, filling several hundred ships, with orders to slay Kulaseé-

khara, and establish in that kingdom some ene who came of the stock

)

of the kings of Pandu.

This general with his army landed at a place

W

called Lagsilla, and there defeated the army of a Tamil named Arak.

The rulers of five districts then came up with an army, and after a

fierce fight were defeated. Other six rulers with their forces joined the

\

T

o

SUNDARA PANDYA.

589

1§

five, but they also were overthrown.

Then, at the order of Pardkrama

I

Bahu, the general set up a pillar of victory at a place near Radméswara,

A5

‘Whilst he was

and formed a town called Pardkrama, where he lived.

\

there Kulasékhara sent Sundara, the Pdndw king, with many council-

)

lors, to attack him, but the Singhalese general beat them in three

(s

pitched battles. He then fought several battles with Alawan4 Perumél

10f

and other chiefs, and took various countries, villages, and towns.

be:

Kulasékhara then entered on a campaign in the Kandaya district, but

i

was defeated, and was obliged to take refuge, with his warriors, in a

s

city which they barricaded.

The Singhalese, however, broke in, and

OIS

Kulasékhara escaped through a gate in disguise.

Thereupon the Sing-

D

k}

halese celebrated a festival of victory, and made Vira Pdndu king

15

with great ceremony.

The narrative then goes on to relate how Kula-

0

$€khara, after his flight in disguise, fortified himself in the stronghold

}

of Tondaméana, and afterwards sallying thence retook Kandayaru,

het

defeating two of Lankarapura’s lieutenants, and how Lankarapura again

LD

defeated him, re-established peace, and confirmed Vira PAndu on the

throne, restoring the banished Tamil nobles to their lands, and anoint-

ng

1y

ing Vira Pandu in the city of Madura.

168

We find here again the very same three names that appear in the

ong

Muhammedan histories—Kales (doubtless Kulagékhara), Sundara, and

Vira : and both narratives, though differing in other particulars, agree

ik

in leaving Vira on the throne.

The dates differ very considerably.

Pardkrama Béhu the Great, king of Ceylon, ascended the throne in

[49

1153 A.p., and died in 1186.

His expedition against the Pandyan

country appears to have commenced in 1173 ; whilst Wassaf represents

1ich

Vira Pandi as finally triumphing over his brother Sundara, the mur-

s

derer of their father Kales, in 1310 A.D.

It is difficult to suppose that

there were two trios of contemporary Madura princes, named severally

mtd

Kulagékhara, Sundara, and Vira, the latter two of whom were on oppo-

site sides; and if there were only one such trio, it follows that either

[aca

the Singhalese or the Muhammedan narrators—(surely not the Sin-

Al

ghalese, who are remarkably trustworthy)—must have fallen into a

([

chronological error of more than a hundred years, The Sundara of the

[

ant

Singhalese narrative presents few or no points of resemblance to the

i

]

§

Sundara of the inscriptions and the Saiva revival, the last sovereign of

the old Pandya line ; but so far as appears at present, there is no insu-

El

.t‘i

perable difficulty in the way of identifying this more eminent Sundara

{008

with the first Sundara of the Muhammedan historians, who died in

[W

1293, and the Sender of Marco Polo, who was alive 1292,

|15

According to the Muhammedan historians the flight to Delhi of

(18

Sundara, the murderer of Kulaéékhara, led to the invasion of the

he

040

APPENDIX,

Madura country by Malik Kaffr.

I avail myself again of Colonel Yule's

te

zindness.

Additional statement by Wassaf, not given in the printed

N

extracts.

“In the last year but one of Alauddin’s reign (a.p. 1315),

aa

he sent his general Hazirdindri (altas Malik Kaftr), with four lakhs

h

of men, to conquer M’abar.

The Raja of M’abar hid himself in the

Hi

jungles.

The booty was tremendous ; 700 elephants, and gold to such

it

extent that every soldier had 25 Ibs.!

The farmer-general, Sura-

§0

juddin, desired to place his treasure in security (and was plundered,

0

whereupon he took poison).

. . The son, Malik Nizamuddin, betook

§6§

himself to the court of Alauddin to complain of this robbery, and

Th

obtained, with the restoration of a part of his property, the administra-

By

tion of the finances, which had been entrusted to his grandfather

1l

Jumaluddin Et Thaibi, and his father Surajuddin.”

According to

!

0

Ferishta, Malik Kafir conquered M’abar as far south as Rame-

¢

shwar, or Adam’s Bridge, opposite Ceylon, where he built a mosque.

th

M’abar was regarded by Ferishta as a portion of the Belala king-

dom of Dwarasamudra.

Tbn Batuta, who appears to have visited

J i

10

Madura in A.p. 1348-9, found the country still under Muhammedan

10

rule.

The Pandya kings after a time got the better of the Muham-

i

medan intruders and resumed their ancient sway, but I am unable to

i

fix the date.

The earliest dated inscription of this second line of

4

Pandyas in my possession is ﬂlat of Vira Pandya in A.p. 1437.

Ul

e

fl

IV.

t

ARE THE PARIARS (PAREIYAS) OF SOUTHERN INDIA

d

DRAVIDIANS ?

§

d

It has been commonly supposed by Anglo-Indians, that certain tribes

and castes inhabiting Southern India, especially the Pareiyas, Pallas,

Puleiyas, and similar tribes, belong to a different race from the mass of

the inhabitants. The higher castes are styled Hindds, or else Tamilians,

%D

Malayalis, &e., according to their language and nation; but those

names are withheld from some of the ruder and more primitive tribes,

and from the Pareiyas and other agricultural slaves.

As this supposi-

i

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 to

i

inquire whether, and to what extent, this opinion may be regarded as

correct.

2

ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRA.VIDIANS? 541

It is necessary here to premise some remarks on the meaning of the

ule"%

term Hindd.

This term is used in India in a variety of ways, but its

nted

)i

most common, as well as its best authorised meaning, is that of an

It is true that

lhl] )

adherent of the system of religion called HindGism,

L {he

this use of the term is liable to serious objection, inasmuch as the term

Hindt originally meant, and ought still to mean, an Indian—an inha-

o

bitant of India—irrespective of the religion to which he belonged.

It

Miie}

seems hardly fair to use a term which in itself has not a theological,

ered

il

cfo0k

00

but a geographical meaning, to denote the adherents of one out of

several religions which prevail in the region to which the term applies.

all

all

There is no such inconsistency pertaining to the use of the terms

Il

I

Buddhist, Jaina, Muhammedan, or Christian,

Notwithstanding this,

mhﬂ

in consequence of the difficulty of finding any other convenient term

¢ W

to denote the followers of the Brahmanical religion, or the religion of

il

the Vedas and Purinas, and also in consequence of the followers of

LG

this religion forming the great majority of the inhabitants of India,

king

people have been led to adopt the national name as a term of religious

810

Il

nomenclature.

This meaning has been made authoritative by its use

nedal

in official documents, and by a decision of one of the courts, to the

han:

effect that the term Hindfs, as used in the ¢ Indian Succession Act,’ is

e 0

meant to denote the adherents of the religion called Hinddism, in con-

e 0f

sequence of which Indian.Christians are declared not to be Hind(s in

the meaning of the Act.

This being the case, it seems to have become

desirable that the term Hind@ should now cease to be used in any

other sense.

Consistency in the use of terms is of more importance

than accuracy of etymology.

It may, therefore, be admitted—using

the word in this sense—that the Tudas, the Khonds, and many of the

Gonds are not Hindfis, and also that some of the predatory wandering

tribes are probably not Hindls ; though, geographically, they have all

JE

as much right to the name of Hindf as the Brahmans themselves.

In

some of these cases, however, it would be safer to say merely that such

As for the

and such classes are not regarded as orthodox Hindds.

pfr I

Pareiyas and the lower castes generally in the more civilised districts

PH

of the country, they are Hindlis by religion, like the rest of the com-

munity.

The Brahmans and the Pareiyas equally worship Siva and

il

The differences between

1

Vishnu, and therefore are equally Hindfis.

i U

them pertain to caste, not to religion.

) tr}";

Many persons, especially in Northern India, have been accustomed

g 11\')

(0

to use the term Hind@ as synonymous with Aryan.

They call the

el

i

Brahmans and the higher castes of Northern India Hindds, but with-

)\l

hold the name from the aboriginal races.

This seems an improper use

[ Jl@

et ®

of words, inasmuch as it denationalises not only the low-caste inhabi-

54

5

~

APPENDIX.

tants of the northern provinces and the rude forest tribes of Central

India, but also the whole of the Dravidian inhabitants of 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 Vaidik name of India, as far as India was at that time

!

known—before the arrival of the Aryans, and that they have therefore

|

To

a better claim to be called Hind-Gs than the Aryans themselves.

{

deprive the Dravidians and other primitive races of the name of Hindd,

seems 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

f

descendants of Norman families.

()

Some again mix the two meanings—the religious and the ethnological

I

—together, and thus, as it appears to me, produce inextricable confusion.

Thus Mr Beames, in a note to the Introduction to his ¢ Comparative

(I

W

Grammar of the Aryan Vernaculars of Northern India,” p. 39, says,

I

« For the information of readers in Europe it may be necessary to

J

explain that the word Hind iy always used in India as a religious

0l

term, denoting those Aryans who still adhere to the Brahmanical

e

faith, and who in most parts of India constitute the majority of the

Ii

population.”

I should have considered this definition perfectly correct

if the word Aryans had been omitted ; but as it stands, it either

¢

includes Dravidians amongst Aryans, contrary, I believe, to Mr

i

I¢

Beames’s own opinion, or it refuses the name of Hind to those

Dravidians in Madras and elsewhere, who consider themselves, and are

(G

generally considered by others, amongst the most orthodox and zealous

il

Hindfs in India.

In Southern India, Dravidians are invariably called

Hindtis in public documents; and the University of Madras divides

candidates for its honours amongst the Hind community into two

classes only, Brahmans and ¢ other Hindds ;’ by the term, other Hindas,

denoting all persons ‘not Brahmans’ who are adherents of the Hinda

Notwithstanding this, in Southern India itself the term

religion.

Hindd has sometimes been restricted to the higher castes, and denied

§

to the Pareiyas and other castes supposed to hold an inferior place in

the social system.

In this classification the term high-caste, without

distinction of Aryan or Dravidian, occupies the place of the word

This restriction of the name of

Aryan in Mr Beames’s definition.

%

Hindd to those of the higher castes who adhere to the Brahmanical

€

religion prevails chiefly, as might be expected, amongst persons who

belong to the higher castes themselves, but Europeans have sometimes

fallen into the same style of expression.

For instance, in regard to

§

the Shanérs, a tribe in Tinnevelly, a considerable proportion of the

members of which have become Christians, it has sometimes been said

ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 543

it}

by Europeans that they are ‘not Hindfis.” This style of expression is

dl

)

owing, I believe, to a misapprehension, inasmuch as the ShanArs, in

their original condition, before their reception of Christianity, were

CYel

adherents of the ordinary Hindf religion, though generally it was a

t

ul]

I3

low type of that religion which they followed. They were certainly not

B10te

Aryans, except on the supposition that all Dravidians are Aryans, but

in this respect they were only in the same predicament as the rest of

To

i,

the Tamil castes, whether higher or lower. The practice of demonolatry

A0

does not make a man cease to be a Hindf by religion, the demonolatry

0 tE

of the aborigines having been incorporated with the worship of Rudra

from very early, if not even from Vaidik times.

The greater number

of the Buddhists in Ceylon ate demonolaters—the origin of demono-

Jai

al

latry in Ceylon and India being no doubt the same ; yet, though

[41IV6

demonolatry is further removed from Buddhism than from Hindtism,

Qa8

we do not think of saying that the Singhalese are not Buddhists.

WL

There is an element of recognised demonism in the Saivism of every

\

part of India, in some places more, in others less.

It is a question

only of less or more ; and the adherents of the more, as well as of the

M.mc‘1

less are Hind{s.

)1 ILe

The notion that the Shanirs are not Hindds is a

notion unknown to the Hind(is themselves.

OITEC

By the Hind{s they are

rm[‘

regarded as simply one caste out of many.

We must now, however,

bring this digression to an end, and resume our inquiry respecting the

o M

relationship of the Pareiyas.

those

A

[

¢

(L Al

The Pareiyas (called in Telugu Malav

uidlu = Malas) are not the only

pal0ws

0l

caste or class of people in the Dravidian parts of India, who are com-

monly regarded as outcasts, nor are they the lowest or most degraded

CaLtU

of those classes ; but partly because they are the most numerous servile

vie

tribe (their numbers amounting in some places to so much as a fifth of

t0 i

[

-

the population), and partly because they are more frequently brought

into contact with Europeans than any similar class, in consequence of

Hinad

the majority of the domestic servants of Europeans throughout the

0 ttm

Madras Presidency being Pareiyas, they have come to be regarded by

(16N

some persons as the low-caste race of Southern India.

Hence, besides

10

p Il

ot

the above-mentioned discrepancies in the application of the name Hindq,

Wl

there are various errors afloat respecting the origin of the Pareiyas and

o \\UT“

their position in the caste scale, which require to be noticed before

| 111}6 ‘

entering on the question now to be discussed, ¢ Are the Pareiyas Dra-

mal

o

vidians %’

s v

10

Europeans were generally led to suppose, on their arrival in India

pefin®

several generations ago, that the Pareiyas were either the i

legitimate

gu

offspring of adulterous intercourse, or were persons who had been

excluded from caste for their crimes.

o

This notion appears to have

) S

I

o

: g

¢

044

APPENDIX,

.

been invented and propagated by the Brahmans and the higher castes,

and must have originated, in part, in their wish to justify their exclu-

sive, unsocial behaviour towards the Pareiyas, on principles which they

supposed that Europeans would approve.

In part, also, it may have

originated in an error arising from the uncritical habit of the Hindl

mind—viz., the error of transferring to Southern India and to the

Dravidian tribes, the fictions which were devised in Northern India to

account for the origin of the new eastes, or so called mixed classes, of

the North.

Those northern castes or classes seem to have come into

being through the operation of two causes; first, through the sub-

division of the original castes of Vaidyas and servile or Stdra Aryans,

in accordance with the progressive subdivision of labour ; and secondly,

through the introduction of one aboriginal tribe after another within

1

the pale of Aryan civilisation, as the religion and civil polity of the

Sanskrit-speaking race spread throughout the country, and as the

primitive inhabitants were transformed from Dasyus, Nishadas, and

Tn Manu and similar S4stras, no mention is

Mlechchas, into Stadras.

made of either of these causes ; but the new or mixed castes are attri-

The more

buted exclusively to fictitious mixtures of the older castes.

respectable of the new castes are attributed to the legal intermarriage

of persons belonging to different castes of recognised respectability ;

t

another and inferior set of castes are attributed to the adulterous

intercourse of persons of equal respectability, but of different caste, or

fi

of high-caste men with low-caste women ; whilst the lowest castes of

§

all are represented to have sprung from the adulterous intercourse of

f

high-caste women with low-caste 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

of the origin of the castes of Northern India (and I think it most

probably a fiction throughout), it may confidently be affirmed that the

The only ‘mixed caste’ known

Dravidian castes had no such origin.

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

|

out of wedlock, if there is no great disparity in rank or caste between

the parents, the rule is that the caste of the child is that of the less

‘Where

honourable of the two castes to which its parents belong.

%

‘s

considerable disparity exists, and where the dereliction 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 formed an intimacy

i

®e

h\v

i

b

"

’

P

i

|

AﬁE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DVR.A\}IDIANS? 045

with a\ Pareiya man, neither the caste of the father nor any other caste

has much chance of being recruited or polluted by the addition of the

e

woman’s illegitimate offspring.

The child rarely sees the light; the

mother either procures an abortion or commits suicide.

To suppose,

Il

therefore, as Europeans have sometimes been led to suppose, that the

entire caste of Pareiyas (including its subdivisions, and the ¢left hand’

W0

castes corresponding to it) has come into existence in the surreptitious

I

manner described above, or that it is composed of persons who have

been excluded from caste for their erimes, is a baseless dream, which

I

seems too preposterous for serious refutation.

Though it is probable

that it was from the statements of natives that the Anglo-Indian com-

munity originally derived: this notion, yet I never met with any

i

natives, learned or unlearned, by whom the notion appeared to be

the

entertained ; and the Pareiyas themselves, who regard their lowly caste

LU

ha

with feelings of pride and affection, which are very different from what

i

might be expected of them, would resent this representation of their

origin, if they had ever heard of it, with indignation.

] ivs

it

Anglo-Indians who are not acquainted with the vernacular lan-

1016

%

guages, often designate Pareiyas as outcasts, as persons who are

i

It is true

without caste, or as persons who have no caste to lose.

1)

that the Pareiya servants of Europeans will sometimes vaunt that they

it}

belong to ‘master’s caste ;” and some masters are said to have found

OF

to their cost that their Pareiya servants practise no scrupulous, super-

s of

stitious distinctions respecting meats and drinks.

Notwithstanding

) (1

this, to suppose that the Pareiyas have literally no caste, is undoubt-

Hit

Luv

edly an error.

The Pareiyas constitute a well-defined, distinct, ancient

I

I

caste, independent of every other; and the Pareiya caste has sub-

divisions of its own, its own peculiar usages, its own traditions, and

fin

its own jealousy of the encroachments of the castes which are above

it and below it.

oSt

They constitute, perhaps, the most numerous caste

in the Tamil country.

fne

In the city of Madras they number twenty-one

0l

per cent. of the Hindu population ; the Vellalaps, who come next to

them, numbering fourteen per cent.

Though the Pareiyas themselves

14

o

arp

will admit that they belong—or, as they would prefer to say, that

Iy

they belong at present—to the lowest division of castes, and are not

hom

fabled to have sprung from even the least noble part of Brahma ;

yeek

nevertheless, they are not the lowest of the castes comprised in thig

¥

lowest division.

I am acquainted with several castes in various

parts

et

of the Tamil country, which are considered lower than the P

arelyas in

U

the social scale ;

and in this enumeration I do not include the P

allas,

rel

a caste between whom and the Pareiyas there is

an unsettled dispute

jity

respecting precedence. The treatment which the Pareiyas receive from

2u

%

T

b

046

APPENDIX.

the castes above them, is doubtless unjust and indefensible ; but it is

FoRp——

not generally known by those Kuropeans who sympathise in the

wrongs of the Pareiyas, that, whenever they have an opportunity, the

Pareiyas deal out the very same treatment to the members of castes

which are inferior to their own—e.q., the caste of shoemakers, and the

lowest caste of washermen ; that they are, equally with the higher

’E

castes, filled with that compound of pride of birth, exclusiveness, and

ll

jealousy, called ‘caste feeling;’ and that there is no contest for pre-

cedence amongst the higher castes of longer standing, or of a more

bitter character, than that which is carried on between the Pareiyas

}

and the Pallas.

In the insane dispute about pre-eminence, which is

1l

always being carried on in Southern India between the ‘right hand’

and the ¢left hand’ castes, the Pareiyas range themselves on the right

0

hand, the Pallas on the left ; and it is chiefly by these two castes that

the fighting part of the controversy is carried on. -Now that Europeans

1

are better acquainted with Indian affairs, the theory of the illegitimate

0

origin of the Pareiyas is more rarely found to be entertained ; and, as

the study of the native languages extends, the supposition that they

¥

are outcasts, or that they have no caste, will soon disappear likewise.

)

The question before us having been cleared of popular errors and

extraneous matter, we now come to the consideration of that question

itself.

Are the Pareiyas Dravidians ? Are the forest tribes, the lower

f

castes, and the so-called ‘outcasts,’ that speak the Dravidian lan-

guages, especially the Tamil Pariahs (properly Pareiyas), the Telugu

Mélas, and the MalayAlam Puleiyas (who may be taken as the repre-

sentatives of the class), of the same origin and of the same race as the

Dravidians of the higher castes?

Whilst both classes have a right

to be called Hindus, are the higher castes alone Dravidians, Tamilians,

Malayélis, &c.? and are the Pareiyas and people of similar castes to

be regarded as belonging to a different race ?

On the whole, T think it more probable that the Pareiyas are Dra-

vidians ; nevertheless, the supposition that they belong to a different

race, that they are descended from the true aborigines of the country

—a race ‘older than the Dravidians themselves—and that they were

reduced by the first Dravidians to servitude, is not destitute of proba-

bility. It may be conceived that as the Aryans were preceded by the

Dravidians, so the Dravidians may have been preceded by an older,

ruder, and perhaps blacker race, of whom the Doms and other Chan-

dalas of Northern India, and

the Pareiyas, and other low tribes of the

Peninsula, are the surviving

representatives.

If this primitive race

existed prior to the arrival

of the Dravidians, it would naturally

happen that some of them would take refuge from the intruders in

e

*

P

ARE THE PAREIVAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 54/

1§

mountain fastnesses énd pestilential jungles—Ilike the Rajis or Doms

the

of the Himalayas, the Weddas of Ceylon, and the Mala-(y)-aragers of

the

the Southern Ghauts; whilst others, probably the majority of the

165

race, would be reduced to perpetual servitude, like the Pareiyas,

{he

Puleiyas, and Pallas.

The history of the subjection of the Pre-Aryan

hor

Sudras of Northern India, would thus form the counterpart and sup-

il

Though,

plement of the history of the subjection of a still older race.

iy

however, all this may be conceived to be possible, and though there

J0re

may not be any ¢ priors improbability in it, it is more to the purpose

Va3

to state such circumstances and ponsiderations as appear to be adducible

llb

in its support.

de 4

(1.) The Pareiyas, the Pallas, the Puleiyas, and several other low-

5

[

caste tribes, are generally slaves to the higher castes, and most of them

hat

appear always to have been in an enslaved condition ; and it is more

als

natural to suppose that they were reduced to a servile condition by

1ate

conquest, than to suppose that entire tribes were enslaved by the

&

operation of ordinary social causes.

If, then, the castes referred to

hey

were a subjugated people, they must have settled in the country at

any earlier period than their conquerors, and probably belonged to a

aud

different race.

100

(2.) The low-caste inhabitants of Southern India are distinguished

fier

from the entire circle of the higher castes by clear, unmistakable marks

Jal

of social helotry. The title of ‘sidra,” which has generally been

il

assumed by the higher castes, or which was conferred upon them by

Pl‘e

the Brahmans, is withheld from the low-caste tribes; they are not

the

allowed to enter within the precincts of the temples of the Dii majorum

ght

gentium ; and wherever old Hindu usages survive unchecked, as in the

Il

native protected states of Travancore and Cochin, the women belong-

{0

ing to those castes are prohibited (or were, till lately) from wearing

their ‘cloth’ over their shoulders, and obliged to leave the entire bust

)

uncovered, in token of social inferiority.

It may be argued, that

broadly marked class distinctions like the above-mentioned, which

el

iy

separate the people of ten or twenty different castes or tribes from

jelo

the rest of the population, are incompatible with the supposition of an

original identity of race.

hie

il

(3.) There are various traditions current amongst the Pareiyas to

fer,

the effect that the position which their caste occupied in native society

at some former period was very different from what it is now, and

il

i

much more honourable.

Wilks observes that there is a tradition that

-

00

the Canarese Pareiyas were once an independent people, with kings of

their own.

The Tamil Pareiyas sometimes boast that at an ancient

Iy

il

period, theirs was the most distinguished caste in the country.

They

H48

APPENDIX,

say that they were reduced to their present position, as a punishment

for the haughty behaviour of their ancestors to some ancient king ; on

which occasion the Vellalas, or caste of cultivators, who are now

called Tamirar, or Tamilians, par excellence, were raised to the place

There is a similar

which had previously been occupied by themselves.

tradition that the Korawars, or gipsy basket makers, were once kings

of the hill country in the south.

