Krishnamurti Bhadriraju. The Dravidian Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

5.9 Compounds 201

The patterns are analysed below into constituents, in terms of their parts of speech

and their likely meaning relationships, treating the linear constituents as x and y.

5.9.1 Verb + verb

(Doing x + doing y): there are not many of this type.

Ta. Ma. ¯ar-¯ay ‘to investigate’, ¯ar-¯aycci ‘research’, Ka. ¯ar-ay,Te.¯ar-ayu, ar-ayu,

da rey- ‘to search’ [

∗

¯ar ‘to become full’, 368 +

∗

¯ay ‘to search’, 363].

5.9.2 Noun + noun

This construction is quite common. The ﬁrst N stands in an attributive relation to the

second, e.g. ‘the ﬂy of honey, honey-bee’, ‘water from eyes, tears’, ‘God’s/King’s res-

idence, temple/palace’, etc. The underlying case relations are set out in terms of the

meaning relationship between the two constituents, x and y.

(i) xy = y lives on x or y causes

3268b: Ta. t¯e

n-¯ı ‘honey-bee’, Ko

d. t¯em-pu

lu;

Te. t

¯e

t-i ‘honey-bee’, Ku

r. t¯ın-¯ı ‘bee’,

Malt. t¯en-i ‘honey, bee’ [

∗

t¯en/

∗

t¯ın ‘honey’ 3268a,

∗

¯ı ‘ﬂy’ 533; lit. ‘honey-ﬂy’].

(ii) xy = y comes out of x (x = source, y = object produced)

1159b: Ta. Ma. ka

n¯ır,Ko.ka

n¯ır,To.ke

n¯ır, Ka. ka

n¯ır,Tu.ka

n¨ı-n¯ır,Te.kan-n¯ıru,

Go. kan-n¯ır, kan

d-¯er, k¯an-¯er,K

da ka

n-er(u),

Pe.

n-er,

Kui kan

d-ru, Kuvi kan

d-ru,

Br. xa

r¯ınk [

∗

n ‘eye’ 1159a,

∗

n¯ır ‘water’ 3690a; lit. ‘eye-water’].

2402b: SD II: Go. sa

r¯ap¯ı, ha

rap, a

rpi ‘cowdung’, Ko

da sa

rapi, r¯api, Kuvi, Pe. Man

r¯api; CD: Nk. sanap,Pa.ca

rpi, Oll. sa

rpi, Gad. sa

dpi; 2402a SD II: Ko

r¯anu ‘ox’,

dial. sa

ra id., Kuvi s

rahnu k¯o

di ‘bullock’; cf. Gad. sa

rit ‘bullock’ [

∗

?ca

t-a ‘bullock’ +

∗

p¯ı ‘excrement’ 4210].

2625:

Ta.

¯ır, ¯ırppi, Ka. ¯ıpi, s¯ır, ¯ır;Te

¯ıpi n., ¯ırcu v.t.,

Go.

s¯ır, h¯ır, ¯ır,Ku

s¯ır-eni ‘comb’,

Kuvi h¯ıru ‘nit’, Pe. Man

da h¯ır;Ku

r. c¯ır [

∗

c¯ır ‘nits’, +

∗

p¯ı ‘eggs

laid by, excrement

’SD

I and Te.].

3408: Ta. te˙nku, te˙nkam, t¯e˙n-k¯ay ‘coconut’, Ma. t¯e˙n-˙n¯a, te˙n˙na˙n-k¯ayi ‘coconut’, To. t¨o-

goy, Ka. te˙n-g¯ay,Tu.te˙n-g¨ı ‘coconut tree’; Te.

te˙n-k¯aya ‘coconut (palm)’ [cf. 3449:

∗

ten

‘south’ +

∗

k¯ay ‘fruit’, lit. ‘fruit-from-south tree’].

ﬁt better. Te. pokk-ili also presents a problem because

∗

z becomes

d and not l intervocalically in

Telugu.

Actually the verb compounds or compound verbs are separately discussed in the chapter on the

verb.

lu is not a cognate; this is given only to support the identiﬁcation of

∗

¯ı as another word and

not a sufﬁx.

