COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR DRAVIDIAK SOUTH-INDIAN FAMILY OF LANGUAGES. PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY EDINBURGH AND LONDON COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR DEAYIDIAN ^^'^'^^ SOTJTH-INDIM FAULT OF LAMUAGES. BY THE KEY. EGBERT LCALDWELL, D.D., LL.D., HONORARY MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY, FELLOW OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS, MISSIONARY OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PROPAGATION OF THE GOSPEL AT EDEYENGOODY, TINNEVELLY, SOUTHERN INDIA. .Sec0nt( I5tiit{0n, Eeijiseti ant( lEnlargeti. LONDON: TRUBNEE & CO., LUDGATE HILL. 1875. \^A.ll rights reserved.] PL 4(o0 3 C3 PREFACE. It is now nearly nineteen years since the first edition of this book was published, aild a second edition ought to have appeared long ere this. The first edition was soon exhausted, and the desirableness of bringing out a second edition was often suggested to me. But as the book was a first attempt in a new field of research and necessarily very imper- fect, I could not bring myself to allow a second edition to appear with- out a thorough revision. It was evident, however, that the preparation of a thoroughly revised edition, with the addition of new matter wherever it seemed to be necessary, would entail upon me more labour than I was likely for a long time to be able to undertake. The duties devolving upon me in India left me very little leisure for extraneous work, and the exhaustion arising from long residence in a tropical climate left me very little surplus strength. For eleven years, in addi- tion to my other duties, I took part in the Kevision of the Tamil Bible, and after that great work had come to an end, it fell to my lot to take part for one year more in the Kevision of the Tamil Book of Common Prayer. I suffered also for some time from a serious illness of such a nature that it seemed to render it improbable that I should ever be able to do any literary work again. Thus year after year elapsed, and year after year the idea of setting myself to so laborious a task as that of preparing a second edition of a book of this kind grew more and more distasteful to me. I began to hope that it had become no longer necessary to endeavour to rescue a half-forgotten book from oblivion. At this juncture it was considered desirable that I should return for a time to my native land for the benefit of my health ; and at the same time I was surprised to receive a new and more urgent request that I should bring out a second edition of this book — for which I was informed that a demand still existed. Accordingly I felt that I had now no option left, and arrived reluctantly at the conclusion that as the first edition was brouglft out during the period of my first return to this country on furlough, so it had become necessary that the period 218 VI PEEFACE. of my second furlough should be devoted to the preparation and publi- cation of a second edition. The first edition — chiefly on account of the novelty of the under- taking — was received with a larger amount of favour than it appeared to me to deserve. I trust that this second edition, revised and en- larged, will be found more really deserving of favour. Though reluc- tant to commence the work, no sooner had I entered upon it than my old interest in it revived, and I laboured at it con amove. I have endeavoured to be accurate and thorough throughout, and to leave no difficulty unsolved, or at least uninvestigated ; and yet, notwithstand- ing all my endeavours, I am conscious of many deficiencies, and feel sure that I must have fallen into many errors. Of the various expres- sions of approval the first edition received, the one which gratified me most, because I felt it to be best deserved, was that it was evident I had treated the Dravidian languages " lovingly." I trust it will be apparent that I have given no smaller amount of loving care and labour to the preparation of this second edition. The reader must be prepared, however, to find that many of the particulars on which I have laboured most " lovingly," though exceedingly interesting to per- sons who have made the Dravidian languages their special study, possess but little interest for persons whose special studies lie in the direction of some other family of languages, or who are interested, not in the study of any one language or family of languages in particular, but only in philological studies in general, or in discussions respecting the origin of language in general. It is now more than thirty-seven years since I commenced the study of Tamil, and I had not proceeded far in the study before I came to the conclusion that much light might be thrown on Tamil by comparing it with Telugu, Canarese, and the other sister idioms. On proceeding to make the comparison I found that my supposition was verified by the result, and also, as it appeared to me, that Tamil imparted still more light than it received. I have become more and more firmly persuaded, as time has gone on, that it is not a theory, but a fact, that none of these languages can be thoroughly understood and appreciated without some study of the others, and hence that a Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages may claim to be regarded not merely as something that is useful in its way, but as a necessity. I trust it will be found that I have not left much undone that seemed to be necessary for the elucidation of Tamil ; but I hope this branch of work will now be taken up by persons who have made Telugu, Canar- ese, Malayalam, or Tulu their special study, so that the whole range of the Dravidian languages and dialects may be fully elucidated. One PREFACE. Vll desideratum at present seems to be a Comparative Vocabulary of the Dravidian Languages, distinguishing the roots found, say, in the four most distinctive languages — Tamil, Telugu, Canarese, and Malay- Mam — from those found only in three, only in two, or only in one. An excellent illustration of what may be done in this direction has been furnished by Dr Gundert, whose truly scientific " Dictionary of Malayalam " has given a fresh stimulus to Dravidian philology. An- other thing which has long appeared to me to be a desideratum is a more thorough examination of all the South Indian alphabets, ancient and modern,, with a careful comparison of them, letter by letter, not only with the alphabets of Northern India, ancient and modern, but also, and especially, with the characters found in ancient inscriptions in Ceylon, Java, and other places in the further East. It has been announced that a work on this subject, by Dr Burnell, M.C.S., entitled " South-Indian Palaeography," is about to be published in Madras, but I regret that a copy of it has not yet arrived. It has been my chief object throughout this work to promote a more systematic and scientific study of the Dravidian languages themselves — for their own sake, irrespective of theories respecting their relationship to other languages — by means of a careful inter-comparison of their grammars. Whilst I have never ceased to regard this as my chief object, I have at the same time considered it desirable to notice, as opportunity occurred, such principles, forms, and roots as appeared to bear any affinity to those of any other language or family of languages, in the hope of contributing thereby to the solution of the question of their ultimate relationship. That question has never yet been scienti- fically solved, though one must hope that it will be solved some day. It has not yet got beyond the region of theories, more or less plausible. My own theory is that the Dravidian languages occupy a position of their own between the languages of the Indo-European family and those of the Turanian or Scythian group — not quite a midway position, but one considerably nearer the latter than the former. The particu- lars in which they seem to me to accord with the Indo-European lan- guages are numerous and remarkable, and some of them, it will be seen, are of such a nature that it is impossible, I think, to suppose that they have been accidental ; but the relationship to which they testify — in so far as they do testify to any real relationship — appears to me to be very indefinite, as well as very remote. On the other hand the parti- culars in which they seem to me to accord with most of the so-called Scythian languages are not only so numerous, but are so distinctive and of so essential a natur^ that they appear to me to amount to what is called a family likeness, and therefore naturally to suggest the idea Vm PREFACE. of a common descent. The evidence is cumulative. It seems impos- sible to suppose that all the various remarkable resemblances that will be pointed out, section after section, in this work can have arisen merely from similarity in mental development — of which there is no proof — or similarity in external circumstances and history — of which also there is no proof — much