(4.) In various parts of the country Pareiyas and members of similar

castes enjoy peculiar privileges, especially at religious festivals,

Thus,

at the annual festival of E/'g(?ftdl, the only mother—a form of Kali,

and the tutelary goddess of the ¢ Black town’ of Madras— when a tdls,

or bridal necklace (answering to our wedding-ring), was tied round the

neck of the idol in the name of the entire community, a Pareiya used

to be chosen to represent the people as the goddess’s bridegroom.

Similar privileges are clamed by Pareiyas in other parts of the country,

especially at the worship of divinities of the inferior class, such as the

village ammas, or mothers, and the guardians of boundaries ; and these

peculiar rights, which are conceded to them by the higher castes, may

be supposed to amount to an acknowledgment of their ancient import-

ance ; like the privileges claimed at the coronation of Rajput princes

by the Bhills, a northern race of aborigines.

It has always been the

policy of Hindu rulers to confer a few empty privileges upon injured

races as a cheap compensation for injuries; and it has generally been

found, where an inquiry has been made, that such privileges possess an

historical signification.

Mr Walhouse, in an article entitled ‘ Archee-

ological Notes,” in the Bombay Antiquary for July 1874, adds a few

“ At Melkotta,

instances of the privileges enjoyed by the lower castes.

the chief seat of the followers of RAméanuja Achérya, and at the Brah-

man temple at Bailur, the Holeyars or Pareyars have the right of enter-

ing the temple on three days in the year, specially set apart for them,

In the great festival of Siva at Trivalfir, in Tanjor, the head man of the

Pareyars is mounted on the elephant with the god, and carries his

chaure.

In Madras, too” [in addition to the custom mentioned above

by myself], ¢ the mercantile caste, and in Vizagapatam the Brahmans,

had to go through the form of asking the consent of the lowest castes

to their marriages, though the custom has now died out.”

The prin-

ciple underlying these customs is thus explained :—¢ It is well known,”

he says, “ that the servile castes in Southern India once held far higher

positions, and were indeed masters of the land on the arrival of the

Brahmanical races.

Many curious vestiges of their ancient power still

survive in the shape of certain privileges, which are jealously cherished

These

and, their origin being forgotten, are much misunderstood.

ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 549

1\

on

privileges are remarkable instances of survivals from an extinct order

0w

of society—shadows of a long-departed supremacy, bearing witness to

0

a period when the present haughty high-caste races were suppliants

it

before the ancestors of degraded classes whose touch is now regarded

1%

as pollution.”

(5.) The strongest argument which can be adduced in support of the

st

Pre-Dravidian origin of the Pareiyas and similar castes, consists in the

1

circumstance that the national name of Tamilians, Malayalas, Kan-

nadis, &c., is withheld from them by the usus loguendi of the Dravidian

i

languages, and conferred exclusively upon the higher castes. When a

ih,

person is called a Tamiran, or Tamilian, it is meant that he is neither a

the

sod

Brahman, nor a member of any of the inferior castes, but a Dravidian

Stdra.

)il

The name is understood to denote, not the language which is

spoken by the person referred to; but the nation to which he belongs ;

1,

the

and as the lower castes are never denoted by this national name, it

£se

would seem to be implied that they do not belong to the nation,

though they speak its language, but belong, like the Tamil-speaking

14y

Brahmans and Muhammedans, to a different race.

it

I may here mention an argument occasionally urged in support of

068

the same view of the case, which is founded, I believe, upon an error.

he

It has been said that the name Pareiya, or Pariah, is synonymous with

ol

e

that of the Pah&rias (from pakdr, a hill), a race of mountaineers, pro-

an

perly called Malers, inhabiting the Réajmahal Hills, in Bengal ; and

hence it is argued that the Pareiyas may be considered, like the Paha-

g

rias, as a race of Non-Aryan, Non-Dravidian aborigines.

It is an

(4l

error, however, to suppose that there is any connection between those

1,

two names.

The word Pariah, properly Pareiya, denotes not a moun-

it

taineer, but a drummer, a word regularly derived from paret, a drum,

(i

especially the great drum used at funerals.

The name Pareiya is, in

il

fact, the name of a hereditary occupation, the Pareiyas being the class

@é

of people who are generally employed at festivals, and especially at

i

funerals, as drummers.

It is true that their numbers are now so great

)4

that many of them are never so employed, and that the only employ-

18,

ment of the great majority is that of agricultural labourers; but when-

fes

ever and wherever the din of the parei happens to be heard we may be

il

As

assured that a Pareiya is the person who is engaged in beating it.

Iy

the whole caste, though perhaps the most numerous in the circle of the

bt

low-castes, is denominated by this name, it appears probable that ori-

the

ginally drumming was their principal employment.

il

The origin of the term Mdla, applied to the Telugu Pareiyas, is

uncertain.

ol

M@l means black in Tamil, but the corresponding word in

A

Telugu is not mdl, but nalla.

The Puranas speak of a tribe of bar-

50

APPENDIX,

barians called Malas, but their location has been considered doubtful.

1 should be inclined to identify the Puranic name with that of the

Malers, the primitive hill people of the Rajmahal: hills; it seems

hazardous, however, to attribute the same origin to the name of the

Mr C. P. Brown suggests, but does not adopt, the

Telugu Pareiyas.

derivation of the name from the Telugu verb mdl-uta, to be without

the meaning deducible from which, ¢ the destitute,” would seem to suit

the circumstances of the case.

The name of the Malayilam, Pula yar

(Tam. Puleiyar), is derived from pula, flesh, pollution ; but the ulti-

The caste which is considered the

mate root seems to be pul, little.

lowest in the Malayalam country, perhaps the lowest in any of the

Dravidian provinces, is that of the Nayadis, a race of dwellers in the

jungles.

Nyadi means one who hunts with dogs. The members of

this caste are required to retire seventy-two steps from high-caste people,

Puleiyars thirty-six, Kaniyars twenty-four.

It seems difficult to sup-

pose that tribes which are now regarded as so degraded belonged origin-

ally to the same race as the higher castes themselves ; but the difficulty,

though one that requires careful consideration, may not be found to be

insuperable.

The circumstances and arguments that have now been

alleged in favour of the Non-Dravidian origin of the lower castes,

possess undoubtedly a considerable degree of strength ; but I proceed

to show that they are not perfectly conclusive, and that they are to

some extent counterbalanced by considerations adducible on the other

side.

1. The argument which is drawn from the servile condition of the

Pareiyas fails to establish the conclusion : because it is certain that

there are many slaves in various parts of the world who do not differ

from their masters in race, though they do in status.

The Russian

serfs were Slavonians, and the Magyar serfs Magyars, equally with their

masters.

Tllustrations of the inconclusiveness of the argument may be

drawn also from Dravidian life.

The more wealthy of the Shanars—a

caste inhabiting the extreme south—have slaves in their employment,

some of whom belong to a subdivision of the Shanar caste.

These ser-

vile Shanérs appear to have been slaves from a very early period ; and

yet they are admitted even by their masters to belong to the same race

as themselves.

There are also servile subdivisions of some other castes.

Thus, a portion of the Maravas of the southern provinces are slaves to

the Poligars, or Marava chieftains; and even of the Vellalas, or

Tamilian cultivators, there are not a few families who are slaves to the

temples.

Various circumstances might contribute to the reduction of

the Pareiyas, &c., to servitude, irrespective of difference or identity of

race.

In the wars of barbarous nations, it often happens that both

P

S

ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 551

I

conquerors and conquered belong to the same race, and even to the

16

same tribe. In a civilised age, the éonquerors may be content with

1§

governing and taxing the conquered ; but in a ruder age, and especially

he

in a tropical climate, where labour is distasteful, the vanquished are

In such cases we shall

he

ordinarily reduced to the condition of slaves.

It

meet with a phenomenon exactly parallel to that of the Pareiyas—viz.,

Il

a servile tribe speaking the language and exhibiting the physiological

ar

peculiarities of their masters, and yet separated from them by an

impassable barrier.

il

Other causes, however, in addition to that of war,

he

may have been in operation, such as poverty, or a state of society

e

resembling the feudal system, or even a trade in slaves, like that which

the

in Africa sets not only nation against nation, but village against village.

of

At all events, taking into account the probability that these and simi-

lar social evils may have existed at an early period, it does not seem more

l

difficult to account for the enslaved condition of the Pareiyas, without

}up

supposing them to have been of a different race from their masters, than

glr

i

it is to account for the serfdom, till lately, of the Russian peasantry,

or the existence of slavery amongst nearly all the primitive Indo-Euro-

be

pean races, without the help of any such supposition.

It is worthy of

¢l

notice also, that whilst the Pareiyas, Pallas, and Paleiyas are generally

{65,

slaves, some of the castes that are included in the lower division—

e

) 0

including some of the very lowest

are composed of freemen.

(2.) The traditions that have "been mentioned respecting the honour-

her

able position formerly occupied by the Pareiyas, do not establish the

point in hand.

Supposing them to rest (which they do not) on an

the

historical foundation, they prove, not an original difference of race, but

fhat

ifr

only the ancient freedom of the Pareiyas, and the respectability of their

social rank; before their reduction to slavery.

glal

(3.) The circumstance that the entire circle of the lower castes,

elr

including the Parelyas, are separated from the higher by badges of

‘be

social distinction, and denied the national names of Tamilian, Malayéli,

i

&c., is one which must be admitted to possess great weight.

Though

etk

the argument which may be deduced from this circumstance is a very

o 8l

strong one, it does not appear to be absolutely conclusive, for .it is in

d

accordance with the genius of Hindu legislation to punish poverty by

$id

civil and social disabilities ; and bigh-caste pride might naturally take

ot

the shape of an exclusive appropriation even of the national name.

)

We find a parallel use of words in the Sanskrit Sastras, in which

g, Of

nations that are admitted in those Sastras to be of Kshatriya origin

i

(e.g., the Yavanas and Chinas), are termed Mléchchas, not in con-

nd

sequence of difference of race, but solely in consequence of their diguse

Wi

of- Brahmanical rites.

There is a still closer parallel in the law o

ot

952

APPENDIX,

Manu, that Brahmans who took up their abode in the Dravidian country

—probably in Manu’s time an uncleared forest—should be regarded as

MIléchchas.

(4.) There does not seem to be anything in the physiology of the

Pareiyas, 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

W e St ARSI T e FEE A

neighbours.

The comparative blackness of their complexion has led

some persons to suppose them to be descended from a race of Negro

f

aborigines ; but this hypothesis seems to be unnecessary. The swarthi-

ness of the complexion not only of the Pareiyas, but also of the

(

Puleiyas of the Malayalam country (a still blacker caste), may be

1

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 KEgypt, are

admitted to be Arabs of pure blood, notwithstanding the deep brown

of their complexion, it would seem to be unnecessary to suppose the

E

Pareiyas, 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

I]

their complexions being a shade darker.

In no country in the world

are features and complexion so variable as in India; but caste, as it

f

exists in India, and especially as it affects the condition of the lower

classes, is unknown in every other country in the world. Separate

for ever from the society of their fellow countrymen a class of agri-

cultural labourers or slaves : prohibit all intermarriage with families in

more easy circumstances: require them to live by themselves in

wretched wigwams, removed to a considerable distance from the

village 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 for ever

precluded : prohibit education : pay them no wages : feed them scantily

and clothe them still more scantily : encourage drunkenness 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 tlie Pareiyars

and other low-castes, and it will be unnecessary to have recourse to the

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 Pareiyas and Ptileiyas, as a class, are darker than

any other class in the South, we find amongst them almost as great

=

ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 553

Pr}

a variety of colour as amongst other classes of Hindus ; and occasion-

Y

ally we may notice complexions that are as clear as those of the

higher castes, together with considerable regularity of feature.

When

he

Pareiyas have risen to a position of competence and comfort, and

Dt

Stidras have become impoverished, and been obliged to work hard in

s

the sun all day, their complexion is affected as well as their social

led

position; and in a few generations the Stdra is said to become dark,

g

the Pareiya fair.

hi

I admit that the features of the Pareiyas differ somewhat from those

of the high-caste Velldlas, or cultivators, as the features of every caste

I8

in India differ somewhat from those of every other caste; yet there is

the

no difference between the cultivator and the Pareiya in the shape of

s,

their heads.

Not only from their peculiarities of feature and dress,

ar

but even from the shape of their heads, we are generally able to dis-

)i

tinguish Tamilians or Telugus from the Affghan or Turco-Tartar

the

Muhammedans of India.

But looking at the shape of their heads

f 4

alone, and leaving complexion and features out of account, it is im-

1

(8

possible to distinguish a Tamilian, or high-caste Dravidian, from a

orkd

Pareiya or any other member of the lower castes.

Difference in

51t

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

fer

ol

both in features and in mental characteristics, as widely as if they

The soldier or robber castes

ol

inhabited different and distant countries.

of Kallas and Marayas, differ as much from the higher castes in their

g

10

features as the Pareiyas, and in habit of mind still more. Nevertheless,

The caste title of the

the

they claim to be considered as pure Tamilians.

Maravars, ¢ Déva,’ is the same as that of the old kings of the Pandya

10

and Chola dynasties.

Chieftains of their race still possess the princi-

pml

ot

palities of Shevagunga and R&mmnadd, which are called ‘the two

)i ol

Maravas ;” and the latter, the prince of Ramnad, has claimed from

an ancient period to be considered as Sétupati, or hereditary guardian

ovel

it

]

of Rama’s bridge.

The other tribe, the Kallas, have a king of their

own, the Tondiman Rajah, or Rajah of Puducottah; they claim a

i

relationship to the ancient kings of the Chola country ; and they are

i

regarded by the Tamilian Vellalas, or cultivators, as next in rank to

i

themselves.

It is possible—though not, I think, probable—that these

ijis

castes settled in the Tamil country subsequently to the settlement of

o e

the mass of the population ; but it does not follow that they belonged

s 0

to a Non-Dravidian race; for the course which I have supposed the

fhelt

Kallas and Maravas to have followed, is precisely that which was

1

followed on the decline of the power of the Pandyas, by various Telugu

w

and Canarese castes that are unquestionably Dravidians.

greal

5

54

./LLIIL) PEN I)IYX 5

(5.) The essential unity of all the Dravidian dialects argues the

unity of the race, inclusive of the lower castes.

The mixed origin of

the Hindus of the Gaura provinces may be conjectured, not only from

historical notices, but from an examination of the component elements

of the northern vernaculars.

In those vernaculars we can trace. the

existence of two lingual currents, the Aryan and the Nou-Aryan, the

one running counter to the other; but in no dialect of the Dravidian

languages are such traces discoverable of any extraneous idiom which

Tr

appears to have differed in character from that of the mass of the lan-

IES

guage.

All the grammatical forms of primary importance in all the

i

Dravidian dialects cohere together and form one harmonious system.

If -the Pareiyas and the other servile castes were supposed to be a

g

different race from the Dravidians, and the only surviving descendants

Ia

of the true aborigines, it would be necessary to regard the isolated

Ji

mountain tribes, the Tudas, Gonds, &c., as remnants of the same

)

aboriginal race ; and if this theory were correct, the languages of those

th

long isolated jpribes should be found to differ essentially from Telugu

I

and the Tamil. On the contrary, no essential difference in gramma-

i

tical structure, or in the more important names of things, has been

I

discovered in them ; but Goénd and Ku, Tuda and I{bta dialects, belong

Wt

demonstrably to the same family as the more cultivated Dravidian

qu

tongues.

It is also worthy of notice that though the Pareiyas and the

gh

other servile classes in the plains live in hamlets by themselves, re-

I

moved to a considerable distance from the villages in which their high-

th

caste masters reside, there is no trace amongst them of any difference

10

in idiom, of peculiar words, or of peculiar forms of speech. The only

difference apparent, consists in their mispronunciation of Sanskrit

B

derivatives, arising from their general want of education ; and in many

il

instances, even this difference is not found to exist.

£X

On the whole, therefore, the supposition that the lower castes in

i\

the Dravidian provinces belong to a different rate from the higher,

()]

appears to me to be untenable.

It seems safer to hold, that all the

af

indigenous tribes who were found by the Aryans in Sou'thei_*n India,

i

belonged to one and the same race. It is probable enohgh that the

Dravidians were broken up into tribes before the Aryan immigration,

and that the distinctions, not only of richer and poorer, but also of

f

master and slave, had already come into existence amongst them.

i

Those distinctions may have formed the foundation of the caste

system, which their Brahmanical civilizers built up, and which was

|

moulded by degrees into an exact counterpart of the caste system of

Northern India.

!

A.\

99

0

ARE THE NILGHERRY TUDAS DRAVIDIANS ?

§ 1

fl

Jhor

e

V

R

f

L)

ARE THE NILGHERRY TUDAS DRAVIDIANS?

LAl

Wl

TrE following observations on the relationship of the Tudas to the

16 13

rest of the Dravidians need not perhaps have been republished. They

the

appeared necessary in the first edition, the theory advocated being then,

il

so far as I am aware

new

Since then the researches of various

) e

scholars, and in particular the lifelong researches of the Rev. F. Metz

1da

have removed a great deal of the mystery that hung around this sub-

olated

ject, and it seems now to be universally admitted that the Tudas are a

e

Dravidian tribe

Mr Metz called my attention to the circumstance

e

that there was a statement in Assemann to the effect that' there was

[ug

I have found the statement

formerly a Christian church in Todamale

i

in question ; but as this Todamale is merely one of the names contained

e

in a list of places on the Malabar coast in which there were churches

qemp]

which was compiled by or for Meneyes, Archbishop of Gra,in 1599, 1

yldiaL

questlon whether the place referred to were identical with the Nil-

i the

gherries

A book on the Tudas has recently been published by Colonel

os, 16

Marshall, of the Bengal Staff Corps, entitled “ A Phrenologist amongst

higl

the Tudas

or, the Study of a Primitive Tribe in South India

His-

el

It

tory, Character, Customs, Religion, Infanticide, Polyandry, Language.

3 o1l

The twenty-ninth chapter contains a summary of Tuda grammar by the

skt

ev. Dr Pope, including a collection of Tuda words and sentences

i

Ay

supplied by Mr Metz

Colonel Marshall’s book is so elaborate and

exhaustive that it seems to render every other book or tractate on the

g5 10

Tudas unnecessary

In reprinting the following observations, I do so

phﬁl,

only on account of the interest that attaches, or may be supposed to

Ht\b

attach, to them as the first statement in print of that view of the ques-

tion which is now regarded as established.

ndie

!

I

The Tudas, or aboriginal inhabitants of the Nilgherry (Nilagiri)

yf100

0l

Hills, have been commonly supposed to belong to a different race from

the Dravidians of the plains

The reasons that have been adduced in

Jso 0F

e

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

AL

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

APP

NDIX

1516)

0

Hinduism, or the Brahmanical religion, is alleged to prove that they

st

belong to a different race to their low country neighbours

I€8

It is quite true that the Tuda religion differs greatly from the

Sl

Brahmanical ; but it will be shown in another portion of this Appendix

It

that the original religion of the majority of the Dravidians of the plains

-

116

differed from Brahmanism almost as widely, and that the religion of

B

the Gonds and Khonds, who are as certainly Dravidians as the Tamil

the

people themselves, is very different from the religion of the Brahmans,

106

and in some particulars not unlike that of the Tudas.

the

(2.) The manners and customs of the Tudas are said to be altovether

10

sur generts, and such as to indicate an ougln different from that of the

T

people of the plains.

el

Many of the customs of this tribe are certdml) remarkable, but it

of

is an error to regard them as peculiar to the Tudas, and sutz generis

of

Polyandria is practised by the Tudas, but it is practised also by the

iy

Coorgs, whose Dravidianism cannot be questioned

and female infan-

e

ticide is not confined to the Tudas, but is unfortunately too well known

fre

in various parts of India

The Tudas are not the only Indian people

1§

who live a wandering,

astoral life, who subsist entirely upon milk and

iy

grain, who dwell in huts formed of twisted bamboos, who wear no

A

covering upon their heads, who let their hair grow to almost its full

]

length, or who never wash their clothes and seldom their bodies from

fen

their birth to their death. Each of those customs is practised by

a9

various other Indian tribes, though not all of them, perhaps, by any

0l

tribe but the Tudas ; and though the Tudas may observe some customs of

{hg

minor importance which are quite peculiar to themselves—(e.g., the Tuda

0

men do not, like other long-haired Dravidians, tie their long hair in a

{he

knot like women, but allow it to cluster round their head in natural

curls.

ul

The bamboo huts, also, in which they dwell are built on the

plan of a perfect equilateral arch)—jyet the observance of a few pecuhax

i

th

customs by a caste which is so isolated as the Tudas, cannot be re-

U

garded as a proof of difference of race

for every caste in India

whether Aryan or Dravidian, whether high or low, has some custom or

T

th

another which is entirely peculiar to itself—generally some peculiarity

of

in dress, in the ornaments worn by the women, or in the manner 1n

which their houses are built

t

1

(3.) The Tudas are said to be a fine manly, athletic race, with

1

European features

Roman

noses

hazel eyes

and great physical

8

strength ; and hence it is concluded that they differ from the Tamilians

and other Dravidians in origin, as well as in appearance

ly

t

It is admitted that the Tudas are a hardy, fine-looking race, as

might be expected from their simple mode of life and the bracing

I

ARE THE NILGHERRY TUDAS DRAVIDIANS ?

mountain air they breathe; but it is also certain that many of the

LLE&

statements that are commonly made, both in conversation and in books,

respecting their physical characteristics are mere romance.

As regards

1 the

size and strength of body they will not bear a comparison with the

endix

natives of the north-western provinces, or even with the Telugu far-

ity

mers and palanquin bearers.

The supporters of the Celtic or Indo-

o1 01

European origin of the Tudas are wont to rest the chief weight of their

Lo

theory in the Roman noses of their protégés ; but aquiline noses are

[a0s)

not unfrequently met with amongst the people of the plains, though

they have not had the good fortune to attract so much of the notice of

etlet

tourists : and after all, the nose which is most commonly seen on the

f the

Even if it

Tuda face is not an aquiline nose, but simply a large nose.

were universally aquiline, it would reveal nothing respecting the origin

ut i

of the Tudas ; for physiology makes little account of noses, but much

Ne1,

of heads, and the shape of the heads of the Tudas does not differ in

7 10

Even

any material point from that of the low country Dravidians.

NIES

their features do not differ from those of the people of the plains to a

N0wa

greater degree than their isolated situation for many ages would lead

popl

us to expect.

It is true that the Tudas have brown or hazel eyes and

Cand

curly or wavy hair ; and this alone would give them a different appear-

10

ance from the black-eyed, straight-haired people of the plains.

The

s full

colour of their eyes may be the result of their long residence in the

from

temperate climate of the hills ; but this circumstance, when considered

1 by

as an argument for difference of race, is neutralised by the dark colour

4oy

of their hair, approaching to black, and especially by the darkness of

msol

the colour of their skin.” It has not hitherto been noticed by writers

Tuds

on the Nilgherries, but it is nevertheless a fact, that, notwithstanding

ma

the long residence of the Tudas on a cold, cloudy mountain region, the

il

colour of their skin is considerably darker than that of the more

Il t'ﬂe

modern hill race, the Badagas, a race of people who immigrated from

;ulizu‘

the Canarese country not many centuries ago, and is many shades

g I&

darker than that of the majority of the natives of the Malabar coast.

