Krishnamurti Bhadriraju. The Dravidian Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

6.5 Numer

als

261

There is a verb

∗

on-tu ‘to be united’ in several languages. Note the absence of cognates

in Central Dravidian for ‘one’ (a) and (b). The reconstruction given under Old Tamil is

needed to explain Ta. -

rr-/-

t and Te.-

t-.

(b) PD

∗

¯or/or-V adj [990 (a)]

SD I: Ta. ¯or/or-u adj ‘one’, oruv-a

n, oru-tt-an ‘one male person’, oru-tt-i

‘one female person’, ¯or-mai ‘unity’, Ma. ¯or/oru ‘one’, oruv-an/oru-tt-

an ‘one person’, Ko. ¯or/or/o- ‘one’, To. w

¨ır adj, also oˇs/o,Ko

d. ¯or/or¨ı

adj, Ka. ¯or/or(u) id. oru-vaN (> or-ba > obba) ‘one man’, Tu. oru/or-

adj, or-ti ‘one woman’.

SD II: Te. o

d-oru-lu ‘each other’, Go. oror ‘one’, or-pan ‘one place’,

da or-en(

ru) ‘one person’, or ne

d ‘one day’, or-su ‘once’, Kui ro

adj ‘one’, ro-

anju ‘one man’, ro-n

de/ro-n

di ‘one woman or thing’, Kuvi

r¯o ‘one’, ro-

esi ‘one man’, ro-ndi ‘one woman or thing’, Pe. ro, ro-nje

‘one’, ro-k-an ‘one man’, ro-nj-el ‘one woman’.

ND: Ku

r. or

t ‘one man or woman’, Malt. ort adj ‘one’ (of persons), orte

‘one man’, orti ‘one woman’, Br. asi adj ‘one’, asi

t ‘one entity’.

The Brahui form phonologically goes better with ‘one’(a), see numeral ‘three’. There are

verbs with the root

∗

or-V meaning ‘to be united, to be together, etc.’ in Tamil, Malay¯a

lam,

Kanna

da and Telugu. A subgroup of

South Dravidian II (Kui

–Kuvi–Pengo–Man

da),

which lacks cognates to ‘one’(a), has innovated a cardinal on the root in ‘one’(b).

∗

o-kk adj [990 (b)]

This underlies forms meaning ‘one man, woman, thing’. The ultimate root seems to be

∗

o ‘to be united’ [924].

[SD I: Ta. Ma. Ko

d. okka ‘together’, Ma. okkuka ‘to be together’.]

SD II: Te. ok(k)a adj ‘one’, ok(k)˜a

du, ok(k)ar˜u

du ‘one man’, ok(k)ate ‘one

woman’, ok(k)a

ti ‘one thing’, Go. ¯ok¯a ‘one each’ (lw from Te.).

CD: Kol. ok adj, okkon ‘one man’, okkod ‘one woman or thing’, Nk. Nk.

(Ch.) okko, okkod,Pa.ok adj ‘one’, okur ‘one man’, okal ‘one woman’,

okut/okti ‘one thing’, Oll. ukur (m), uku

t/oku

t ‘one woman or thing’,

Gad. ukkur (m), okal (f), uku

t (neu).

The adoption of a non-numeral root as a numeral is an innovation in Central Dravidian

with the isogloss also engulﬁng Telugu (perhaps because of geographical contiguity)

which has two cardinal words for ‘one’ in classical texts. Modern Telugu has dropped

the OTe. o

du ‘one’ but has regularized the okk- form.

It is doubtful if (a) (b) and (c) are phonologically related, but DEDR gives them all under

one entry on the basis of meaning. It is distantly possible that in Pre-Dravidian there was an

ultimate root

∗

o ‘to be united’ which occurs as the underlying form of (c). In that case, the other

reconstructions also go to Proto-Dravidian involving different formatives.

262 Nominals

6.5.2 ‘two’

∗

¯ı r /ir-V adj ‘two’,

∗

ir-a

tu n (non-hum, neu) [474].

SD I: Ta. Ma. ¯ı r /iru- adj, ira

tu (>ra

tu), Ma. ¯ı r /iru adj., ra

du,Ir.ra

du,

du,Ko.ir-/i-, ey

d,To.¯ı r /i-/¨ı- adj, ¯e

d,Ko

d. ¯ı r /iru-, da

d¨ı,butpann-

era

d¨ı ‘twelve’, Ka. Ir/iru, era

du,Tu.ir-, ra

d¨ı.