less without any common cause whatever, but merely from the chapter of accidents. The relationship seems to me to be not merely morphological, but — in some shape or another, and however it may be accounted for — genealogical. The genealogical method of investigation has produced remarkable results in the case of the Indo-European family of languages, and there seems no reason why it should be discarded in relation to any other family or group ; but this method is applicable, as it appears to me, not merely to roots and forms, but also to principles, contrivances, and adaptations. I have called attention to the various resemblances I have noticed, whether apparently important or apparently insignificant — not under the suppo- sition that any one of them, or all together, will suffice to settle the difficult question at issue, but as an aid to inquiry, for the purpose of helping to point out the line in which further research seems likely — or not likely — to be rewarded with success. An ulterior and still more difficult question will be found to be occasionally discussed. It is this : Does there not seem to be reason for regarding the Dravidian family languages, not only as a link of connection between the Indo-European and Scythian groups, but — in some particulars, especially in relation to the pronouns — as the best surviving representative of a period in the history of human speech older than the Indo-European stage, older than the Scythian, and older than the separation of the one from the other. Whilst pointing out extra- Dravidian affinities wherever they appeared to exist, it has always been my endeavour, as far as possible, to explain Dravidian forms by means of the Dravidian languages themselves. In this particular I think it will be found that a fair amount of progress has been made in this edition in comparison with the first — for which I am largely indebted to the help of Dr Gundert's suggestions. A con- siderable number of forms which were left unexplained in the first edi- tion have now, more or less conclusively, been shown to have had a Dravidian origin, and possibly this process will be found to be capable of being carried further still. The Dravidian languages having been cultivated from so early a period, and carried by successive stages of progress to so high a point of refinement, we should be prepared to expect that in supplying themselves from time to time with inflexional forms they had availed themselves of auxiliary words already in use, PREFACE. 1% with only such modifications in sound or meaning as were necessary to adapt them to the new purposes to which they were applied. Accord- ingly it does not seem necessary or desirable to seek for the origin of Dravidian forms out of the range of the Dravidian languages them- selves, except in the event of those languages failing to afford us a tolerably satisfactory explanation. Even in that event, it must be considered more probable that the evidence of a native Dravidian origin has been obliterated by lapse of time than that the Dravidians, when learning to inflect their words, borrowed for this purpose the inflexional forms of their neighbours. It is a difl'erent question whether some of the Dravidian forms and roots may not have formed a portion of the linguistic inheritance which appears to have descended to the earliest Dravidians from the fathers of the human race. I should be inclined, however, to seek for traces of that inheritance only in the narrow area of the simplest and most necessary, and therefore probably the most primitive, elements of speech. In preparing the second edition of this book, as in preparing the first, I have endeavoured to give European scholars, whether resident in Europe or in India, such information respecting the Dravidian lan- guages as might be likely to be interesting to them. I have thought more, however, of the requirements of the natives of the country, than of those of foreigners. It has been my earnest and constant desire to stimulate the natives of the districts in which the Dravidian languages are spoken to take an intelligent interest in the comparative study of their own languages ; and I trust it will be found that this object has in some measure been helped forward. Educated Tamilians have studied Tamil — educated Telugus have studied Telugu — the educated classes in each language-district have studied the language and litera- ture of that district — with an earnestness and assiduity which are highly creditable to them, and which have never been exceeded in the history of any of the languages of the world — except, perhaps, by the earnestness and assiduity with which Sanskrit has been studied by the Brahmans. One result of this long-continued devotion to grammatical studies has been the development of much intellectual acuteness ; an- other result has been the progressive refinement of the languages them- selves j and these results have acted and reacted one upon another. Hence, it is impossible for any European who has acquired a competent knowledge of any of the Dravidian languages — say Tamil — to regard otherwise than with respect the intellectual capacity of a people amongst whom so wonderful an organ of thought has been developed. On the other hand, in conseque^jce of the almost exclusive devotion of the native literati to grammatical studies they have fallen considerably X PREFACE. behind the educated classes in Europe in grasp and comprehensiveness. What they have gained in acuteness, they have lost in breadth. They have never attempted to compare their own languages with others — not even with other languages of the same family. They have never grasped the idea that such a thing as a family of languages existed. Consequently the interest they took in the study of their languages was not an intelligent, discriminating interest, and proved much less fruitful in results than might fairly have been expected. Their philo- logy, if it can be called by that name, has remained up to our own time as rudimentary and fragmentary as it was ages ago. Not having become comparative, it has not become scientific and progressive. The comparative method of study has done much, in every department of science, for Europe ; might it not be expected to do much for India also 1 If the natives of Southern India began to take an interest in the comparative study of their own languages and in comparative philo- logy in general, they would find it in a variety of ways much more useful to them than the study of the grammar of their own language alone ever has been. They would cease to content themselves with learning by rote versified enigmas and harmonious platitudes. They would begin to discern the real aims and objects of language, and realise the fact that language has a history of its own, throwing light upon all other history, and rendering ethnology and archaeology pos- sible. They would find that philology studied in this manner enlarged the mind instead of cramping it, extended its horizon, and provided it with a plentiful store of matters of wide human interest. And the consequence probably would be that a more critical, scholarly habit of mind, showing itself in a warmer desire for the discovery of truth, would begin to prevail. Another result — not perhaps so immediate, but probably in the end as certain — a result of priceless value — would be the development of a good, readable, resj)ectable, useful, Dravidian literature — a literature written in a style free at once from pedantry and from vulgarisms, and in matter, tone, and tendency, as well as in style, worthy of so intelligent a people as the natives of Southern India undoubtedly are. I trust the interest taken in their language, literature, and antiqui- ties by foreigners will not be without its effect in kindling amongst the. natives of Southern India a little wholesome, friendly rivalry. If a fair proportion of the educated native inhabitants of each district were only to apply themselves to the study of the philology and archaeology of their district with anything like the same amount of zeal with which the philology and archaeology of Europe are studied by educated Europeans, the result would probably be that many questions which PREFACE. XI are now regcarded as insoluble would speedily be solved, and that pur- suits now generally regarded as barren would be found full of fruit. Native pandits have never been surpassed in patient labour or in an accurate knowledge of details. They require in addition that zeal for historic truth and that power of discrimination, as well as of generali- sation, which have hitherto been supposed to be special characteristics of the European mind. Both these classes of qualities seem to me to be combined in a remarkable degree in the articles recently contri- buted by learned natives to the Bombay Indian Antiquary on sub- jects connected with the languages and literature of Northern India ; and those articles appear to me to be valuable not only in themselves, but