Krishnamurti Bhadriraju. The Dravidian Languages

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

7.4 T

ense

301

z-u- ‘to weep’; -tt- occurs as a past tense marker after disyllabic roots ending in an

apical stop /t

t/. Strong verbs of (C)VCV/(C)

VC-type take -kk- before the inﬁnitive

sufﬁx -a (section 7.4.1.2); -nt- occurs as a past marker in other overlapping classes and

also as a portmanteau morph representing past and intransitive, with nt-t- representing

the corresponding transitive (section 7.4.1.3). In South Dravidian II languages -tt- got

generalized as the past-tense marker (see examples in section 7.4.1.2) and also in Kolami

and Naiki of Central Dravidian.

The sufﬁxes i ∼ in (2) could have been in phonological complementation to the other

groups. Broadly, they occurred after disyllabic and trisyllabic bases of three to ﬁve morae

ending in an underlying stop followed by the non-morphemic -u (section 7.4.1.4). There

is doubt whether the perfective participle

∗

-cci- in South

Dravidian II and Parji

–Ollari–

Gadaba of Central Dravidian is a sequence of two past morphs,

∗

cc and

∗

i with the loss

of ﬁnal -n. We need to consider if this sequence, in turn, could be related to Classical

Tamil -ici

n (see section 7.4.1.5).

7.4.2 Non-past markers

Several markers come under this category, not all of which are reconstructable. They have

overlapping time reference like the future tense, the present-future, the future-habitual,

the aorist or habitual (generic) tense, the present tense, etc., besides non-ﬁnite forms

like the durative, inﬁnitive, purposive, permissive, etc. in which the time reference is

not to the past.

The non-past marked by -

k(k)-or-p( p)- [-w-, -pp-]

is reconstructable.

Different languages have followed independent strategies in forming the present tense.

7.4.2.1

∗

-(m)p-[-w-] ∼

∗

-(m)pp-,

∗

-(n)k- ∼

∗

-(n)kk-

I posited earlier (chapter 5) the above as non-past markers in intransitive and transitive

verbs. Evidence for -mp-/-mpp- is taken from the tense morphs following the causative

∗

-p(p)i- preserved in the alternation -i-nc- (past)/-i-mp- (non-past) in Old Telugu.

After the loss of tense meaning, -mp-/-mpp- as well as -nk-/-nkk- became simply the

intransitive–transitive markers as in Ta. tir-u-mpu/tir-u-ppu ‘be turned/ turn’ [3246],

kala-nku/kal-a-kku ‘be agitated/agitate’ [1303] (see sections 5.4.4, 7.3.3).

There are conjugation classes in Old Tamil in which -v- occurred after the so-called

weak (= regular) verbs

and -

pp- after ‘strong verbs’ as markers of the

future tense,

e.g. cey- ‘to do’: cey-v-, na

ta ‘to walk’: na

ta-pp-. The distribution of -v-/-pp- also

corresponds to the distribution of the inﬁnitive markers -k-/-kk-, e.g. ceyy-a ‘to do’,

r-ka ‘to stand’, but na

ta-kk-a ‘to walk’. In Ca˙nkam Tamil -pp- freely varied with -kk-

in the formation of inﬁnitives, k¯a-pp-a/k¯a-kk-a ‘to protect’. Malay¯a

lam has -kk-asthe

inﬁnitive marker in the so-called ‘strong’ verbs, e.g. k¯e

l-kk-uka ‘to hear’, but var-uka ‘to

come’ (DVM: 423–5). We need to consider the velars here actually as markers of non-

past. These distributional aspects are found systematically in South Dravidian I mainly in

302 The verb

the Pre-Tamil descendants (Malay¯a

lam, Ko

daga, Iru

la, Kur

umba, Toda, Kota); Kanna

and Tu

lu also attest these sufﬁxes. Most members of South Dravidian II bear witness to

an erstwhile use of a labial as non-past marker. In Brahui -p-(<-pp-) occurs in negative

non-past regularly.

South Dravidian I: OTa. has -um in 3sg (mfn) and 3neu pl, e.g. ceyy-um ‘he, she, it,

they (neu) will do’. Alternatively, we ﬁnd cey-v-¯a

n (3m sg), cey-v-¯a

l (3f sg), ceyy-um

(3neu sg/pl), beside the ﬁrst and second persons (sg/pl) with the tense morph - p-/-pp-;

-um is here considered a tense marker rather than a fusion of different personal signs.