SDII: Te.¯ı r /iru-, re

du, Go.ir-, ran

d(u), ri

-/ri-, Ko

da ru

di,Kuir¯ı, r¯ın

de,

r¯ın

di, Kuvi r¯ı, rindi,Pe.ri, rin

d-ek ‘two women’, rin

d-a

‘two things’

(neu).

CD: Kol. ¯ı r -, indi

‘two things’, iddar ‘two men’ (< lw Te.), ¯ı r -al ‘two

women’, Nk. ir-, indi

g, iddar, ira

l, Nk. (Ch.) ir-, eron

di, iro

t-er, ira,

Pa.ir-, ir

du, irul, iral, Oll. ir-, in

di, irul, iral, Gad. ir-, i

dig, iruvul, iral

(same meanings as in Kolami).

ND: Ku

r. irb ‘two persons’,

r, ¯e

d, Malt. -ist,Br.ir¯a.

The full form with two formatives (-a

n and -tu) is reconstructible for Proto-Dravidian,

compare Ta. ira

tu, Ka. era

du with Ku

r. ¯e

d. The Kota form ey

d, according to Emeneau,

has

d instead of

d (1957a; repr. 1967b: §4) on the analogy of the numerals od (<

∗

on-tu)

‘one’ and m¯un

d (<

∗

m¯untu) ‘three’. In the Ko

da–Man

da subgroup of South Dravidian II,

the cardinals seem to be derivable from

∗

iru

d- and not

∗

ira

d-(>

∗

er-a

d-); in the latter

case these languages would have shown e- instead of i-. Note that in Kui–Kuvi–Pengo–

Man

da the cardinal ‘one’ is derived from the adjectival root

∗

¯or/or-V and not from

∗

ontu

like the other members of the subgroups, i.e. Telugu–Gondi–Ko

da. The -n

d sufﬁx is

analogically extended to the numeral one in Kui ron

de,Kuironde (doubtful transcription)

‘one’ from

∗

or-

d-.

6.5.3 ‘three’

∗

muH-/

∗

m¯u- adj,

∗

m¯u-ntu n (non-hum) [5052].

SD I: Ta. m¯u-/muC- adj (m¯uv-ar ‘three persons’, mup-patu ‘thirty’), m¯u

nru

(> Mdn m¯u

nu), Ma. m¯u-/muC-, m¯unnu,Ko.m¯u-/mu-, m¯un

d,To.m¯u-/

mu-, m¯u

d,Ko

d. m¯u-/muC-, m¯und¨ı,Tu.m¯u-/mu-, m¯uji, Ka. m¯u-/muC-,

m¯u

ru.

SD II: Te. m¯u-/muC-, m

¯u

du, Go. m¯u-/muy-, m

¯un

d,Ko

da mu

-, m¯unri,Kui

m¯u-/mu

-, m¯unji.

CD: Kol. muy-, m¯undi

, Nk. muC-/muy-, m¯undi

, Nk. (Ch.) muy-, m¯undi,

Pa. m¯u-/muy-, m

¯uduk, Oll. m¯un

d, Gad. muy-, m¯u

dug.

ND: Ku

r. m¯und ‘three things’, nubb ‘three persons’, Br. adj musi; musika

‘three times’.

A Proto-Dravidian laryngeal is responsible for lengthening the vowel in

∗

m¯u-, for sub-

stituting a y in Central Dravidian languages (muy-), and for gemination of the following

6.5 Numer

als

263

consonant, e.g. Ta. mup-patu ‘thirty’, Te. mup-padi ‘thirty’, mun-n¯u

ru ‘three hundred’.

Note that most languages of Central Dravidian have added another neuter sufﬁx -

the cardinal numerals two to four, thereby construing the cardinal as an adjectival form,

see Kolami, Naiki, Parji and Gadaba.

6.5.4 ‘four’

∗

n¯al/

∗

nal-V- adj, n¯al,

∗

n¯al-nk(k)V /

∗

n¯an-k(k)V n (non-hum) [3655].

SD I: Ta. n¯al-/nal-V- adj, n¯al, n¯a

n-ku, n¯al-ku, Mdn Ta. n¯alu, Ma. n¯al/nal-V-,

n¯al, n¯a˙n-ku, n¯an,Ko.n¯al/n¯ar/n¯a- adj, n¯an-g,To.n¯o- adj, n¯on-g, Kod. n¯a-,

nal-, n¯al¨ı, Ka. n¯al/nal-V-/n¯al(u)/n¯a-, n¯al-(u)ku, n¯a-ku,Tu.n¯al/nal-V- adj,

n¯al¨ı n.