also as giving the world a specimen of the kind of results that might be expected if learned natives of Southern India entered, in the same critical, careful spirit, on the cultivation of the similar, though hitherto much- neglected, field of literary labour, which may be regarded as specially their own. I was much gratified last year on finding that this Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Languages had ceased to be the only Indian Comparative Grammar that had appeared. Mr Beames has followed up this line of philological research by the publication of the first volume of a Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India — that is, the North-Indian Vernaculars. I regret that the second volume of that valuable work has not yet been published. A Comparative Grammar of the Kolarian tongues, the third great Indian family, has probably not yet been contemplated ; but I am inclined to think that it would be found to be productive of important and inter- esting results. I have endeavoured to make the second edition of this work more easily available for reference, as well as more complete, than the former one, by providing the reader with a full table of contents and an index of proper names, together with paradigms of nouns, numerals, pro- nouns, verbs, &c. I have also given a list of the books and papers bearing, directly or indirectly, on Dravidian philology which have appeared since the first edition of this work, and which have been referred to or made use of in this edition. I have much pleasure in acknowledging the valuable help I have received from many friends. Amongst them are the following : — Rev. J. Brigel; C. P. Brown, Esq.; A. C. Burnell, Esq., Ph.D. ; Rev. J. Clay; T. W. Rhys Davids, Esq. ; Rev. E. Diez; Prof. Eggeling; Sir Walter Elliot, K.C.S.L; the late^C. Cover, Esq.; Rev. F. Kittel; Rev. F. Metz ; Prof. Max Miiller ; N. P. Narasimmiengar, Esq. ; Rev. Dr Pope ; Xll PREFACE. P. Le Page Renouf, Esq. ; Dr Rost ; Prof. Teza ; Dr Ernest Trumpp. I have especially to thank Colonel Yule, C.B., for much interesting and valuable information on points connected with topography and history; and the Kev. Dr Gundert for the invaluable help he was so kind as to render me in connection with every department of this work. I beg to thank the Indian and Colonial Governments and the various officers entrusted with the management of the late Indian census for the infor- mation with which I have been favoured respecting the numbers of the people speaking the various Dravidian languages. R. CALDWELL. Office op the Society for the Pkopagation OF THE Gospel, 19 Delahay Street, Westminster, London, 1875. BOOKS AND PAPERS bearing on Dravidian Comparative Philology, published subsequently to the first edition of this work, and quoted or referred to in this edition. Arden. — Progressive Grammar of the Telugu Language. By the Rev. A. H, Arden, M.A. Masulipatam, and Triibners, London, 1872. Bae7\ — Historische Fragen mit Hiilfe der Naturwissenschaften Beantwortet. Von Dr Carl Ernst v. Baer. St Petersburgh, 1873. Batsch. — Brief Grammar and Vocabulary of the OrS,on Language. By Rev. F. Batsch. Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. xxxv. Calcutta, Beames — Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India. By J. Beames, Esq., B.C.S. Triibners, London, 1872. Beames. — On the Present Position of Old Hindi in Oriental Philology. By J. Beames, Esq., B.C.S. Indian Antiquary for January 1872. Bombay, and Triibners, London. Beames. — Kirtans ; or Hymns from the Earliest Bengali Poets, By J. Beames, Esq., B.C.S. Indian Antiquary for November 1872. Bombay, and Triibners, London. Bellew. — From the Indus to the Tigris (including a Grammar and Vocabulary of the Brahui Language), By Dr Bellew, Triibners, London, 1873, Bleeh. — Comparative Grammar of the South African Languages. By W. H. J. Bleek, Esq., Ph.D. Triibners, London, 1862. BleeTc. — On the Position of the Australian Languages. By W. H. J. Bleek, Esq., Ph.D. Journal of the Anthropological Society, London, 1871. Bower. — On the Tamil Language and Literature. By the Rev. H. Bower, D.D. Calcutta Review, vol. xxv. Bower. — Lecture on Auveyar, a Tamil female poet. By the Rev. H. Bower, D.D. Madras. Brigel. — Tulu Grammar. By the Rev. J. Beigel. Mangalore, 1872. Buehler. — On the Origin of Sanskrit Linguals. By Dr George Buehler. Madras Journal of Literature, July 1864. Burnell. — An interesting passage in Kamarila-Bhatta's Tantrav^rttika. By A. C. Burnell, Esq., Ph.D., M.C.S. Indian Antiquary for October 1872. Burnell. — The Oldest-known South Indian Alphabet. By A. C. Burnell, Esq., Ph.D., M.C.S, Indian Antiquary for November 1872. Burnell. — Specimen of South Indian Dialects : 1. Konkani ; 2. Coorg {Kodagu) ; Mappila Malaydlam. Mangalore, 1872. (In progress.) Caldwell. — On the Substitution of the Roman for the Indian Characters. By the Rev. Dr Caldwell, Madras Journal of Literature for 1858-9. Campbell. — Ethnology of India. By Sir George Campbell, K. C.S.I. Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, vol.cxxxvj. iCL^ Campbell. — Specimens of Languages of India, By Sir George Campbell, K.C.S.L Calcutta, 1874. Chitty. — The Tamil Plutarch, By Simon Casie Chittt, Esq., Jaffna. Ceylon, 1859. . Cole. — Coorg Grammar. By Major R. A. Cole. Bangalore, 1867. XIV LIST OF BOOKS AND PAPERS. Cunningham. — The Ancient Geography of India. By General Alexander Cun- ningham. London, 1871. Dalton. — Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal. By Colonel E. T. Dalton, C.S.I. Calcutta, 1872. Davids. — Conquest of South India in the Twelfth Century, by Pardki-ama Bahu the Great, king of Ceylon. By T. W. Keys Davids, Esq. Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, 1872. Dawson. — Brief Grammar and Vocabulary of the Gond Language. By the Rev. J. Dawson. Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, 1871. Edkins. — China's Place in Philology. By the Rev. Joseph Edkins, D.D. Peking, 1870. Eggeling. — On the Chera and Chalukya Dynasties. A paper read at the Inter- national Congress of Orientalists by Dr Eggeling, Secretary of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1874. Frye. — On the Uriya and Khond Population of Orissa. By Lieut. J. P. Frte. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. London, 1872, Gazetteer. — The Central Provinces' Gazetteer. Nagpur, second edition, 1870. Gover. — The Folk-Songs of Southern India. By C. E. Cover, Esq. Madras, 1871. Graeter. — Coorg Songs, with Outlines of Coorg Grammar. By Rev. A. Graeter. Man galore, 1870. Graul. — Outlines of Tamil Grammar. By the Rev. C. Graul, D.D. Leipzig, 1856. Graul. — Der Kural des Tiruvalluvar. By the Rev. C. Graul, D.D, Leipzig, 1856. Graul. — Reise nach Ostindien. By the Rev. C. Graul, D.D. Three vols. Leip- zig, 1856. Growse. — On the Non-Aryan Element in Hindi Speech. By F, S. Growse, Esq., M.A., B.C.S. Indian Antiquary for April 1872. Gundert. — Malayalam Grammar. By the Rev. H. Gundert, Ph.D. Second edi- tion. Mangalore, 1868. Gundert. — Malayalam Dictionary. By the Rev. H. Gundert, Ph.D. Mangalore, 1872. Gundert. — On the Dravidian Elements in Sanskrit, By the Rev. H. Gundert, Ph.D. Journal of the German Oriental Society for 1869, Ilislop. — Papers relating to the Aboriginal Tribes of the Central Provinces, left in MS. by the late Rev. S. Hislop. Edited, with Notes, by Sir Richard Temple. Nagpur, 1866. Hodgson. — Essays on the Languages, Literature, and Religion of Nepal, Tibet, and adjacent Countries. By Brian Hodgson, Esq., late 'British Resi- dent, Nepal. llodson. — Canarese Grammar. By Rev. T. Hodson. Second edition. Banga- lore, 1864. Hunfalvy. — On the Study of the Turanian Languages. A paper read at the International Congress of Orientalists, London, 1874, by Professor Hun- falvy. Hunter. — Comparative Dictionary of the Non-Aryan Languages of India and High Asia. By W. W. Hunter, LL.D., B.C.S, Triibners, London, 1868. Kennet. — Notes on Early-printed Tamil Books. By the Rev. C. E. Kennet. Indian Antiquary for June 1873. Kittel. — On the Dravidian Element in Sanskrit Dictionaries. By the Rev. F. KiTTEL. Indian Antiquary for August 1872. LIST OF BOOKS AND PAPERS. XV Kittel. — Notes concerning the Numerals of the Ancient Dravidians. By the Rev. F. Kittel. Indian Antiquary for January 1873. Kittel. — Kesir4j4'8 Jewel Mirror of Grammar (3abda mani darpana), a Grammar of Ancient Canarese. By the Rev. F. Kittel. Mangalore, 1872. Kktel. — Article on Old Canarese Literature, by the Rev. F. Kittel, in Indian Antiquary for January 1875. Koelle. — Grammar of the Bornu or Kanuri Language. By the Rev. S. W. Koelle, London, Marshall. — A Phrenologist among the Tudas. By Lieut, -Col. Marshall. TriiV^ ^rtrrs; London, 1873. Lrrv 47 ruA-tc*/ ] Metz. — The Tribes inhabiting the Neilgherry Hills. By the Rev. F. Metz. Second edition. Mangalore, 1864. i¥mV,— Original Sanskrit Texts. ByJ.MuiR, Esq., D.C.L., LL.D,, late B,C.S. Second edition, five vols. Triibners, London, ]868. Mueller. — Reise der Fregatte