:Udia',

The darkness of the complexion of the Tudas appears to prove that

n

they came originally from the eastern or sun-burnt side of the range

it

of Ghauts ; and that long before they took up their abode on the hills

gl

they had formed a constituent portion of the low country population.

It should be observed also, that this inference exactly accords with the

i

results that have been deduced from the examination of the Tuda lan-

guage contained in Appendix L

It has there been shown that the

ysic&l

fif

language of the Tudas is essentially Dravidian, and that it appears on

the whole, more nearly allied to Tamil, the language which is spoken

in the plaing on the eastern side, than to any other dialect.

g b

4

598

APPENDIX.

T

After weighing the various considerations that have now been

th

adduced, we may, I think, safely adopt the conclusion that the Tudas

U

belong to the same race and stock as the mass of the Dravidians, though

A

long separated from. the rest of the race, and isolated from its civilisa-

tion.

fa

It may, at least, be confidently asserted that the evidence of

al

the Dravidian origin of the Tudas greatly preponderates over that of

i

all

every other suppositipn.

for

il

£y

or

VI

fh

[40)

DRAVIDIAN PHYSIC‘AL TYRE, !

f

lar

LINGUAL comparison appears to me to be the best available guide to a

0te

knowledge of the pree-historic relationship of the Dravidian family, but as

jin

physiology has in some instances contributed to the discovery of the affi-

il

liation of races, it seems desirable to inquire whether in this instance also

h

it can render us any help.

The general conclusion to which we are led

108

seems to be that whilst the physical type of the Dravidians of Southern

L

India, including that of the uncivilised Tudas, seems to be substantially

ling

identical with that of the Aryans, the type of the Dravidians of Central

by

India, as represented by the uncivilised, or but partially civilised,

S

Gonds, seems to be generally Mongolian.

If this conclusion be ad.

fl

mitted, and if it be admitted also that the (Gonds belong to the same

U

race as the Dravidians of the South, one of the questions that will

come up for consideration will be, Have the Gonds degenerated ? or,

]

i

Have the South Indian Dravidians risen ?

I must here premise that my remarks relate exclusively to the Dravi-

I

dian race properly so called, whether civilised or uncivilised, not to the

1

aboriginal races of India generally.

Many of the physical characteristics

fh

which Mr Hodgson attributes to the Tamilians, may undoubtedly be ob-

li

served in the Bhutén and sub-Himalayan tribes, and in a smaller degree

i

in the Santdls and other Kbles; but the inexpediency of using as a

il

general appellation so definite a term as Tamilian, appears from the error

W

into which some writers have fallen of attributing the same or similar

1

physical characteristics to the Dravidians or Tamilians of Southern

i

India, who differ as much from the Himalayan tribes as do the Brah.

W

mans themselves.

t

Mr Hodgson thus distinguishes the “Aryans’ from the ¢ Tamilians :’

1l

- A,P"aCtiSed eye will distinguish at a glance between the Arian and

f

T

DRAVIDIAN PHY

AL TYPE.

559

Jeell

Tamilian style of features and form—a practised pen will readily make

d

R

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

NEE

l

|

b‘l

Aryan or of Tamilian extraction from each other group would be a

g (

L

W+

task indeed ! In the Aryan form there is height, symmetry, lightness

b of

and flexibility

in the Aryan face an oval contour with ample forehead

and moderate jaws and mouth ;

a round chin, perpendicular with the

forehead, a regular set of dmmpt and fine features; a well raised and

unexpanded nose, with elliptic nares; a well-sized and freely opened

eye, running directly across the face ;

1o want of eye-brows, eye-lash,

or beard

and lastly, a clear brunet complexion, often not darker than

that of the most southern Europeans

In the Tamilian form, on the

contrary, there is less height, less symmetry, more dumpiness and

flesh

in the Tamilian face, a somewhat lozenge contour caused by the

large cheek bones, less perpendicularity in the features to the front

{0

[

occasioned not so much by defect of forehead or chin, as by excess of

11638

jaws and mouth ; a larger proportion of face to head, and less roundness

afl

in the latter

a broader, flatter face, with features less symmetrical

!

1)

but perhaps more expression, at least of individuality ; a shorter, wider

bl

e I

nose, often clubbed at the end and furnished with round nostrils ; eyes

hen

less, and less fully opened, and less evenly crossing the face by their

colour

il

Ily

line of aperture

ars larger

lips thicker, beard deficient

1tm1

brunet, as in the last, but darker on the whole, and, as in it, various

e,

Such is the general description of Indian Aryans and Turanians.

Mr

3&d

Hodgson states also in several places that a Mongolian stamp 18 im-

“ Look steadfastly,” he says,

gam

pressed on all the aborigines of India

{1l

““on any man of an aboriginal race, and say if a Mongol origin is-not

i

palpably inscribed on his face

Probably there was little if any reference to the Tamilians, pro-

perly so called, in this striking comparative devnptlon of the Brah-

vk

mans of Northern India and of the forest tribes of the Himalayas and

othe

11‘?1‘ N

the Vindhyas;

but through the vague use of the appellation ¢ Tami-

o

lian,” it seems probable that Professor Max Miiller was led to suppose

the same description applicable to the Dravidians proper, or original

b

1t

inhabitants of the south

Founding his remarks on this description

g 48 ¢

which he quotes and eulogises (in his ¢ Turanian Researches,” included

\ glm[

in “Bunsen’s Outlines of Universal History”), he says

“From the

]ﬂn(‘Y

most ancient times to the period of the Puranas, we meet everywher

e

with indications, more or less distinct, of two races brought into con-

Pral

)

and again

“The traveller in India to

tact in the Indian peninsula

the ‘present day, though he would look in vain for the distinctive

A

features of a Brahman, a Kshattriya, or a Vaisya, feels the convietion

al

560

APPENDIX.

irresistibly growing upon him, as he passes along the streets of cities,

or the roads of \villages, whether north or south of the Vindhyas, that

everywhere he is brought in contact with at least two races of man,

distinet in mind as well as in body.”

It is evident also from a quota-

tion from a paper of Dr Stev

enson’s

)

which he subjoins, that by those

“two races of man” he uunderstood ‘‘the higher and lower orders of

natives "— “the Brahmans and - other castes allied to them, and the

lower or Non-Aryan castes of the Hindu population.”

We thus arrive

(

at the conclusion that Mr Hodgson’s description of the physical pecu-

liarities which he calls ¢ Tamilian,”—that is, as he understands the

term, Turanian or Mongolian,—has come to be accepted as a faithful

portraiture of the Non-Aryan Hindus generally, including the Non-

Aryans south of the Vindhyas—i.e., the entire mass of the Dravidian

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 Matsyapurdna, they

were as black as collyrium.

According to the Bhigarata-purdna, they

i

had short arms and legs, were black as a crow, with projecting chin,

dY

broad and flat nose, red eyes, and tawny hair.

The Padma-purana

adds a wide mouth, large ears, and a protuberant belly, and particu-

fq

larises their descendants as Kirdtas, Bhillas, Bahanakas, Bhramaras,

and Pulindas.”

f

In the next chapter the Professor states that he

18

“accepts for his starting point this general distinction between Aryas

and Nishddas, which, whether suggested by physical features or proved

by the evidence of grammar, may be considered as an undisputed

3

fact ;” and he then proceeds to inquire ¢ whether they can be sub-

|

divided into distinct groups.”

Finally he distinguishes, yet on lingual

evidence alone, between ‘“two classes of Nishidas, the Tamilic, in the

\r

narrower sense of the word, and the Bhotiya or Sub-Himalayan.”

i

Leaving out of consideration at present the Kols, Santils, and other

Nish4da tribes now called Kolarians, we have to turn our attention

to the question of the physical type of the Dravidians, properly so

i

called.

The Gonds may probably have been considered Nishadas,

(i

equally with the Kols, but there is no proof that the Dravidians of

D

the south were ever designated by this name.

They seem always to

have been called by local names, as Kalingas, Cholas, Pandyas, &c. ;

and on the whole there seems to me to be a decided preponderance of

!

evidence in favour of their physical type being Caucasian, or iden-

tical with that of the Aryans.

A writer in the Journal of the Eastern

?

Avrchipelago (Dr Logan), treating of the Dravidians exclusively, thinks

e N

#

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE.

561

it

that there is a strong Melanesian or Indo-African element in the Tamil

,Ll (]

physiology ; and accounts for it by the supposition that a negro race

[l

s

overspread India and Ultra India, not only before the arrival of the

u

Aryans, but even before the arrival of the Scythians.

He sees an

those

evidence of this in the colour of the Dravidians, and in the exceeding

18 f

;1 the

variety of physical type and features which he observes amongst them,

'

ative

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

et

other Tartaro-Iranian race.”

The theory of M. de Quatrefages, in the

g e

Journal des Savants for December 1873, agrees in the main with Dr

ithfal

Logan’s.

He supposes India, long before the historical period, to have

Nor:

been inhabited by a black race resembling the Australians; that sub-

idian

sequently, but still before the commencement of the historical period,

rana

a yellow race entered India from the north-east ; and that it was from

ing,

the mixture of these two races that the Dravidians arose.

He accounts

fures,

in this way for the facts, as he supposes them to be, that the Dra-

jtalns

vidians are yellow in the north and black in the south. I am doubtful,

they

bowever, whether the colour of any portion of the G6nds and Uraons

they

inclines to yellow.

Colonel Dalton’s photographs, and the verbal

o,

descriptions of various observers, represent them as nearly black.

rand

Omitting for the present the question of colour, it does not appear

el

to me that there is any essential difference between the heads or

1S

features of the Dravidians and those of the Brahmans.

There is, it

ot b

s true, a great variety of feature, as well as of colour, apparent amongst

A

the Dravidians ; but though the varieties of feature, or rather of physi-

IOV

ognomy, which one observes are numerous, the differences are generally

>puted

so minute and unimportant that in the absence of any class-difference

b q110

in the shape of the head, they are consistent with the supposition of

gl

0§

oneness of blood, and may safely be referred to local, social, and indi-

i the'

vidual causes of difference. The long continued operation of the caste-

law of the Hindus appears to me to be quite sufficient to account for

@yan

other

the differences of feature and expression that are observed to exist.

e]] )

f

Like oil and water in the same vessel, or ingredients which may be

1ly 80

mixed mechanically, but will not combine chemically, the various

1A

It

s

castes into which the Dravidians were arranged by their Brahman

1 ol

preceptors have lived side by side for ages, probably in some instances

a"b [U

for twenty centuries, without commingling.

For ages there has been

s

no intermarriage, no social intercourse, no common bond of sympathy.

if

e

Rank has become hereditary, as well as occupation ; and not onl y rank,

1d€11

but even intellect, temperament, character, and physical characteristics,

Y[\

il

It would be surprising indeed if under such circumstances ¢

varieties

il

L\

of man” did not make their appearance, and if ethnologists, looking

N

5

6(

APPENDIX

at the question from a distance, did not sometimes doubt whether they

could all be referred to a single race of pure blood

“ Some

says

Dr Logan, speaking of the Tamilians in particular, ¢ are exceedingly

Tranian, more are Semitico-Iranian, some are Semitic, others Australian,

some remind us of Egyptians, while others again have Malayo-Poly-

nesian, and even Simang and Papuan features

In comparing the physical type of the Dravidians with that of

Mongolians and Aryans, it would be improper to restrict the com-

parison to the lower classes

for the high-caste Dravidians claim to

be regarded as the purest representatives of their race

Their institu-

tions and manners have been Aryanised; 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, Malayalis, &c., par

excellence

i

and their special right to those national appellations is

always admitted, in terms at least, by the lower castes themselves

I

When we compare the physical type of cultivated, high-caste Dra-

f

vidians with that of the Brahmans; no essential differenee whatever,

d

and very little difference of:any kind, can be observed. .

-In many

i

instances the features

of : the high-caste Dravidian women are as

It

delicately formed:-and regular as those of Brahman women themselves,

01

whilst their complexions are equally fair

and if any difference appears,

all

it consists not in Mongolian breadth of face, but in greater elongation

fa

and narrowness

The Dravidian type of head will even bear to be

fo

directly compared with the European

Compare, for instance, the

i

heads of the Tamil or Telugu pleaders and translators in any Zillah

B

and it is evident that

court with that of the presiding English judge

the Dravidian heads differ from the English only in being smaller and

narrower,—with a preponderance in the former of the signs of timidity

£

and subtilty, in the latter of physical and moral courage

1l

It is especially deserving of consideration that the Nilgherry Tudas

of

who of all Dravidian tribes have been most thoroughly guarded by

th

their secluded position from Brahmanical influences, instead. of Dbeing

1

more Mongol-like or Negro-like than the Aryanised Dravidians, are so

of

distinctively Caucasian in the opinion of many persons, that they have

of

been regarded as Celts, Romans, Jews, &c. ; and the chief difficulty

)

that exists is that of inducing the people to be content with the state

i

ment that the Tudas are proved by their language and colour to be

identical in origin with the Dravidians of the plains

of

Amongst the lower class of the Dravidians, I have occasionally

fu

observed a type of head which is somewhat inclined to be what 18

1l

called Mongolian, that is, it exhibits unusual breadth across the cheek-

al

,.--”-\

DRAVIDIAN PHYSIC.AL TYPE.

2063

g

bones, a’ pyramidal forehead, a somewhat oblique position of the eyes,

4y

and a pyramidal nose with a broad base.

On the other hand, Mon-

dy

oV

golian smoothness of skin, scantiness of hair, flatness of face, and the

),

peculiar monotonous olive hue of the Mongolian complexion are never

ly

met with ; and it should be observed with respect to the other elemients

of the Mongolian type, that it is chiefly, if not solely, amongst the

f

lower classes that they are seen, and that they do not constitute the

i)

class-type of any caste whatever.

They are exceptional instances’

which scarcely at all affect the general rule ; and T have no doubt that

il

similar exceptional instances could easily be pointed out amongst the

fian

lower classes of our own race.

bt

The physical type of a race may best be determined by the shape of

106

the head and the more permanent peculiarities of feature, irrespective

par

of the complexion, or colour of the skin ; for every one who has lived

3 18

in India must have learned to regard colour as a deceptive evidence of

\[&

relationship and race.

It is a disputed question, it is true, whether

Dia

the blackness of the colour of the skin of certain races is owing to

el

climate or not.

On the one hand, if we follow any of the intertropical

a1y

lines of latitude round the world, we shall find it passing through dif-

) &

ferent zones of colour—olive, copper-coloured, black, and even white ;

Ives,

on the other hand, if we confine our attention to India alone, climate

o1

and colour seem to be associated as cause and effect,

Looking at the

ton

facts that have come under my own observation in India, it is not clear

o be

to me that blackness of complexion must be regarded as an inexplic-

the

able phenomenon—a fact irrespective of climate.

It is true that the

b

Brahmans as a class are much fairer than the Pareiyas as a class: but

{hot

the conviction is forced upon the mind of every observer, by the

a0l

hundreds of instances he meets with in daily life, that the colour of the

idty

features of the Hindus is mainly a result of the external circumstances

in which they are placed with respect to climate, occupation, and mode

of life.

Udasy

As a rule, they seem to be dark-complexioned in proportion as

by

they are exposed to the sun in out-door labour, and fair in proportion

heltg

as they live a sedentary life; and consequently colour, if an evidence

1o 8

of anything specific, seems to be an evidenee mainly of the social status

Jare

of the individual and his family.

We cannot, therefore, expect from

ol

li

considerations of colour and complexion much real help towards deter-

gtafe

mining the race to which the Dravidians belong.

fole

The influence of climate alone, in darkening or blanching the colour

of the skin, seems to be greater than is commonly supposed ; and India

palf

furnishes many instances of this influence.

Perhaps the best Indian

instatice of the influence of climate in modifying colour with which I

ot B

am acqgainted is furnished by the fairness of the complexion of the

heels

APPENDIX.

564

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 Coromandel coast are exposed

for ten mounths 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

gwelve, 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 generally 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 consequence, 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 almost as much fairer than that of the people on the eastern

side, as the complexion of the Brahmans of any of the eastern provinces

is fairer than that of the labouring classes in the same province.

Not-

withstanding this difference in complexion there is no difference in

race, for it is demonstrable that the Malayalis are descended from an

early colony of Tamilians; and an equally remarkable difference in

complexion is apparent amongst the members of thqse more recent

f

Tamil colonies which have settled in Malayélam.

¢

Towards the southern extremity of the peninsula, the breadth of the

RR————

I

central mountain range is greatly diminished, and there is easy access

from the Tamil country into Travancore by the Aramboly Pass.

By

fOJ

this pass, and by similar breaks and gaps still farther south, the Tamil-

)

ians of the old Pandya kingdom forced their way into Malayélam, and

e

possessed themselves of the southern portion of Travancore.

The

t

government of this province has again reverted to the Travancorians,

0

in whose hands it has been for several centuries ; but the bulk of the

0l

population continue to be Tamilians, as far as the vicinity of Trivan-

|

drum, the Travancore capital.

Up to that limit the majority of the

N

people on the Travancore side of the mountain barrier belong to the

P

same castes as in the British district of Tinnevelly, on the eastern side :

0y

they speak the same language, and follow the same occupations ; they

occasionally intermarry, and their features are perfectly similar; yet,

of

g

* In my own neighbourhood in Tinnevelly, I never knew the thermometer

T

lower at any period of the year, day or night, than 70°. The average fall of rain

the

in the same neighbourhood, during the twenty-eight years I registered it, was

Oy

only a little above 22 inches !

DRAVIDIL.\‘N PHYSICAL TYPE.

)

e

65

i

notwithstanding this, they differ so materially with respect to colour,

;?St i

I|

ll

L)

that a stranger would naturally suppose them to belong to different

races.

A remarkable instance of difference of colour under these cir.

ol

cumstances is furnished by the Shanirs—a caste chiefly engaged in the

) Lol

cultivation of the palmyra

who are found in considerable numbers on

0l

¢

each side of the Ghauts, up to the very foot of the mountains.

The

of the

Shanars on the western side of the mountain range are separated from

LWL

their fellow caste-men on the eastern side by a space of only about

it

fifteen or twenty miles as the crow flies; and the only difference in

] 00

their circumstances is the difference in the climate, which is caused by

g {06

the precipitation of the moisture of the south-western monsoon on the

il

western side of the Gthauts, and its interception from the eastern side.

16 10

In consequence of this difference in the climate alone, the Shanars who

6 00

i

reside on the eastern side of the Ghauts are amongst the blackest of

i

e

the Tamilians, while on the Travancore side the same class of peoples

AS1ELD

engaged in the same occupations, are almost as fair as the Brahmans

Vil Lo

of the Carnatic. This fact, which is patent to the observation of every

Not

one in the neighbourhood, is perhaps one of the most remarkable illus-

106 10

trations in existence of the influence of climate in modifying the colour

of the skin.

m al

106 10

Another and better known evidence is furnished by the circumstance

receny

that many of the descendants of the Portuguese, who settled in India

several centuries ago, are now blacker than the Hindus themselves.

i the

The class of people referred to are a mixed race, descended from

200688

European fathers and native mothers, yet instead of being the fairer

n

for their admixture with European blood, many of them are of a darker

Toml

colour than the natives from whom, on the maternal side, they are

) al

descended, and who belonged chiefly to the fair portion of the popula-

The

tion of the Malabar coast. Even amongst the Brahmans, though sup-

1D

posed to be a pure, unmixed race, differences of colour are frequently

observed.

It is supposed to be unlucky to meet a black Brahman, or

of foe

il

a fair Pareiya, the first thing in the morning.

The Brahmans of

of 08

Northern India are generally fairer than those of the south, with the

fo fl¢

exception of the Nambfris, or high-caste Brahmans of the Malabar

x i

coast, who appear to be amongst the fairest of their race.

e |

Professor Max Miiller (in his valuable paper on the Bengali in one

of the Reports of the British Association) thinks he finds in the Gonds

1y

vl

and other Non-Aryanised Dravidians evidences of the existence of a

)

race ‘‘ closely resembling the Negro ;’

and says that ¢ the existence of

Ome’él

the same dark race in the south of India is authenticated by Strabo.”

ol

if

On the contrary, Strabo’s statement will, I believe, be found to corro-

1 L

D66

APPENDIX.

borate the view I have taken. He says, “The Southern Indians

resemble the Athiopians 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

This statement of Strabo throws light on a

resemble the Egyptians.”

passage in Herodotus, in which a black race, apparently Hindus, are

said to Lave 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

ZBthiopians have the woolliest hair of all men, but those people are

straight-haired.”

Herodotus 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.

On the other hand, it must be admitted that on the Malabar coast

f

itself, where a moist climate and an abundance of shade seem to favour

f

the blanching of the colour of the skin, the Puleiyas, a caste of agricul-

tural slaves, are noted for their exceeding blackness.

On the Coro-

f

mandel coast, where the people are blacker on the whole by several

degrees than on the Malabar coast, I have met with individuals belong-

E

ing to various castes, even amongst the higher castes, as black as the

Puleiyas ; but I cannot say that I am acquainted with any caste or

class on either coast' which can vie with the Puleiyas in being so uni-

%

versally black.

In conjunction with this blackness, however, T have

not noticed anything in the shape of the head or in the features of the

I

Puleiyas tending to connect them with a Negrito race, or with any

I

other race than their Dravidian masters.

The difference seems to me

one of colour alone ; and I must be content, I fear, for the present to

f

leave this difference in colour unaccounted for.

The Puleiyas are also

f

a very diminutive race, but that is of very little consequence ethnolo-

It

gically, as it is edsily accounted for’ by the half-starved condition in

4

which they have been kept from generation to generation.

Sir George

I

Campbell (“ Ethnology of India”) makes some observations on the

il

blackness of this tribe.

He says, “The blackest of the aboriginal

0

tribes live in the densest forest country, in a most malarious climate.

fl

Even on this very western coast I find the aboriginal helots of Malabar

f

described as being of the deepest black.”

He looks to immigration by

I

sea (and if so, probably from Africa) as the modifying cause; but

i

though it is true that Arabs, Jews, and Persians came to the western

coast of India by sea in considerable numbers, it does not appear pro-

(

i

e

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE

C,‘ﬂ

bﬁf"‘)

ans

pable that the Puleiyas, a helot tribe, who if they were not of the same

race with their masters must have been in the country before their

they

arrival, could have crossed the sea at so early a period

LV

e

a0

Most modern observers consider the physical type of the Gonds

Mongolian ; but Colonel - Dalton, in his ¢ Descriptive Ethnology of

né

Bengal,” appears to think their prevailing type that of the Negro

He

ale

says of the Gonds (p. 283), “ They are singularly ill-favoured, and

y of

though some of the wealthier families have formed alliances with other

i

races which have improved their looks, I can point to many who have

uLer

tried this in vain, and who show to this day features more closely

byan

g are

resembling the lower Negro type than any I have met with amongst

the tribes of Bengal

They often have short, crisp, curly hair, and

ht

by

though it is said, and no doubt truly, that this is far removed from the

0f

g

f

1res

regular woolly covering of a Negro’s head, I have generally found such

hair in conjunction with features very noticeably Negro in type, and

accompanying a very dark skin.

They are larger and heavier in build

coast

than the Ordons or Kols, and with none of the graceful physique to be

ayous

found in both those tribes.”