SD II: Te. nalu- adj, n¯al-(u)gu n, Go. n¯al-u

(g)- (neu), n¯al-vir/-vur ‘four

men’, Ko

da n¯al-gi (n-m), n¯al-

er ‘four men/persons’, Kui n

¯al-gi ‘four’,

n¯al-ur ‘four men’.

CD: Kol. Nk. n¯al/nall-, n¯al-i

, Nk.(Ch.) n¯ali ‘four’ (n-m), nal-gur (m), Pa.

adj, n¯alu(k) ‘four things’, nel-vir ‘four men’, Gad. nlagur ‘four men’

(?lw < Te.).

ND: Ku

r. n¯ax ‘four things’, naib ‘four (indeﬁnite)’.

6.5.5 ‘ﬁve’

∗

cay-m- adj,

∗

cay-m-tu n (non-hum) [2826].

SD I: Ta. ai(m)- adj, ain-tu (> Mdn Ta. a-˜ncu) ‘ﬁve (non-human)’, aim-

patu ‘ﬁfty’, ai-var ‘ﬁve persons’; Ma. ai-/am- adj, a-˜ncu, am-patu ‘ﬁfty’,

Ko. ay- adj, anj,To.oy- adj, ¨uz,Ko

d. ay-/ayy-, aym- adj, a ˜nji n, Tu.

ai- adj, ain¨ı ‘ﬁve’.

SD II: Te. ¯en-/

e-/¯e- adj, aidu ‘ﬁve’ (neu), Go. sey-/s¯ı-/hay- adj, saiyu

g-,

s¯ıyu

, hayu

, ay

n (neu), say-u

r/hay-vur/hay-ur/ayvur/ey-vur ‘ﬁve’

(m), Kui s¯e- adj, s¯e

gi/si

gi ‘ﬁve’(n-m).

CD: Kol. ayd n(lw< Te.), s¯e-gur ‘ﬁve persons’, Nk. (Ch.) s¯e-ndi ‘ﬁve’

(n-m), Pa. cey-/c¯e- adj, c

e-duk ‘ﬁve things’, c¯e-vir ‘ﬁve men’, cey-al

‘ﬁve women’.

There are no cognates in North Dravidian; also none recorded

in Ollari

–Gadaba of

Central Dravidian.

6.5.6 ‘six’

∗

cat-V- adj,

∗

c¯at-u n ‘six’ [2485].

SD I: Ta. a

ru- adj, ¯aru ‘six’, aru-var ‘six persons’, Ma. aru- adj, ¯aru,Ko.

ar- adj, ¯ar,To.a

r- adj, ¯or,Ko

d. aru- adj, ¯ar¨ı, Ka. aru- adj, ¯aru,Tu.aji-

adj, ¯aji.

264 Nominals

SD II: Te. a

ru-(> Mdn aru) adj, ¯aru (> Mdn ¯aru), Go. (dial) s¯aru

h¯aru

g, ¯ar¯u n (n-m), s¯ar-vur/h¯ar-vur/¯a

r-vur ‘six men’, Kui s¯aja- adj/n,

sajgi n ‘six’ (Letchmajee 1902, Friend-Pereira 1909).

CD: Nk.(Ch.) s¯adi ‘six’.

6.5.7 ‘seven’

∗

z-V adj,

∗

¯e

∗

z-V n ‘seven’ (n-m) [910].

SD I: Ta. Ma. e

z-V- adj, ¯e

zu n, e

zu-var ‘seven persons’, Ko. e

l-/e- adj,

¯ey/¯eg n, T

¨o adj in some cpds, ¨ow n, Ko

d. ¨e

l¨ı- adj,

l¨ı n.‘seven’, Ka.

lu- adj, ¯e

z/¯e

l n., ¯e

z-var ‘seven persons’, Tu. ¯e

l/e

l- adj, ¯e

l¨ı, ¯e

lver¨ı ‘seven

persons’;

SD II: Te. ¯e

du,

de- adj, ¯e

du (n-m), ¯e

du-guru ‘seven persons’,

deb-badi

‘seventy’, Go. ¯e

(g) ‘seven’, ¯e

r-vir ‘seven men’, Kui ?odgi, o

d, o

dgi

‘seven’.

CD: Kol. ¯e

d/¯e

r, e

d-gur ‘seven persons’ (lw < Te.).