Novara, Linguistischer Theil. By Professor Feied- RiCH Mueller. Vienna, 1868. Mueller. — Lectures on the Science of Language. By Professor Max Mueller. Two vols. London, 1864. Murdoch. — Classified Catalogue of Tamil-printed Books, with introductory notices. By J. Murdoch, Esq., LL.D. Madras, 1865. Nelson. — The Madura Country. A Manual compiled by order of the Madras Government. By J. H, Nelson, Esq., M.A., M.C.S. Madras, 1868, Phillips. — Tumuli in the Salem District, By the Rev. Maurice Phillips. Indian Antiquary, 1873. Pope. — A Larger Grammar of the Tamil Language in both dialects, with the Nannul and other native authorities. By the Rev. G. U. Pope, D, D. Second edition. Madras, 1859. Pope. — Tamil Handbook, By the Rev, G, U. Pope, D.D. Second edition. Madras, 1859, Pope,— One Alphabet for all India, By the Rev. G, U, Pope, D.D. Madras, 1859. Pope. — The Sermon on the Mount, in English, Tamil, Malay^lam, Canarese, and Telugu, in the Roman character. By the Rev. G. U. Pope, D.D Madras, 1860. Pope. — Outlines of the Grammar of the Tuda Language, By the Rev. G Pope, D.D., included in Colonel Marshall's " Phrenologist among the Tudas," Triibners, London, 1873, Priaulx. — India and Rome. Indian Travels of Apollonius of Tyana, and the Indian Embassies to Rome, By P, de B, Priaulx, Esq,, Quarricb. London, 1873, Prinsep. — Essays on Indian Antiquities. By the late J. T. Prinsep, Esq., B.C.S. Edited with Notes by Edward Thomas, Esq., F.R.S,, late B,C.S. Two vols, London, 1858. Sanderson. — Canarese Dictionary, by the Rev. W. Reeves. Revised and enlarged by the Rev. D. Sanderson. Bangalore, 18^8. Sayce. — Principles of Comparative Philology. By A. H. Sayce. London, Triib- ner & Co., 1874. Quairefages. — Etude sur les Todas. Par M. de Quatrefages de Br:^au. Journal des Savants, December 1873 — January 1874. Paris. Tdrandtha's History of the Propagation of Buddhism in India; Tibetan and German. St Petersburgh, 1870, Tennent.— Ceylon. By Sir Emerson Tennent. Two vols. London, 1860. Tickell. — Brief Grammar and Vocabulary of the Ho, a Kolarian Language. By Colonel Tickell. Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, vol. xxxv. the ^ XVI LIST OF BOOKS AND PAPERS. Travancore. — Inscriptions in Tinnevelly and South Travancore. By His Highness Rama Varma, First Prince of Travancore. Indian Antiquary for De- cember 1873. Trumpp. — Grammar of the Sindhi Language. By Dr Ernest Trumpp. Triib- ners, London, 1872. I'M^e.— Marco Polo, newly translated and edited with Notes, by Lieut.-Col. H. Yule, C.B. Two vols. London, 1871. r«Zc.— Cathay and the Way Thither. By Lieut.-Col. H. Yule, C.B. Hakluyt Society, London, 1866. Yule. — Map of Ancient India, with accompanying Memoir, in Dr Wm. Smith's Atlas of Ancient Classical Geography. London, 1875. Weber. — Indian Pronunciation of Greek, and Greek Pronunciation of Hindii Words. By Dr A. Weber. Translated by E. Rehatsek, Esq. Indian Antiquary for May 1873. Williams. — Application of the Roman Alphabet to the Languages of India. By Professor Monier Williams. London, 1859. Winsloto. — Tamil Dictionary. Completed and edited by the Rev. M. Winslow, D.D. Madras, 1862. CONTENTS. PAGE INTRODUCTION, 1 Object in view, investigation and illustration of grammatical structure of Dravidian languages. Those languages the vernaculars of Southern India, 1. Position of Sanskrit and Hindiist5,ni, 2. Position of English. Note. — Sir Erskine Perry ; English included in General Test, 3. Use of the Common Term ' Dravidian,' ..... 4-8 Dravidian Languages at oiie time styled * Tamulian.' Kumdrila- bhatta's term, Andhra-Brdvida hhdshd, 3. Note. — Dr Burn ell's remarks, 4. Eeasons for choosing the term Dravidian : Manu's use of * Dravida,' 5. Use of * Dravidi ' by philological writers, 6. Division of Indian vernaculars by Northern Pandits into two classes — Gauras and Dr^viras, 7. No common term used by native Dravidian scholars ; Var^ha-mihira's local knowledge, 8. Enumeration op Dravidian Languages, . . . . .9-44 Six Cultivated Dialects. Six Uncidtivated Dialects. I. Tamil, . . . . . . . . 9-19 Where spoken, 9. Name of Madras; spelling of 'Tamil,' 10. Tamil erroneously called ' Malabar ; ' origin of the error ; Professor Max Miiller ; Dr Hutiter, 11. Colebooke ; first book printed in Tamil, 12. ' Dravida' corresponds to * Tamil ' in Sanskrit ; proof of this ; Varaha-mihira, Taranatha, Mah^wanso, 13. Asoka's inscription ; Peutinger Tables ; Ravenna geographer, 14, Derivation of native pandits ; names of three subdivisions of Tamil people ; Pandta ; Singhalese traditions, MahS,- bharata ; Pandyas on Malabar coast ; Note — Embassy of King Pandion to Augustus, 15. Pandyas as known to the Greeks, 16. Pliny's refer- ences to the Pandyas; Ch6la,— A^ka's inscription, Ptolemy, Hwen Thsang; capital of the Cholas, extent of their power, 17. Chera. — Various shapes of this name ; original identity of the three subdivi- sions of the Tamil people ; native tradition, representations in Sanskrit, 18. Why is Tamil called ' Aravam ? ' Various theories, 19. Why are Tamilians called Tigalar by the Canarese ? II. Malatalam, ....... 20-24 Where spoken, 20. Origin of the name ' Malay^lam,' 21. Different shapes of the name Kerala ; identity with ' Chera ; ' meaning of * Kongu,' 22. Cosmas Indicopleustes' MaX^ ; period of separation of Malayajam from Tamil, 23<» Configuration of the country, 24. 2 XVm CONTENTS. PAGE Origin of the term ' Coromandel,' . . . , . . 25, 26 Fra Paulino's supposition ; use of ' Choramandala ' by the first Por- tuguese ; equivalent of Ma'bar, 25. Derivation from name of village of Coromandel inadmissible ; Colonel Yule's communication, 26. Ongin of the term ' Malabar,* . . . . . .27,28 Use of first part of the name amongst Greeks and Arabians ; use of the affix hdr amongst Arabians and early Europeans ; origin of hdr, 27. Suggestion of Dr Gundert ; Colonel Yule's communication ; Maldives ; Persian hdr\ origin of war of Kattywar, &c. ; Dr Trumpp, 28. III. Telugu, ........ 29-32 Where spoken, 29. Eastern ' Klings ; ' Sanskrit Andhra ; Andhras in the Vedas and the Greek writers, 30. Derivation of the name Telugu ; native derivation regarded by Mr C. P. Brown as inaccurate, 31. Traces of Trilingam ; traces of Trikalinga; meaning of Vadugu, 32. IV. Canarese, . . . . . . . .33,34 Where spoken, 33. Derivation of the name Karndtaka ; different applications of the name, 34. V. TuLU, ........ 35 Where spoken ; Tulu a highly-developed language ; to which Dravi- dian language most nearly allied ? 35. VI. KUDAGU or CooRG, ....... 36 Where spoken ; which Dravidian language it resembles most ; doubt- ful whether it should be placed amongst the cultivated class, 36. VII. TuDA, ........ 36 Where spoken ; Tudas the smallest of Dravidian tribes ; books about the Tudas and their language, 36. VIIL KoTA, . . . . . . . ■ . 37 Where spoken; characteristics of the language, 37. IX. GoND, ........ 38 Gdndwana ; numbers of the Gonds ; different tribes ; Koitors, 38. X. Khond or Ku, ....... 38 Where spoken ; human sacrifices ; origin of name, 38. XI. Maler or Rajmahal, ...... 39 Where spoken ; language different from that of the Santals, 39. XII. Oraon, ........ 39-43 Relationships of this tribe and their language, 39. Amount of the Dravidian element in the Maler and Oraon not clearly ascertained, 40. Census of peoples and tribes speaking Dravidian languages, 41. Tribes not enumerated ; Kolarian tribes, 42. Tribes ,'of the North-Eastern frontier; Brahui contains a Dravidian element; Dravidians seem to have entered India from the North- West, 43. CONTENTS. XIX PAOB The Dravidian idioms not m,erely provincial dialects of the same language, 42 People not mutually understood ; Tamil and Telugu furthest apart, 42. The Dravidian Languages independent of SansJcritf . . . 43-55 Supposition of the northern pandits that the South- Indian vernacu- lars were derived from Sanskrit erroneous, 43. List of sixty words in Sanskrit and Tamil, 48. Ancient dialect of Tamil contains little San- skrit, 49. Eelation of English to Latin, and of Tamil to Sanskrit, illus- trated by a comparison of Ten Commandments in English and Tamil, 49. Archbishop Trench's expressions, 50. Tamil less studied than other dialects by Br5,hmans, 51. Thirteen particulars in which the Dravidian languages differ essentially from Sanskrit, 52-54. Are there traces of Scythian influences in Sanskrit itself? Mr Edkins's " China's Place in Philology," 54 ; Note. — Structure of Japanese, 55. Is there a Dravidian element in the Vernacular Languages of Northern India? ........ 56-64 Hypothesis that the corruption of Sanskrit out of which the Northern vernaculars have arisen was due to the Dravidian languages considered ; general conclusion that the modifying influences, though probably Scythian or non- Aryan, do not appear to have been distinctively Dravi- dian, 56-64. To what group of Languages are the Dravidian idioms to be aMliated ? . 