It appears that -er in some of the SD II languages is from PD

∗

y¯at ‘water’ > SD II ¯eru which

replaced

∗

n¯ır.

202 Wo r

d formation

(iii) xy = y belongs to x (x = owner/resident, y = place)

2177: Ta. Ma. k¯oy-il ‘palace, temple’, k¯ov-il ‘temple’, k¯o, k¯o

n ‘emperor, king’; Te. k¯ov-

ila, k¯ov-ela ‘temple’ [

∗

k¯o ‘King/God’ 2177,

∗

il ‘house’ 494; lit. ‘King’s/God’s place’].

2215: Ka. k¯on¯eri, k¯on¯eru;Te.k¯on¯e

ru ‘a square tank with steps on four sides, a temple

tank’ [?God’s-tank; cf.

∗

y¯at-V ‘tank’ 5159].

(iv) xy = y is called x (x = proper noun, y = common noun)

2607: Ta. c¯ı-kk¯ay, Ma. c¯ıkka-kk¯ayi, Ka. s¯ı-ge,Te.s¯ı-k¯aya, c¯ıki-r¯eni ‘soapnut tree’.

(v) xy = object y has quality x (y is head and x attribute)

4035: Ta. pa

ni ‘dew’, Ta. pan-n¯ır ‘rosewater’, Ma. pani-n¯ır id., Ka. pan-n¯ır,Ko

d. pan-

n¯ır¨ı,Tu.pan-n¯ır¨ı ‘perfumed water, rosewater’: ‘dew water’ > ‘rose water’, Ka. pan-n¯ır;

Te. pan-n¯ıru ‘rose water’ [

∗

pan-V ‘dew, coldness’,

∗

n¯ır ‘water’ 3690a].

(vii) xy = y has x (the meaning of x is not clear; could it mean ‘bent’?)

4990: Ta. mu

zam ‘cubit’, Ta. Ma. mu

za˙n-k¯al ‘knee’, muza˙n-kai ‘elbow’, Ko. mo-gay

‘elbow’, mo-g¯al ‘knee’, Ka. mo

za-k¯al ‘knee’, mo

za key ‘elbow’, mo

la ‘cubit’, Ko

la-kay ‘elbow’, Tu. mura˙n-g`e, mora˙n-g`e ‘cubit’; SD II; Te. m¯ura ‘cubit’, mr

oceyyi,

ok¯alu, m

okar-illu ‘to bend’; CD: Kol. mov-ka, m¯o-ki ‘elbow’; ND: Ku

r. m

¯uk¯a ‘knee’,

Malt. m¯u-ke ‘knee’ (loss of ﬁnal -l in ND).

5.9.3 Adjective + noun

The ﬁrst element is a descriptive adjective qualifying a following noun head:

5312: Te. karu-wali ‘soft breeze’, wali ‘chill, cold’, 5312:

∗

l-i ‘wind’ [SDI, SD II, CD;

the meaning of karu- is not clear].

3184: Ta. t¯a

z-va

tam ‘necklace of beads or pearls’, Ma. t¯a

z-va

tam, t¯a-va

tam, Ka. t¯a-va

da,

Te. t¯a-wa

tam, t¯a-wa

lam ‘necklace of lotus beads, rosary’ [t¯a

z ‘low’ > ‘hanging’ 3178

and va

tam ‘string’ SD I and Te. Go. 5220].

3758: Ta. neru-nal, neru-nai, ne

n-nal ‘yesterday’, Ka. nin-ne,Ko

d. nin-n¯an

d¨ı,Te.nin-

na, Go. nin-n¯e (obl. nin-n¯e

t), Ko

da i-

en (i-

eR-), dial. i-nen, Man

da ineli

;

∗

ner- >

∗

nre- > re-: Kui ri¯ısi, Kuvi re

e, re

eni;Br.dar¯o [cf. Ma. in-n¯a

le,To.¨ı-n¯er,Ko.n¯er

(obl. n¯e

t-)].