6.5.8 ‘eight’

∗

n adj,

∗

tu n [783].

SD I: Ta. e

n-ine

n-patu ‘8 × 10 = 80’, e

n-var ‘eight persons’, e

‘eight’ n, Ma. e

n-, e

tu,Ko

d. ¨em-bad¨ı ‘eighty’, ¨e

t¨ı ‘eight’, Ka. e

n-, e

∗

t-), Tu. e

n-ma ‘eight’, e

n-pa ‘eighty’.

SD II: OTe. en-inenu-badi ‘eighty’, en(i)-midi ‘eight’, Go. a

rmur ‘eight’

(

∗

e- > a,

∗

n >

r);

CD: enumidi ‘eight’ (lw < Te.), en-m¯a

tar ‘eight persons’.

In Telugu -midi, a modiﬁed form of padi ‘ten’, seems to have been added on the

analogy of tommidi (< to

n-padi ‘one less ten’) ‘nine’. Note that the gender marker -

(<-

∗

tu) is conﬁned only to South Dravidian I. The origin of -ma in Tu

lu is not clear,

unless it is the ﬁrst part of the reanalysed human plural (-mar<

∗

-war).

6.5.9 ‘nine’

∗

n adj [3532].

SD I: Ta.to

l-/to

n- ‘nine or

’, to

tu ‘nine’, Ta. Ma. to

n¯uru ‘

100 = 90’, to

l-¯ayiram ‘

of 1000 = 900’, Ko. tom-battu ‘9 ×10 =

90’, Ko

d. tom-bad¨ı, Ka. tom-b(h)attu,Tu.so

n-pa id.

SD II: Te. tom-badi ‘ninety’, tom-ma

dru ‘nine persons’, but tom-midi

‘

of 10 = 9’. Go. tomidi ‘nine’, tomabai ‘ninety’.

CD: Kol. tomdi ‘nine’.

6.5 Numer

als

265

The Kolami and Gondi forms are loanwords from neighbouring Telugu. In Telugu both

the meanings as attested in Tamil must have been prevalent, requiring their reconstruction

for Proto-South Dravidian. However,

∗

n ‘nine’ as a basic numeral is more widely

distributed in South Dravidian I and South Dravidian II. Also see o

n-patV ‘one less ten’

in section 6.5.10.

6.5.10 (a) ‘ten’

∗

paH- adj,

∗

paH-tu n, pat-in- in cpds [3918].

SD I: Ta. pa

h- adj, pa

h-tu/pat-tu, pa

h-pattu ‘10 × 10 = 100’, patt o

patu ‘nineteen’, pat-i

n-/padi-/pann- ‘ten in cpds eleven to eighteen’,

e.g. patin-o

nru ‘ele

ven

’, pann-ir

tu ‘tw

elve

’, pati-n¯anku ‘four

teen

’

etc., pat-i

n mar ‘ten persons’, Ma. pattu ‘ten’, in cpds pat-in-, patin-mar

‘ten persons’, Ko. pat- ‘ten’, pad-/padn-/pan-/-vat/-bat/-at in numeral

cpds, To. pot ‘ten’, in cpds pon-/-poθ/-foθ/-boθ /-oθ,Ko

d. patt¨ı ‘ten’,

in cpds patt-/pad¨ın-/padi-/pann-/-pad¨ı/-vad¨ı/-bad¨ı, Ka. pattu, in cpds

as ﬁrst member padin-/padi-/pann-/payin-, as second member -pattu/-

vattu/-battu,Tu.patt¨ı, in cpds as ﬁrst member patt-/pad¨ı-/pad¨ın-, as

second member -pa/-va.

SD II: Te. padi ‘ten’, as ﬁrst member in cpds padu-/pad-un-/pan-, as

second member -padi/-badi/-wadi, Mdn Te. ﬁrst member padak-/pann-

/pada-/padh-/padih-/padah-/pan-, as second member -phai/-bhai/-wai,

Go. pad, padi (lw < Te.).

CD: Kol. padi (lw < Te.).

(b) ‘ten’ minus

SD I:

∗

on-patV ‘one less 10 = 9’, Ta. onpatu, Ma. ompatu,Ko.onb¯ad,To.

w¨ınboθ,Ko

d. ombay, Ka. om-battu,Tu.ormba.

SD II: Go. un-m¯a ‘nine’.