(We can posit -w-in

∗

cey-w-um, and say that

∗

-w- is lost in sandhi before a labial vowel;

note where the following vowel is not a labial,

∗

-w- appears, e.g. the human plural is Ta.

cey-v-¯ar.) Secondly, there

is a pair of extended future

markers in Old Tamil involving

both the velar and labial sufﬁxes, -kuv-/-kkuv-, e.g. cey-v-¯e

n/cey-kuv-¯en ‘I will do’,

tu-kkuv-¯e

n/ko

tu-pp-¯en ‘I will give’. We also ﬁnd -k-/-kk- as a future marker in the

ﬁrst person in Classical

Tamil, e.g.

varu-ku ‘I will come’, varu-k-am ‘we will come’,

urai-kk-¯o ‘I will tell’ (Tolk.1181.2). A non-past verbal participle is formed by adding -pu

to a base, e.g. e

nnai n¯okku-pu ‘looking at me’ (KT 1.3–4). Glazov (1968: 103–9) calls

this ‘the adverbial participle of present-future aorist’. There is another construction in

Old Tamil with -p- as future marker in the 3pl, e.g. e

n-p-a ‘they speak’ (Tolk.1), cey-pa

‘they [± hum] will do’ (KT 42.16).

Old Malay¯a

lam had personal sufﬁxes following non-past -v- ∼ -m-/-pp- correspond-

ing to Middle Tamil -v-/-pp-. But the personal sufﬁxes were lost gradually by the

fourteenth century and the aorist tense replaced the future tense of Middle Tamil. Tamil

-um (aorist) became -¯u;sowehave-v-¯u/-m-¯u (the latter following a root-ﬁnal nasal) and,

-pp-¯u corresponding to OTa. -v-um/-pp-um; these are used as aoristic in Malay¯a

lam,

avan-¯e var-¯u ‘he will only come’.

Unlike the Tamil -um forms, the aorist forms in -¯u

occurred in all third-personal forms including the human plural. By the ﬁfteenth century

-um had spread to all persons and denotes aoristic-future (Ramaswami Aiyar 1936: 67–9).

dagu has -v-/-pp- as non-past markers, e.g. key-v-i ‘I will work’, key-v-a ‘we will

work’, 2sg key-v-iya, 2pl key-v-ira, 3sg/pl key-v-a (with neutralization of gender and

number).

Kota has -kv-/-gv- as future markers corresponding to Classical Tamil -kuv-/-kkuv-,

e.g. va- ‘to come’: 1sg va-kv-¯en ‘I will come’, 1pl (excl) va-kv-¯em, (incl) va-kv-¯om, 2sg

va-kv-i, 2pl va-kv-im, 3sg/pl va-kv-¯o/ va-k¯ok-¯o/va-kug-¯o.

Toda future is formed by adding -k- to the root: kiy-k-in ‘I will do’.

Kanna

da has a system parallel to Tamil; the present-future is formed by -v-/-pp-

before personal sufﬁxes, e.g. ku

du ‘togive’,1sgku

du-v-eN ‘I will give’, 1pl ku

du-v-eM,

Ramaswami Aiyar says that -¯u is not from -um, because there are usages like -v-¯u/-pp-¯u and -um

never occurred after the non-past markers. He thinks that it is -v-atu (3neu sg) which becomes

-v¯u (1936: 73).

7.4 T

ense

303

2sg ku

du-v-ay/-e/-i, 2pl ku

du-v-ir,3msgku

du-v-aM/-oM,3fsgku

du-v-a

l/-o

l,3hpl

du-v-ar/-or, 3neu sg ku

du-v-udu/-adu, 3neu pl ku

du-v-uvu/-avu.

lu dialects have two types of forms that have a bilabial; (1) present future -puv-/

-p-/-b-, e.g. kal- ‘to learn’: kal-puν-ε ‘I learn’, but 3neu sg kal- p-u

du;-p also occurs

after some monosyllabic and disyllabic verbs, e.g. pa

n- ‘to tell’: pa

n-p-, ¯a- ‘to become’:

¯a-p-. Bases of three morae take -b, t¯a˙ng¨ı- ‘to support’: t¯a˙ng¨ı-b-. The future tense has

-p/-v/-b;-b after nasal-ending stems, - p- and -v- are morphologically conditioned, e.g.

k¯a- ‘to wait’: k¯a-p-, pa

n- ‘to tell’: pa

n-b-/pa

n-v-/pam-b- (dial), t¯u- ‘to see’: t¯u-v-. A

sample paradigm: kal- ‘to learn’: 1sg kal-p-ε, 1pl kal-p-a, 2sg kal-p-a, 2pl kal-p-ar¨ı,

3m sg kal-p-e,fkal-p-al¨ı,3hplkal- p-er¨ı, 3neu sg kal-p-u, 3neu pl kal-p-a.