In the following example, the ﬁrst constituent is likely to be

∗

z-V- ‘to bend’ [5123]; the ‘cubit’

meaning must be later, because of the following

∗

kay ‘hand’, but that meaning would not go

with

∗

k¯al ‘leg’.

Kui–Kuvi indicate the ﬁrst constituent as

∗

nit-V ‘to be complete, full’ [3682], but Ta. neru- does

not phonologically match, although

∗

n¯er-/ ner-V- [3672] looks better. The forms with

∗

nin-/

∗

in-

require

∗

nin-t- ‘to be full’ which DEDR connects to

∗

nit- [3682]. These etymologies need further

examination.

5.9 Compounds 203

5020b: Ta. mu

n-n¯a

l ‘yesterday’, Ka. mon-ne ‘day before yesterday’, Te. mon-na, Go.

mun-ne, mon-ne,Ko

da mu-

e (mu-

eR-) ‘day after tomorrow’, Pe. ? mayhi

id., Man

,Kuimaisi ‘a future day’ [4615].

4411: Ta. perum-puli ‘tiger’, Te. pedda puli, be-bbuli ‘big tiger’, Kol. per-pul, Oll. ber-

pul, Gad. ber-bull¯u [

∗

p¯er/

∗

per-V + puli ‘tiger’ 4307; in Telugu ‘a cheetah’ is called

ciruta puli ‘small tiger’].

4954: Ta. mutu ‘old’, m¯utt-appa

n ‘father’s father’, Ma. m¯utta- ‘old, grown’, m¯utt-appan

‘father’s elder brother, father’s father’, Ka. muttu ‘advanced age’, mutta- ‘aged’, Ko

mutt-ajj¨e ‘great-grandfather’, mut-t¯ay ‘great-grandmother’, Te. mut-t¯ata ‘great-grand-

father’, mutt-awwa ‘great-grandmother’.

4106. Ta. p¯akka

n, Ka. b¯avuga;Te.b¯avuru-billi, Go. bakoval,Pe.boyka,Kuib¯ao

di,

b¯aoli, Kuvi b

auli (Is.) ‘wild cat’ [Te. also b¯avurumanu]; Nk. bagale,Pa.b¯avki. This

group sounds foreign and

needs further investigation.

4337: Ta. pu

n-cey ‘land ﬁt for dry cultivation’, Ma. pu˜n-ca-kka

tam ‘ﬁeld under irriga-

tion’, Ka.? pu

naji,Tu.pu˜n-ca-ka

da ‘a very good rice ﬁeld’, Te. pun-ja ‘land for dry

cultivation’ as opposed to nan-ja.

Cf. Ta. punam ‘upland ﬁt for dry cultivation’.

4654: Te. ma

d-iw¯elu ‘washerman’, Ka. ma

di-v¯a

la, ma

di-v¯a

li ‘washerman/woman’, Ko

di-v¯a

l¨e ‘washerman’, Tu. ma

d-ele ‘washerman’ [

∗

ti ‘ceremonial purity’ 4654 and

∗

w¯el-ay ‘work’ 5540 (SD I)].

4813: Te. m¯ena-m¯ama ‘maternal uncle’, m¯en-atta ‘paternal aunt’(see 4813 and

53b in Appendix); Te. m¯ena- ‘connected through a man’s sister or woman’s brother,

cross-’, m¯ena-g¯o

dalu ‘niece’, Nk. meonak ‘cross-cousin’, Kon

da m¯e

na’en (Burrow and

Bhattacharya) ‘father’s sister’s son’, Pe. m¯e

ton

den ‘male cross-cousin’, Kuvi meh

attayi ‘female cross-cousin’ || CDIAL 10341 maithuna- ‘copulation’, DNM mehu

naya-

‘father’s sister’s son’, mehu

nia- ‘mother’s brother’s son’, -i¯a- ‘mother’s brother’s

daughter’.

2539: Ta. cemmal ‘water’, Tu. simma ‘cold’, temma ‘cold, cough’, Te. cemma, camaru,

cema

ta; temm-era ‘cold breeze’; 810: Ka. eral ‘breeze, wind’.