This seems to be a construction conﬁned to South Dravidian I. The etymology of the

Gondi form is not clear. The ﬁrst part

∗

on- must be the root underlying

∗

on-tu ‘one’. The

minus value attributed to the ﬁrst lower number by position (only before ‘ten’ in this

case) is an innovation of South Dravidian I on the basis of a similar meaning in the case

∗

l-/

∗

n- (see section 6.5.9). Telugu pad-i as a cardinal seems to be a reanalysed

form from the composite numeral involving -in with loss of ﬁnal.

It is interesting to note that OTa. pa

htu is one of the few words that preserved a Proto-

Dravidian laryngeal

∗

H as a voiceless glottal continuant. The peculiar phonological

changes of the root as patt-/pat-V as the ﬁrst member of a compound, and -pay/-p

¯a as

the second member of a compound, are attributed to this phenomenon.

266 Nominals

6.5.11 ‘hundred’

∗

n¯ut (obl and in cpds n¯ut-t-) ‘hundred’ [3729]

SD I: Ta. Ma. n¯u

ru ‘hundred’, n¯urru-var ‘a hundred people’, Ko. n¯ur,

To. n¯u

r,Ko

d. n¯ur¨ı (obl n¯ui

t-), Ka. n¯u

ru ‘hundred’, n¯ur-var ‘a hundred

persons’, Tu. n¯udu (obl n¯uta-).

SD II: OTe. n¯u

ru (obl n¯u

ti-, in cpds. n¯u

ta-), Mdn Te. n¯uru (obl. n¯u

t-); Go.

n¯ur (pl nuhk), apparently an early borrowing from Telugu.

The languages of South Dravidian I have borrowed the word for ‘thousand’ from

Prakrit

∗

s¯asira (< sahasira- < Skt. sah´asra-): Ta. Ma. ¯ayiram,Ko

d. ¯air¨e (for loss

∗

s- see section 4.5.1.3), Ko. c¯avrm,To.s¯ofer, Ka. s¯avira, s¯asira,Tu.s¯avira, s¯ara

[DEDR, Appendix 11].

Numerals higher than a thousand,

lak

sa ‘hundred thou-

sand’ and k¯o

ti ‘a crore, 100 lakhs’, are borrowed into all the literary languages from

Sanskrit.

Case sufﬁxes are added to numerals either directly in some cases or to their oblique

bases, treated partly in section 6.3.1. Tamil has oblique markers in -a

n/-in,-att-, or -u

occurring after numerals (Andronov 1969: 97–8); ¯ayiram (obl ¯ayira-tt-) is treated like

maram ‘tree’. Telugu adds a complex oblique sufﬁx -i

t-i with all numerals from ‘two’

onwards, re

d-i(

ti-ki, n¯ur-i

ti-ki ‘to two’, ‘to one hundred’, etc.

6.5.12 Ordinals

Ordinals

are formed by adding an adjecti

val suf

ﬁx deriv

ed from the verbs

∗

¯a ‘to be’

∗

aHn- ‘to say’, to the cardinals, e.g -¯am in Tamil–Malay¯a

lam (ra

t-¯am ‘second’).

OTe. agu/awu ‘to become’, hab adj agu-/awu-, OTe. ¯a

r-awu ‘sixth’, muppadi-(y)-awu

‘thirtieth’. In modern Telugu the sufﬁx -¯o (< -awa-, <awu) is added to cardinals to make

them attributive, e.g. m¯u

d-¯o ‘third’, mupphayy-¯o ‘thirtieth’. Old and Modern Kanna

add -aneya (-n¯e in fast speech), e

t-aneya ‘eighth’.

6.6 Quantiﬁers

Non-numeral quantiﬁers include expressions such as ‘some, many, all’ in different gen-

ders: SD I

∗

kil-a ‘few, some’ [1571]; PD

∗

pal-V- ‘many’ [3987]. Cognates occur for

the last item in South Dravidian I, Telugu and Malto: Ta. pal-avu (neu), pal-ar ‘many

persons’, Ka. pal-a, pal-avu ‘several’, pal-ar, pal-a-var ‘several persons’, Te. palu-wuru

id., Malto (as a verb) pal-war- ‘to be multiplied’; PD

∗

ell-V ‘all’ [844]. Cognates occur

in South Dravidian I, Telugu, Kuvi of South Dravidian II: Ta. ell-¯am ‘all, whole’, ella-

var-um/ell-¯ar-um ‘all persons’, Ka. ella ‘all, everything’, ell-ar-um ‘all persons’, Te. ella