South Dravidian II: Telugu has nothing comparable beyond the -mpu variant in non-

past paradigms in the causative, e.g. c¯es-/c¯ey- ‘to do’, c¯ey-inc- ‘cause to do’: c¯ey-imp-

umu/-˜u

du ‘make somebody do it’ (imp 2sg/pl), c¯ey-imp-aN (inf ), etc. Another possible

trace of an older non-past

∗

-w- can be detected in the non-past paradigms of certain bases

ending in -cu, e.g. nil(u)-cu ‘to stand’: nil(i)-ci ‘having stood’, nil(i)-c-enu ‘3sg/3neu pl

stood’, but nil(a)-w-aN inf ‘to stand’, nilu-w-umu (imp 2sg), nila-w-aka ‘not standing’,

etc. Here -c-, a part of an original

past marker, is reanal

ysed as part of the base, but i

occurs in the past paradigms

only. In the non-past -

w- replaces -c- (see TVB: §§2.84–6).

Gondi (Adilabad dialect) has -k- as future marker in the ﬁrst and second persons

complementary to -¯an-, which occurs in the 3sg and pl, e.g. a

t- ‘to cook’: 1sg a

t-k-¯a,

1pl (excl) a

t-k-¯om, (incl) a

t-k-¯a

t, 2sg a

t-k-¯ı, 2pl a

t-k-¯ı

t,3msga

t-¯an-¯ur,3mpla

t-¯an-¯ır,

etc.

da has Stem + -pu/-bu in non-ﬁnite verbs meaning ‘as soon as, at the time of’,

ru kere-pu ‘as soon as the cock crows’, man-bu ‘while staying’.

In Kui -ki/-pi is added to form the present participle, e.g. ﬁrst conjugation a

d-a

‘to join’: a

t-k-i, second conjugation a

tp-a ‘to join’: a

t-p-i; third conjugation has a -v-

augment which is retained after a front vowel, but is lost elsewhere, before -ki is added,

gi-v-a ‘to do’: gip-ki,buts¯ava ‘to die’: s¯ava-i ; the fourth conjugation has the augment -b

and the present tense is formed by adding -i to it, sal-b-a ‘to go’: sal-b-i. I consider the

augments, which appear in the present participle, as the relics of the erstwhile non-past

markers (for detailed discussion, see Krishnamurti 1994a: xxii–xxiii). The plural action

stems are identical with the ones that have a velar or labial augment, but they are inﬂected

like the ﬁrst conjugation.

Kuvi also has -k/-p as ‘plural action’ sufﬁxes added to verbs to denote frequentative

meaning, e.g. kac- ‘to bite’: kas-ki-, t¯ıh- ‘to feed’: t¯ıs-p- ‘to feed frequently’. There is

a ‘motion sufﬁx’ -k-/-g- in both Kui and Kuvi but it does not occur with plural action

stems, e.g. k¯a-ka-mu ‘go and watch’ (Israel 1979: §5.24, 151–5). There is also the use

of -pi-/-vi- added to a base to form the stem of the ‘habitual mood’, e.g. pay- ‘to beat’:

pay-vi-, h¯ı- ‘to give’: h¯ı-vi-, ta

- ‘to bring’: ta-pi- (Israel 1979: 174–5).

304 The verb

In Pengo Burrow and Bhattacharya call these intensive–frequentative bases, corre-

sponding to ‘plural action’ bases of Kui–Kuvi. These are formed by adding -pa/-ba or

-ka, e.g.

∗

¯u

t- ‘to give to drink’: ¯u

t-pa-, t¯ub- ‘to blow’: t¯ub-ba-, kat- ‘to cut’: kat-ka-.

Some bases occur only with the frequentative sufﬁxes, ¯ı-ba ‘to bathe’, ¯ıt-pa- v.t. ‘to

bathe somebody’. Motion bases are not formed from intensive bases. They are mutually

exclusive (Burrow and Bhattacharya 1970: 82–7).

The above facts indicate that the use of -p/-k sufﬁxes with several allomorphs to denote

intensive–frequentativ

‘plural action’) meaning or that

‘motion’ is an innovation

in Kui–Kuvi–Pengo–Man

da and to some

extent in Ko

da by assigning

a meaning to

non-past markers

which have lost their original

signi

ﬁcation. Particularl

y Kui continues

to use these in one non-past inﬂection, i.e. the present participle.