5.9.4 Verb + noun

There is a small class of constructions with a verb as a modiﬁer of a following noun

head:

2882: Ta. c¯ompu ‘to be idle’, c¯omp-¯e

ri, c¯om-¯ari ‘an idler’, Ka. Tu.Te. s¯om¯ari (the second

element is not clear, but it means ‘a male person’).

3246: Ta. tiri ‘to turn, revolve’, Ka. tiraga

ni/e ‘turning, a wheel for raising water’; Te.

tirugali ‘a hand-mill’ [the second element is

∗

kal ‘stone’ 1298].

A plausible etymology for Te. nan-je is

∗

nal/nan ‘good’ [3610] and cey ‘ﬁeld’ from

∗

key [1958].

It follows that pun-je is from

∗

pul-/pun- ‘small, bad’ [4301] and cey ‘ﬁeld’.

204 Wo r

d formation

5372: Ta. v¯aval, vavv¯al, vauv¯a ‘bat’, Ma. v¯aval, vavv¯al, Ka. b¯aval(i), b¯avul(i), Ko

b¯aali,Tu.b¯avali; Te. ?b¯avuru pilli ‘a wild cat’, Kol. velape, Kuvi b¯apla; cf. Ta. vavvu

‘to snatch’, vau(vu) ‘to seize, snatch, steal’, Ma. vavv¯ayi, vavv¯ali ‘fox’, Te. b¯awu-konu

‘to gobble up’.

5.9.5 Compounds with doubtful composition

?2274: Ta. ak-ku

l, ca˙nkam ‘armpit’, ak-ku

lu ‘to tickle’, Ka. cak-kala-gu

li ‘tickling an-

other’, ak-ka

like ‘tickling’, Ko

d. kak-ku

li id.; Te. canka ‘armpit’, cakkili gili ‘tickling’;

r. ca

gr- ‘to itch’. The second element is

∗

zi ‘pit’, but the ﬁrst is not clear.

3971: Ka. pari-y¯a

na, pari-v¯a

na, hari-v¯a

na, ari-v¯a

na ‘a plate-like vessel of metal’, Tu.

hariv¯a

na; cf. Ta. aruv¯a

nam ‘copper tray’, Te. (h)ari-v¯a

nam (lw < Late Ka.).

The second element ¯al looks like an archaic word, ?

∗

y¯al, meaning ‘an animal’, cf. Te. t¯o

d-¯elu

‘wolf’, t

¯ab-¯elu ‘a tortoise’, kund-¯elu ‘hare’.

Another parallel etymology discussed by Emeneau (see fn. 16 above) is 1234 To. komkw¨ı

r, Ka.

kavu˙n-ku

z, ka˙n-ku

z, ko˙n-ku

z ‘armpit’, Tu. ka˙n-ku

la, Go. kakri,Pa.kav-kor, kav-ko

d ‘armpit’.

Emeneau suggests

∗

kam-V/kav- ‘smelling’ [1334] and

∗

z-i ‘pit’. It appears that Te. kawung-

ili ‘embrace’ does not belong to this set. It is likely to be related to Te. kaw-iyu ‘to cover

completely’ from

∗

kap- [1221].

Nominals: nouns, pronouns,

numerals and time and

place adverbs

6.1 Introduction

Nominals in Dravidian are a morphosyntactic class of words, which are inﬂected for case.

Nominals consist of four subclasses: nouns, pronouns, numerals and adverbs of time

and place. All but the adverbs are distinguished for gender and number, besides being

inﬂected for case. Adverbs of time and place are morphologically nominal, since they

carry case sufﬁxes, but syntactically they function as adverbs, i.e. modiﬁers of the verb.

Noun stems can be simple, complex or compound. Simple stems are identical with the

roots, e.g.

∗

k¯al ‘leg’,

∗

¯ur ‘village’. Complex stems result from the addition of derivational

morphemes to verbal, adjectival, or nominal roots, e.g.