1100

I have not had an opportunity of seeing any members of this race

(oo

for myself, and the descriptions' I have met with do not quite agree

eret

but, on the whole, it appears to be the prevailing opinion that the

elong

most characteristic type of the features of the Gdnds is not Negrito

g the

but Mongolian

The Rev. Mr Hislop, a careful observer, describes the

i

o O

Gond of the Nagpflir country thus (“ Papers relating to the Aboriginal

ol

Tribes of the Central Provinces, 1866, p. 71 ”)—¢“ A little below the

Jare

average height of Europeans, and in complexion darker than the gene-

of i

rality of Hindus, bodies well-proportioned, but features rather ugly—a

i 60

roundish head, distended nostril

wide mouth, thickish lips, straight

{

016

black hair, and scanty beard and mustaches

RTINS

Both hair and

gt {0

features are decidedly Mongolian

In another passage he describes

6

150

the Gonds as darker than the generality of Hindus, but without any

resemblance to the African race

fhock

It may be asked, however, if they

fion 1

f

SR

are decidedly Mongolian, whence their blackness of complexion? Black-

(et

ness i1s not a Mongolian characteristic

In his introduction to the

ol fhe

“ Central Provinces Gazetteer,” 1870, p. 110, Mr Charles Grant speaks

o1}

g

of the Gonds as ‘“intermixed with the Hindu population, and some-

Jil

PG

times so closely as to have almost lost the flat head, the squat nose, and

CRa® A A G

[ala¥

a0l

the thick lips, which are the facial characteristics of their race

Their possessions, though still pretty considerable in extent, mostly lie

o If

in jungle tracts of little value

The proprietary lists show, it is true

Gond owners even in the richest districts, but these are not of the

e

{ll

1l

true Non-Aryan blood, but half-bred chiefs, generally claiming Rajput

el

¥

568

APPENDIX.

ancestry.

Such was the origin of the royal line of (tarha-Mandla, and

probably of most of the families which call themselves Réj-Gond or

Royal Gond.

If so, however, the lower blood is dominant, for in

appearance most of them obstinately retain the Turanian type.”

Mr

Beames, speaking of such classes of people, says, « Mixed races call

themselves Rajputs, and claim to come from Chitor or Ajmer, uncon-

i

scious that their high cheek-bones, flat noses, and narrow pig-like eyes,

give the lie as they speak to their absurd pretensions.”— Comparative

Grammar,” p. 258.

Mr Hislop says, ¢ This tendency to claim connec-

tion with Rajputs is not peculiar to ambitious GOnds.

It prevails

E

among the Bhils of Malwa, and is not unknown to the wandering

Keikadis of the Dekkan, both of whom boast of being Yéadaras or

PowArs, or some other equally high-born section of the Kohat triyas.”

(i

The difference between the Gonds in their original condition and the

f

i

Aryans, in respect of intellectual calibre, seems to have been as marked

as the difference in their features.

Mr Grant says, “ They were as

little fitted to cope with men of Aryan descent in peace as in war ;

1§

and though slow centuries of enervation under an Indian sky had

k[

relaxed the northern vigour of the races to whom they had once before

i

succumbed, yet in every quality and attainment which can give to one

0

people superiority over another, there was probably as much difference

id

between Hindus and GoOnds as between Anglo-Americans and Red

Ie

Indians, or between Englishmen and New Zealanders.”—¢ Introduction

9

to Central Provinces Gazetteer,” p. 14.

t

i

Notwithstanding the low mental development of the Gonds, accord-

ing to the estimate of them given above, a distinction is drawn in

their favour in the same paper, between them and their more Mongo-

i

“ The Go6nds,” it is said, ‘“ are capable of

lian neighbours the Kols.

V)

approaching far more nearly to the Aryan level of organisation than

ta

any other of the aboriginal tribes of Central India” (‘“ Introduction,” p

&

77) ; and in confirmation of this general statement we find that the

by

Gionds established themselves as an independent power in the sixteenth

I

and seventeenth centuries, and that ¢ under their easy, eventless sway

fo

the rich country over which they ruled prospered, their flocks and

ﬂ]W

herds increased, and their treasures filled,” p. 83.

“The leaders of

A

the Kolarians never rose above the status of predatory chiefs, while

4

the Gond princes founded kingdoms, received high titles of nobility

0y

from the Mogol emperors, and even in their decadence were treated

i

by their Maritha conquerors with all the form due to established

fro;

royalty,” p. 110.

X

If the G6nds are Dravidians, as the fact that their language is Dra-

Ty

vidian seems to show, it is remarkable that the physical type of the

h

ot

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE.

569

i

Dravidians of Southern India, including even the Tudas of .the Nil-

o

gherry Hills, should differ so widely from that of the Gonds, and that

1

in intellectual power and capacity for civilisation, they should be so

iy

greatly superior to them.

The South Indian is an Aryan in looks, and

l

rivals the Aryans in culture : it is only in his speech that he shows

Ol

himself a member of the same race as the Gonds and a non-Aryan. How

168,

1s this to be accounted for? There does not seem any ground for sup-

178

posing that the Gonds became intermixed to any considerable extent

160

with the more distinctively Mongolian Kbls, nor does there appear to

als

be any case on record in which people possessed of a Caucasian type

ne

of feature are known to have exchanged it for a Mongolian type. An

S

ascent from the Mongolian type to the Caucasian is not unknown, but,

i

conversely, it is not known, I believe, that there has been any descent

the

from the Caucasian to the Mongolian.

It would seem, therefore, that

fed

it only remains that we should suppose the original type of the whole

08

Dravidian race to have been Mongolian, as that of the Gonds generally

al

1s up to the present time, and attribute the Caucasian type now uni-

had

versally apparent amongst the Dravidians of South India to the

016

influence of culture, aided perhaps in some small degree by intermix-

0né

ture with Aryans. If the type of all the Dravidians was originally

e

identical with that of the Gionds, as appears to have been the case, the

Red

result would be one of great value, not only for the history of Indian

jon

civilisation, but for the natural history of the human race.

It would

tend to show that mental improvement and the acquisition of a higher

o

style of physical beauty go hand in hand.

i

The possibility, at least, of such a change taking place under circum-

g0

stances favourable to mental development is proved by the fact that

o 01

similar changes from the Mongolian type to the Caucasian have already

fhan

taken place in India itself and in other parts of the world. The dan-

M

ger of taking fixity of type for granted is illustrated by the change that

has passed over the Muhammedans of India.

the

When I speak of the

Muhammedans of India I do not refer to a class of Muhammedans

il

Ay

found in considerable numbers in Southern India on both coasts and

al

also in Ceylon, who are called by the Europeans Lubbies or Moormen,

and by natives Sonagars—that is, Yavanas—and who are descended from

5 0

fhile

Arab merchants and their native wives, with a large addition of native

i

converts. I refer to the higher and much more numerous class of Indi

an-

Muhammedans commonly called Patans.

el

These are partly descended

from the Afghan or Patan invaders of India, and partly from the

el

Mogol invaders ; but the great majority are descendants of the Tatar-

P

Turkish soldiers and camp-followers, who accompanied both the Af-

ghans and the Mogols.

e

Probably most of the so called Afghan

fis

-

APPENDIX,

J

)

70

iliﬁaders of India were Seljukian Turks; the Mogols were, as their

and the hordes that followed the fortunes

name imports, Mongolians ;

of both classes of invaders, were a mixed race—a colluvies gentiwm —

comyj

srising various tribes and races of Mongolian and Tatar-Turkish

origin, called by the Hindus Turushkas, in Tamil Turukkas, or more

The proportion of Persians and

commonly Tulukkas—i.e., Turks

other races of Indo-European origin, who accompanied the Afghans

and Mongols in their expeditions, was exceedingly small. Hence, the

Muhammedans of India may be regarded as a Tatar-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 distinctiveness, not only in the Mongo-

lians, but in the Siberian Turks.

Notwithstanding this, we generally

search in vain amongst the Indian Muhammedans for signs of a Tatar

origin. Witli 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

l

true, special peculiarities of physiognomy and expression ; but every

I

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 passed over the physiology of the Muhammedans of India

(

similar to that which the Osmanli Turks and the Magyars have experi-

enced since they settled in Europe, and which has transformed them

{f

;

from Tatars into Europeans.

0

I cannot forbear bringing out more fully the argument founded on

b

the change which has passed over the Turks and Maygars by citing

W

the words of Dr W. B. Carpenter (“Cyclopedia of Anatomy and

by

Physiology”), as condense

d by Archdeacon Pratt (*¢ Seripture and

0r

Science not at Variance,” sixth edition, p. 115) :=— The Turks of

!

Europe and Western Asia so clearly accord in physical character with

the great bulk of European nations, and depart so widely from the

th

Turks of Central Asia, that many writers have referred the former to

Yet

1

the (so-called) Caucasian rather than to the Mongolian stock.

¢]

historical and philological evidence sufficiently proves that the Western

1

Turks originally belonged to the Central Asia group of nations, with

By

which the eastern portion of their nation still remains associated, not

|

only in its geographical position, but in its language, physical char-

\{(

acter, and habits of life; and that it is in the western, and not the

il

eastern, that the change has taken place.

Any result arising from

intermixture of the Turkish race with the inhabitants of the countries

1)

they conquered, Dr Carpenter shows to be altogether inadequate to

5].1\

B

e,

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE.

271

thar

explain the phenomena.

Another instance of the same modification

il

T

is to be found in the )

La g

X

Y

ar race, which forms a large part of the

WTKISD

population of Hungary, including the entire nobility of that country.

uore

This race, which is not inferior in mental or physical character to any

s 4ol

in Europe, is proved by historical and philological evidence to have

been a branch of the great northern Asiatic stock, which was expelled

fyhans

about ten. centuries ago from the country it then inhabited, bordering

i,

on the Uralian mountains; and in its turn expelled the Sclavonian

nations from the fertile parts of Hungary, which it has occupied ever

[

since. Having thus exchanged their abode from the most rigorous

climate of the old continent

a wilderness in which Ostiaks and

i

|

\[U]l‘fc

Samoiedes pursue the chase during only the milder season—for one

perally

in the south of Europe, in fertile plains abounding in rich harvests,

‘.

the Magyars gradually laid aside the rude and savage habits which

Tfat

they are recorded to have brought with them, and adopted a more

9 d

settled mode of life.

K

In the course of a thousand years their type of

m e

cranial formation has been changed from the pyramidal to the ellip-

151

N

tical ; and they are become a handsome people, with fine stature and

. grelf

regular European features, with just enough of the Tatar cast of

it} i

countenance, in some instances, to call their origin to mind. Here

uppéﬁri

again, it may be said that the intermixture of the conquering with the

{ Jud

conquered race had a great share in bringing about this change ; but

et

a similar reply must be returned, for the existing Magyars pride them-

| them

selves greatly on the purity of their descent; and the small influence

of Sclavonic blood which may have taken place from time to time, is

el

by no means sufficient to account for the complete change of type

g

)

which now manifests itself.

The women of pure Magyar race are said

}my iﬂld

by good judges to be singularly beautiful, far surpassing either German

o

or Sclavonian females. A similar modification, but in less degree,

s

appears to have taken place in the Finnish tribes of Scandinavia,

[

fel il

These may- almost certainly be affirmed to have the same origin with

i

the Lapps; but whilst the latter retain, though inhabiting Europe, the

!

nomadic habits of their Mongolian ancestors, the former have adopted

1¢

it

a much more settled mode of life, and have made considerable advances

; “ e)tel

in civilisation, especially in Isthonia, where they assimilate with their

il

{il&]

Russian neighbours. And thus we have in the Finns, Lapps, and

tted s

Magyars, three nations or tribes, of whose descent from

a common

]

af 0

b

stock no reasonable doubt can be entertained, and which exhibit the

T fe

most marked differences in cranial characters, and also in general con-

frop

105

formation, the Magyars being as tall and well-made as the Lapps are

fnf

C[]lm

short and uncouth.” Mr Edkins also remarks (in “Chine

se Place in

it

Philology ") that the Turks of the east, even those of C

hinese Turke-

572

APPENDIX,

stan, have more of the European physiognomy than the Mongols.

So also, he says, the Muhammedans of North China have the western

type of face.

These well authenticated changes from a Mongolian or lower type of

feature to a Caucasian or higher type, prove the possibility, if not the

probability, of a similar change having taken place amongst the Dra-

vidians.

If the mass of the Dravidians, when they parted company

from the Gonds, were as distinctively Turanians in physical type as

the Gdnds are now said to be, and if it is certain that their type is

now incapable of being distinguished from that of the Aryans, except

in point of complexion,—and that not in general in a considerable

degree,—the improvement that has taken place in their physical type

does not seem to be too great to be accounted for in the main by the

influence of external circumstances.

Tt seems to have arisen in the

E

first instance from the fortunate exchange they made of a region of

hills and forests for a region of extensive, well-watered plains, admirably

adapted for agriculture, and favourably situated for the development

of a progressive civilisation.

On the other hand, perhaps, we cannot safely conclude that an

exaggerated Mongolian type of features was from the beginning the

inheritance of the whole of the Turanian tribes.

It may be 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

I

peculiar degree of permanence are the Tibetans and the Mongolian

f

[

nomads, who still inhabit the original seats of their race.

The Indian tribes which are now most distinctly characterised by

f

Mongolian peculiarities, are those which entered India by the north-

The Garos and other forest

east, and are probably of Tibetan origin.

tribes on the Bhutén frontier, as described by Mr Hodgson, seem to

be decidedly Mongolian; and the Kols and Santals are probably

The existence at an early period in

0

descended from a similar stock.

§

the vicinity of Orissa, of barbarous tribes differing in appearance from

the rest of the Hindus, and exhibiting a Mongolian or foreign type,

§

f

is attested by the following passage in the « Periplus Maris Erythraei.”

f

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

nigbidou (Sans. Kirdtas), a race of people with flattened noses (evidently

Mongolians), also the horse-faces and the long-faces, all of whom are

I

said to be cannibals. Then sailing eastwards, and having a certain

sea on the right, we come to the Ganges.”

The statement of Strabo

which has already been quoted, joined to the negative evidence of this

I

o,

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE.

D73

il

passage, seems to show that at the Christian era, the civilised, culti-

Gl

vated Dravidians (the Pandyas, Kolas, Kalingas, &e.) did not materi-

ally differ in physiognomy or personal appearance from the northern

001

Hindus; and that certain barbarous inhabitants of the jungles, who

e

are barbarians still, were the only tribes that appeared to be dis-

i

tinctively Mongolian. The Gondali of Ptolemy, who are classed among

1y

‘the Bitti,” and distinguished from ¢the Phyllites’ (probably the

(]

Bhills), were probably the Gonds, but it is not said whether or not

61

they differed in appearance from the more cultivated Dravidians.

Some writers, I think erroneously, speak of the ¢jet blackness’ of

ek)L

)

it

the Gonds ; and the Rajmahal people are said to be black.

Notwith-

I

o

standing this, according to the account of that accurate observer, Dr

i

Buchanan Hamilton, the features of the Malers or Rajmahal hill

the

people, do not essentially differ from the Aryan type.

“ Their lips are

01

full, but not at all like those of the Negro.

Their faces are oval, not

0y

shaped like a lozenge as those of the Chinese are.

Their eyes, instead

of being hid in fat and placed obliquely like those of the Chinese, are

el

exactly like those of Europeans.” We have seen that some of the Vind-

a

hya Nishddas are described in the Purdnas to be ‘as black as crows ;’

the

but without debating the accuracy of the portrait of those primitive

it

tribes, which the Purinas have drawn, and which seems to be con-

10

firmed on the whole by the photographs in Colonel Dalton’s ¢ Ethno-

| 4

logy of Bengal,” it will suffice for the present to remind the reader that

Ja

those very Purfna writers entertained so different an impression

respecting the mass of the Dravidians of the south, that they fell into

by

the opposite error of Aryanising them, and supposed the Kalingas,

fh

Péandyas, Kolas, Kéralas, and other Dravidians, to be descended from

Aryan princes of the Lunar line.

e

It was not until after the above was written that I became acquainted

] tﬂ

wh

with Sir George Campbell's ¢ Ethnology of India.”

His impression

ju

of the similarity in the physical type of the higher castes amongst the

Southern Dravidians to that of the Aryans of northern India is as

100

strong as mine, whilst the reason for the similarity he assigns is dif-

iy

ferent.

ari

He says (p. 15), “I draw no wide ethnological line between

the northern and southern countries of India, not recognising the

the

separate Dravidian classification of the latter as properly ethnological.

d

fhe

It seems to me that among all the Hindu tribes the Aryan element now

ofly

prevails, and that the presence, more or less, of the aboriginal element

is only a question of degree.

As a question of degree I do not think

it

that there is at any geographical parallel any decided line.

A change

fall

of language takes place where passing southward we exchange the

o

Maratta for Telugu and Canarese.

But looking at the people, we see

fis

074

APPENDIX.

ob

no radical change of feature or characteristics.

It may well be that

i

although the people speaking a Dravidian language in the South may

al

always by force of numbers have linguistically prevailed over each

£l

separate batch of immigrants, and so far annexed them ; still by

1

successive immigration, notwithstanding a Dravidian form of speech,

Tlie mere fact

0l

the Aryan blood has come in reality greatly to prevail.

that they are recognised as orthodox Hindus seems to imply the

Ve

northern origin of all the better castes in the South, and that is their

{4t

own account of their origin.

I have no doubt the southern Hindus

o

may generally be classed as Aryans, and that the southern society is in

I

its structure, its manners, and its laws and institutions, an Aryan

D

society. After all, in their main characteristics the southern people

il

are very like those of the North.

Among some of the inferior tribes

of the South the remains of the thick lips, the very black skin, and

Lo

other features may still be traced, but, colour perliaps excepted, the

il

aboriginal features are probably gradually wearing away.”

He re-

10,

gards the race that preceded the Aryans in the occupation of India as

il

e

having been a race of Negritoes.

“ ] take as a great division of tribes

i)

and castes the black aboriginal tribes of the interior hills and jungles.

o

There can; I suppose, be no doubt that they are the remnants of the

They are evidently the

Vi

race which occupied India before the Hindus.

remains-of an element the greater portion of which has been absorbed

Wl

I}

by, or amalgamated with, the modern Indian race, and which, mixed

in various degrees with the high-featured immigrants, has contributed

T

to form the Hindu of to-day.

In the South their speech still forms the

I

i

basis of the modern languages.” -As regards features, he thinks with

I

Colonel Dalton, that lower races would gradually assimilate themselves

il

to a higher race living amongst them, though inferior to themselves in

number.

Il

Professor Huxley’s views of Dravidian ethnology, together

with those of Professor Quatréfage, seem to be substantially identical

I\G\

by

with Sir George Campbell’s. So also are those of D.r Logan already

referred to.

fr

This theory of the origin of the people of Southern India, considered

al

The

from an ethnological point of view alone, seems nearly perfect.

[

only ethnological facts it does not appear to account for are the differ-

ence between the small, black Puleiyas of the Malabar coast and the

dr

large, brown, and comparatively handsome Tudas of the Nilgherries,

the fairness of some entire tribes of low-caste Dravidians—e.g., the

a

Médigas or ¢ Chucklers’ of the Telugu country, and the combination

0

of Mongolian features and a black complexion in the Gonds and

tlw

Uridons of the Central Provinces.

It cannot be expected, however,

01

that any theory should perfectly meet and explain all the peculiarities

e

—

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE

579

103

observable

amongst mixed races

especially where their mixture

103y

dates from pree-historic times

Notwithstanding the prima facte

gacl

attractiveness of this theory

I am doubtful whether ethnology is

LV

entitled to settle the question, without any reference to the evidence

£0l)

furnished by history and philology

The historic and linguistic diffi-

Tact

culties in the way of the acceptance of this theory seem to me to be

{6

very considerable.

iy

The better castes of Southern India—that is, those that have the

1018

entrée of the temples and the members of which are regarded as ¢ ortho-

IS

I

dox Hindus

are too numerous to suit the hypothesis in question

T4l

Judging by the results of the census of -the city of Madras, the higher

()6

Dravidian castes (not including Brahmans) form at least four fifths of

1068

the entire population of Southern India

Small bodies of men be-

and

longing to the Aryan or North Indian race might have migrated to

th

il

the South, and amalgamated with Dravidian tribes, in the manner sup

) I6

posed: by the theory under consideration, without any record of their

4 a8

migration surviving, except perhaps in the lighter complexion of their

1hes

descendants

But it seems difficult to suppose that such an immense

ole

migration as the theory requires—whether all at once or in successive

the

waves—-can have taken place, subsequently to the composition of the

the

Vedas, during the period covered by the epic poems and the Puranas,

106l

i

without leaving behind it some trace of itself, either in Sanskrit or

el

Dravidian literature, in arms or inscriptions, or at least in the northern

The account in the

ted

names and relationships of the principal castes

the

Mahé-bharatu of the marriage of Arjuna to a daughter of the king of

the Pandyas may be regarded as a specimen of the notices we should

il

have expected everywhere to find

In this. very manner traces of

e‘w

the northern relationship of certain princely families in the South still

g 1l

survive

Those families not only. call themselves Kohattriyas, but

thﬂ

keep up their connection with the great Aryan families of the north

fil

by occasional intermarriages

A certain number of floating popular

aly

traditions, such as that such and such castes are descended from such

and such Solar or Lunar king

are, I admit, in favour of the theory;

el

but such traditions have no place in the literature, and seem to me to

The

be pretty much on a par with the tradition of the artificers of the

e

South, to the effect that they are the descendants of Visva-karma, the

|

tle

architect of the universe

Castes that have really a northern origin

WSl

fhe

as the Brahmans and a few offshoots of the Rajputs, are always re-

cognised as such by the caste names they retain

The theory in ques-

oD

tion seems irreconcilable also with the great preponderance of Dravidian

ad

over Sanskrit names of places in Ptolemy and the other Greek geogra-

Al

phers

The ounly names of Sanskrit origin are those of the river

Ififs

576

APPENDIX.

50

Kavéri, Cape Comorin, the promontory Kory, the city of Madura, and

In

the town Brachme, together with the names of two of the Southern

princes, Pandion and Kerobotras.

All the rest of the names, whether

il

b

belonging to the coast or to the interior, are purely Dravidian, from

of

which it may fairly be concluded that the great bulk of the population

§0I

was even then Dravidian, not Aryan.

The distinction drawn between

y

the district of Ariake and that of Damirice (Symirice) (see “ Intro-

for

duction,” p.

) would seem also to show that the settlements of the

Brahmans had doubtless

S

two races were even then clearly defined.

il

established themselves in various places in the Grecian period, and

plil

apparently their influence was extending, but there is no evidence that

la

the bulk of the people in the South then consisted of Aryans, or that

It is an important fact, con-

(0]

they had already been Brahmanised.

(ll

veying an inference in the same direction, that as late as the seventh

00

century KumArila-bhatta, himself a South Indian Brahman, and the

fh

first Indian scholar who clearly discerned a difference between Sanskrit

and the Dravidian vernaculars, styled the Dravidas and Andhras (the

i

f

Tamil and Telugu people) Mlechchas,” meaning thereby rude, abori-

D

ginal, non-Brahmanised tribes (‘‘ Introduction,” p.

)

If the great

th

bulk of the South Indians, including the whole of the better castes,

had been Aryans in origin, equally with himself, and as orthodox

19

11

Hindus as himself—as probably they would have been if they had

la

been Aryans—it is difficult to suppose that he would have made use

s e

§U

of this strong expression.

The theory in question seems to me inconsistent with the insignifi-

{

-

i

cant position occupied in the speech of the cultivated Dravidians by

§

Sanskrit, the language of literature amongst the Indo-Aryans, or Pra-

krit, the Indo-Aryan vernacular.

The Aryans were so masterful a

people, with so high a conception of the divine origin and excellence

I

of everything belonging to themselves, that wherever they established

)

themselves they Aryanised everything they found. There is no instance

D

on record of an aboriginal language holding its ground in the face of

an Aryan occupation.