‘all’, ella-(w¯a)r-u(n) ‘all persons’, Kuvi ele

e ‘whole’; -um/-un is an ‘additive’ particle

(Emeneau 1974a: 107–8). Other expressions include

∗

ko-˜ncc- ‘small, little’ [2047]: Ta.

ko-ccai, ko-ccu ‘small, mean’, ko-˜ncam ‘little’, Ma. ko-ccu, ko-˜ncam, Ka. ko-nca, ko-nce

‘a little, inferior’, Te. koncem(u) id.; Kuvi koceka ‘little’; cf. Pa. koyyal ‘lean’. There are

6.7 Pr

onominalized nouns

267

indeﬁnite quantiﬁers like Te. konni ‘some’ (neu), kondaru ‘some people’, konta ‘some

quantity’, but clear cognates are not available.

6.7 Pronominalized nouns

Nouns and adjectives (descriptive and verb derived) can be used as predicates in equative

sentences. They carry gender–number–person sufﬁxes in agreement with the subject

noun phrase just like the ﬁnite verbs. These are called by different names, ‘appellative

verbs or conjugated nouns’ (Caldwell 1956: 477–81, attributed to Beschi as the ﬁrst

user, p. 478), ‘pronominalized nouns’ (Bloch 1954), ‘personal nouns’ (Andronov 1969:

122–5), ‘derived pronominals’ (Krishnamurti 1969a: 246–8) and ‘predicative nouns’

(Varadarajan cited by Israel 1973: 167–8). Tolk¯appiyam calls them vi

nai-k-kurippu

‘verbal signs’. The tense is said to be ‘covert’ in these forms as opposed to regular verbs

(Israel 1973: 162).

I give examples

from Telugu using the forms

manci-w¯a

du ‘a good man’, manci-di ‘a

good woman’, which are derived from the adjective manci ‘good’ in the third person as

the basic form:

3m sg w¯a

du manci-w¯a

du ‘he (is) a good man’

3n-m sg ¯ame manci-di ‘she (is) a good woman’

3hum pl w¯a

lu manci-w¯a

lu ‘they (are) good persons’

2sg nuwwu manci-w¯a

d-i-wi ‘you (are) a good man’

(addressee: man)

nuwwu manci-d¯an-i-wi ‘you (are) a good woman’

(addressee: woman)

2pl m¯ıru manci-w¯a

lu ‘you are good persons’

1sg n¯enu manciw¯a

ni (← w¯a

d-i-ni) ‘I am a good man’

n¯enu mancid¯anni (← d¯an-i-ni) ‘I am a good woman’

1pl (excl) m¯em (u) manciw¯a

l-am ‘we are good persons’

1pl (incl) manam manciw¯aa

lam ‘we are good persons’

(w¯a

du ‘he’ + lu→ w¯a

lu;-lu is pl sufﬁx)

Notice that the third-person form is the base of the other persons. The oblique stems of

w¯a

du and adi are w¯a

d-i and d¯a-ni- to which the personal sufﬁxes are added: 2sg -wu,

2pl = 3pl -ru, 1sg -ni, 1pl -am. Even a Sanskrit

noun like

kawi ‘poet’, kaw-ulu ‘poets’

can be ‘conjugated’ similarly, kawi-ni, kawu-l-am (1sg/pl), kawi-wi, kawu-lu (2sg/pl),

kawi, kawu-lu (3sg/pl). A woman may optionally be referred to as kawayitri ‘poet-

ess’. Nominalized verbs with tenses can also ﬁt into these constructions, e.g. wacc-ina-

w¯a

du/-di ‘the man/woman who came’, wacc-¯e-w¯a

du/-di ‘the man/woman who comes’,

DEDR gives some cognates in 2101 like Tu

lu kondra ‘some, little’, Kui gonde ‘some’, but they

do not ﬁt into the paradigmatic series as in Telugu, anni-inni-enni-konni, anta-inta-enta-konta,

andaru-indaru-endaru-kondaru etc.

268 Nominals

r¯ani-w¯a

du/-di ‘the man/woman who does not come’ etc. In other persons, it is possible to

say n¯enu waccina-w¯a

ni ‘I was the comer’ etc. These constructions occur in Old as well

as Modern Telugu. In Telugu even the ﬁrst and second persons indicate gender in derived

nominals, since the inﬂected form is taken from the third person, which distinguishes

gender.

Old Tamil included two kinds of structures under vi

nai-k-kurippu, predicative nouns

carrying personal sufﬁxes and defective verbs, which do not carry tense markers, e.g.