∗

wil-ay ‘price’ from

∗

wil ‘to

sell’ (see section 5.8.1a),

∗

l-ay,

∗

l-u-ppu,

∗

n-may ‘whiteness’ from

∗

l /

∗

‘white’ [5496]. Compound stems consist of a minimum of two roots of which the head

is a noun and the satellite a noun, an adjective or a verb, e.g.

∗

n¯ır ‘tear’ (N + N),

lit. ‘eye-water’ [1159b],

∗

kitt-eli ‘a mouse’ (adj + N) (lit. ‘small rat’) [1594].

6.2 Gender and number: identiﬁcation and deﬁnition

Gender is a system of classifying ‘nouns’ (other than time and place adverbs) in terms

of certain semantic and formal properties, supported by their grammatical behaviour.

In Dravidian, gender is distinguished in terms of the semantic categories [± human],

[± male human],

and marginally [± animate]. In all Dravidian languages [− animate]

Traditional grammars have recognized the importance of the category of [± human] in gender

distinction. They called uyar-ti

nai ‘high class’ [+ high] vs. a

nai (← al + ti

nai) ‘low class’

[− high] (Tolk¯appiyam, col: 2); correspondingly, mahat [+ high] and amahat [− high] in Telugu

(

Andhra´sabdaci

mt¯ama

ni). [+ high] represented [+ human] and [− high], [− human]. In Old

Tamil [+ high] split into two in the singular [+ male human], [− male human] and in the plural

[+ human]; [− high] represented [− human] both in the singular and in the plural. It meant non-

human animate and inanimate. In Telugu mahat [+ high] meant [+ male human] in the singular,

but [+human] in the plural; amahat [− high] meant a ‘woman or a non-human’ in the singular,

but in the plural it meant [− human]. Gods, male and female, are ﬁtted into the human class; there-

fore, the choice of ‘superior’ vs. ‘inferior’ as opposed to ‘human’ vs. ‘non-human’. These cate-

gories correctly represent the grammatical situation of these languages as can be seen from the

following discussion (see Bloch 1954: 5–8, Israel 1973: 15–32 for details of Tamil).

206 Nominals

(things) and [− human, + animate] (plants, animals, birds, etc.) are combined into one

category called the neuter gender, in the singular or plural, as the case may be.

Gender distinction in Dravidian is expressed in substantives (basic and derived),

the third personal (demonstrative and interrogative) pronouns, and numerals used ei-

ther as adjectives or as predicates in equative sentences, e.g. OTe. re

bomma-lu

‘two

dolls

’, iru-wuru

tammu-lu

‘two

younger brothers

’ (attributive use), bomma-

‘the dolls

(are) two

’ (predicative use). In most of the languages, ﬁnite verbs

and nominal predicates copy the gender of subject nouns, which govern them. Adjec-

tiv

es do not carry any marker

of agreement with the head noun

in gender and number.

Not every language has all the types of gender marking, e.g. Malay¯a

lam has lost the

agreement feature in verbs, but the demonstrative pronouns retain the difference, e.g.

vannu ‘he, she, it, they [± human] came’.

Only some subclasses of

nouns carry overt gender marking

in any language. Thus, in

Modern Telugu mogu

du ‘husband’ (gender marked by -

du), anna ‘elder brother’ (gender

unmarked) are m sg, pustaka-m ‘book’ (-m is gender marker), amma ‘mother’ are non-m

sg. Where the gender is not formally marked, it is expressed in the ﬁnite verbs, e.g.

anna

wacc-¯

‘the elder brother

came

’, amma

wacc-in-di

‘mother

came

’(-

and -di signal gender). Tolk¯appiyam gives examples with identical subjects but with

different agreement in ﬁnite verbs (Israel 1973: 24), e.g. k¯otai vant¯a

n ‘Kotai (a man’s

name) came’, k¯otai vand¯a

l ‘Kotai (a woman’s name) came’, k¯otai vandadu ‘Kotai (an

animal’s name) came’. Overt marking of gender is found mostly among nouns, which

are [+ human] following a universal pattern. ‘There is a hierarchy determining overt

gender marking in languages with semantic gender assignment: human > animal >

other animate > other’ (Aikhenvald 1996 MS: 10).