Central Dravidian: Kolami forms a ‘future gerund’ (actually an inceptive mood mean-

ing ‘about to [action] ...’) by adding -ak to verb roots, e.g. tin-ak ‘about to eat’, and

a future-habitual adjective in -eka, e.g. tin-eka ‘that eat(s)/will eat’. Naiki (Ch.) has

durati

ve in -

eka-, e.g. ser-eka ‘going’. The

imperative (?) in Parji is for

med with -

ek-

in 1sg and all 3n-m sg/pl, e.g. c¯u

r-ek-en ‘let me see’, etc. The -k- sufﬁx in all these

seemingly cognate grammatical markers has a non-past reference and can be related to

∗

-k-/-kk-. Parji has -k-/- p- in different dialects before the present-tense sufﬁx -m-,

e.g. k¯a-k-m-en (northern dialect), k¯a-p-m-en (southern dialect). Most verbs have -t in

past and -p in non-past as augments. This alternation is also true of Ollari and Gadaba.

North Dravidian: Brahui has -ik/-a in 3sg present in both afﬁrmative and negative

forms, e.g. bin-ik-Ø ‘(3 subj) hears’, bim-p-a-kØ ‘(3 subj) does not hear’. We may

suspect a reﬂex of Proto-Dravidian velar non-past -kk- here.

7.4.2.2

∗

-tV-

The reﬂexes of a dental stop as non-past marker occur in South Dravidian I, South

Dravidian II and Central Dravidian. There is variation in different languages in its time

reference, aorist, present–future, future, habitual, etc.

South Dravidian I: in Ca˙nkam Tamil -tu-/-ttu- occurs as a marker of an ‘indeﬁnite

present–future tense’ before the 1pl, 2sg and pl, e.g. varu-t-i ‘you (sg) come’ (KT 91.14),

v¯e

tu-t-ir ‘you (pl) will wish’, iru-tt-um-¯o ‘shall we be?’ (KT 75.19). The personal

morphs, following the non-past -v-/-pp-, are different from the above (Glazov 1968:

106). This -t- behaves differently in sandhi from the past marker -t-, c¯e

ri (< cel + ti)

‘you (sg) go’: ce

rr-¯ay (cel + tt-) ‘you (sg) went’. It is the possible effects of homonymy

between these two types of -t- that may have led to the dropping of -t - in the aorist tense.

South Dravidian II: Old Telugu has -du- as aorist (present–future) marker in 1sg/pl

2sg/pl 3h pl in complementation with -unu, used uniformly for 3sg (m, n-m, neu sg and

neu pl), p¯a

du ‘to sing’: p¯a

du-du-nu (1sg), p¯a

du-du-mu (1pl), p¯a

du-du-wu (2sg), p¯a

du-

du-ru (2pl), p¯a

d-unu ‘he, she, it, they (n-h) sing’, p¯a

du-du-ru ‘they (h) sing’. -eda- also

7.4 T

ense

305

occurs as a free variant of -du-, but it referred to the present time more frequently

than the -du- forms. Both these have become obsolete in Modern Standard Telugu,

except in one verb of cognition, erugu ‘to know’, e.g. erugu-du-nu/-mu/-wu/-ru ‘I/we/you

(sg/pl) know’, and rarely in the subjunctive mood, e.g. n¯en-¯e¯ı pani c¯eddunu (← c¯es-

du-nu) ‘I myself would have done this job’. The hortative in Old Telugu also had the

non-past marker -du- before 1pl (incl) sufﬁx -amu and this construction survives in

Modern Telugu, e.g. OTe. c¯eyu-d-amu ‘let us do’, Modern Te. c¯ed-d-¯am (← c¯es-d-¯am).

Central Dravidian: Kolami has -at- as a marker of present–future in the ﬁrst and

second persons alternating with -Ø in the third person, s¯ı- ‘to give’: s¯ı-at-un (1sg), s¯ı-an

(3m sg). It has a morphological complex -d-at- as a future marker in the Wardha dialect

in the ﬁrst and second persons, alternating with -d- in the third person, e.g. s¯ı-d-at-un/

-um (1sg/pl), s¯ı-d-an (3m sg). The durative has the same tense marker but the personal

sufﬁxes are slightly different, s¯ı-d-un/-um (1sg/pl); in the other persons -n- replaces -d-.

The present–future in the Naiki of Chanda is -t-, e.g. an- ‘to be’: an-t-an ‘I am/will

be’. -at-/-d-/-Ø- are the markers of the future tense, e.g. kak- ‘to do’: kak-at-un (1sg),

kak-d-an (3m sg)/kak-Ø-an (3n-m sg).

In Parji, the future-tense marker after -n ﬁnal stems is -d-, e.g. tin-d-an ‘I will eat’;

in the northwestern dialects, -d- is replaced by -r-, c¯u

r-r-an ‘I will see’. The non-past

negative in some members of the paradigm is marked by -d- alternating with -n-/-m-/

-r-/-t -/-y-, e.g. c¯u

r-a-d-a (3m sg).