In Northern and Western India, and in Bengal

(I

i

and Orissa, where the course of events was in accordance with this

li

theory—that is, where Aryan colonies gradually spread themselves

over the country, conquering and partly absorbing the aboriginal

f

population—the ancient vernaculars have so completely disappeared

that it has now become a debated point whether any traces of them

survive in the structure or vocabulary of the speech of the Aryan

colonists.

It is held by many that it is highly probable, if not certain,

that every word and form in the modern vernaculars of Northern

India is Aryan.

The Aryan immigrants could not be expected to be

N

|

1y

DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE.

57

{

50 numerous at any time in the South as they were in those parts of

India which were nearest the first settlements of their race in the Pun-

jab.

It might therefore be argued that the languages of the Southern

aborigines might be expected to hold their ground better than those

of the aborigines of the North. This may freely be granted ; and yet

some kind of proportion between race and language ought to be

observable.

If four fifths of the population in the South are Aryans,

four fifths, at least, of the grammatical principles and words of the

Southern languages ought to be Sanskritic.

I say this result at least

should follow ; because all experience seems to show that a much

smaller proportion of the Aryan race would suffice to exert a much

larger degree of influence.

It is not as if the people in the South

conquered by the Aryans had been a highly civilised people, with a

cultivated language and a literature of their own.

The theory under

consideration supposes them to have been in a condition similar to

that in which the aboriginal tribes and the lower castes are still.

It supposes, indeed, the Gonds, the Tudas, the Puleiyas, and similar

tribes to be the only true, unchanged representatives of the ancient

Dravidians.

Though, therefore, the Afghans lost their language on

their arrival in India, and adopted the language of the highly cultivated

races they conquered—(Grecia capta ferum victorem cepit)—it seems

improbable that the Aryans, especially when supposed to arrive in such

large numbers, would exchange their own language, as the hypothesis

supposes them to have done, for the languages of people who were

greatly inferior to themselves in civilisation, and on whom they found

it easy to impose their own religion and civil polity.

If we should

suppose that the Aryan immigration to Southern India consisted, not

of large masses of people, but of small isolated parties of adventurers,

like that which is said to have colonised Ceylon ; if we should suppose

;

that the immigrants consisted chiefly of a few younger sons of Aryan

i

princes, attended by small bodies of armed followers and a few Brahman

priests—the result would probably be that a certain number of words

)

i

connected with government, with religion, and with the higher learn-

ing, would be introduced into the Dravidian languages, and that the

literary life of these languages would then commence, or at least would

then receive a new development, whilst the entire structure of their

grammar and the bulk of their vocabulary would remain unchanged.

The result which I have supposed would take place is in fact the very

condition of things we actually see, and it may, therefore, I think, be

i

concluded that it fairly represents the reality. The only influence

Il

Sanskrit has exerted is seen in the enrichment of the Dravidian stock

|

of words ; and the only influence exerted by Prakrit is seen in the

20

£

S

4

4

APPENDIX.

The

mode in which a certa:n number of those words is pronounced.

position the speech of the Aryéms would naturally have acquired in

Southern India, if the whole, or even a considerable portion, of the

higher castes had been Aryan in origin, may be illustrated by what has

actually taken place in the neighbouring island of Ceylon.

Whether

we accept the story of Vijaya as historically true or not, it cannot be

doubted that several centuries before the Christian

era Ceylon was

conquered by a small party of Aryan adventurers from

Magadha.

The

previous inhabitants of the island were a rude race, represented now

only by the ¢ Weddahs,” and probably allied to, if not identical with,

the primitive Dravidians.

And what was the result ?

The result was

that the Aryan speech—the Pali-Prakrit—became supreme, and that

the speech of the aborigines disappeared, leaving scarcely a trace

behind.

Even the language spoken by the Veddahs has been found

to be substantially Aryan. The fact that the name the Aryans gave

to Ceylon (TAmnaparnt) was identical with the name of the principal

river south of the Kavéri on the opposite coast of the mainland; would

seem to show that the party led by Vijaya was an offshoot from a

similar party that had established itself at an earlier period on the

banks of the Tamnaparni, probably at Kolka, the first seat, according

to tradition, of the rule of the Pandya princes.

If so, however, look-

ing at the insignificance of the position occupied on the mainland by

the speech of the Aryans, compared with the importance of the position

occupied by it in Ceylon, the proportion of Aryans to Dravidians on

the mainland must have been very much smaller than in the island,

and is therefore very difficult to reconcile with the hypothesis that the

great bulk of the-inhabitants of Southern India are Aryans by origin,

not Dravidians.

Onthe whole, therefore, I am unable-as yet to cmﬁmit myself to the ac-

ceptance of the hypothesis in question; though I confess myself unable to

set up one in its room that will cover the whole ethnological field with

such apparent ease. Further research seems to berequired ; and a careful

comparison of the physical type of the lower castes in Southern India

with that of the rude, aboriginal tribes of the Central Provinces, seems

The second volume of Dr Muir’s ¢ Sanskrit

to be specially desirable.

texts” (new edition) contains much information, from North Indian

sources, respecting the Aryan immigration to the South. The conclu-

“The

sions at which he has arrived have thus been summarised.

evidence he has adduced all tends to show that the Aryans gradually

made their way downwards from the North, but that the force of their

incursive wave was weakened as it passed the Vindhya mountains, and

failed to make any serious impressiog beyond the limits of Mahé-

o,

E

§7%

HANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

The

0l 1

rishtra ; leaving the Dravidian tongues of the peninsula as monuments

I

b

,‘

to record what manner of people had dwelt in that land ip previous

b

1

i

ages.”

Saturday Review, March 1, 1873.

It

i

F

0

I}

| e

The

VIL

| ov

il

ANCIENT RE‘LIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

h el

ot

REeLicIoUS usages are sometimes found to throw light on the origin

race

or relationship of races. _Similarity in the religious ideas and practices

fon

of any two primitive tribes strengthens any evidence of their relation-

0T

Let us see

ship that may be furnished by similarity of language.

el

I

whether any light can be thrown on the question of the relationship of

ould

the Dravidians by an inquiry into their religious usages.

A priore,

o 4

this inquiry seems likely to lead to some definite result, inasmuch as

i the

the religions of the ancient Indo-European nations and the old Scythian

il

i

religions of Upper Asia present many essential points of difference.

ok

In the earliest times we find amongst the nations of the Indo-European

il

nd b

family the universal prevalence of certain tenets and usages, which

st

100

each of those nations appears to‘have inherited from the common pro-

n

genitors of the race.

ns

i

Their objects of worship were either the sun,

dand

Al

the sky, water, fire, and other elements of nature personified, or a

ot

Pantheon of heroes and heroines ; and one of the most characteristic

o

gl

of their religious usages was the maintenance of a distinct order of

priests, generally hereditary, who were venerated as the depositaries

of ancient traditions and spiritual power.

In whatever race these

fheat

religious peculiarities

appear to have prevailed, we shall probably find

hlhlf 0

on inquiry that there

are reasons for attributing to that race an Indo-

M it

I

carell

European origin or relationship : and in like manner a family likeness

Jod

(exceedingly dissimilar from the particulars now mentioned) will be

bee&‘

found to characterise the religious practices of the nations and peoples

of the Scythian group.

;'i!l‘l\r

In endeavouring to ascertain the characteristics of the primitive

o

il jal

Dravidian religion, we are met by a serious but not insurmountable

LOI Il

il

difficulty. The Brahmans, by whom the Aryan civilisation was grafted

WThe

on the old Dravidian stock, laboured assiduously, if not to extirpate

ﬁduu”‘f

the old Dravidian religion, yet at least to establish their own in its

)l thl

room as a religion of paramount obligation ; and they are generally

5 0

i

supposed to have succeeded in accomplishing this object. Notwith-

)i

standing their success, however, it is still possible in some degree to

580

APPENDIX.

discriminate between the practices introduced 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 Purdnas, neither from Buddhism nor

from Jainism, such usages may be concluded to be relics of the religious

system of the Dravidian 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 introduction of Brahmanism

(or what is commonly called Hinduism), with the religious usages that

prevailed amongst the High Asian races.

The system which prevails in the forests and mountain fastnesses

throughout the Dravidian territories, and also in the south of the

peninsula amongst the lower classes and a portion of the middle classes,

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 and frantic dances.

This system seems to

have been introduced 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 seems to have been the old reli-

gion of the whole Tatar race before Buddhism and Muhammedanism

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,f

as still practised in many districts in Southern India.

* Phis 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 use of this word Sk iman,

the Sanskrit word Sramana, a Buddhist ascetic.

in Siberia, niust 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.

+ A full account of the peculiarities of the Dravidian demonolatry is contained

in a small work of mine (now out of print), ealled * The Shanars of Tinnevelly,”

e,

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

581

i

1. The Shamanites are destitute of a regular priesthood. Ordinarily

£

the father of the family is the priest and magician ; but the office may

I

be undertaken by any one who pleases, and at any time laid aside.

(o)

Precisely similar is the practice existing amongst the rude tribes of

0r

Southern India.

Ordinarily it is the head of the family, or the head-

I

11

man of the hamlet or community, who performs the priestly office ;

1y

but any worshipper, male or female, who feels so disposed, may volun-

ol

teer to officiate, and becomes for the time being the representative and

lly

interpreter of the demon.

ale

2. The Shamanites acknowledge the existence of a supreme God,

of

but they do not offer him any worship, believing that he is too good

ik

to do them any harm.

The same acknowledgment of God’s existence

It

and the same neglect of his worship characterise the religion of the

Dravidian demonolaters.

568

3. Neither amongst the Shamanites, nor amongst the primitive, un-

the

Brahmanised demonolaters of India is there any trace of belief in the

s,

metempsychosis.

1ly

4. The objects of Shamanite worship are not gods or heroes, but

by

demons, which are supposed to be cruel, revengeful, and capricious,

The officiat-

o

and are worshipped by bloody sacrifices and wild dances.

i

ing magician or priest excites himself to frenzy, and then pretends, or

Lem

supposes himself, to be possessed by the demon to which worship is

being offered ; and after the rites are over he communicates, to those

i

the

who consult him, the information he has received.

The demonolatry

tl}e

ll

published by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.

I think I have

10

proved in that work that the demonolatry of the Shanars (the palmyra cultivators

of Southern India) did not originate with the Brahmans, or in any local develop-

that

f{

ment of the religion of the Brahmaus ; but that, on the contrary, the element

el

of demonology which is contained in the Puranic system was borrowed from this

old Dravidian superstition.

The Buddhists of Ceylon seem to have borrowed

|

their demonolatry from the Dravidians of the old Pandya kingdom : if so, it

el

cannot be unreasonable to suppose that it was from the same or a similar source

1[15,%

that the Brahmans borrowed the demoniacal element contained in their religion

It appears to me that an element of demonism, ready to receive further develop-

ment, may be traced even in the Aitareya Brahmana of the Rig-beds, in connec-

olal

tion with the character attributed, and the worship offered, to Rudra, afterwards

identified with Siva.

I apprehend that we have a mythical record of the adop-

Il

2[cd

3 I°

tion of the aboriginal demonolatry into the Brahmanical system, and of the object

in view in this alliance, in the Puranic story of the sacrifice of Daksha.

Accord-

fro

i

Iy

ing to that story, Siva (t.c., Saiva Brahmanism) found himself unable to subdue

the old elementary divinities, and to secure to himself the exclusive homage at

oD

which he aimed, till he called in the aid of the demons (the demonolatry of the

aborigines), and put himself at their head in the person of his (pro-re-natus) son,

Vira-bhadra ; a demigod whose wife, emanation, or representative, Bhadra-k4li,

tault‘i

1l

s regarded by the Shanars as their patroness and mother.

Al

58

2

~

APPENDIX

practised in India by the more primitive Dravidian tribes is not only

similar to this, but the same.

Every word used in the foregoing

(I

description of the Shamanite worship would apply equally well to the

(r

Dravidian demonolatry ; and in depicting the ceremonies of the one

1)

race we depict those of the other also.

th

Compare the following accounts of the demonolatrous rites of the

The

W

Shamanites of Siberia and those of the demonolaters of India.

s

description of the Shamanite worship is formed from a series of arranged

quotations from the descriptions which various Russian travellers and

i

e

ecclesiastics have given of the superstitions of the Ostiaks, the Samoi-

)

edes, the Siberian Turks, and other pagan inhabitants of Northern

Asia, to which are added some extracts from Marco Polo, and Colonel

[

Yule’s notes thereon.

The account of the Dravidian superstitions is

W

t

mainly taken from my paper on “the Tinnevelly Shanars,” a paper

0§

which was written before I was aware of the identity of the demono-

80

latry of Siberia with that of Southern Ir?dia.'

t

SHAMANITE DEMONOLATROUS.” RiTES. — ¢ When the Shaman, or

l

magician, performs his superstitious rites, he puts on a garment

trimmed with bits of iron, rattles, and bells: he cries horribly, beats

al

all

a sort of drum, agitates himself,-and.shakes the metallic appendages

0f

of his robe; and at the same time the bystanders increase the din by

When the Shaman, by his

a4

striking with their fists upon iron kettles.

horrible contortions and yells, by cutting himself with knives, whirling

b

and swooning, has succeeded in assuming the appearance of something

thy

preternatural and portentous, the assembled multitude are impressed

with the belief that the demon they are worshipping has taken posses-

n

sion of the priest, and regard him accordingly with wonder and dread,

th

al

When he is quite exhausted with his exertions, and can no longer hold

0

out, he makes a sign that the spirit has left him, and then imparts to

the people the intimations he has received.”

i

Marco Polo, speaking of some rude tribes of Central Asia, southward

fl

d

of the Burman frontier, not then converted to Buddhism (Colonel Yule’s

W

edition, vol. ii., pp. 53-61), says—

“ And let me tell you that in all those three provinces that I have

b

been speaking of, to wit, Carajan, Vockan, and Yachi, there is never a

Ve

th

leech. But when any one is ill they send for the devil-conjurers, who

are the keepers of their idols.

When these are come the sick man

Rl

tells what ails him, and then the conjurers incontinently begin playing

t

on their instruments, and singing,

and dancing

)

and the conjurers

t

dance to such a pitch that at last one of them will fall to the ground

§

17

lifeless, like a dead man.

And then the devil entereth into his bodyf

il

f

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS

H83

y

And when his comrades see him in this plight they begin to put ques-

B}

tions to him about the sick man’s ailment

And he will reply, ¢ Such

4

or such a spirit hath been meddling with the man, for that he hath

angered the spirit and done it some despite

Then they say, ¢ We pray

I

thee to pardon him, and to take of his blood or of his goods what thou

e

wilt, 1n conmdemtlon of thus restoring him to health.’

And when they

ol

have so prayed, the malignant spirit that is in the body of the pros-

d

trate man will (mayhap) answer, ¢ The sick man hath also done great

I

despite unto-such another spirit, and that one is so ill- disposed that it

[

will not pardon him on any account ;’—this at least is the answer they

¢l

get if the patient be like to die.

But if he is to get better, the answer

18

will be that they are to bring two sheep, or may be three, and to brew

gl

ten or twelve jars of drink, very costly, and abundantly spiced

More-

U}

over, 1t will be annournced that the sheep must be all black-faced, or of

some other particular colour as it may happen ; and then all those

things are to be offered in sacrifice to such and such a spirit whose

0

name 1s given. And they are to bring so many conjurers, and so many

i1

ladies, and the business is to be done with a oreat singing of lauds

1§

and with many lights and store of good perfumes

That is the sort of

And then the kinsfolk

£8

answer they get if the patient is to get well

of the sick man go and procure all that has been commanded, and do

0y

as has been bidden, and the conjurer who had uttered all that gets on

1§

his legs again.

g

“So they fetch the sheep of the colour prescribed, and slaughter

03

e

them, and sprinkle the blood over such places as have been enjoined,

A

in honour and propitiation of the spirit

And the conjurers come, and

the ladies, in the number that was ordered, and when all are assembled

d

and everything is ready, they begin to dance and play and sing in honour

Ild

of the spirit. And they take flesh-broth, and drink, and lignaloes, and

fo

a great number of lights, and go about hither and thither scattering

the broth and the drink and the meat also

il

And when they have

done this for a while, again shall one of the conjurers fall flat and

g3

allow there, foaming at the mouth, and then the others will ask if he

have yet pardoned the sick man?

And sometimes he shall answer

\{(4

yes ! and sometimes he shall answer no !

And if the answer be no

&

they shall be told that something or other has to be done all over

1o

again, and then he shall be pardoned ;

so this they do.

And when all

Al

that the spirit has commanded has been done with great ceremony,

then it will be announced that the man is pardoned and shall be

o9

speedily cured.

- So when they at length receive such a reply, they

i

announce that it is all made up with the spirit, and that he is propi-

i

tiated, and they fall to eating and drinking with great joy and mirth

584

APPENDIX.

and he who had been lying lifeless on the ground gets up and takes his

share.

So when they have all eaten and drunken, every man departs

home.

And presently the sick man gets sound and well.”

The following are Colonel Yule’s notes :—

Note 7.—Compare Mr Hodgson’s account -of the sub-Himalayan

Bodos and Dhimals : © All diseases are ascribed to supernatural agency.

The sick man is supposed to be possessed by one of the deities, who

racks him with pain as a punishment for impiety or neglect of the god

in question.

Hence not the mediciner, but the exorcist, is summoned

to the sick man’s aid.”—(J. 4. 8. B., xviii. 728.)

;j

Note 8.—Mr Hodgson again— Libations of fermented liquor always

accompany sacrifice—because, to confess the whole truth, sacrifice and

feast are commutable words, and feasts need to be crowned with

copious potations.”—(/bed.)

Note 9.—And again—* The god in question is asked what sacrifice

he requires? a buffalo, a hog, a fowl, or a duck, to spare the sufferer ?

anxious as I am fully to illustrate the topic, I will not try the

patience of my readers by describing all that vast variety of black vic-

tims and white, of red victims and blue, which each particular deity is

alleged to prefer.”—(Ibid, and p. 732.)

Note 10.—The same system of devil-dancing is prevalent among the

tribes on the Lu-Kiang, as described by the Roman Catholic mission-

aries.

The conjurers are there called Mumos.

¢« Marco’s account of the exorcism of evil spirits in cases of obstinate

illness exactly resembles what is done in similar cases by the Burmese,

(Sir

except that I never saw animals sacrificed on such occasions.”

A. Phayre.)

Mouhot says of the wild people of Cambodia called Stirns: ¢ When

any one is ill they say that the evil spirit torments him ; and to deliver

him they set about the patient a dreadful din which does not cease

night or day, until some one among the bystanders falls down as if in

a syncope, crying out, ¢ I have him—he is in m

e—he is strangling

me !” Then they question the person who has thus become possessed.

t remedies

They ask him what remedies will save the patient; wha

Sometimes

does the evil spirit require that he may give up his prey ?

it is an ox or a pig ; but too often it is a human victim ” (Joumal of

the Royal Geographical Society, xxxii. 147).

In fact, these strange rites of Shamanism, devil-dancing, or what not,

are found with wonderful identity of character among the non-Aryan

races over parts of the earth most remote from one another, not

only

among the vast variety of Indo-Chinese tribes, but among the Tamilian

tribes of India, the Veddahs of Ceylon, the races of Siberia, and the

m—

585

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

e i

red nations of North and South America.

Jinduism has assimilated

these “ prior superstitions of the sons of Tur,” as Mr Hodgson calls

bpat

them, in the form of Tantrika mysteries, whilst in the wild performance

of the dancing dervishes at Constantinople we see perhaps again the

I}

infection of Turanian blood breaking out from the very heart of

i

Mussulman orthodoxy.

gen).

“ Dr Caldwell has given a striking account of the practice of devil-

5 T

dancing among the Shanars of Tinnevelly, which forms a perfect

o g

parallel in modern langnage to our traveller’s description of a scene of

moned

which he also had manifestly been an eye-witness.”

Thus far Colonel Yule.

I now adduce again the passage of which

almags

Colonel Yule quoted the principal portion.

g a0l

| ith

SEANAR DEMONOLATROUS RiTES.—¢ When it is determined to offer a

sacrifice to a devil, a person is specially appointed to act the part of

qonife

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

by {he

Usually

ok

who chooses.

The officiating priest is styled a devil-dancer.

18

fib

the head man, or one of the principal men of the village officiates ; but

Jety 8

sometimes the duty is voluntarily undertaken by some devotee, male

or female, who wishes to gain notoriety, or in whom the sight of the

01

g il

preparations has awakened a sudden zeal. The officiating priest is

11

10

dressed up for the occasion in the vestments and ornaments appro-

priated to the particular devil that is worshipped. The object in view

inat

in donning the demon’s insignia is doubtless to strike terror into the

(e

imagination of the beholders ; but the party-coloured dress and gro-

v

tesque ornaments, the cap and trident and jingling bells, of the

performer, bear so close a resemblance to the usual adjuncts of a

Ther

pantomime that an European would find it difficult to look grave.

| deh

(i

The musical instruments, or rather the instruments of noise, which are

t (o

chiefly used in the devil-dance are the drum and the horn ; with occa-

N

Q!

sionally the addition of a clarionet when the parties can afford it.

g

But the favourite instrument, because the noisiest, is that which is

)aaeyed

called the bow.

A series of bells of various sizes is fastened to the

el

frame of a gigantic bow, the strings are tightened so as to emit a

e

I

musical note when struck, and the bow rests on a large empty brazen

1!)””’1’ Y

pot

The instrument is played on by a plectrum, and several musi-

cians join in the performance.

“One strikes the strings of the bow

with the plectrum, another produces the bass by striking the brazen

I} Al‘

i

pot with his hand, and a third beats time and improves the harmony

oot

)

by a pair of cymbals.’

When the preparations are completed, and the

[\ hﬂu

il

devil-dance is about to commence, the music is at first comparatively

il fie

586

APPENDIX.

4

slow, and the dancer seems impassive and sullen, and either he stands

da

still or moves about in gloomy silence.

Gradually, as the music be-

ter

comes quicker and louder, his excitement beging to rise.

Sometimes

10

to help him to work himself up into a frenzy he uses medicated

af

draughts, cuts and lacerates his flesh till the blood flows, lashes him-

self with a huge whip, presses a burning torch to his breast, drinks the

W

blood which flows from his own wounds, or drinks the blood of the

sacrifice, putting the throat of the decapitated goat to his mouth.

4

Then, as if he had acquired new life, he begins to brandish his staff of

he

bells, and dance with a quick, but wild, unsteady step.

Suddenly the

8¢l

afflatus descends. There is no mistaking that glare, or those frantic

leaps.

He snorts, he stares, he gyrates.

The demon has now taken

%f ‘t

]

bodily possession of him, and though he retains the power of utterance

all(

and of motion, both are'under the demon’s control, and his separate

the

conselousness is in abeyance.

The bystanders signalise the event by

shy

raising a long shout attended with a_peculiar vibratory noise. - The

101

devil-dancer is now worshipped as a present deity ; and every by-

the

stander consults him respecting his disease, his wants, the welfare of

of

his absent relations, and the offerings which are to be made for the

1

accomplishment of his wishes.