Numerals qualifying a noun marked [+ human] incorporate a human classiﬁer, which

is absent when they are used attributively to non-human nouns, e.g. Te. mugguru

manu

sulu

‘three persons’, but m¯u

pustak¯alu

‘three

books

’. The demonstrative

pronouns reﬂect the basic contrasts of gender and number in different Dravidian lan-

guages. Gender and number are interrelated categories and have to be treated as a single

system.

There are two numbers in Dravidian, singular and plural. The singular is unmarked

in nouns. In personal and demonstrative pronouns it is possible to segment a marker

for the singular, which is replaced by a plural morph in the plural. In Proto-Dravidian,

a distinction was made between [+ high] and [− high] in plural marking. The feature

[+ high] in South Dravidian I (and Telugu) and North Dravidian meant [+ human]

(men, women, men and women), but in South Dravidian II (without Telugu) and Central

Dravidian it meant [+ male hum], which could extend to mixed groups (men, men and

women) but not to an exclusive group of women. The reconstr

ucted morphemes are

∗

-Vr

for [+ high],

∗

-nk(k), -V

l or a combination of these two as

∗

-nk(k)V

l for [−high]. All

6.2 Gender

and number

: identi

ﬁcation

and de

ﬁnition 207

subgroups inherit -Vr, but there is no clear-cut subgrouping in the case of the marker

for [− human] plural. But we notice, in most of the languages, a gradual generalization

of the [−human] plural for both classes of nouns. The original [+ human] sufﬁx

∗

-Vr

has very restricted use in modern literary languages also.

The languages of South Dravidian I have

∗

-kka

l, South Dravidian II (other than Telugu)

and Brahui have

∗

-nk(k), Tu

lu of South Dravidian I and Central Dravidian have

∗

l or

∗

-nkk-V

l. Telugu has

∗

-V

l, but there are a few lexical items with

∗

-nkk-a

l as plural which

were reanalysed as stem -nkk and plural -V

l, e.g. Te.mr¯anu sg ‘tree’, mr¯a

ku-lu pl ‘trees’

(< PD

∗

maram-kka

l).

6.2.1 Gender–number contrasts based on demonstrative pronouns

Gender contrasts are presented below in each of the languages and also in some dialects,

in terms of the demonstrative pronouns; for illustration, only the forms derived from the

remote demonstrative root PD

∗

aH, which is the unmarked demonstrative, are taken.

must be noted that gender and number are distinguished in Dravidian only in the third

person. The ﬁrst and second persons carry only a number distinction, unlike Modern

Indo-Aryan in which

male and female speakers and addressees

have gender marking on

the verb.

In table 6.1. each row has cells and each cell represents a semantic space occupied

by one form. The maximum possible number of cells is six. If there is only one form

occupying the space of two or three cells, its meaning also correspondingly expands to

include those meanings. Thus in Telugu and the other South-Central Dravidian languages

adi (corresponding to PD

∗

atu) means ‘she, it’ because it occupies the semantic space

of ‘she’ (human female) and that of ‘it’ (non-human animate and inanimate).

6.2.2 Gender subsystems

There are several subsystems of gender in different languages and subgroups and there

is no total unanimity among scholars on the reconstruction of the category of gender

for Proto-Dravidian. There are three dominant types of gender–number distinction in

Dravidian, and each has been separately claimed to represent the Proto-Dravidian system,

according

to some scholars.

Type I in table 6.2 represented the proto-stage of South Dravidian I (Tamil, Malay¯a

lam,

dagu, Ku

rumba, Iru

la, Toda, Kota, Kanna

da and possibly Tu

lu), with ﬁve formal and

semantic contrasts. In the plural the derivative of

∗

awar meant ‘they’ (men, men and

women, or women).

The reconstructions for the proximate demonstrative are

∗

iw-antu,

∗

iw-a

∗

i-tu,

∗

iw-ar,

∗

iw-ay.

Here, the laryngeal

∗

H becomes w before -a, and is lost before a phonetic voiced stop [d] (see

Krishnamurti 1997b).

208 Nominals

able 6.1.