64-80 Professor Rask's opinion, 64. Meaning of the term * Scythian ; ' Pro- fessor Max Miiller, 65. Intercomparison of the Scythian languages themselves should be carried further, 66. Some of the resemblances incapable of being accounted for by accident, 67. The original unity of languages probable, 68. Confirmation of the Scythian theory by the Behistun Tablets, 68. Principal points of resemblance between the language of the Tablets and the Dravidian languages, 69, 70. The existence of any analogy between the Dravidian languages and the Finno-Ugrian tends to confirm the argument for the original oneness of the human race, 71- Note. — Professor Hunfalvy, 71. Indo-European languages not so prolific of difl'erences as Scythian, 72. Kelationship of Dravidian languages to Scythian not universally admitted ; Dr Pope's remarks, 73. Mr Gover's " Folk-Songs; " Indo-European analogies dis- coverable in the Dravidian languages, 74. Dr Bleek's remarks; possi- bility of developments ah intra, 75. List of primitive Indo-Europeanisms ■ discoverable in the Dravidian languages, 76. Position between Indo- European and Scythian languages occupied by Dravidian ; existence of a few Semitic analogies, 77. Australian affinities, 78, 79. Eesem- blances discoverable in an African language, 80. Which language or dialect hest represents the primitive condition of the Dravidian tongues ? . . . . . . .80 No one dialect implicitly to be followed ; a comparison of all existing dialects our safest guide. 1. Literary, classical dialects of the Dravidian languages : to what extent may they be regarded as representing the primitive condition of those languages? , *. . . . . . . 81-83 XX CONTENTS. PAGE As soon as the Indian languages begin to be cultivated, the literary style has a tendency to become a literary language, 81. Illustrations from Northern India ; the same tendency in the Dravidian languages, 82. High Tamil, 83. 2. High antiquity of the literary cultivation of Tamil, . . . 84-89 Six reasons for inferring its relatively high antiquity, 84, 85. The Sanskrit words contained .in Tamil belong to three different periods; Note — Carnatic temples, 86. Eemarkable corruptions of certain San- skrit words, 87. Tamil inscriptions, 88. Characters in which those inscriptions are written ; character of Jewish and Christian tablets ; Note — Historical information contained in those inscriptions ; language of those inscriptions Tamil ; inferences from this ; Note — Meaning of the phrase opposite a year, 89. Earliest extant Written Relics of the Dravidian Langitages, . 91-106 Dravidian words in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, 91, 92. Ear- liest Dravidian word in Greek, Ctesias's name for cinnamon, 93. Largest stock of Dravidian words found in names of places mentioned by Ptolemy and the other Greek geographers, 94. List of these words, 94-104. Con- dition of the Dravidian languages scarcely at all changed since the time of the Greeks, 104. Note. — Eoman coins; dates of Greek geographers, 105. Words of the Turks of the Altai preserved by the Chinese ; period when the Dravidian speech divided into dialects, 106. Political and Social. Relation of the Primitive Dravidians to the Aryan and Pr^e- Aryan Inhabitants of Northern India, . 107-110 Were the Dravidians identical with the aborigines whom the Aryans found in India ? 107.^ Relations of the Dravidians to the Aryans seem to have been always peaceable, 108. Dravidians may have been pre- ceded by another Scythian race, 109. Mr Curzon's opinion ; immigra- tions from India to Ceylon and back again ; Note. — Sanskrit and Dravi- dian names for the points of the compass, 110. Original Use and Progressive Extension op the term ' SOdra,' . 111-116 Ethnological value of Manu's classification. 111. Were the ^Mras of ^ the same race as the Aryans, or of a different race ? Lassen's supposi- tion, 112. Sanskrit authorities quoted, 113. Aryanisation of the Dra- vidians the result, not of conquest, but of colonisation ; Note — Sagara's distinguishing marks ; long hair of the Dravidians, 114. Connection of the Pdndyas with the P^ndavas ; Note — Professor Max Miiller's remarks, 115. Dravidians called Stidras by the Brahmans ; ^udra has a higher meaning in the South than in the North, 116. Pr^- Aryan Civilisation OP the Dravidians, . . . .117,118 Testimony of the Dravidian vocabulary, when freed from its San- skrit, 117, 118. Prohable date of Aryan civilisation of the Dravidians, . . . 119-122 First city and state of the Dravidians probably Kolkei on the Tamra- parni; Agastya, the traditional leader of the first BrS-hman colony, 119. CONTENTS. XXI PAGE Agastya's age; references to Dravidas, &c., in Manu and the Mahd- . bMrata ; Note — name of Agastya's mountain, 120. References to early Dravidians in Mahd-wanso, 121. Inference from Kumdrila-bhatta's reference to the Dravidians ; names of places recorded by the Greeks Brahmanical; suppositions respecting earliest Dra vidian characters, 122. Relative Antiquity of Dra vidian Literature, . , . 123-153 Age of Telugu Literature. A few works composed towards the end of the twelfth century, nearly all the rest in the fourteenth and subsequent centuries ; Vemana's poems, 123. Age of Canarese Literature. New light thrown on age of Canarese literature by Mr Kittel's publi- cation of Kesava's Grammar of Ancient Canarese ; age of Kesava ; pro- bably he lived about the end of the twelfth century, 124. Age of Malaydlam Literature. Dr Gundert's statements ; earliest phase of the language exhibited in the Rama Charita, 125. Age of Tamil Literature. Position of Agastya in Tamil literature ; works ascribed to Agastya not genuine, 126. Stanza attributed to him ; grammar of Tolkdppiyan ; Age of most Hindu writiugs unknown ; Tamil literature may be arranged in cycles, 127. (1.) The Jaina Cycle. Reasons for not styling this the cycle of the Madura College, 128. Oldest Tamil works extant appear to have been written by Jainas ; dura- tion of Jaina period; Note — Dr Burnell's remarks, 129. The Kural; reasons for assigning it to the tenth century, 130. Relation of Kural to Madura College, 131. N^ladiyar and Chintamani ; classical diction- aries, 132. (2.) The Tamil Rdmdyana Cycle. Differences between the Tamil version and the Sanskrit original, 133, Many poets lived at this period ; date prefixed to the poem too early, 134. Relation of this poem to the reigns of Rajendra Chola and Kulo- tunga Chola; Rajendra's date, 135. Date of Ramanuja, 136. Auveiyar's date; the turkey; Mr Scott's rendering, 137. (3.) The l§aiva Revival Cycle. Two large collections of poems belong to this cycle, 138. This cycle identical with the reign of Sundara Pandya ; was this prince identical with Marco Polo's Sender-bandi ? his date beset with difficulties, 139. Reasons for placing him later than the eleventh century, 140. State- ments of Muhammedan historians respecting two Sundaras, 141. Madura inscription ; Muhammedan influences, 142. (4.) The Vaishnava Cycle. Poetical compositions of the disciples of RdmS,nuja; their date uncer- XXI 1 CONTENTS. PACK tain, 143. No reference in 6aiva poems to the Vaishnava ones, and vice versd, 143. [5.) The Cycle of the Literary Revival, . . . . .144,145 The head of this new period one of the Pandya princes ; characteris- tics of the poems of this period, 144. Ati-Vira-R^ma Pdndya's date dis- covered in an inscription, 145. Relation of the Pandya princes of that period to the Nayaks of Madura, 145. (6.) The Anti-Brahmanical Cycle,^ .... .146-148 Compositions of the so-called Sittar school; characteristics of these compositions, 146. The writers of this school acquainted with Chris- tianity, 147. Quotations from ^iva-vakyar, 148. (7.) The Modem Writers, ..... .149-153 Their works numerous, but not generally valuable; Beschi's great poem, 149. Introduction of good colloquial prose, 150. Comparison between the number of books printed in Bengali and in Tamil ; charac- teristics of Dravidian poetry ; alliteration and rhyme, 151. Mental phy- siology of Indo -Europeans and Dravidians illustrated by their language ;, reason why literature could not flourish, 152. New stimulus now given to the native mind, 153. COMPAKATIVE GEAMMAK. Note on Transliteration, , . . . . . . 3, 4 Reasons for using Roman characters. How vowels are to be repre- sented and pronounced. How cerebral consonants and nasals are to be represented. How some consonants are to be represented when single, and how when doubled. Tendency to pronounce e like ye, and o like wo. This usage not ancient, and not observed in this work. Note. — Anecdote illustrating this usage. PART I. SOUNDS, 4-87 Dbavidian Alphabets, . . . . . , .5-15 Three Alphabets in use, 5. Their origin, 6. Mr Ellis's theory, 7. Mr E. Thomas's theory ; alphabet of the Malabar Inscriptions, 8. Dr Burnell's theory considered, 9. Characters of Chera Inscriptions ; fur- ther research needed, 10. Differences amongst the existing Alphabets, 11. Peculiarities of Tamil Alphabet, 12. Comparative View of Deva- n4garl and Tamil Alphabets, 13. Note. — Dr Burn ell on early printing in India, 14. CONTENTS. iiXlll PAGB Dravidian System of Sounds — 1 I. Vowels, ........ 