3m sg all-a

n ‘he is not’, 3f sg all-a

l, 3hum pl all-ar, 3neu sg anru, 3neu pl all-a (Israel

1973: 170–4). The personal sufﬁxes are added to nouns in Old Tamil (Zvelebil 1977:

49), e.g. nal ‘good’:

1sg -

¯en nall-¯e

n ‘I am a good person’

1pl -

¯em,-

¯am,-¯om nall-¯em

2sg -ai,-¯ay,-¯oy nall-¯ay

2pl -¯ır nall-¯ı r

3m sg -

¯a

n,-¯on nall-¯an

3f sg -

¯a

l,-¯o

l nall-¯a

3neu sg -(t)tu nan-

3hum pl -

¯ar,-¯or nall-¯ar

3neu pl -a nall-a

In Tamil the forms occurring with the ﬁrst- and second-person morphs can also be

inﬂected with case sufﬁxes, but not so in Kanna

da and Telugu, e.g. p¯avi-¯e

n-ai (acc)-p-

ni ko

t¯ay ‘you have tak

en me, the sinful one, for service

’ (Zvelebil 1977: 49), vall¯e

n-ai

‘I (acc) who am strong’ (Andronov 1969: 124). Jules Bloch (1954: 45) also cites examples

with pronominalized forms based on verbs with tense signiﬁcation, p¯on¯en-ai a

ditt¯an ‘he

hit me who was going’. Literary Kanna

da has pronominalized forms attested in Pampa

Bh¯arata, e.g. pe

dati-y-en ‘I am the wife’, makka

l-evu ‘you are the children’, g¯ovan-ay

‘you are the cowherd’, balayutar-ir ‘you are the persons with strength’ (Ramachandra

Rao 1972: §7.2, p. 150).

In South Dravidian II these constructions are common, e.g. in Ko

da (Krishnamurti

1969a: 246–8) we have the following paradigm: n¯an peri-k-a ‘I am (a) great (one)’, m¯ap

peri-k-ap ‘we (excl) are great’, m¯a

t peri-k-a

t ‘we (incl) are great’, n¯ın(u) peri-k-i ‘you are

great’, m¯ır peri-k-ider ‘you (pl) are great’. Like Telugu and unlike Tamil, nouns derived

from tensed verbal adjectives also have derived pronominals of this kind, e.g. visir ‘to

throw’: visir-ti-k-a ‘I was the thrower’ etc. We ﬁnd pronominalized constructions with

numeral adjectives also, m¯ap ri

ep ‘we two’ (excl), m¯a

tri

t ‘we two’ (incl),

ider

‘you two’ (Krishnamurti 1969a: 247–8). Kui has ¯anu k¯uent-enu ‘I am Kui’, ¯am k¯uingan-

amu ‘we are Kuis’. In Gondi similar constructions occur, e.g. imm¯a

b¯on-¯ı

‘who art

Compare Te. m¯em/manam iddar-am ‘we two ...(excl/incl)’.

6.8 Conc

lusion

269

thou

?’, imm-a

b¯or-¯ı

‘who are

you (pl)

?’, amm-a

vartal-¯or-¯am

‘we

are the

guests

’(Bloch 1954: 37).

In Ku

rux there are forms of the type ¯en k¯u

rux-an ‘IamaKu

rux man’, ¯en k¯u

rux-nin ‘I

amaKu

rux woman’, n¯ın ek-¯a ort-¯ı ‘who art thou?’, ¯em Rancintam ‘we are the Ranchi

ones’ (Bloch 1954: 38; Hahn 1911: 73–5). Since the construction of pronominalized

nouns occurs in South Dravidian I, South Dravidian II and North Dravidian, it can be

reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian.

6.8 Conclusion

In this chapter we ﬁnd morphological evidence in support of the subgrouping of the

Dravidian languages adopted in this book. There are two exclusive innovations support-

ing the common descent of South

Dravidian I and South Dravidian

II from Proto-South

Dravidian, namely (i) the back-formation of

∗

˜n¯an ‘I’ from

∗

˜n¯am ‘we’ (inclusive)’, on the

basis of the principle of proportional analogy

∗

y¯an:

∗

y¯am :: ? :

∗

˜n¯am. Note that none of

the members of Central Dravidian and North Dravidian has any ﬁrst-person form begin-

ning with n-. The fact that

there were two rival singular

forms derived from

∗

y¯an/

∗

yan-

and

∗

˜n¯an/

∗

˜nan-, without any semantic difference, has led to many phonological and mor-

phological readjustments in the languages of South Dravidian I and South Dravidian II

(section 6.4.1.1). (ii) Another exclusive innovation is the replacement of the plural suf-

ﬁx -m by human plural sufﬁx -Vr in the nominative as a doublet in the second person

and

ﬂex

ive plural, i.e.

n¯ı-m  n¯ı-r/n¯ı-y-ir/n¯ı-w-ir, t¯a-m  t¯a-r/tam-ar. The

obliques,

which are bound forms, remain stable as nim-, tam-, respectively (section 6.4.1.2).