Semantic

and formal

contrasts in

the third-per

son demonstrative

pronouns

in different Dravidian languages

4 ‘they’ 5 ‘they’

1 ‘he’ 2 ‘she’ 3 ‘it’ (non- (human (human 6 ‘they’

Gloss

(human) (human) human) male) female) (non-human)

Proto

∗

awantu

∗

awa

∗

atu

∗

awar —

∗

away

1. Ta. avan ava

l atu avar avai

(K¯a

n.) ave

ava adu avru adu

(Eruk.) adu ay

2. Ma. avan ava

l atu avar avai

3. Ko

d. av¨en ava ad¨ı ay

ga ad¨ı

4. Kurumba ava

ava adu avaru adu

5. Iru

la ave ∼ aven ava ∼ ava

l adu, adi avaru ave

6. Toda aθ aθ¯am

7. Kota avn av

l ad avr ad

8. Kanna

da avaM, avanu ava

l adu avaru avu

(Gowda, ˜av˜a adi avu

S Havyaka)

(H¯alakki) av

nu av

adu averu

9. Tu

lu ¯aye ¯a

l¨ı avu ¯aku

lu ayku

¯ar¨ı avu

10. Te. w¯a

adi w¯aru awi

11. Go. ¯or, ¯o

r ad ¯o

r/¯o

rk av

(Koya) ¯o

d addu ¯or avvu

12. Kui a

anju ?¯ari ¯aru ¯avi

13. Kuvi ¯aasi ¯adi ¯ari ¯ati

14. Ko

da v¯anru adi v¯ar avi

15. Pengo avan adel adi avar avek ava

16. Kol. am/amd ad avr adav

17. Naik. avnd ad avr adav

18. Pa. ¯od/¯o

d ad ¯or av

19. Oll. ¯o

d ad ¯or av

20. Gad. ¯o

d ad ¯or av

21. Ku

r. ¯as ¯ad ¯ar/ab

rar ab

r¯a

22.Malt. ¯ah ¯ath ¯ar ¯ath

23. Br. ¯od ¯ofk

From this inherited type, some members have innovated certain changes which are

idiosyncratic: the K¯a

nikk¯ara dialect of Tamil, Ko

dagu, Ku

rumba and Kota have re-

placed non-human plural

∗

away by the singular form

∗

atu. Two non-standard Kanna

dialects, Gowda and Southern Havyaka, have replaced

∗

awa

l by

∗

atu, as found in South

Dravidian II and Central Dravidian, or it could be a retention of the Proto-Dravidian

system (see below). H¯alakki Kanna

da, on the other hand, extends the meaning of

∗

awar

6.2 Gender

and number

: identi

ﬁcation

and de

ﬁnition 209

able 6.2.

Gender

and number

in South Dravidian I

Type I Singular Plural

Proto-form

∗

awan

3 ∗

awa

∗

atu

∗

awar

∗

away

Meaning [he] [she] [it] [they] [they]

(hum m) (hum f) (non-hum) (hum) (non-hum)

to non-human category also, replacing

∗

away (an unexpected change). Toda and the

Erukala dialect of Tamil have lost gender distinction and preserved only the number

distinction of singular and plural, i.e. Er. atu,To.aθ ‘he, she, it’, Er. ay,To.aθ ¯am

‘they’ (hum and non-hum).

dagu hum pl ay

ga (<

∗

aw(V)-nka

l) is an independent

innovation (analogical, based on the 1pl), which replaced the derivative of

∗

awar (see

table 6.1).

Table 6.3. Gender and number in South Dravidian SD II minus Telugu

and Central Dravidian

Type II Singular Plural

Proto-form

∗

awantu

∗

atu

∗

awar

∗

away

Meaning [he] [she, it] [they] [they]

(hum m) (hum f and non-hum) (hum (hum f and

[men]) non-hum)

Type II with two contrasts in the singular and two in the plural is found in all South

Dravidian II languages except Telugu (Gondi, Ko

da, Kui, Kuvi, Pengo, Man

da) and in

all Central Dravidian languages (Kolami, Naiki, Parji, Ollari, Gadaba). What is important

to note is that the semantic range of

∗

awar ‘they’ encompasses ‘men’ or ‘men and

women’, but not an exclusive group of ‘women’ as in the case of South Dravidian I.