15-20 Weakening of a and a, 15. Origin of the diphthong ei'; Kumdrila- bhatta; Mr Beames, 16. Enunciative u, 17, 18. Short e and o; Mr Beames, 19. Attraction of certain vowels, 20. II. Consonants, ........ 21-48 Convertibility of surds and sonants, 21, 22. Hehrew dagesh ; Finnish law, 23. Gutturals and palatals, 24. Telugu pronunciation of pala- tals, 25. Cerebrals and dentals ; conjunction of nasals and sonants, 26. Labials and semi-vowels ; Tamil rule, 27. Vocalic r, 28. Cerebral I ; rough r, 29. Pronunciation of Tamil nr ; which is radical? Note — Dr Gundert's opinion, 30. Sibilants and aspirates, 31. Origin or the Cerebral Sounds — Excursus, .... 32-47 Reasons which lead me to suppose these sounds borrowed by San- skrit from the Dravidian languages, 32. Mr Norris's opinion ; Vedic Sanskrit I, 33. Professor Benfey's views ; Professor Biihler's paper on the opposite side, 34. His theory of the development of the lingual sounds, 35. Lingual sounds in English ; Professor Wilson, 36. Lingual sounds essential in Tamil, not merely euphonic, 37. Appearance of these sounds in Sanskrit, 38. Is the borrowing of sounds possible ? Influence of Norman-French on English, 39. Normans themselves borrowed; Hottentot ' ' click ; " Dr Bleek ; Bishop Callaway, 40. Descent accounts for much ; imitativeness for more, 41. Mr Beames's discussion of the question, 42-44. Oldest Aryan usage, 45. Is his theory perfectly ten- able ? 46. Influence of non- Aryans on Aryan pronunciation; Dr Trumpp's views, 47. Dialectic Interchange of Consonants, ..... 48-62 Interchange of Gutturals, 48. Palatals, 49. Linguals, 50. Dentals, 51. r into I ; t or d into I or s, 52. Labials, 53, 54. Semi-vowels, 55-60. Sibilants, 61. Euphonic Permutation of Consonants, ..... 62-64 Some permutations imitate Sanskrit, 62. Others independent ; initial surds, when softened ? 63. Assimilation of concurrent consonants, 64. Euphonic Nunnation or Nasalisation, ..... 65-70 Insertion of a nasal before formative suffixes, Q5. This accounts for shape of certain Tamil adverbs of place, QQ. Suffixes with t and d nasal- ised, 67. Origin of demonstrative adjectives ; Dr Gundert's view, 68. Insertion of a nasal before the d of the preterite in Tamil, 69. Use of nunnation in other languages, 70. Prevention of Hiatus, . . . . . . .71-77 Hiatus, how prevented in Indo-European Languages ? how in Dravi- * dian ? 71. Use of v, y, and n, 72. Use of m, 73. Use of n in Tamil also, 74. Origin of the n in certain numerals, 75, Usage of Tulu, 76. Euphonic insertion of r and d, 76. XXIV CONTENTS. PAGE Harmonic Sequence of Vowels, ...... 77-79 This law in the Turanian languages, 77. Similar law of attraction in Telugu, 78. In Canarese also, 79. Principles of Syllabation, . . . . . . 79-82 Dravidian dislike of compound consonants, 79. Sanskrit double con- sonants, how dealt with in Tamil, 80. The same peculiarity in Scythian languages ; similar instances iu other languages ; Professor Max Mtiller's illustrations, 81. Resemblance of Prakrit rules to Dravidian, 82. Minor Dialectic Peculiarities, ...... 82-87 1. Euphonic displacement of consonants, 82. 2. Euphonic displace- ment of vowels, 83. 3. Rejection of radical consonants, 84. 4. Accent, 85. Changes which Sanskrit words undergo when Dravidianised, 86, 87. PART IL ROOTS, 88-114 Languages of Europe and Asia admit of being arranged into classes, in accordance with the changes effected in Roots by the addition of gram- matical forms ; monosyllabic, intro-mutative, and agglutinative lan- guages, 88. Arrangement of Dravidian Roots into Classes — 1. Verlal Roots, . . . . . . . .89 2. Nouns, ......... 90 Illustrations of the formation of nouns from verbal roots, 91. Some nouns remain which cannot be traced to any ulterior source, 92. DravidiarL Roots originally Monosyllabic, ..... 93 Successive accretions ; illustration, 93. Euphonic Lengthening of Roots, . . . . . .94,95 Note. — Dr Gundert's opinion, 94. Crude roots lengthened by the addition of enunciative vowels, 95. Formative Additions to Roots, . . ... . 96-101 Originally f ormatives of verbal nouns ; used now to distinguish intran- sitive verbs from transitives, 96. Examples of use and force of forma- tives. 1, Tcu, 97 ; 2, su ; 3, du, 98. Origin of ntndu, to swim; transitive suffix preferred as a formative, 99. 4, hu; euphonisation of formatives ; quality possessed in common by adjectives and transitive verbs, 100. First part of the word alone generally contains the root; examples, 101. Reduplication of Final Consonant of Root, . . . .102 Four purposes for which this is done in Tamil ; rationale, 102. Particles of Specialisation, ...... 103-107 Use of such particles iu Semitic languages, 103. Resemblance of Dra- vidian root-system to Semitic in this particular, 104. Illustrations ; CONTENTS. XXV PAQB groups which radiate from the base syllables ad and an, 105. List of specialising particles ending in a consonant, 106. Another set of groups of roots; Max Miiller, Aryan instances, 107. Changes in Root- Vowels, ....... 108 Root- vowel generally unalterable, 108. Exceptions — Internal Changes in Boots, ..... 109-114 1. Euphonic changes. 2. Changes pertaining to grammatical expres- sion; root- vowels of pronouns, 109. 3. Strengthening of root-vowel of verb to form verbal noun ; examples ; this usage not likely to have . been derived from Sanskrit, ]10. Class of nouns so formed used adjec- tivally; root-vowels of numerals; shorter form older, 111. Origin of peim, Tam. green, 112. 4. Shortening of root- vowel in the preterite tense of certain verbs ; Tamil verbs vd and td ; Dr Pope's opinion, 113. Exceptions to the stability of root- vowels found also in the Scythian languages, 114. FART III. THE NOUN, . 115-215 Section I. — Gender and Number, . . . ... 115-147 1. Gender. Dra vidian laws of gender accord more closely with Scythian than with Indo-European tongues, 115. Indo-European laws of gender how dif- ferent from Scythian, 116. Dravidian nouns divided into two classes, denoting rational beings and things without reason. Note. — Mind and body, 117. Primitive laws of gender faithfully retained by Malayalam ; Telugu and Gond destitute of feminine singular, 118. Canarese and Malayalam agree in this particular with Tamil. 2. Number. Only two numbers, singular and plural, 119. (1.) Masculine Singular, ...... 120-123 Masculine singular sufi&xes in Tamil; formation of appellatives, 120. Subdivisions of appellatives, 121. Canarese and Telugu sufl&xes, 122. Ultimate identity of these with Tamil, 123. (2.) Feminine Singular, . . . . . . . 124, 125 No suffix of the feminine singular in Telugu and Gond ; a formative sometimes used resembling the suffix of Tamil- Canarese, and probably of the same origin, 124. Telugu mode of forming feminine singular appellatives ; Note — Connection between Telugu dl-u, a woman, and Tamil dl, a person ; another feminine suffix possibly Sanskritic, 125. (3.) Neuter Singular, ....... 126-128 Dravidian nouns naturally neuter, 126. Neuter suffixes rarely re- quired ; suffix of neuter singular of demonstrative pronouns and appel- lative nouns, 127. Affinities of neuter^singular suffix in d possibly Indo-European, 128. XXVI CONTENTS. page! The Plural : Principles of Pluralisation, . . . . .128-135 In Indo-European tongues number is denoted by the terminations ; in the Scythian number is generally left indefinite, 128. Neuters plu- ralised in Telugu, but rarely in Tamil, 129. Progress of pluralisation, 130. Sign of plurality distinct from case-sign ; added directly to the crude base, 131. Paradigm of a noun in Hungarian and Tamil, 132. Pluralisation of masculine and feminine nouns ; no distinction of sex in plural; analogies to other languages; Note — Origin of Persian an, 133. Double plurals in Telugu, 134. Double plurals in Tamil, 135. (1.) Epicene Pluralising Particle, ..... 136-139 Origin of epicene plural suffix ar, &c., 136. Origin of mdr in Tam.- Mal. ; formative in var, 137. Dr Gundert's explanation ; origin of verbal terminations in mar, &c., 138. Kelationship to pluralising particles in other families of languages, 139. Resemblance in use more important than resemblance in sound. (2.) Pluralising Particle of the Neuter, ..... 140-147 1. The neuter plural suffix gal, with its varieties, 140. gal appears as lu in Telugu, 141. Gond particle ; particles used in High Asian lan- guages, 142. Origin of gal ; Note — Derivation of Dravidian word for *all,' 143. 2. Neuter plural suffix in a. Illustrations of use, 144. Neuter plural of verb ; of possessive adjectives ; of Malay^lam demon- stratives, 145. Lapse of a into ei. Telugu and Gond peculiarities, 146. Relationship of neuter plural suffix a ; Indo-European affinities ; gram- matical gender more fully developed in the Dravidian than in any other family of languages, 147. Section XL— Foemation of Cases, ..... 