In Ollari the present–future is consistently marked by -d-, e.g. van

d- ‘to cook’: van

d-an ‘I cook’, var- ‘to come’: va-d-an ‘I come’. In Gadaba, the non-past markers are

-d-/-t-/-y-, e.g. p¯or- ‘to ask’: p¯or-t-an (1sg). The non-past marker is -d- after consonant

ending bases, kar- ‘to drop’: kar-d-an (1sg). The progressive/durative is marked by -id-/

-ud-, e.g. ¯a

d- ‘to weep’: ¯a

d-id-an (1sg) (Suvarchala 1992: 130–58).

North Dravidian: Ku

rux has -d- as the present-tense marker before all persons except

the third plural in male

speech. In female speech it is replaced by -

ʔ- in the ﬁrst person,

e.g. es- ‘to break’, male speech/female speech: es-d-an/es-

-¯en (1sg), es-d-am/es-

-¯em

(1pl excl), es-d-at (1pl incl), es-d-ay/is-d-i (2sg), es-d-ar/es-d-ay (2pl), es-d-as (3m sg),

is-

-i (3n-m sg), es-n-ar/es-n-ay (3h pl).

The above data from all the subgroups go to prove that Proto-Dravidian had

∗

-t-as

aorist (present–future/non-past) marker in verbs, but it has gone out of use because of the

dental stop

∗

-t-/ -tt- [-d-/-t-] occurring more widely as a past-tense marker. The geminated

-tt-[-t-] has remained more stable as a past marker, seen from the earlier treatment.

7.4.2.3

∗

-um

Caldwell (1956: 513–19) suggests that an impersonal ‘aoristic future’ is formed by

adding -um to stems ending in -k-/-kk- (apparently non-past sufﬁxes). This form is used

only in the third person and does not carry (gender)–number–person markers. Both -um

306 The verb

and the other non-past markers are all reconstructible for Proto-Dravidian. This is found

in South Dravidian I, South Dravidian II and Central Dravidian. Therefore, it needs to be

reconstructed for Proto-Dravidian. It is interpreted as a tense marker involving person

marking also, a kind of portmanteau morph. Glazov considers it only as the marker of

an indeﬁnite tense.

South Dravidian I: in Old Tamil -um occurs after -kk- in the case of ‘strong verbs’,

e.g. na

ta-kk-um ‘he, she, it, they (neu) walk’; otherwise, it occurs after a simple verbal

base, e.g. ceyy-um ‘(subject) does’. We can take -kk- here as the non-past marker (which

is represented by Ø after the so-called weak verbs like cey- ‘to do’). In that case, it

does stand as a marker of neutralized gender–number in the third person. In later Tamil

it further got restricted only to the third non-human singular and plural. Andronov

(1969: 135) considers -m- as a future marker, e.g. e

n- ‘to say’: en-m-; this is interpreted

by Subrahmanyam (1971: 248) as a variant of -um in predicative (pronominalized)

nouns, e.g. e

n-m-ar ‘those who say’. In Old Malay¯a

lam the -um forms occurred ﬁrst in

all members of the third person, but its usage got extended to all persons in Modern

Malay¯a

lam.

The velar sufﬁxes -g-/-k-(< -k-/-kk-) occur before the third-personal

um in Old

and Medieval Kanna

da in the aorist, ¯a

l-g-um ‘he, she, it, they will

rule

’(DVM: 258);

¯a- ‘to become’: a-kk-um ‘he, she, it or they will become’, bar- ‘to come’, bar-k-um

‘ ...will come’, ¯ar- ‘to be satisﬁed’: ¯ar-g-um ‘ ...will be satisﬁed’ (Ramachandra Rao

1972: 137). Kanna

da has extended the use of the velar to all bases, thereby clearly putting

-um in the slot of agreement markers.

lu has -u- for future in the third singular e.g. par-u ‘it will drink’, bar-u ‘it will

come’, tin-u ‘it will eat’; here -u corresponds to -um in Tamil, paruk-um, var-um, ti

nn-

um, respectively.

South Dravidian II: Old Telugu uses -un(u) as the aorist (called taddharmak¯alam-by

Telugu grammarians) marker in the third singular (mfn) and third neuter plural almost

parallel to the distribution of -um in Old Tamil. The aorist adjective is also marked by

-u(n), c¯eyu-pani ‘the work one does’, c¯eyun-at˜a

du ‘the man who does’. In Modern Telugu

-unu usage is restricted to a limited semantic subclass of verbs (denoting cognition,

motion), telus-u(n) ‘(dat subj) it is known’, d¯ewu

d(u) erug-u(n) ‘God (nom subject)

knows’, Inﬁnitive + wacc-u(n), r¯a-wacc-u(n) ‘(subj) may come’, etc.

Central Dravidian: Parji present-tense marker -m- can be said to have developed from

∗

-um, e.g. ver- ‘to come’: ver-m-en ‘I come’, except that -m- occurs in all persons.