Two clear innovations set off South Dravidian I from South Dravidian II and other

subgroups: (i) the creation of a singular feminine gender (illustrated by

∗

aw-a

l ‘that

woman’), and (ii) the loss of the ﬁnal syllable

∗

-tu in nominative masculine singular,

i.e. South Dravidian I

∗

awan < PD

∗

awan-tu ‘that man’ (section 6.2.6). Within South

Dravidian I, another shared innovation

is the addition of -

l, a common plural sufﬁx,

to the plurals of the ﬁrst- and second-personal pronouns in Tamil, Malay¯a

lam, Ko

dagu,

Old Kanna

da (in the 2pl) and Tu

lu (see table 6.4c); Toda and Kota lack this feature.

All languages of South Dravidian II have oblique stems

∗

n¯a- (1sg),

∗

m¯a- (1pl),

∗

n¯ı-

(2sg),

∗

m¯ı- (2pl). These are explained as arising from a process of dropping the ﬁnal

consonants of the

nominative stems and other consequent changes, i.e. shifting the

plural marker to the initial position in

∗

m¯a and

∗

m¯ı (section 6.4.1.1) and analogically

replacing the initial n-bym- in the nominatives. These changes have affected only the

languages of South Dravidian II. Some scholars have tried to explain these as arising

from metathesis, i.e.

∗

an-a-/

∗

e-na- > n¯a,

∗

am-a/

∗

em-a- > m¯a-,

∗

in-a- > n¯ı-,

∗

im-a- >

m¯ı-, but there is no

other case to support metathesis or aphaeresis involving alveolar and

bilabial nasals in South Dravidian II; these scholars have not addressed that problem

270 Nominals

(Burrow 1946a: 597, fn.4, Shanmugam 1971a, Subrahmanyam 1970b, G. U. Rao 1987b,

Zvelebil 1990a).

In the use of cases, a subgroup within South Dravidian I is clearly demarcated by an

exclusive innovation of loss of the accusative -Vn and the use of -ay. These languages are

closely related or are offsprings of Pre-Tamil, namely Old Tamil, Malay¯a

lam, Ko

dagu,

Iru

la and Ku

rumba, but excluding Toda and Kota (section 6.3.2.1; mainly see discussion

at the end of this section). This shows that Toda and Kota separated before this innovation

took place.

In the case of numerals, the Central Dravidian languages stand alone by an inno-

vation of numeral ‘one’ from the root okk- (section 6.5.1). The isogloss encloses the

neighbouring Telugu and Gondi, which have other derived forms also. Alternatively, the

innovation could have arisen in Early Telugu and been borrowed at an undivided stage of

Central Dravidian languages, over one thousand years ago. This is a plausible inference,

because Telugu has a productive use of the derivatives of

∗

okk- (section 6.5.1c, and not

a, b); secondly there is a good deal of evidence of the Central Dravidian languages bor-

rowing from Early Telugu or Pre-Telugu. Notice the borrowing of

∗

n¯ı r ‘you (pl)’ from

Pre-Telugu by Kolami and Naiki, which alone retain the evidence of such a Pre-Telugu

form. The inherited nominative ¯ı m was replaced by n¯ır, but the oblique remains as im-

(section

6.4.1.2).

Appendix: Paradigms of nominal declension

Paradigms are given only from those languages whose descriptive grammars cite them. I have not

made any attempt to construct the paradigms from descriptive accounts.

South Dravidian I

1a. Old Tamil (Lehmann 1998: 80)

malar ‘ﬂower’

Nom malar

Acc malar-ai

Soc–Instr malar-¯o

tu, malar-o

tu, malar-¯a

n, malar-¯al

Dat malar-kku

Equative-Abl malar-i

Loc malar-il, malar-k¯a

n etc.

Gen malar-atu

The case markers are the same irrespective of the gender features of the nominal stems unlike

in Modern Tamil. Lehmann means comparative (‘like etc.’) by equative. This sufﬁx -in does not

continue in Modern Tamil.