148-203 Pnnciples of Case formation, . . . . . .148,149 In this particular the Indo-European and Scythian families originally in agreement, 148. Case-signs in both originally postpositional words ; case-terminations of the plural different from those of the singular in the Indo-European; identical in the Scythian group, 149. Dravidian languages follow the Scythian plan. Number of Declensions, . . . . . . .150 Only one declension, properly speaking, in Dravidian languages ; no difi'erence in signs of case, 150. Number of Dravidian cases. The Nominative — Absence of Nominative Case-terminations, . . 151-154 Dravidian nominative the noun itself. Apparent exceptions exist, 151. (1.) Neuter termination am might be supposed to be a nominative case-sign, but is not ; origin of this am, 152. Probably am was an ancient form of the demonstrative pronoun ; alternates with an, 153. (2.) Final n of personal pronoun does not make it a nominative. (3.) Lengthening of vowel of personal pronoun in the nominative looks like a case in point ; but probably vowel lengthened for sake of emphasis, 154. Inflexion or Inflexional Base of the Oblique Cases, . . • 155 In many instances the noun itself used as the inflexional base. Gene- CONTENTS. XXVU rally the base receives some augmentation. Signs of case added to this inflected form, 155. (1.) The inflexional increment TSyVjith its dialectic varieties, . . 156,157 Illustrations, 156. In Telugu ni, 157. in originally a locative. (2.) The inflexional increments AB and AR, .... 158,159 These are most used in Canarese; are they identical in origin? 158. Tamil sometimes uses neuter demonstrative adu in a similar manner, 159. (3.) The inflexional increment Ti, . . . . . 160 This the most common increment of neuter nouns in Telugu ; pro- bably ti, not ^i J connection of this with neuter demonstrative, 160. (4.) The inflexional increment attu or attru, . . . .160-162 Tamil nouns in am take this increment, 160. attu used by the singu- lar alone ; attru used instead of attu by a few neuter plural pronominals ; attu and attru virtually identical, 161. Origin of the r of attru, 162. Dr Gundert's views respecting its origin. (5.) The formation of the inflexion by means of dovhling and hardening the final consonant, . . . . . . .163 Explanation of this doubling ; Dr Gundert's view, 163. In Telugu, final consonant hardened, but not doubled. (6.) The inflexional increment i. Origin. Euphonic links of connection between the base and the inflexion, . . . . . 164 In Tamil, euphonic u, 165. Use of v and y. The Accusative or Second Case, . . . . . .166 In Indo-European languages, accusative a sign of passivity ; in Dravi- dian, accusative case-sign originally a formative of neuter abstracts ; nominative much used instead, 166. The same in Telugu as to things without life. i^.) Accusative Case-signs m.f-E, and A, . . * . . 167 In Tamil ei ; in Malay^lam e or a, 167. With what case-signs in other languages this may be compared. (2.) Accusative Case-signs am, annu, anna, nu, 4. Each of the inflexional increments used for converting substantives into adjectives, 206. 5. Relative par- ticiples of verbs largely used as adjectives ; 6. Past verbal participle used as an adjective in Telugu, 207. 7. Many Dravidian adjectives formed by the addition to nouns of the suffixes by which relative participles are formed ; (1.) Addition of the suffix iya; origin of this, 208. Addi- tion of the suffix a; Note — Explanation of nalla, Tam. good, 209. Explanation of origin of certain adjectives; (3.) Addition of the suffix of the future relative participle, 210. 8. Nouns may become adjectives by the addition of the relative participle of the verb to become. Certain words erroneously styled adjectives. Comparison of Adjectives, . . . . . .211,212 Mode of comparison different from that used in Indo-European lan- guages; resembles Semitic and Scythian mode, 211. Addition of con- junctive particle um, &c., as an intransitive, 212. Formation of super- lative ; attempt of Robert de Nobilibus. Postpositions, . . . . . . . .213 All postpositions nouns, in the locative case understood, 213. Comparative Paradigm of a Neuter Dravidian Noun, sing, andplur., 214, 215 XXX CONTENTS. PART IV. THE NUMERALS, 216-253 Each cardinal number has two shapes, that of a neuter noun of num- ber and that of a numeral adjective; in the colloquial dialects the former sometimes used instead of the latter, 216. Primitive form that of the numeral adjective. One. — Two forms in existence, oha in Telugu, oru in all other dialects. 1. Basis of oru is or, 217. ondu or onri' at first sight resembles Indo- European 'one,' 218. Origin of ondu from oru; similar changes in other words, 219. Dr Gundert's opinion ; Mr Kittel's, 220-22. Origin of Telugu word for one, oha, 221. Scythian analogies to oha ; are oha and or related ? 222. Dravidian indefinite article. The numeral adjec- tive for ' one ' used as a sort of indefinite article. Two. — Neuter nouns difi'er slightly in the various dialects ; numeral adjective, ir ; the same in all, 223. Canarese form of neuter; Tamil form nasalised, 224. Radical form without a nasal; origin of ir ; Dr Gundert's opinion ; Mr Kittel's, 225. No analogies in any Indo- European language. Brahui word. No Scythian analogies. Three. — Neuter noun ; numeral adjective, 226. miX 1 or mu 1 Brahui word, 227. Origin of word for three. Dr Gundert ; Mr Kittel. Four. — Neuter noun ; numeral adjective, 228. Origin of nal, 229. No Indo-European analogy ; Ugro-Finnish analogies remarkably close. Five. — Neuter noun; numeral adjective, in all the dialects ei, 230. Resemblance between Sans, panchau and Tam.-Mal. anju, 231. How this resemblance has arisen, 232. Dr Gundert's opinion, 233. Radical meaning of ei ; Mr Kittel's explanation, 234. Six. — Neuter noun and numeral adjective nearly alike ; root-meaning of aTu, 235. No analogy with other languages discoverable. Seven. — Neuter noun and numeral adjective nearly alike, 236. No resemblance to word for seven in other languages. M^ight. — Tamil neuter noun e^u resembles Indo-European octo, &c. ; this resemblance disappears on examination, 237. Radical shape en; explanation of Telugu word enimidi; Telugu numeral adjective ena, 238. Origin of midi, 239. Origin of en ; Max Miiller ; Mr Clay ; origin of en; similar derivation of a numeral in Lappish, 240. Nine. — In all Dravidian languages nine a compound number ; principal forms which nine assumes ; difference between meaning of Aryan word nine and Dravidian word; second member of the word means ten, 241. First member appears to mean * one,' but probably means ' before,' 242. Mode in which compounds into which nine enters are formed, 243. No affinity between Tamil word and Greek. Ten. — The word for ten virtually the same in all Dravidian dialects, 244. Changes which take place, 245. Dr Gundert's opinion ; compari- son of Sanskrit panhti with Dravidian word, 246. Malayalam word for twelve ; Note — Final dn of Tamil poetical form, 247. Root of Dravi- dian word for ten ; Mr Kittel's explanation ; Note — Dr Hunter's word explained, 248. CONTENTS. XXXI A Hundred.— Sameness of word for a hundred in all Indo-European languages a proof of intellectual culture and unity ; one and the same word used by all Dravidian languages ; derivation, 249. A Thousand. — Generally used Dravidian word a Sanskrit deriva- tive; Telugu word ; derivation, 250. Ordinal Numbers. Derivation of Dravidian ordinal number first ; forms of ordinal suf- fixes of other numbers ; do. of adverbial numbers. Affiliation, ........ 251 No evidence of Indo-European descent, 251. Existence of Scythian analogies, especially as to the number four ; Professor Hunfalvy's opi- nion ; arithmetical faculty of Scythians not strongly developed, 252. Dravidian Numerals in the Five Principal Dialects : Paradigm, 253. FART F. THE PEONOUK, 254-327 Light thrown by pronouns on relationship of languages. Personal pro- nouns the most persistent of all words. Peculiarity of Japanese. Section I.— Personal Pronouns, ..... 254 1. Pronoust of the First Person Singular, .... 254-279 Comparison of Dialects, . ...... 254-267 Primitive form, 254. Classical and colloquial dialects to be com- pared ; inflexional forms and plurals to be compared, not nominative singular only, 255. Written form of the word represents oldest pronun- ciation ; forms of this pronoun in Tamil, 256. Malayalam and Canarese forms, 257. Telugu and Tulu ; minor dialects : which was the primi- tive form, nan or ydn ? Opinion expressed in former edition, 259. Dr Gundert's opinion ; Dr Pope's " Outlines of Tuda ; " the late Mr Gover's Paper, 260. Relationship of ydn to nan; changeableness of y, 261. Malayalam middle point nan ; both initial and final n changeable, 262. Both ydn and nan very ancient ; illustration from Sanskrit, asme and vayam, yushme and yHyam, 263. Included vowel a or el a weakened to e ; origin of final wy a sign of number, 264. Is n identical with m, the final of neuter singular nouns ? 