Parji has restricted the time reference to ‘present’ and to habitual (all tenses). The

occurrence of personal morphs, after verbal adjectives ending in -um, is found in Old

Tamil itself, ceyy-um-¯o

n ‘he who does’, tin-m-¯ar ‘those who eat’. These pronominalized

nouns set the stage for converting such forms into ﬁnite verbs. Such derived nominals

are also found in Kanna

da and Telugu.

7.5 Pr

onominal suf

ﬁxes (gnp

markers)

307

7.4.2.4

∗

-n-

South Dravidian I: Old Tamil is said to have -un/-n- used as adjectival formatives,

followed by personal sufﬁxes in deriving predicative nouns in the third human plural,

e.g. ceppu-n-ar ‘those who tell’, varu-n-ar ‘those who come’, tu

rakk-un-ar ‘those who

renounce’, ¯ı-n-ar ‘those who give’ etc. This -n- is said to be a dental, contrasting with

an alveolar -

n- which occurs in Old Tamil only in non-initial positions. Subrahmanyam

(1971: 322) thinks that this is not a variant pronunciation of -um/-m, although the

distribution of this -un/-n is similar to that of -um/-m (notice it occurs after -kk- in strong

verbs). Note that in Telugu -un,-n corresponds to OTa. -um/-m.

South Dravidian II: Ko

da has -n- as non-past (future-habitual) marker in ﬁnite and

non-ﬁnite verbs, ki-n-an ‘he does/will do’, ki-n-i adj ‘the one doing’. A morphological

complex -zi-n-, used as present continuous, includes the perfective participle -zi- plus

the non-past -n-, e.g. son-sin-an ‘he is going’. -n- is represented by -Ø- after -n/-

n ending

bases, man-Ø-an ‘he will be’, u

n-Ø-an ‘he will drink’. Pengo future is marked by -n- and

it corresponds in every respect to Ko

da -n-, e.g. hu

r- ‘to see’: hu

r-n-, in- ‘to say’: in-Ø-;

non-past adjective hu

r-n-i. In Kui -d- and -n- occur as future markers in complementary

distribution, e.g. k¯o- ‘to reap’: k¯o-Ø-i (1sg), k¯o-n-amu (1pl excl), k¯o-n-asu (1pl incl),

k¯o-d-i (2sg), k¯o-d-eru (2pl), k¯o-n-enju (3m sg), k¯o-n-eru (3m pl), k¯o-n-e (3n-m sg),

k¯o-n-u (3n-m pl). In stems of Conjugation I, an epenthetic vowel -i is added before

-d-/-n-. Kuvi also has parallel distribution of -d-/-n- as future markers, h¯ı- ‘to give’: h¯ı-

d-i (2sg), h¯ı-n-esi (3m sg). In both Kui and

Kuvi -

d- undergoes certain sandhi

changes

following -n-/-

n-/-l-.

Central Dravidian: Kolami has a durative paradigm in which -d- occurs in the ﬁrst

person and -n- in others, e.g. s¯ı- ‘to give’: s¯ı-d-un (1sg), s¯ı-d-um (1pl), s¯ı-n-iv (2sg) etc.

In Adilabad Kolami -n- occurs in a hortative in all persons, v¯el-n-am ‘let us ask’.

North Dravidian: in Ku

rux -d- and -n- occur complementarily as present-tense mark-

ers, 3h pl es-n-ar ‘they break’ (male speech)/es-n-ay (female speech). Malto

also has

-n-/-i- for present tense; -n- occurs in the third human plural, elsewhere -i-, e.g. band-

‘to draw’: band-n-er (3h pl).

7.5 Pronominal sufﬁxes (gender–number–person markers)

Finite verbs tend to carry agreement markers with the subject NP (occurring in the

nominative)

in gender

–number–person (gnp).

In particular constructions some of these

categories may be neutralized or collapsed into fewer, like -um agreeing with some mem-

bers of the third person (see section 7.4.2.3). In Toda and Brahui which have lost gender in

the third person, the agreement is only in number (sg/pl) of the subject NP. Malay¯a

lam

lost the personal sufﬁxes of ﬁnite verbs around the fourteenth century. One can see

phonological resemblance between the personal/demonstrative pronouns and the gnp

markers in most cases. Table 7.1 presents pronominal sufﬁxes, based on Subrahmanyam

308 The verb

able 7.1.

onominal suf

ﬁxes

(gender

–number–per

son markers)

ﬁnite

verbs in

South Dravidian I (‘–’ indicates that the form is non-existent)

Ta. Ma.