As the devil dancer acts to admiration

100!

the part of a maniac, it requires some experience to enable a person to

tha

interpret his dubious or unmeaning replies, his muttered voice, and

il

uncouth gestures ; but the wishes of the parties who consult him help

B

x

1y

them greatly to interpret his meaning.”

lia

A similar system prevails in the hilly districts of Mysore, as appears

Ba

from an article on the demon-worship practised in the Malnad district

W

in that province, in the Indian Antiguary for September 1872, by Mr

a0

Narasimmiyengar of Bengalore, - There also the priest ¢ works him-

(0]

self to a state bordering on frenzy, and whatever he may utter in that

condition is considered to be a ‘supernatural revelation,”

ot}

fon

A still more extraordinary outburst of demoniacal frenzy takes place

élpp

amongst the Kfrs, Kfirkus, or Mnasis, a people of Kota Nagpur, in

o,

n,,

connection with the worship of one of their divinities.

These people

belong to the Kol, not to the Dravidian stock, but their.religion, like

sy

that of the old Dravidians, secems to be mainly a worship of eyil

Wi

spirits. “The divinity may be invoked at any time, and in all sickness

and misfortunes his votaries coufidently appeal to him. The Baiga is

thy

e

always the medium of communication, but he assembles the people to

La

aid him in the invocation. Musical instruments are produced, dancing

commences, and the invocation to the spirit is chanted

until one or

Dol

more of the perfor

orih

mers manifest possession by wild rolling of the eyes

and involuntary spasmodic action of the muscles.

COny

The affection

P

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DI’AV]DIASS.

587

appears contagious, and old.women and others who have not been

dancing become influenced by it in a manner that is horrible to con-

template.

Captain Samuells who frequently witnessed the incanta-

tion, is confident that no deception whatever is practised.

The

affection, says Captain Samuells, comes on like a fit of ague, lasting

sometimes for a quarter of an hour, the patient or possessed person

writhing and trembling with intense violence, especially at the ecom-

mencement of the paroxysm

Then he is seen to spring from the

ground into the air, and a succession of leaps follows, all executed as if

he were shot at by some unseen agency.

During this stage of the

seizure he is supposed to be quite unconscious, and rolls into the fire,

if there be one, or under the feet of the dancers, without sustaining

This lasts for a few minutes only,

injury from the heat or pressure.

With hands and knees on

and is followed by the spasmodic stage.

the ground, and hair loosened, the body is convulsed, and the head

shakes violently, whilst from the mouth issues a hissing or: gurgling

noise.

The patient next evincing an inclination to stand on his legs,

the bystanders assist him, and place a stick in his hand, with the aid

of which he hops about, the spasmodic action of the body still con-

tinuing, and the head performing by jerks a violently fatiguing circular

movement.

This may go on for hours, though Captain Samuells says

that no one in his senses could continue such exertion for many

minutes.

When the Baiga is appealed to, to cast out the spirit, he

must first ascertain whether it is Gansdm himself, or one of his fami-

liars, that has possessed the victim.

If it be the great Gansim, the

Baiga implores him to desist, meanwhile gently anointing the victim

with butter ; and if the treatment is successful, the patient gradually

and naturally subsides into a state of repose from which he rises into

consciousness, and restored to his normal state, feels no fatigue or

other ill-effects from the attack.

This is certainly the most thorough

form of demon-worship with which we have met, and one that must

appear to its votaries to testify to its own reality each time it is resorted

to.” (Colonel Dalton’s ¢ Ethnology of Bengal,” p. 232.)

It seems to me unnecessary to say anything more in proof of the

substantial identity of the demonolatry of Central and Southern India

with the Shamanism of Central and Northern Asia.

It may be alleged

that similarity in mental characteristics and social circumstances alone

A

might give rise to this similarity in religious ideas and practices, and

I admit this to be possible, nay probable, but it seems to me more

probable still that both the superstitions which have now been des-

cribed have sprung from a common origin : and I may add that the

conformity which has been traced between the old religion of the Dra-

x

APPENDIX.

588

Il

vidians and that which was once the religion of almost all the Scythian

nations and tribes corroborates the suspicion of the Scythian relation-

the

ship, on the whole, of the Dravidian race.

hil?

yel

Whilst the demonolatrous rites which I have now described appear

wh

to have constituted the prevailing superstition of the ancient Dravi-

dians, we meet also with traces of the existence of systems that

§01

il

correspond in part to those which prevailed amongst the Indo-European

races.

C

The religion of the Khonds, Kandhs, or Kus, though it contains a

demonolatrous element, may be described as in the main a worship of

h

th

gods of rivers and mountains, of gods of the earth and the sky, and

fo

of the gods of elements and genie loct.

It is in part an elementary

l

worship, which may be allied in principle to that of the Aryans, but

which differs widely from it in spirit and form, and appears to be quite

(47

independent of it in origin.

This remark especially applies to that

W

section of the Khonds which used to practise human sacrifices, and

1§

delight in cruelty and gloom. A worship of gods of rivers and

[

mountains similar to that of the Khonds is found amongst the Kols,

1

and also amongst the Sub-Himalayan and Bhutin tribes described by

la

Mr Hodgson,—in most instances modified by an element of terror, and

0

intermixed with demon worship pure and simple.

Amongst the Dravidians of the plains scarcely any reliable trace of

JU

0f

the worship of the elements has ever been discovered, except in so far

Indeed there

i

as it can be shown to have had a Brahmanical origin.

is reason to believe that the old Vedic or Elementary worship of the

t

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 South Indian usage which is not

of Brahmanical origin is either identical with Shamanism or allied to it

The religion of the Tudas of the Nilgherry hills exhibits some pecu-

liarities which have been regarded as ¢ Scyth-Druidical.’

The peculiar

veneration with which the Tudas regard the names of ancestors; their

sacrifices to secure the peace of the dead ; the prominence given in

their worship to offerings of milk and clarified butter; their freedom

from the worship of idols; the religious veneration with which they

regard a sacred bell which is hung up in their temples or sacred

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 practice of poly-

andria ;—these and analogous peculiarities of the religions 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-

e

@

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

589

itk

European race.

Our ignorance of the history of the Tudas, and of

lflOL

the circumstances which compelled them to take refuge in the Nilgherry

hills, renders it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether their

el

religion sprang from the same origin as the Dravidian demonolatry,

whether it is to be placed to the account of their early association with

Drar

§ 1

it

hat

some Indo-European race, or whether it was a spontaneous develop-

el

ment of the Tuda mind.

The religion of the Tudas has sometimes been called Druidicai;

Celto-Druidical, or identical with the religion of the ancient Celts ;

allls &

I

but, with the exception of the performance of some of their rites in

the deep gloom of sacred groves,—a practice which was not peculiar

, atd

to the Celts alone, but which prevailed amongst various ancient

Ity

nations,—it does not appear that there is anything distinctively or

g bt

certainly Druidical in the existing system of the Tudas.

| qﬂite

) thet

Since the appearance of the above remarks in the first edition of this

work, much progress has been made in the study of the religion and

, ad

usages of the Tudas, through the researches of Colonel Marshall, and

ool

\

especially those of the Rev. T. Metz.

Most of the information respect-

Kol

ing the Tudas acquired by Mr Metz during a long life of missionary

ol by

labour amongst the hill tribes of the Nilgherries, will be found in

d

Colonel Marshall’s book.

It is now known that the Tudas have a

priestly caste ; that the bell-god they venerate so highly is a memorial

6 f

of the bell worn by a succession of sacred cows ; that the men of the

50 fdf

tribe eat flesh once a year in a dense forest; and, in particular, that

thers

the cows that are slaughtered at and after a funeral, are not sacrifices

f e

to secure the peace of the dead,” but are a provision made to supply

the spirit of the deceased with milk (the chief food of this pastoral

:szicgl

gl

race) in the other world.

Colonel Marshall, after describing the rites

s 0t

of the Tudas in detail, thus comments on the items of information he

folt

has furnished in chap. xxii. pp. 186—189: “ What we have seen in

pect

Tuda rites and ceremonies is little else than the arrangements which a

\cllliﬂf

pastoral and communistic people have made for the provision and care

of an article of food, doubtless at one time essential, not merely for

tvhe‘if

en

due sustenance, but to their very existence in the land. These customs

ol

having through the course of ages so mellowed as to have acquired all

ey

the effect and influence of sanctity, we find ourselves now in the inte-

e

resting position of actual witnesses to the growth of the earliest germs

il

of religious belief and observance, as they develop in the mind of

f)’

st

primitive man from the material nucleus whence they originated.

“We note that the stage when the cow, the milk-giver and support

pol}"

i ﬂﬂd

on which the people have depended almost from all time, has grown,

i

from an object of the greatest solicitude, to become one of deep rever-

i

S

098

APPENDIX

e1Ice

and (so far as they have yet learnt to express themselves) of

worship

The flesh is not ea

Its milk is almost sacred

The

chattels of early herds (the cow-bell in particular) have matured into

gods

and dairies bear the conception of temples

We find that

common milkmen have, by virtue of the sacred nature of such office

advanced in popular estimation until they are viewed in the aspect of

priests

The high priest, from being a servant of certain gods, has

become confused with codhead itself

A family, styling itself ‘sons

of the gods,” has developed (though without arrogation to caste pre-

tensions) into a Levitical clan, inheritors of the highest priestly office

its males being prepared and chastened thereto in sacred groves, by

the use of a plant set apart for the purpose, and by abstinence from

sensual pleasures

the females of the entire tribe being not only ex-

cluded from participation in such duties, but debarred approach to all

boly precincts.

They acknowledge the existence of gods, perhaps even

of a Supreme God (Usuru Swami), but their ideas on the subject are

quite undeveloped.

I think I trace in them a partiality to the regard

of light—apart from fire—as, par excellence, the manifestation of deity.

. I submit this suggestion as one having a. possible value in

I:

determlmng the ethnic affinities of the Tuda race, and as pointing to

an interesting stage in Turanian progress,

that whence various creeds

have sprung and ramified

The Tuda religion has not the slightest

sympathy with idolatry, nor does it pay attention to natural objects,

as trees or rivers

to birds, beasts, or reptiles

nor to the elements

y

No offerings to a god, whether of flesh (human or animal) or fruit of

the soil, are made ; no human victims, and no self-torture

It is not

that they have risen above such prejudices

they seem to me rather

not to have attained the stage when religious observances commence

Circumcision is not performed

The memory of forefathers is piously

regarded, but the feeling has not expanded through veneration into

any form of hero-worship. They believe in transmigration, but whether

of soul or body; probably few have formed any distinct ideas.

[They

The funeral service seems to

dispose of their dead by cremation. ]

favour the idea that the transition of the soul is the dooma which

though unexpressed, lies like au instinet in their minds

coupled with

the idea that the soul is a living solid—a real duplicate Tuda requiring

food

[They generally abstain from the eating of flesh, but] the

practice certainly forms at present no part of their religious observance

I would place the state of their belief in witcheraft and the work of

demons and other unseen agencies somewhat on a parallel with that

of their knowledge of divine work.

Neither one nor the other troubles

them much

Though they do. to

a certain extent, practise demon-

.

pr—

ANCIENT RELIGION OF TEE I)I{;\VIIjiANS.

9

1

olatry, they do not do so xﬁth the enthusiasm of other primitive races

JE8) Il

The

of South India. Indeed I had not bng opportunity of witnessing feats

of exorcism.

01

I incline to the belief that in any matters of religion Beyond' wvhat

1

i

I have described, they have been influenced through the proximity of

e,

(e

cognate races, who themselves, again, have at different periods been

DECE

variously Hinduised or inoculated with the strange customs of other

$ }13{

tribes in India, cognate or otherwise. Thus, through the Aryans,ﬁ,the

S0

Tuda sense of adoration has been educated ; more gods have been

g Ie

introduced than he knows what to do with; and his natural love of

(mee

relics has been intensified and improved. From being at first memorials

of cattle herds, the relics have grown to be venerated as souvenirs of

6 1100

ancestors.

On the other hand, the mildness and contentedness of the

)y

tribe have (so I think) led them to drop or to avoid much of the

toal

demonolatrous habit of other members of that Dravidian race to which

§ Vel

they belong.

Certainly any superior ideas; any notions of the soul,

ot are

or of sin, and all forms of invocation in prayer, small as even collec-

:egard

tively they may appear to be, bear the appearance of their having come

Jélﬂ

to them through the instrumentality of the Aryans; partly, no doubt,

e i

from Brahmanical sources: in part, perhaps, in course of some very

ing b

early contiguity, antecedent to the migration of either race, from a

oreeds

common cradle-land, into India.”

ghtes

The supposition of the Druidical character of 't;he Tuda religion arose

ject

in part from the error of attributing to the Tudas various remains

et

which were peculiar to an earlier and apparently extinct race.

Those

it f

remains consist of cairns or barrows, cromlechs, kistavaens, and circles

i w0t

of upright, loose stones, which are nearly identical in form with those

iher

that are found in Europe in the ancient seats of the Celts: and what-

et

ever mystery may hang over the origin of those remains, and over the

race of which they are the only surviving relics, there seems no reason

pionéiy

g i

for hesitating to style them Druidical.

It must be understood, how-

ever, that the term ‘ Druidical’ is used not scientifically, but only in a

Jet0er

vague general sense, like that in which the word ¢ Scythian’ is used.

UM

0

glls

In the cairns or barrows referred to, vases, cinerary urns, and other

bl

vessels of glazed pottery are often found, which sometimes contain

human bones, more or less charred, and mixed with ashes, sometimes

4 e

a little animal charcoal alone.

Most of these vessels have a peculiar

quiriﬂé’

glaze * of a rich red colour, with a zig-zag ornamentation : some have

I i

radth

* Dr Hunter, of the Madras School of Art, an authority on these matters,

alk i

explains that this is not what is technically called a glaze, but a peculiar, skil-

fully executed polish.

See Indian Antiquary, 1873, in a paper by the Rev. Mr

i

Phillips.

f! hk

Bl

;;;;;

59

~

Y)

AfiPENIHX.

Brass and iron implements of agriculture and of war

a black glaze.

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 in character, it does not follow that

On the contrary, they

they belong to a period of very high antiquity.

can set up mno claim to an antiquity equal to that of many quidical

remains found in Europe.

The_a‘rich.glaze of the pottery; the clegance 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 musical 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 civilisa-

tion to that of the primitive Celts, and therefore probably a much 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 discovered in one of the barrows, the race by which

those Druidical rites were practised must have survived for several

centuries after the Christian era, if not down to a comparatively late

time.

At first it was supposed that cairns and other so-called 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 supposed aborigines of the Nilgherries, who are as peeuliar

On further research it was

in their customs as in their language.

found that the people to whom those remains belonged had practised

agriculture ; whereas the Tudas were ignorant of agriculture, and

appeared to have always lived a pastoral, wandering life. It was

subsequently discovered that the Tudas neither claimed the cairns and

cromlechs as belonging to themselves or their ancestors, nor regarded

them with reverence; that their rites of sepulture were altogether

different from those of the ancient people who used those cairns; and

that théy ascribed them to a people still more ancient than themselves,

by whom they asserted that the platean of the Nilgherries was in-

habited prior to their arrival. Sometimes they designated the cairns as

burial places of the Kurubas or Kurumbars, a race of nomad shepherds

who once overspread a considerable part of the Tamil country (

possibly

the ‘nomadic Séree’ of Ptolemy), and of whom a few scattered relics

It appeared, however,

still inhabit the slopes of the Nilgherries.

that similar cairns or barrows, containing a great variety of similar

remains, but of a more advanced order and in a better condition,

——

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

593

Val

existed in immense numbers on the Ana-mala hills,—a range of hills

haa

on the south side of the great Coimbatoor gap, which forms the com-

(at

mencement and the northern face of the Southern Ghauts ; and further

10§

investigation proved their existence, not only in mountain ranges, but

lt

in almost every part of the Dekhan and Peninsular India, from Nag-

£y

pore to Tinrivelly, and “also in various districts in the presidency of

al

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.

Ie

This discovery has had the effect of disconnecting the cairns and

other so-called: Druidical remains of the Neilgherries from the Tudas,

i

It

almost as completely as from any other Dravidian race or tribe that

{4

now exists ; and the question of the origin of the relics which have

been discovered in such numbers not only in the Neilgherries, but in

i

£l

many other parts of India, and in the plains as well as on the moun-

gh

tains, and also the ulterior question of the relationship and history of

the people of whom these relics are the only monuments that remain,

4

ch

have now become problems of a more general and of a deeply interest-

ing character.

Captain Meadows Taylor has discovered and examined

al

a large number of these remains at Rajan Koloor, in Sorapoor, and also

e

at Siwarji, near Ferozabad, on the Bhima; and has devoted much

attention to the comparison of them with similar remains found in

al

i

England. He calls them ¢ Scytho-Celtic,” or ¢ Scytho-Druidical.’

e

More is now known about the cairns of the Neilgherries than was

knewn when the above remarks first appeared. The late Mr Breeks,

Ll

aﬂ

of the Madras Civil Service, devoted much time and labour to the

ol

examination of those remains, in which he was much assisted by Mr

Metz.

Mr Breeks was understood to have a book on the subject

id

[

nearly ready for publication at the time of his death. That book has

not yet appeared, but I am indebted to private communications from

id

Mr Metz for the following items of information.

There are no less

ol

g

than six different kinds of cairns and eromlechs on the Neilgherries,

of which only one kind, that called azdrams, small stone circles, can

Il

be attributed to the ancient Tudas.

The Tudas make use of those

I

circles up to the present day as places for the burning of their dead.

Of the structures generally called eromlechs, one kind is called Bira-

4

ballu (Can. ‘hero-stones’).

These appear to be sculptured memorials

ds

of great men, and some of them are evidently modern.

Memorials

Iy

of a similar nature are still erected by the Kurumbas, one of the

108

Neilgherry tribes. Another kind was erected, he says, by the Badagas,

ey

the most numerous of the Neilgherry tribes, after their arrival from the

Jar

Canarese country several centuries ago. The kist-vaens, Mr Metz says,

0B,

i B

594

APPENDIX.

are called Moriara mane, the house of the Mobrias or Maurias, whom

he identifies with Usbeck Tatars, or the Maurya race.

Tt is in these kist-vaens that the pottery with the rich red glaze is

found, and many of the clay figures found in them are represented

These remains are not claimed by any

with a high Tatar head-dress.

of the races now existing on the hills, and seem to be of considerable

antiquity. One of the cairns of this description opened by Mr Breeks

had an immense tree growing out of it and over it, which was supposed

to be at least eight hundred years old.

The Neilgherry cairns and the cairns of a similar nature found else-

where in India have often been styled Druidical remains.

‘Whether

they are properly called Druidical or not, they are not on this account

necessarily Celtic, for the practice of rites of what is called a Druidical

character and the use of cairns and barrows were not confined to the

Celts, but -appear to have prevailed also amongst the Finns, the

Euraskians, and the other Scythians by whom Europe was inhabited

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.

Tt is a remarkable illustration of the uninquiring habit of the Indian

mind, that though cairns of various kinds are found in so many dis._

tricts in India, no class of Hindfis know anything of the race to which

they belonged, and that neither in Sanskrit literature nor in that of

the Dravidian languages is any tradition on the subject contained.

The Tamil people are said sometimes to call the cairns by the name of

T have not heard this word used myself, nor do I find it

plndu-kurs.

in Winslow’s ¢ Tamil Dictionary,” but it sounds like a word really used

by some class of the people.

kuri means a pit or grave, and pdndu

denotes anything connected with the PAndus, or Pandava brothers, to

whom, all over India, ancient mysterious structures are generally attri-

buted. To call anything ¢a work of the Péndavas’ 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.

In Malayilam the term

appears not as Pandu(k)kuri, but as Pandi(k)kuri, which seems to

mean a sepulchre of the Tamilians [called Pandis in Malabar, from

their connection with the Pandyan kingdom], but is defined in Gun-

dert’s Dictionary to mean an ancient sepulchre. This form of the word

and explanation would seem to disconnect the term altogether from the

Pandava brothers. In the extreme south of the peninsula where I have

S,

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS.

595

myself lived—on both sides of the Ghauts—the principal peculiarity of

the cairns I have met with is that they contain a very large urn or jar,

filled with human bones, sometimes partially charred, with a number of

beautiful little vessels of various shapes made of glazed pottery, and

with relics of iron weapons.

These urns are sometimes found in large

numbers crowded together, without being enclosed in stone chambers

or surrounded with circles of stones, but simply embedded in the earth.

The name given to this sepulchral urn in Tinnevelly is mudu muttor

tdri.

If this were a correct word, it would mean the ¢drs, or jar, in

which were placed those ¢ persons who were emancipated by reason of

age’ or ‘in the ancient period.” This explanation would be quite suit-

able to the ideas that now prevail in the Tamil country with regard to

the people who were interred in those jars.

They are supposed to be

people who had shrunk through age to so small a size that they were

generally put in little lamp-niches in the walls of the houses to keep

them out of the way of harm ; but when at last their friends were

thoroughly tired of them, they were put in these sepulchral jars and

left to die. I need scarcely say that the human remains found in these

Jjars are of the ordinary size, and it is evident that they had generally

been burnt before being collected and placed in the jar.

I mention

this tradition only for the purpose of showing that the people of these

times know nothing whatever about the people so interred. They

do not know even whether they belonged to the same race as them-

selves or not.

It has often been suggested that these remains may have bé-

longed to the Buddhists, and the proﬁciéncy in the arts the relics

exhibit would render this supposition a very natural one.

I have

never noticed anything, however, which would distinctively connect

these urns with the Buddhists, though traditions about the Jainas still

survive ; and the people are never found to entertain the idea that the

inhabitants of the urns were Buddhists or Jainas.

In the northern

part of the Tamil country these urns, as appears from Winslow’s Dic-

tionary, are called mada madakka (t)tdre, the jar which boils up

violently, or boils over.

It is evident that this name was originally

the same as that already mentioned, but it is not quite clear which was

the original and which the corruption.

The meaning given by Wins-

low is identical—¢“a large earthen jar wherein very old persons in

ancient times were placed and interred.” In Dr Gundert’s “ Malay-

4lam Dictionary” (Appendix), the word nannw : nannainddi is thus

explained : “A kind of cairn; of two kinds; 1, a deep and narrow

clay urn (kuri-tdfe), buried perpendicularly, with a stone lid, contain-

ing bones, the tools of the deceased, &ec. ;, 2, a monument of stone slabs

RS

596

* APPENDIX.

having three sides and a roof, but open towards the east, containing

underground as above.

(Palghat, South Malabar.) The popular belief

is that in Trétdyuga men became very old and shrank to the size of a

cat, when they were put into these pots or monuments in order not to

trouble the living.”

It is evident that further investigation is required before the mystery

that hangs over the class of people that disposed of their dead in these

cairns and urns is dispelled. Nothing that can be regarded as distinc-

tively connecting them with, or disconnecting them from, any race or

the followers of any religion, has, so far as I am aware, been yet dis-

covered, and tradition is utterly at fault.

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 of the civilisation of the race we meet with,

If it should be

and in particular with the beauty of their pottery.

held, on the other hand, that they were a race of nomadic Scytho-

Druidical shepherds, who wandered into India affer it was peopled

and settled, and then wandered outragain, the circumstance that these

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 remains belonged were or were

not Dravidians, identical with the Dravidians of the present time in

everything but the mode in which they disposed of their dead, is a

point which' cannot be settled till we know something more of them ;

but it cannot be regarded as probable that their peculiar rites of sepul-

ture had their origin in India.* The resemblance of the barrows, crom-

lechs, &c., and their contents to the Druidical remains which are

discovered in the ancient seats of the Celtic and Scythian races in

Europe, seems to be too remarkable to be accounted for on any other

supposition than that of their derivation from a common origin.