Both in form and in meaning the singular and plural are symmetrical, singular male

human vs. others, plural male human vs. others, except that the male human form may

also signal mixed groups of ‘men and women’ in plural. Deviations from this type

are explainable: Pengo has a six-way contrast, avan ‘he’, adel ‘she’, adi ‘it’, avar ‘they

(men, men and women)’, avek ‘they (women)’, ava

‘they’ (non-human and inanimate);

adel consists of ad (3n-m sg) plus -el derived from

∗

¯a

l ‘woman’ (cf.

∗

aw-a

l of South

∗

awantu lost the ﬁnal syllable in South Dravidian I as a shared innovation, because all members

of this subgroup have avan as the 3m sg. Only Kanna

da human plural forms like magand-ir ‘sons’

are relics preserving the original stem-ﬁnal -n

t which synchronically is treated as part of the sufﬁx

(see fn. 9).

Such a loss of gender must have independently taken place in Brahui of North Dravidian also.

210 Nominals

Dravidian I); avek is an innovation formed by adding a ‘female human’ derivative sufﬁx -k

used in noun morphology to the inherited non-human ave (<

∗

away); ava

is similarly

innovated by adding a common plural sufﬁx -

to the base ava- .(cf. Pengo ga

rce-k

‘girls’, k¯o

di-

‘cows’).

Table 6.4. Gender and number in Telugu and North Dravidian

Type III Singular Plural

Proto-form

∗

awantu

∗

atu

∗

awar

∗

away

Meaning [he] [she, it] [they] [they]

(hum m) (hum f and non-hum) (hum) (non-hum)

This type is found in Telugu

of South Dravidian II and in Ku

rux and Malto of North

Dravidian. Although there are only four contrasts, two in the singular and two in the

plural, the meaning of

∗

awar ‘men, men and women,

women

’ and of

∗

away ‘they (non-

hum)’ is like that of Type I. In the singular, the contrasts are like those of Type II. Malto

created a covert distinction between the feminine and neuter in certain cases, e.g. ade-n

‘her’, but adi-n ‘it (acc)’; similarly ade-t: adi-t (instr), ade-nte: adi-nte (abl), ade-no:

adi-no (loc). This contrast is not found in genitive adi-ki and dative adi-k (Mahapatra

1979: 77). Telugu has created separate lexical forms to denote a woman, e.g. ¯ame, ¯avi

‘that woman’, but the agreement in ﬁnite verbs is the same non-masculine sufﬁx -di.

Now the question is which of these three types represents Proto-Dravidian.

6.2.3 Reconstruction of Proto-Dravidian gender

Emeneau (1955b: §10.17) followed by Subrahmanyam (1969: §§6, 9; 1976) and

Shanmugam

(1971a: 123) consider Type III to represent Proto-Dravidian

since it is

found in languages from different subgroups and the system is skewed. Jules Bloch

(1954: 5–7) and Krishnamurti (1961, §4.30, 1975b: 334–46) consider Type II to be

the original from which Types I and III can be derived as typologically motivated in-

novations. Burrow and Bhattacharya (1953: §12) consider the South Dravidian system

(Type I) as proto.

I do not see any reason to change my earlier stand that Type

II represents

Burrow and Bhattacharya have drawn attention to this innovation (1970: 24–5). They say that the

‘feminine’ is distinguished from the neuter ‘in the plural of verbs, and in the plural of adjectives

and pronouns, by the use of the termination -k, contrasting with neuter -

’ (1970: 24).

Corbett (1991: 153), while discussing gender overlap (‘she’ is non-masculine in the singular

but human in plural) in Modern Telugu, speaks of ‘three controller genders’ and ‘two target

genders’, perhaps correlating with semantic and grammatical contrasts. Thus ‘feminine’ and

‘neuter’ are controller genders but the use of -di in verbal agreement for adi ‘she, it’ is taken as

a non-masculine target gender.