Person (Old) (Old) Ko

d Ir. Ko. To. Ka. Tu. Koraga

1sg

¯en, an, al ¯en, an ¨e, i e/en ¯e(n) en, in, neM, ε/o/a e

enu, e

1pl

¯em,

¯am, ¯om i , a¯em, am ¯em em, im, meM, evu o, aa

(excl) um/¯om

1pl – – – o/om ¯o(m) um –––

(incl)

2sg

¯ı,

¯ay, ¯oy ¯ay, ¯a iya a/a

l¯ıy, iay, e, ia a

2pl ir, ¯ır(ka

l ) ¯ır ira iri/ir iy ¯ım, ¯ır ts (sib) ir, iri ar¨ıer¨ı

3m sg

¯a

n, ¯on¯an a, ¨et¨ıe/en ¯an t, u,

c, kaM, oM, ei

anu, a

3f sg

¯a

l, ¯o

l¯a

l a/a

l¯a

l(u), ¯a

l -a

l¨ı/olu –

3neu sg (a)tu atu ud(u) d udu, du, n¨ı, u

n¨ı,

d¨ı, u

itu, tu

d¨ı

3h pl ar, ¯ar ar(u) ¯ar ar(u), ¯ar, er¨ıer¨ı

¯ar(ka

l ), ¯ar or

3neu pl aa, ava, ina/– uvu, avu o, a –

ana ina

(1971: 399–402), Rajam (1992: chs. 26, 27; for Classical Tamil), Suvarchala (1992:

189–201, for Central Dravidian) and Rao (1987b: 134–42 for Proto-Gondi).

7.5.1 South Dravidian I

The reconstructions of the personal sufﬁxes are: 1sg

∗

Vn, 1pl

∗

Vm, 2sg

∗

¯ı,

∗

¯ay,

2pl

∗

¯ır (replacing older

∗

-¯ım),3msg

∗

-an (<

∗

an-t-), 3f sg

∗

¯a

l,3hpl

∗

¯ar, 3neu sg

∗

atu, 3neu pl

∗

-a(w). These are the ﬁnal syllables or -VC of the nominative forms

of the personal and demonstrative pronouns, except in the second person. The 1sg/pl

∗

Vn/

∗

Vm correspond to the ﬁrst-person pronouns

∗

y¯an/

∗

y¯am/

∗

˜n¯am. The qualitative

variation is due to the neutralization of

¯a/

¯e following

∗

y. The variation in vowel quantity

is due to the unaccented

position of personal suf

ﬁxes as ﬁnal constituents of

the verb.

In Ca˙nkam Tamil the ﬁrst singular marker

∗

al occurred after the non-past sufﬁxes only

and is of obscure origin. The commentators of Tolk¯appiyam suggested that -

¯em was the

agreement marker of exclusive plural and -

¯am that of inclusive plural. Toda and Telugu

support -

¯am as the pronominal sufﬁx of the ﬁrst plural inclusive. Koraga is closest to Tu

in personal sufﬁxes, although it has no separate marking for feminine singular unlike

lu. The second person singular seems to have had two nominative bases

∗

(n)¯ı (n)

7.5 Pr

onominal suf

ﬁxes (gnp

markers)

309

and

∗

¯ay of which the former occurs in all Dravidian languages,

¯ay occurs only as an

agreement marker in South Dravidian I,

da–Kui–Kuvi–Pengo–Man

da (-i< -ay) of

South Dravidian II and in Ku

rux–Malto of North Dravidian. Since the agreement marker

bears resemblance to nominative forms of pronouns, it is reasonable to think that the

nominative requiring -

¯ay as an agreement marker must have been lost in Proto-Dravidian

itself. Another change at the Proto-South Dravidian stage was the replacement of the

second-person-plural -¯ım by -¯ır, retaining the second-person root vowel, but replacing

the plural marker -m by the third-person-human-plural -r. The alternative forms in

Kota ¯ım-/¯ır- represent either retention of -¯ım or a late analogical restoration of -m. The

third-personal sufﬁxes bear the expected resemblance to the nominative forms in South

Dravidian I.

The

personal suf

ﬁxe

s listed under Malay

¯a

lam

occurred in older texts and the

y were

not very different from those of Middle Tamil. L¯ıl¯atilakam, a Malay¯a

lam grammar of

the fourteenth century, observes that ‘low castes in Malabar do say vand¯an, irund¯an’

(Ramaswami Aiyar 1936: 54). Inscriptions of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries al-

ready have forms without personal sufﬁxes, e.g. c¯e-vi-ccu (< cey-vicc- < OTa. cey-vitt +

personal sufﬁxes ‘subject cause(s) something to be done by another agent’). E

zuttaccan

(sixteenth century) used forms both with and without personal sufﬁxes. The ones used

were the ﬁrst person singular in past and non-past, masculine and feminine third person

(singular and plural) in the past; the second person singular past and present were much

less used. The ones that were dropped include -¯om (1pl), -¯ır (2pl), -ana/-a (3neu pl)

(Ramaswami Aiyar 1936: 38). In Iru

la -e/-en etc. are phonologically conditioned, -e

ﬁnally and -en before a vowel.