Hence the people by whom Druidical rites were introduced into India

must have brought them with them from Central Asia ; and this would

favour the conclusion that they must have entered India at a very early

ot

* See a paper on this subje;t, by the Rev. Maurice Phillips, in the /ndian 4nti-

quary for 1873.

e

ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE.DRAVIDIANS,

297

period—a period perhaps as early as the introductio;l of Druidical rites

into Europe.

On this supposition it seems to be necessary to suppose

that they kept themselves separated from the various races that entered

India subsequently, and that they imitated the civilisation of the newer

immigrants without abandoning their own peculiarities.

It is an argu-

ment against this supposition, however, that it has to be held that

those people have everywhere disappeared, and that not even the

faintest tradition of their existence survives.

On a review of the various particulars which have been mentioned

above respecting the religious usages of the Non-Aryanised Dravidians,

including the Khonds and the Tudas, and also the unknown race that

practised quast Druidical rites, it may be concluded that a large number,

perhaps the majority, of the ancient Dravidian inhabitants of India

were demonolaters or Shzymdnites, like the majority of the ancient

Scythian tribes of Upper Asia, whilst it also seems probable that there

existed amongst them a strong under-current of Indo-European ten-

dencies.

This result exactly accords with the supposition which has

already been deduced from lingual comparison respecting the relation-

ship or affiliation of the Dravidian race, viz., that in basis and origin

it is rather Scythian than Indo-European, but with a deep-seated and

very ancient admixture of the Indo-European element.

1

INDE X.

T

e ——————

s

¥

INDEX OF PRINCIPAL PROPER NAMES

(Frgures in old-style type (136) denote the pages of the Introduction.)

A

Avar, 508

Bolingze, 32

Ayodhyéd, 115

Boller, 66

ABHIRAS, 112

Bopp, 133, 144, 196, 228, 272

Abor-Miri, 141

273,307,334, 366, 386, 399,

Accadian, 493

B

457, 482, 520, 524

Aithiopians, 109 ; 566.

BABYLON 68, 92; 259, 268

Bornu, 8o; 136, 284, 288

4

2

Agamas, 86, 130 ; 145.

Aoastes vara, 120,

Badaga, 11, 34, 37, 124, 125 ; BovrTa, 104.

A"astya 101, 1I9, 120, 126

53, 172 512 557, 593.

Brachme, 576.

A

127,648 T

Baﬂhlstdn 68.

Brahm4, 47, 113; 238

Ahava Malla, 135, 136

La,mce, 97

Brahmadesam, 104.

Aot 9o, 98, 99

Basque, 278, 500

Brahut, o, 43, 44, 69, 79, 80,

Akrida, 18

Bdrot, 104

107 ; 32,

57,

2, 218,

Altaic, 55, 65

Batsch, Rev. F., 40; 518

136,

167 ]68 170 19a

Ambalakkadu, 12

14

Beames, Mr, 61, 62, 63 ; 6,

22

226 227 230 209

Ana-mala, 593

10, 17, 19; 25, 29, 41 45

26

.

974, 983, 288, 291

311, 457, 493, 504

Andarz, 16

46, 47, 55, 58, 61, 82, 176

303,

511, 519, 520, 521

Andhra, 2, 6, 8, 13, 14, 30,

177, 288, 298, 504, 457

47, 108, 123; 576

531, 542, 568.

Breeks, Mr, 593, 594

Andhra-Dréavida-bhéasha, 4,

Behmtun 53, 59, 68, 71 8o,

Brigel, Mr, 35, 35; 415

g1 120!

IO

II0;

1, 170,

Brown, Mr C. P., 26, 31, 32,

Andre Indi, 14, 30, 32.

i71, 178, 182, 191 217,

33, 47, 110, 123, 124, 136;

Anglo- Saxon 50.

992, 252, 284, 288, 290,

72, 125, 129 550.

Aornis, 103.

300, 366, 414, 496

Buchanan Dr, 97.

Appar, 143.

Bellew, Dr, 519

Buddha, 19, 82, 104.

Appa-Kavi, 123

Bellichi, 272, 276, 303

Buddhism, 31 ;

580, 582.

Aravam, 18, 19, 20

Leluchlsmn,

Buddhists,

Z) Ash 7/

14,

19, 81, 82,

541 543

Arcot, 96

Benfey, Professor, 34 462.

89,

129,

138

Argaric Gulf, 102,103

Bengal, 2, 39, 40, 41, 82 109,

581,

Apedkn, 14, 97 ; 576

113, I5T;

15, 57, 549, 567,

Buh1e1 Dr

34, 35, 36, 37

Arimardana Pindya, 138

38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46 47,

PATITIN e e T T S )

Ben"dh, 7, 45, 46, 57: 60,

455, 468

Apkaros, g6

82, TEONMNCT S

36

V)

Buriat, 373, 505

Armenian, 15 ; 54, 142, 226

46 47, 52,

55 167 173,

Burghers, 34, 37

237, 285

286, 428, 475

176, 221 304 305, 306

urma, 41

484, 494, 500, 502, 507

330, 357, 399, 400, 409,

Burmese, 6, 10, 275, 582

Armorican, 376

477

Beschi

132

1491s Al

Arrian, 105, 114

121, 280, 281, 347, 366

Burnell, Dr, 4, 5, 37, go

Arvars, 143

369

97, 99, I21I, 122

I29;

2

Arya-bhatta, 89

8, 9, 10, 14, 465

Aryi-vartta, 4, 110 ; 32

Byrriyd, 100, 101, 104

Burton, 28

Asoka’s inscriptions, 14, 17,

Bhils, 38. 109 ; 47, 548, 560

22;6, 8

568, 5

Asam, 42 ; 278, 558

Bhojpuri Hindi, 409

C

Assyrian, 133, 493

Bhotas, 6,

Ati - vira - Rama

Pandya,

Bhotiya, 492, 560

CAEL, 11, IOI

Bhatan, 43; 177, 492, 572,

139, 144, 145, 146

588.

Czlobothras, 95.

Caldwell, Mr R. O.,

Augustus, 15, 16, 105, 135.

148.

Australian, 78, 79, 80 ; 279, Bleek Dr; 75540, 56, 82

Calicut, 22, 97; 57.

290, 309, 519, 561, 562.

Cahnoae 16

Auvelyar T30, 194 136 1375 Bodos, 42;177, 189, 330, 521,

Ca,hngam, 82

Calingas, 103

60

~

5)

INDEX

Calingon, 102.

18, 30, 89, 95, 108,

110, | DhArwér, 29.

12, T 15,

116,

I20,

134,

Dhimal, 42, 78; 142, 290,

Calmuck, 143, 168 174 19115

Callaway, Bishop,

138

141,

142 143, 146

330, 521 584.

9, 553, 560,

D1m1rlca,, 14

278, 287, 501 505.

Calymele Point, 102 103

Chohya 17.

Dlonysms Periegetes, 103,

Campbell, Mr A. D., 3r

Chucklers, 574

32, 47, 123.

Chiitia Nagptr, 39, 40, 4T

Doms, 109 ; 546, 547.

Campbell, Sir George, 39,

518,

Dorie,

49, 139 143,

285,

40, 423 H66, 573, 574.

Cmnssm 59

306.

Canara, 20, 33, 35, 36.

Clay, Mr, 182, 240, 416.

Dowson, Professor, 22

Canarese, 33, 34, PASSVMN

Clemens Alexandrlnus, 14,

Dravidas, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14,

104, IO3.

L3 20, 201

Cannanore, 9

Cochin, 3, 20, 89; 8, 10, 14,

Dravuhan, I- 8 PASSLIN.

Canopus, 120

151

Drévidi Puknt 7.

Carei, 99

Driviras, 7.

Carey, 45 ; 523

Cmmbatoor 22 24, 96 3 593.

Carnatice, 9, 35, 86, 96, 104,

Colchic Gulf I0I.

Driberg, Rev. J. G., 38;513.

589, 591, 592,

110,

Colecis Imlorum, 101

Druidical,

Carpenter Dr W. B., 570.

Cole, Major, 36

593, 594

596, 597.

Carr, Major, 14.

Colebrooke, Mr, 12, 45

Durda 98, 499.

Cashmlnan, T i

Colis, Coliacum, 103

Dutch 25, 26; 133, 480.

Castrén, 66, 67; 34, 142

Colombo

[e)

&7

Dwéar as‘tmudra 540.

202, 287, 289, 303

Comorin, Cape, 1, 9, 22, 25,

98, 99, 100, IOIL, 104, IIQ,

Celobotras, 22.

76

e e

E

Celtic

$ 735

74, IO7,

I5T;

20, [T22 G105

32, 81 190, 252, 272 273

Coorg, 36, 37, PASSLM

270, 386 5.&8 507 :)92

Coptic,

92, 493, 500

Epkins, Dr, 55, 56, 68 ;

47,

59

Corean, 278

267, 985, 988, 379, 402,

Celtlco Dluldlcal 589.

Coromandel, 11, 20, 25, 26,

413 433, 571.

Celts, 713562, 589, 591, 592

27, 35, 102, 120 ; 460, 491

Eggehng, Dz, 22, 29, 136;

564

Central India, 42

Cosmas Indicopleustes, 23,

Eoypt 105 ; 552.

27, 104, I0O§

D(rvptlan, 92;

9 190, 268,

Central Provinces, 38, 40

574, 578.

493, 562, 566.

Cottara, 98

Elhot Sir H., 535, 536.

XaIB'r;pos‘ 27, 104

Cottonara, 97

Elhott Sir \Valter 13 3 5 140

Chaldean, 58; 61 104, 133,

Courtallum

143

268, 30a, 333, 368 492,

Cranganore, 14.

Ellis, Mr, 35, 36; 7

493, 494

Ctesias, 93, 94, I05.

Enghsh 49, PASSTM.

Chélukya, 17, 123, 125, 135

Cunningham, General, 33,

Esthonian, 82, 276, 287,431,

Chandragiri, 20, 24, 35,

96, 103.

Chandragiri, R4ja, 10

Curzon, Mr, 110, III

117

Ethlopw 9, 268.

Chellumbrum

Cuthite, 133, 333

Euraskians, 594.

138

Eusebius, 105.

Chenna-pattanam, 1o

Eust’tthlus, 105

Chennappa Nayakka, 10,

Chentsu, 312

31

D

Chera Dynasty, 96; 10

Chéralam, 22.

DAITYA, 530

IE

Chéras, x5, 18, 22, 9o.

Daksha, 581.

Cheremlss, 177 190 222,

Dalton, Colonel, 38, 39, 40,

FARRAR, Dr, 534

230, 236, 406 498 500

AL

561, 567, 573, 574,

Fatan, 536

503, 504, 507

587.

Ferishta, 540.

Festus Avienus, 105.

Chicacole, 29, 47

Damilo, 13, 110.

Finnish, 46, 53, 59, 65, 66

Chinas, 6; 551

Dam1r1c1 14, 97; 576.

107

Chinese, 30, 55, 59, 65, 68

Déanava,

68, 715 T4 WES

26 33, 34, 59, GO 63, u,

74, 78, 8o, 84, 10

1R

andakéaranya, 108

I20.

114, 120; 54, 82, 88, 226

Danish, 14 5 336, 475, 488

81, 82, 114 142 100 170,

233

267, 284, 285

2

3

Dar ‘Ldas,

173,

178, 181 190,

290,

300, 308, 341

358

Darius Hystaspes, 68 ; 252.

$91,

200,

202

291

2‘)2

413,

476, 501, 507

508

Dasyus, 57, 107, 112, it

226,

230

236, 207

249,

509,

519, 534, 573

252,

269

276, 277

278

Chinese-(Canton), 278

502

Davids, Mr T. W

Rhys,

286,

287,

289, 290

300

Chinese-(Mandarin), 278

537, 53

04,

330,

355,

360

368,

373,

386, 400

409

Chinese-(Pekin), 279,

Dawson, Rev. J., 38; H13

213

415

456, 470,

496

Chinese Turkestan, 571

De Nobilibus, Robt

431,

499 000

501

Chinglepat, ro.

De Qu 1trefa«res, Professor,

497,

498,

504 505

506

ChintAmani, 52, 86, 128, 132,

561,

502,

50

9y

71

133, 144,

149,

150 ; 161,

Deva- wadli 6, Tl ke

507,

508

525, 534,

4243,

Finno-Ugrian, 71 ;

303,

369

Chittar, 1o0.

Devaram, 138 1 43.

Frater Paulinus &

4 St Bar-

Chola, 6 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, | Dewar, 141 ; 535, 536,

tholomaeo, 25

pr—

‘«

INDEX

603

French, 3, 4, 10, 33; 39, 81

474, 476, 477, 484, 488

42 ; 52, 119, 176, 196, 197,

27

490, 496, 501, 502, 506,

330 304 557 366, 406

Frisian, 195,

509, 528, 531, 534 530,

480, 534.

575

Hxslop, Rev. S5 38351967,

568.

Greeks, 94, 95, 96 97, 98,

IO0I

I02

G

99,

104,

I05,

Ho (Hol), 42 ; 312 313.

TE6S BIT, LIS, 12T

465

Hodgson,

Mr,

) 42,

GAELIC, 505, 507

Grimm, 52

43, 56; 521, 558 559, 560,

Gangarides Calingee, 33.

Growse, Mr F. S

(M.A.)

572, 084 580 588.

Ganoes 30, 32 38, 4T,k 63]

58

Hmsala, 143

98

Gujarati, 1, 2,:8,.7, 603 16,

Holeyars, 548

an]am, 103 '516.

29, 36, 47

53, 167

170

Horpa, 288.

Garo, 290, 57

189, 259, 286, 304 306,

Hottentot, 40, 82.

Gauras, 7, 87

308, 477, 501

Hunfalvy. Professor, 66 it

Gulf of Manaar, 8, 101

25

279, 36

Gaurian, 45, 46, 6o, 61, 83,

112

176, 298, 304, 305

Hungarian, 66, 68, 70, 80

Glimsur, 39

59, 81, 82, 94, 114, 132

306, 356, 358, 375, 400

Gundert, Dr, 18, 23, 24, 25,

Gautama, 146.

28, 34, 61, 89, 97, 99, I1I

202, 203, 341, 342, 355,

Gentoos,

114, I25,:I50

19, 30

373, 376, 400, 409, 460

Georgian,

999

Lliidy Ll

99

6, 276, 286

50, 51, 5

60, 66, 68, 71,

496, 503, 505, 508, 535

479 002 504.

75, 83, 84, 86, 91, 94 90,

Hungary, TARERY (L

Georgius Syucellus

105

107,

11

A

Hunter, DI, T2t

259, 309,

German, 56; 18, 39, 70, 71

138,

143,

146,

147

152,

533, 591

108,

143, 190, 272

0,

157,

158,

159

163,

167

Huxley, Professor, 574

472, 475, 476

172

175,

8,

179,

1199

Hwen Thsang, 14, 17, 30

405,

480, 481,-482

4

299

227,

3EHT20

479,

484,

200,

220,

242,

y

246

225,

247

488

490, 507, 523

534,

228,

233,

22

Hyderabad, 2, 29

571.

250,

251,

260,

264,

3

Gesenius, 422, 495.

28,

342,

348,

366,

36

I

Gﬁhauts 9, 20, 2%, 24, 27

68,

385,

395,

414,

415,

35 3

42, 100 ; 462

419,

421,

435,

462,

463,

IBN BATUTA, 25, 28, 96, 105;

507, 047

557, 564, 565

465,

484,

488,

508,

535,

540

593

530, 594

595

Indus, 44, 70, 103, LIOL LT2

Goa 3, 147 14

Guntur, 33.

32, 38

Godavari, 33, 38, 47 ; 572

Guxjam, 7

Irlsh 107 28 39 139, 273,

Gond, 9 ; 513-515, passim

469 479.

Gondali, 573.

H

Irtlsh 17 7

Gondvana 29, 38, 39, 108,

Italian, 26, 45, 57, 84, 149;

7

116

y QO

Gothlc, 73, 745 114 3 32, 131,

HALA KANNADA, 343 7, 10

Hamilton,

D. Buchanan

J

199, 218

237, 252

263,

573

269, 274

285, 307

331

Hebrew, 3, 43,

4, 775 971,

332, 399,

400, 477

480

92, 94;

8, 23, 102, 104

JAFFNA, 84,

481, 484

488, 49

114, 119, 155, 266, 268

Jaina, 14, 186,87, T22, 124

Gover, Mr,

I2

148,

272

273, 330, 333, 336

125,

128,

.~ I29,

130, I32

345,

68

376, 422, 427

133, I34, I35, 138

140,

153 ; 62, 260, 273,

305,

476,

143 ; 86, 541,

522, 523, 524, 525, 527,

475,

500.

478, 491, 495,

J ambulus, 10.

5‘)8 529 530 531,

Jangama, 149

535 534, 535.

Herodotus,

93,

105,

I09;

Japanese, 55, 68; 54, 151

Grzeco Scythlan 44

566.

177, 191, 200, 207, 254

Granl, Dr

132; 385, 401

H1mal’nyas,

189, 222, 278

355

6, 360, 402, 403

Grant, Mr Chas., 567, 568

290, 330, 547, 558

9

Gmntha 24, 88 TSRS, T

Himalayan

sub, 43; 558

413, 501, 508, 509, 534

10, 13,

560, 584, 588

Japhetlc, 284, 288, 316, 526

Grrater Rev B 437

Himyaritic, 9

Jat,

Greek, 10, 14, 16, 21

23,

Hind, 542.

Java o

Hindi, 7, 45, 46 54, 57, 58,

Jenesel, 499 501, 502, 503.

27, 32, 56, 73, 74, 76, 90,

60 ;

2, 36, 55,

Jesajabus, Patmarch 27.

92, 93, 100, 102, 114, 120;

Jews, 3, 21, 89, 9o 8, 9,10

16, 32, 49, 61, 70, 72, 76

58, 177 1(6 177 220, 28()

39, 374, 491, 562 566.

G 89599

104

10

14

304 306

330 423 424,

Jones, Slr Ww.,

130,

133,

139

143 148

477, 498, 499 507, 513

Jumaluddin El Thalbl 540.

149,

168,

70,

171 181

Hind, 4, 6, 10, 29, 120, 127,

W A . SR, s .

190,

199,

218

244, 952,

128

130

145,

149,

150,

Jurazen, 502,

263,

26

32

269,

273

, 92, 35, 46, 472,

)

276,

285,

287

291, 304

540 548, 501 554, 560

K

306,

333,

341

342, 366

563 565 566 567 570

453

456, 458

572, 576, 594

AFIR, 4, 82

399,

431,

471, 472

Kali

499, 548

462,

467,

469,

Hindtstani, 2, 4, 7, 9, 34,

e

604

INDEX

Kalingapura, 32

Koelle, Mr, 8o

Lasian, 276, 503

Kalingas, 8

I3,

31, 32, 33,

Koi, Koitor, 38, 39,

Lassen, Professor, 27, 100

108, 115, 123,

1355

J

Koibal, 218

II2

Kolami, 312, 313.

Latchmaji, Mr, 39

Kolarian,

18

40, 42,

Latin, 4, 15, 49, 50, 56, 57,

Kallas, 553

177:0615, 519

76, 775 382, 49, 64, 70,

KaX\eyicbdy, 102

TG0, TT2s

81, 99, 104, ]08 119 128

Kalyana, 125

521, 560, 568, ’586.

139

145,

Kalyanapuri, 35

Koé\xot, 99, 100, 10T

I02

133,

147, 1

Kamass, 142

Kw\lakot, 103

157,

168,

170,

171

174,

Kambar, 52, 132, 133, 134,

K&\es, 100, 102, 103

181

199,

218,

221

28,

136, 144

Kolkei, 16, 18, 95, 99, 102

237,

269,

272,

273,

285,

Kambojas, 5

291,

292,

295,

302,

307,

119, I2I g 5

331,

332,

355,

378,

398,

Kamtschadale, 502

Kéanchi

Kollagiri, 8

427,

467,

Kols, 18 40 42, 43, 63, 64

469 472, 474- 48.) 488——490

Kandh, 38 ; 516, 588

109 3

,

47, 139, 197

493~ 496 498, 506 509.

Kangazian,

507

209, 278 341 368, 558

Lazian 2)2 )26

Kaniyars, 550

560 567, 568 569 512

Kannadis, 549

Lekhani, 7.

Kannettri, 97

Kol (Singbhtm), 313

Lepsius, Professor 233.

Kanuri, 8o

Kéuap, koudpia, 98

Lesghian, 500, 502, 503, 505,

Kanva, 123, 126

506.

Kapila, 146

Kongu, 22

Lettish, 507

Konkan, 4o.

Lithuanian, 3

190, 274

Kapur Di Giri, 22

Karen

88

Konkanar,

147.

332, 476, 480, 488

Konkani, 2, 33; 4, 14, 33.

Logan, Dr

139, 561, 562,

Kapéor, 99

Korean, 38 502, 504.

574

Karikala Chola, 131

oY1y T

Lohitie, 290

Karnataka, 2, 7,

> 135 33,

Korkei, 101

34, 35, 88, 89

Kdpu, 102, 104

Lubbies, 2

569

Karnl

29

Avueplin, Lymirice, 14 ;576

Kdpovpa, Karlir, g6, 97, 99

ory, 576

Karu-manal, 26

Kota, 37 ; 512, passim

M

Kotaur, 98

Katak Tributary Mahéls,

Kottar, 135

M’ABAR, 143 ; 535, 536, 538

Korrudpa, 98

Kattywar, 29

Korrovapiky, 97

Maccocalingee, 32, 33,

Kéatyayana, 16.

Krishna, 16, 17

Mackenzie Collection, 88

IKAveny 28 iy e o7 i1eo,

Kshatriyas, 5,

Madi, 237, 312, 313, 532

104, 119 ; 456, 576 578.

Ku

See Khond

Madigas, 574

Kavi, 276, 280

28, 55

Kéayab, 11

I0TI

Kubja Pandya, 129, 140

Madras; o) 7a ot

162, 542, 543, 545

Keikadi, 312, 313, 533, 568

Kuki, 222, 5

Kiilam, 535

Madras city, 10, 26, 36, 96

Kélan Kelu, 22

Kulasékhara, go

ey S 55y

132935 T50

75

Kelat, 43

538, 539

Madura, 4, 11, 16, 17, 23, 25,

Kéra, 96

Kulotunga Chola, 131

J

"

4

89, 95, 104, 115, 122, 138

Kéralamputra, Keralaputra,

135, 136, 139, 140

I41

142, 146; 4, 14, 536,

22

Kuméri

8

537, 538, 539, 540, 576

Kéralas

S, e 8in2 H 00

Kumaérilabhatta, 5, 14, 31

Madura Sangam or College

96, 97, 99, 105, 108, 139 ;

121, I22, I29;

)

86, 128, 131, 132, I33, 145

Kérala Utpatti, 150; 27

K{n Pandi, 129, 142, 143

Magadha, 47, 111, 120, 121

57

Kuralian, 50

KnpoBbOpos, Cerobotras, 22

Kurd, 468, 478, 479, 480

MéAgadhi, 6

65, 96; 676

502, 5

Mdgy%l

7%,

106, 107, II2

IRiern e 881 raiias

Kurumbas, 38, 96 ; 592, 593

113; 60; 81, 140 142, 166

Késava, 82, 124

Kynda, 97

173, 178 181, 191

y

Khandesh, 38

222

226

230, 233,

236

Khari Naga, 278

207

202 276 277,

278,

Khasas, 6

L

286

289

004 330, 3)2

Khiwan, 276.

534 535, 550, 070 571.

Khond, 39, 516, 517 passim.

LACCADIVES, 28

Mahqdes Gond 236.