The Iru

la second singular has -a

l which is puzzling, since it looks identical with the

feminine singular sufﬁx -a

l. The non-human plural has also -

l in -ina

l. The authors of

Iru

la grammars have not thrown any light on this point.

dagu, Tu

lu and Koraga have

no sufﬁx-ﬁnal nasals in 1sg, 1pl and 3m sg.

7.5.2 South Dravidian II

The reconstructions for South Dravidian II are 1sg

∗

-Vn, 1pl (excl)

∗

-Vm. The ﬁrst per-

son plural inclusive has

∗

-att, developing to -

t in Gondi, -s in Kui-Pengo and -h(< -s) in

In Old Tamil -i occurred as agreement marker of 2sg only after future stems in -t/-tt, and -ay,

elsewhere (DVM: 410).

These meant ‘he came, he was’ in Tamil. This observation means that the colloquial speech

was more like literary Tamil, while the literary dialect of Malay¯a

lam innovated loss of personal

sufﬁxes. Since Malay¯a

lam is the only language in South Dravidian I which had lost all personal

sufﬁxes in ﬁnite verbs, it would be interesting to study the sociolinguistic factors which promoted

such a loss.

Perialwar (1978b) differs from Zvelebil (1973) only on the form of two personal endings, 3m sg

-an,3hpl-¯ar (89). Both of them give -a/-a

l as the 2sg and -ina/-ina

l as the 3neu pl.

310 The verb

able 7.2.

onominal suf

ﬁxes

(gender

–number–per

son markers)

ﬁnite

verbs in

South Dravidian II

Te. PGo. Ko

da Kui Kuvi Pengo Man

1sg nu, ni an/n a enu, e, ini, i, e

u, i

1pl (excl) mu, mi, am/m ap amu, ami, ap u

ami omi

1pl (incl) amu a

ta a

t asu ohi, oas –

2sg wu, wi in i, id [V i i ay i

2pl ru, ri ir/i

t ider eru eri ader, ir

ider

3m sg (

du on

r/nran, anr enju esi an un

3m/h pl ru, ri or/r ar eru eri ar ir

3non-m sg du, di e/uad e e at i, in

3n-m pl wu, wi a

eu, ou, o (f) ik, (n) i

Kuvi. The inclusive plural pronoun in Kui in the nominative is ¯aju (<

∗

¯at-), Pengo ¯as-/¯ah-

∗

¯att-), with which

∗

-att as a personal

marker agrees. Ko

da normally

preserves

∗

-tt as -R, but in this case it shows similarity with the Gondi form. The ﬁrst inclu-

sive agreement marker -Vt in Ollari of Central Dravidian and Ku

rux of North Dravidian

appear to be related. There is no

clue to its origin except that

it is a native form more

widel

y represented in the subgroup

Gondi

–Ko

da–Kui–Kuvi–Pengo–Man

da and

was

restored

to bring out in the verbal system

the initial loss of a contrast

between inclusive

and exclusive plurals.

The second singular is

∗

i (<

∗

-ay) and the plural

∗

-ir (<

∗

-¯ır). Telugu -wu/-wi is an

independent development, representing the ﬁnal syllable of the nominative form n¯ıwu

‘you (sg)’. Pengo -ay is a retention of Proto-Dravidian second-person-singular agreement

marker and -i in Ko

da–Kui–Kuvi is an expected phonological equivalent. The second

plural in Gondi is generally -ir but many dialects also have -i

t alternating with -ir. The

nominative plural forms have -a

t/-e

t sufﬁx added to the plural base nim-/im-; so also the

ﬁrst person plural exclusive and inclusive hav

e several variants constructed similarly,

e.g. am-o

t ‘we (excl)’, mar-a

t ‘we (incl)’. Even then the origin of -

t in the second person

needs to be explored. The fact that -ir is the marker of second person plural in the whole

subgroup shows that the replacement of

∗

n¯ım by

∗

n¯ır was a shared innovation

at the

Proto-Dravidian stage, reﬂected in the personal sufﬁxes of both South Dravidian and

Central Dravidian.

The masculine third person singular and plural are

∗

-and and

∗

-ar, represented in

all languages. Ko

da and Pengo show -an in the environment [Ø ∼ -an

r/-anj in the

environment [V (-an ﬁnally but -an

r in Ko

da and -anj in Pengo when followed