Kiratas,

65

Laghmani, 272, 468

K.

Ie7

572.

Mahéarashta, 7

ppL5aL,

Lambadis, 42

Mahar&shtri, 6 ; 57

Kistna, 6, 572.

Lank4, 8

Mahéndra Male, 103

Kittel, Mr 20, 124, 125; 220,

Lappish, 59; 2? 34, 63, 82

Maiso-Gothic, 234

225, 228 229 234, 235,

’

0,

)

-—J()

230,

Malabar, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16

238 248 249 381 382

236

237,

240

241,

276,

7,20, 21,22 (25 o 28;

j

465 466.

497,

498

499,

500,

502,

33,36 90, 93,94,97,10@

Klaproth, 477.

503

504,

505,

506

508,

I0

I22,

8,

275

, 983,

Klings, 10, 30 ;

501

571

390, 460 463 46o 491,

Kocch, 41.

Lar, 78, 330, 495,

501, 500 557, 564, 560,

Kodagu, 9, 36, 41.

Lares, 454,

566, 574, 594, 596

e

INDEX

605

Malas, 546, 550

1, 129 ; 544, 551, 552

Nishéadas, 43, 57, IIT

II2

9

IIO,

47, 168, 178

113 ; 544,

Malay.

Nizam, 29, 30, 33, 34, 4T.

499, 501, 503.

Modogalingam, 32, 33, 97

Malaya, 4()1 462, 507.

Méoovpa, Modura, 14, 17,

Njertschinsk, 3

Malayalam, 20—24, passim.

Normans, 49, Iog, 39, 40

Malayalis, 540, 546, 549

Mbgling, Dr, 36

477, 4

551, 562, 564

Mogol, 568, 569, 570

Norris, Mr, 69, 70, 166; 23

Mala-(y)-arasers, 421

547

Mongolian, 53, 54, 59, 65,

33

Malayo-Polynesian 562

68

b

ZH5 7O TOO TR

)

Northern Circars, 17, 135

Mal-dives, 28 ;

507.

77, 116, 139, 140, 143

168

170,

7,

0,

0]

11

Maké, Male, 23, 27, 28, 104 ;

462, 50

226

287,

308

326

76, 278, 286

374

‘v

l\hlefatan, 536

396

402

403, 413

397, 33

414

ODRAS

5

Malers, 18, 39, 40; 549, 550,

Olet, 278

432

497

499, 501

509

Onesicritus, 103, 105

Malik Kaftir, 540

558

563

567, 574, 580

Ophir, g1, 122

Malnad, 586

Mons Maleus, 103.

Oppert, Professor, 69

Méalwa, 38 ; 568.

Mordivin, 70; 82,177,190,

Oraon, 39 ;

18, passim

Manchu, el sl G g BT,

1601

22

230 276 276

Oriental Turkish, 53, 59,

116,

28,

Q

1077y

190

286, 368 369 456, 497

5

106 ; 502

191, 218,

226, 244 276

498, 499, 500, 503, 506

987, 304

308, 374, 413,

507, 508

Orissa I 2 2551 SO} TS TEQ S

572,

500, 503, 505, 506, 507

Motor, 278, 500

Moresby, Mr, 28

OI‘lY‘L 2 7, 29, 6

7

Mangalore, 20, 35, 37

, 47,

55, 298

304

Ménikya - vachaka,

138,

Muir, Dr, 6, 18, 61, 1113 34

u06

143.

462, 57

Osmdnh 177 289, 290.

Manu, Shs B8 ST, 113, 116,

Miiller, Professor Friedrich,

Osmanli Tur ks 570

117, 120; 544, 552,

Ossete, 475

476, 477, 478

Mappillas, 2 8.

Miller, Professor Max

EE

)

479, 480, 502, 504.

Maréathi, 1 2 35 7, 20, 34,

T2HT65 4135

5, 67, 92, 115 3

Os’clak 59, 66, 71, 106; 60,

57, 60, 643

3

. 31, 38

81, 184, 187, 201, 240

J

82, 142 4S8 TS 1/8

399, 402, 409, 423, 509

200 230 233 265 276

286, 304 508 350 399,

36, 46, 47, 52, 53 59, 179

523, 524, 559, 565

289, 303, 304, 330, 368,

400, 469, 474, 477 493

Munda, 40, 42.

456, 497-507, 571, 582

497, 498, 568, 573

Mmdoch Dr 534y I50 LT

Ottakittar, 134, 136

Maravas, 550, 553

’VIusbulman, 18

Oudh, 115;

Marcian, 105

Muttra, 16, 95.

Marco Polo, 11, 101,139-143;

Muyiri, 97.

)

582-584.

I\I)Tsore7 19’ 22 297 33’ 347

P

Mériés,

8

35, 3(), 38

Marshall, Colonel, 87 DL

PAHARIAS, 39; 549

512, 55:) 589.

Pahlavas, 6

)

N.

Paisachi Prakrit, 6

0

MérwAr, 28 29

Palghat, 24 ; 596.

Marwari, 7; 57

Pah 13, 14, 96, 100, IIo,

Mathura, 16, 122

NaGca, 142, 222, 530.

1213 70, 86, 263, 267 304

Mauritius, 10, 41

Nagapatam, 26

578,

Mech,

Nagercoil, 135

Media, 68, 69

Nagpore, 29 ; 567, 593

Palk’s Straits, 102

Medo-Persian, 68, 71

Naladiyar, 128, 132, 150

Pallas, 116 ; 540, 546, 547

Medo-Scythian, 59 ; 496

Nambfiris, 5

Megasthenes, 16, 17, 30, 32

Néna-Sambandha, 138, 143

IlaXovpa, 104

94, 103

Nannappa, 123

Pandee, 17

),

Ilavdaly, 16

)

Meilaptr, 132

Melanesian, 561

Nannaya-Bhatta, 123 ; 141

Ilavdiwr, Pandion,

Narasimmiyengar, Mr

19,

15-17,

0,

Menezes, Archbishop of Goa

203 58

94-96, 101, 104 ; H76

)

14, 555.

Narmad4, 6

Pandu, 538, 594

V[e@opa 16.

Nayadis, 550

Péandya-Chola, 141

Metz, Rev. F. 37 259, 397,

Nayakkas, Nayudus, 29, 33,

Pandya-mandalam, 25

511 512, 500, 589, 593.

I17,

Pandyas, 6, 8, 13, 15, 18, 23,

Meyer s 386

Neilgherry (Nilagiri)

34,

29, 89, 90, 94, 95, 108

Mikir, 141, 278

37, II4; 1255 53 L1

93

IIO.

II2

115, 116, 119,

Milton, 144

511, 512, 555, 557

569

I2I

)

I29,

132, 136, 139,

574, 588, 589, 592, 593

140,

142, 143, 146; 537,

Minayeft, g2.

594,

553, 560 5(34

Mingrelian, 222, 226, 276,

573

539, 540,

570

50

Nelkynda, 23, 97.

57b 581,

Miré

Nellore, 20, 35 ; 535.

Pénini,

16; 45

jj

erl 141 222 290.

Nelson, Mr, 139, 140, 142

Panjab, 577.

Mlvar 145.

Nepal, 7, 43, 56 ; 558

Pan;abl 7, 44, 16, 29, 46,

J)

Mlechchas, LA o7 TE2 TIQ

Neyyéaru, 24

55, 1

606

INDEX.

Paradas, 6

9

16, 19, 31, 33, 41, 44, 47,

Romans, 562

Pardkrama Lahu 538, 539.

52 04 07 82 176 304

Rost, Dr, 11

530

306 307, 409 462, 464

Rowlandson, 26.

Pardkrama Pandy’x 135,146.

Rudra, 543, 581.

aparia, 98, 99

469 480, 531, 576, 577.

Russian,

479, 480, 505, 550,

Iapalic ZwpnTdy, 27.

Pratt, Archdefwon, 570.

Pareiyas, 51, 116, 131, 132 ;

Pritchard Dr, 65

551, 071 582 593,

540, 541, 544, 548, 550

Prussian, 485, 489

Rutluk 31 313 532,

tolemy, 14, 20, 22, 32, 95,

5:34, 563, 565.

96, 97, 98, 100, 102 103,

Parimélaragar, 51

104, 405, IIO 570, 575,

Parsees, 3;

592.

Patans, 2 ; 569.

Pattanattu I’ﬂlel, 149

Puducottah, 116

SABARAS, 6

Pattiragiriydr, 147.

Pugaréndi, 134, 136

Sadras, 10

Pauhno, Fra, 14, 15.

Puleiyas

540, 542

543

Sagara, 114

546-548

550, 551, 55

S'akas, 5, 1II

135,

45.

Paundrakas, 5

566, 567, 574, 577

Salem, 22

Pavanantl, 133.

Pulicat, 9, 26, 29

Pegu,

Pulindas, 6 ; 560

S’alivihana, 134 ; 378

Pehlv1, ]33 285, 520

Pundra

auavaiot, 14.

ITepurykapet, 100

Sammells, Capt., 587.

Permian, 502, 503 504, 505,

Purali, 99

Samoiede, 70; 21b 226, 276 6,

Pushtu, 178

278, 286, 461, 478,

Putlam, 121

500 501, 002 504

500,

Peny, Sir Erskine, 3.

Pyrard de la Val, 28

507 508, 571 582

Persian, 2r1,

27-29, 59, 55,

Samoied-Ostiak, 142

795 735 74 76, 94, 104 ;

32

9

42,

45

57,

3

Q

S'ankara Achéarya, 86

130,

107

loo,

Uv

58

178,

190,

196

921, 222,

QUAST QUMUEK, 278, 503

Santal, 39, 109 ; 312,

313

72

205,

277

285, 303-

Quilon, 8, 25, 27, 90, 99

368, 499, 515, 558

560,

306

330

331, 333

5r-'

316,

368

376, 386

Sapta Sindhu, 542

334,

OOS,

R

399

400

02

414, 467

Satpurd, 38

468,

469

477-480, 484

RAJAMUNDRY

123

Satyavrata, 6

488,

494,

505, 526, 530,

R4jendra Chola, 134, 135,

Sauras, 38

51"

77 0.

136, 140;

Sauraseni, 6

Persian (Cuneiform),

023

Rijendra Cholesvar a, I42.

S'avara, 38, 39; 312,

SIS

276.

Saxon, 39, 475, 47() 479,

RAJcndra Lal Mitra, Babu,

480, 490 503.

Peutinger Tables, 14, 30

Sc(mdmavnn, 345 b71.

32, 97-99, Iof,

103, 105

Rd]lo, 547.

Phayre, Sir A.,

Réajmah4l, 39; 517, passim.

Schlegel, Dr Aug . 74 5 476,

Phillips,

Rcv

l\humce,

Rajput, 548, 567, 568 575.

591, 596

Ré4ma, 25, 112, 119, I20.

Schott 66,

Phoenicia, 21, 91, 92, 122;

Réma Chanta, pgl ok

Scotch,

10 ; 28, 488

Rama’s bow, 102

Scott, Mr J. M

1Sl

RAma’s bridge, 103; 553

Scythmn, 64-72 ; 495, 509,

Phyllite, 573

94

PSS,

Picts,

Ramanuja Acharya, 86, 136,

Pliny, 15, 17, 22, 30, 32, 33,

140, 143;

Scytluan (Cuneiform), 259

94, 95, 97, 102, 103, 105

RamAyana, 52, 58, oI

120,

Podigei,

I0I,

104.

123,

126

131

133, 134,

Scytho Celtlc, 593.

Hoerepoupa, 104.

136, 140, I50 ;

Scytho-Druidical, 588, 594,

Poligars, 116 ; 512, 550.

RAmésvaram, 102, I0

119;

596.

Polo,

Marco,

II1,

25,

26,

539

Scytia Dymirice, 14, 97

Ramnad, 116 ;

BYi5H

Secunderabad, 9.

27, 89, IOI, 139-143 ; 550

3

Ramusm 267 556

Seljukian Turks, 570.

5

, 537, 538, 539,

Semitico-Iranian, 562.

5

Ramfisis,

¥4

Pol ynesw n,

7985

82

143

4

Rashlduddm, 139, I42;9

, | Zepvol, 14.

536,

S'éndanér, 133

Pomponius Mela 103,

105

Rask, P1ofessor, 64, 65; 523.

Senderbandi, 199, 140, T4I

Pondicherry, 3 ;

Ravennfi, Geographer,

14.

142, 143;

Pope, Dr, 37,

SO

Rawlinson Ser 133 269,

Seoni- Gond 142 223,

172, 2:)9 ‘?60 261 263

272

398,

oOO 397, 511, 523 555

Reddis, 29

S’era, 22 139

Portuvuese Sy eyt 25,

Red Sea, 122; 9

S’eralam, 22,

5204 33, 102, 114, 126

Reinurd, 28

S’eramén Perumal, 139

14 24,

Remusat, 340

Servian, 479.

Porunel, IOO 120,

Renouf, M. Le Page, g2

Sétupati, 553.

Q7

Porus, 15

Rheede, 93

Shamamsm, 530, 584, 5

C(,

Pott, Professor, 66 ; 81

Roman, 14, 102

103,

1355

Prakrit, 6

14, 64, 73, 81

81, 256, 453, 550,

557,

Shfmars, 042 543, 550, 565,

592.

581,

925:83./87, 100, TI3 3

P

i

R

INDEX

60

Shen-Tamil, 8o, 82, 84.

265, 340, 470, 570, 571

Turks, 106 ; 501, 570, 571

Siamese,

580, 594

Turvasu, 18

Siberian, 71

289, 373, 580,

Tatar-Turkish, 69; 569, 570

Tuticorin, 101, I02

5

k]

Taylor, Mr, 89

Siberian Turks, 570, 582

aylor, Captain Meadows,

U

Siddhas, 126, 146

Sindhi, 7, 44, 60, 64; 44, 47,

Tiyuméanavar, 149

55, 57 167, 176 276, 278

Telingana, 29, 58, 88, 89

UéGRrIAN, 69, 70, 71, 106, 107

"8() 330 495.

Tellicherry, 97

59, 230, 233, 252, 278, 290

Slnmpm e, I0.

Telugu, 20-32, passim.

314, 368, 369, 400, 409,

Singhalese, 9, 13, 16, 28, 89,

Temple, Sir R., 3

452, 497, 500, 506, 580

T e; TII, mTiTe

3

[t

Teutonic, 71, 73, 107, IT4;

Uigur, 106 ; 2

223 276 285, ))O 492

36, 4

43, 139, 195, 263

Ureiytr, 17, 96

498 537, 538, 539, 543.

400, 456

S’lttar, 124, 146 148

Thomas, Mr Edward, 122;

Vv

S'iva-Vakyar, 148

Slavonian, 71

1125 32, 36,

Thomas, St, 14.

39, 272, 273, 274, 332,

T1bet‘ms 6 31,

43, 63, 7

-

VAISYAS, 57, IX3, II6, I1I7 3

354, 399, 460, 483, 488

25, 141 177 178 191 278

b

9]

502, 550, 570,

288, 497 499 521 572.

Vallabha Déva, 145

Tmnevelly, il 18 88 99,

Valmiki, 52, 133

Sojoten, 502

100, I20, I2I, I42, I4

Vanji, 99

2w\np, 100

Varaha-mihira, 8

Solomon, 91, 122

3‘)6 542, 564, 580, 595

L3

14,

pra 17, 95, 967 99

33, 97

S'éramandalam, 24

Tlrumuh 147.

Vararuchi, 82

Spanish, 26, 45, 57; 39, 61

Tiruvalluvar, T 30-132

137

Veddahs of Ceylon

D09,

146

578, 584

Tiyars, 110, 114

Veigei, 95

S’ra,mmna 14.

Tondaman, Rajah, 539, 553

Vellalas, 36, 117; 545, 548

Stephen of By z‘mtmm, 93,

2

32

I0

Travancore, 9-II, 18, 20, 21

Stevenson, Rev. Dr 56

88-g0, 98, 99, 105, IIO

Vémana, 124

59, 60, 61

143, 158, 196

135; 9, 15, 52,7b47, 564,

Vijaya, 15, 120, 121

578

565

Vijayanagara, 25, IQJ, 146

Strabo, 13

102;

103, I05;

Trench, Archbishop, 50

Vikrama Pandya, 140, 145

565, 566, 572

Tributary Mahéls, 39

Vikraméarka, 378

Suanian, 226, 276

Trichendoor, 101

Vindhyas, 1, 38, 109, IIS5,

108

Trichinopoly, 17, 149 ; 456,

119 ; 559, 560, 578

S'adras, 51

I09,

459

Vira-bhadra, 581

AT

TT2, TTS TH6

E17 3

24, 544, 549, 553

Tpiyrvrrov, TpiNvyyor, 32

Vira Chola, 140

Sundar Bandi, 141

536

Trivaltir, 548

Vira Pandi, 536, 538, 539

Sundara Pandya, 89, 129,

Trivandrum, 9, 20, 24, 105 ;

540

135, 138, 144 3 9, 535, 537

Virappa Néyakkar, 142

Trumpp, Dr Ernest, 29, 64 ;

Viragsvami Chettiar, 135

Surgutish, 177

95, 31, 47, 176, 183.

Vishnu Vardhana, 123, 136

Tuda, 37 passzm 511 512,

Swedish, 506

55o—ooS 5}

VisvAmitra, 6

Sybils, 147.

Syrian Christians,

S

Tuluy 35, 36 passzm

Vizagapatam, 548

23, 89, 90; 8§, J 10 14

Tunﬁusmn A6 7m

218

Vogul, 66; 222, 230, 233,

1L

177 268 374

373, 478, 497, 502, 503

289, 500, 501, 50

504

383 492 490, 504

505, 50.

505, 506, 507, 508

Turanian, 55, 56, 65, 66, 67,

Volgian, 502, 506, 508,

Syro- Arabmn, 70.

69; 8, 2b, 82, 279, 373

Von Hammer, 536, 537

Syryfmla,n, 500, 504, 506.

379, 413 ‘Lo,

525, 534

Von Humboldt, W

a%o of>9 560,

£68, 572

Votiak, 168, 221, 276, 286,

A

’6)

90

5

)

TAMIL, 9-20, passim

Turkish, 43, 46

59, 60, 61

Vrishalas, 5

Tamraparni

8, 16, 18, 95,

6s, 68, 71, 79 ;

70, 77, 94

Vuller, 29

I00.

119,

120, I2I

142

SoAY)

42,

57

1Ly

178

191,

195,

202,

Ta,nd‘wa raya - mudaliyar

213

22

Ly

223,

226

236,

W

237,

276,

217,

236,

987,

l‘an]oze, 17,5134, TALS

28,

314

5]

289,

290,

340

98,

348

WAHL, 93

331,

332,

o

355,

Wales, 109

Tawpoﬁam, Taprobane, 100,

360,

366

373,

375,

376,

‘Walhouse, Mr, 548.

TOZ, 12T,

386,

393

400,

402,

413,

Wassaf, 139, 141 142 ; 536,

Téranatha, 5, 13, 31, 33, 34

414,

415

431,

496,

497,

537, 538

39, 540.

Tarshish, 91.

498,

499,

501

502,

503

Weber, Professor, 99

Tatar, 64, 65; 31, 33, 34, 47,

504,

505,

507,

515

534

Welsh,

107,

I5T;

273,

128, 149, 177, 191 213

030, 570.

274, 372 477, 480 50b

;,ﬂ

608

NDEX

‘Whish, Mr, go.

Y

28,.96, 101, 105, 139, I4TI ;

“Wllkms Sir C., 45 ;:523.

odo,

36 537 540 582,

‘Wilks, 54T.

YADAVAS, 122

568

584,

\Vﬂson Professor H. H 7

Yalkute, 289, 500

Y‘wma, 55,

48,

Z

458, 45

51, 57, 89, 114, 136 ; 3, 306,

Yarkand, 237.

ZANZIBAR, 28

551, 569

Zend, 32, 35, b7, 71

Yavanas, 5, III

139,

Yedo, 177

143, 144

147, 190

195,

2 <

Yemen, 9

263

27

213, 274

285,

Yerkesian, 501

306, 307

331, 332

469,

XAVIER, St Francis, 33.

Yerukala, 312, 313, 533

473, 483

Xerxes, 109; 566.

Yule, Colonel, 11, 20, 26, 27, | Ziegenbhalg, 24

?

:j%

4

THE END

g

.

%

2

PRINTED BY BAL

LANTYNE AND COMPANY

EDINBURGH AND LONDON

U

’a&\x

-

o

s

e

.

-

e

—

e

13, EZ. 1982

SR

-

g

P2

(¥4

i

2

;

2

%

vy

ai

1/

L

f

)

5t

)

33}

I}h,;t

(s

4

¥

i

i

[i

4t

20

5

o)

o

e

Y

4

0

7

)

\5’

28

‘

e

s

(v

(G

!

.

f(#

i

10

{

it

Te),

[

S

P

i

&

Ceh!

‘r[;’

A6

HLs

A

4

}

%

4)

\

e

/

N

A%

3

bt

4

%%

)

H{{«

ALK

?

i

i

7

K

:

5

o

h

i

j)f’ A

7

3‘r

sf;‘

ek

9

)

G,

Nl

G

)

A

Yo

a4

)

{

37

it

x?g

N6

08

)

¢

)

i

16

]

Y

3

54

i

i

o

A

4

5

{

it

Y

(s

i

¢!

7

Sk

i

e

i

§

AT

?

%

o]

i

Ak

7

K

s

G

0

&

YA

A

30

?

AL

A

i

e

¥

{14

7

Gt

N

oA

2

§

il

4

(i

W

éé

i

A

)

.

s

:?

|

i

i

J

A

VR

(s

X

)

.

i

Y

1

A

4

i

.

O

i

i

)

)

3

&

A

52

A

2]

7.

A5 (’

b0

(il

it

ey

e

0

v'f;‘&

Vi

AN

i

A

il

1

o

I

i

’jx

5

\! n(z}‘{l

2

1

3\; Vi

0

g\:

Y

i

/x‘

&?

3

i

;

%

1

i

B

X

e

Y

Ve

o

il

3!

A

0y

R

)

X

o

o)

g

4

K

vk

i)

H

sok

\

&

z\

i

A(?l

N

%

o

b

il

Vi

I

i

15,

i)

o

%

N

&

R

_8.

£

19

MPARATIVE GRAMMAR

18

VierFarbSelector Standard* - Euroskala Offset

Y

23

17

°

g

§

HE

i

16

'RODUCTION.

@f% és %

é

g

15

pwing work to examine and compare the

forms of the various Dravidian languages,

14

to a more thorough knowledge of their

nctive character, In pursuing this object,

13

four to point out everything which appears

h the question of the relation which this

%

the principal families or groups into which

12

Lo-

| Asia nave been divided.

11

structure of each Dravidian language and

and illustrated in a greater or less degree,

ance and to the writer’s acquaintance with

10

nd constant aim to throw light upon the

uage which he has for thirty-three years

rosecution of his missionary labours, and

est cultivated, and most highly developed,

—in many respects the representative lan-

luded in this V\;Ol'd under the general term

E

ve,r‘n-acular speech of the great majority of

India.

With the exception of Orissa and

India and the Dekkan in which the Guja-

poken, the whole of the peninsular portion

v mountains and the river Nerbudda (Nar-

is peopled, and from the earliest period

led, by different branches of one and the

nt dialects of one and the same language—

k. term ¢ Dravidian’ is here applied ; and

Copyright 4/1999 YxyMaster GmbH www.yxymaster.com

1 farther

he %a,me st'em may be traced stil

a

>

& jt

e e N