265. Only essential difference be- tween pronouns of first and second person consists in difference of included vowels a and i, 266. What is the explanation of this ? These cannot be the demonstrative vowels ; an explanation suggested. Chi- nese ; Mr Edkins ; first three simple vowels utilised, 267. Extra-Dravidian Relationship. All pronouns of the first person traceable to one of two roots, ah and ma, 1. Semitic Analogies, ....... 269 Sir H. Rawlinson, 269.* XXXll CONTENTS. PAGE 2. Indo-European Analogies^ ...... 270-274 Dr Pope ; Mr Gover, 270. Comparison of pronouns and pronominal terminations of verb, 271. Can any analogy to Dravidian pronoun be traced? (1.) m of ma often changes to n; Note — Sir H. Rawlinson's conjecture; Bopp's, 272. Instances of change of m into n ; (2.) This m changes also into v, 273. (3.) ma also changes into a ; were the Indo-European and the Dravidian words originally related? 274. Scythian Analogies^ ....... 275-278 Interesting analogies exist. (1.) Nominative, as well as base of oblique cases, derived from ma, 275. Illustrations from various Scythian languages ; m the equivalent of ma, 276. m occasionally changes into n ; instances, 277. In some Scythian languages this pronoun almost identical with Dravidian ; (2.) Some traces of the softening of na into a ; probability of a common origin of all these forms, 278. Professor Hunfalvy's paper read at International Congress of Orientalists. 2. Pronoun of the Second Person Singular, .... 279-290 Comparison of Dialects, ...... 279-283 Tamil forms of this pronoun, 279. Second person of verb; Beschi's error, 280. Plurals ; Canarese and Telugu forms, 281. Minor dialects, 282. Relative antiquity of existing forms ; nt very old, but t probably older, 283. Oldest shape of the vowel, i or u? probably i. Extra- Dravidian Relationship, ...... 284-289 Dravidian pronoun of the second person singular more distinctively non-Aryan than the first : most prevalent form in both classes of lan- guages has t for its basis ; the other is founded on n. yu, base of the Aryan plural, 284. Origin of yu from tu. Mr Edkins' suggestion ; t gene- rally changed into s. s more prevalent in Scythian tongues than t, 285. Euphonic final n ; instances, 286. Another pronoun in n, not t, in some Scythian languages, apparently identical with the Dravidian ; Chinese, 287. Behistun tablets, Brahui, Bornu ; allied forms in Ostiak, &c., 288. Traces discoverable in Finnish, Turkish, &c,, 289. Himalayan dialects ; Australian. 3. The Reflexive Pronoun ' Self,' ..... 290-297 This pronoun, tdn, more regular and persistent than any other of the Dravidian personal pronouns ; has a wider application than the corre- sponding Aryan reflexives, 291. Used honorifically ; from which use a class of words has arisen, 292. List of such words, with explanations : tambirdn, tagappan, tandei, tdy, 293. tammei, tannei, tameiyan, tamuk- kei, tambi, 294. tangei, namhi ; Coorg instances ; use of tan as basis of abstract noun for quality; Note — Meaning of spinster and duhitri, 295. Origin of ta, the base of this pronoun, from some demonstrative root ; Sanskrit and Greek demonstratives in t, 296. Use of tan in the word for quality, like Sans, tad, a confirmation. 4. Pluralisation of the Personal and Reflexive Pronouns, . 296-309 Comparison of Dialects, . . . . . . .297 CONTENTS. XXXIU PAGE Tamil plurals ; double plural in colloquial dialects, 297. Telugu double plural ; similar usage in Gaurian languages ; Mr Beames ; plurals of verbal inflexions, 298. Canarese and Telugu plurals, 299. Change of initial n in Telugu into m, 300. Harmonic changes. OHgin of Pluralising Particles, ..... 301, 302 (1.) Origin o/b. nt'{y)-ir may mean thou + these people = you. Sans. yushme ; alternative explanation from ir, two, 301. (2.) Origin o/ m ; this w a relic of the copulative um; used like Latin que; nd-um, I + and = we, 302. Verbs similarly pluralised. Extra- Dravidian Relationship, ...... 303-307 Finno-Ugrian analogies ; remarkable Aryan analogies ; n in the sin- gular of pronouns and m in the plural in North Indian vernaculars ; Pali-Prdkrit ; Mr Beames in Indian Antiquary, 304. Mr Gover's opi- nion ; Dr Pope's ; resemblance great, but only apparent, 305. Oldest forms of Greek and Sanskrit plurals of personal pronouns, 306. Expla- nation of sme ; sma found in singular, 307. In third person also. Twofold Plural of the Dravidian Pronoun of the First Person, . 308, 309 Plural used as honorific singular; two plurals, the plural inclusive and the plural exclusive; similar distinction found in two North-Indian languages ; not found in Indo-European family ; found everywhere in Central Asia, 308. Usage in different Dravidian dialects ; conclusion ; results exhibited in following tables, 309. Paradigms, ........ 310-313 Dravidian Pronoun of the First Person, . . , . 310 ,, ,, ,, Second Person, .... 311 Pronoun of the First Person, in Seventeen Dialects of Central India ; Dr Hunter's " Comparative Dictionary," .... 312 Pronoun of the Second Person, in Seventeen Dialects of Central India ; Dr Hunter's " Comparative Dictionary," . . . . 313 Section II. — Demonstrative and Interrogative Pronouns, . . 314-327 Difficult to treat these two classes of pronouns separately. 1. Demonstrative and Interrogative Bases, . . , 314, 315 1. Demonstrative Bases, . . . . . . 314 Dravidian languages use for pronouns of the third person demonstra- tives signifying ' this ' and ' that,' man, &c. ; words which signify man, &c., have shrunk into terminations; four demonstrative bases recog- nised — remote, proximate, intermediate, and emphatic, 314. 2. Interrogative Bases, . . . . . . 315 Two classes of interrogatives — one an interrogative prefix, the other suffixed or added to the end of the sentence ; (a) e the most common interrogative prefix, 315. 1. Paradigm of Demonstrative ajid Interrogative Prefixes, . . 316 Beautiful regularity; Dravidian demonstratives, not borrowed from Sanskrit, but much older ; Old Japhetic bases ; (b) yd, the other inter- 3 XXXI V CONTENTS. rogative base ; c probably weakened from yd, 316. Change of yd in Canarese into dd ; uses of this interrogative, 317. 2. Demonstrative and Interrogative Pronouns, .... 318-321 Bases best seen in neuter singular ; suffixes ; euphonic links of con- nection, 318. In Tamil v and n ; Telugu usage ; Tulu, 319. Tulu peculiarities ; Tamil abstract demonstrative and interrogative nouns, 320. Neuter interrogative pronoun ; m or n used as a formative, 321. Origin of the copulative conjunction um ; Dr Gundert. 3. Demonstrative and Interrogative Adjectives, .... 322-324 Demonstrative and interrogative bases, when prefixed to substantives, acquii'e the meaning of adjectives ; initial consonant of substantive doubled, or prefixed vowel lengthened, 323. Tamil demonstrative adjec- tives atula, that, &c., 324. Telugu triplet. 4. Demonstrative and Interrogative Adverbs, .... 325-329 These formed by annexing formative suffixes to vowel bases, 325. Classes of adverbs arranged according to their formatives. List. (1.) Formative h, g, n ; (2.) Formative ch,j, n; (3.) Formative t, d, n, 326. (4.) Formative t, d, n, also ndr ; (5.) Formative mh ; (6.) Forma- tive I, I. Demonstratives and interrogatives formed from / found in Telugu and Canarese ; are they also found in Tamil ? 327. Four meanings of el in Tamil, 328. Traces of il and al used as demonstratives; their use as negatives, 329. Affiliation of Demonstrative Bases : Extra- Dravidian Affinities, . 330 North-Indian vernaculars ; Scythian languages ; closest analogies in Indo-European languages, 330. New Persian, 331. Interrogative Bases : Extra- Dravidian Relationsliip. No relationship apparent. Emphatic t, ....... . 332 Use of this particle, 332. Tamil ; Tulu ; Hebrew ' he paragogic,' &c. Honorific Demonstrative Pronouns, ..... 333, 334 Canarese and Telugu ; suspicion of Aryan influences, 333, 334. Syntactic Interrogatives A and o, . . . . . 335, 336 Particles used for putting inquiries like * Is there ? ' use of these particles ; 6 instead of a in Malayalam ; 6 generally an expression of doubt, 335. 6 perhaps derived from d ; possible origin of the interro- gative a from the demonstrative a ; difi'erence in location, 336. Distributive Pronouns. How formed. III. Relative Pronouns, ...... 337 Noticeable fact that this class of pronouns does not exist in the Dra- vidian languages ; relative participles used instead, 337. CONTENTS. XXXV PART VL THE VERB, 338-451 Remarks on structure of Dravidian verb ; 1. Many roots used either as verbs or nouns ; 2. Formative particles often added to roots, 338. 3. Structure of verb agglutinative ; 4. Second person singular of impe- rative the shortest form ; 5. But one conjugation and few irregularities ; moods and tenses few; Tulu and Gond exceptional, 339, Conjugation does not equal that of ancient Scythian verb in simplicity ; Remusat, 340. Antiquity of Tamilian culture ; origin of conjugational forms ; 6. Compounds of verbs with prepositions unknown ; preposition-like words really nouns, 341. New shades of meaning imparted by gerunds. Section I.— Classification, ...... 342-371 1. Transitives and Intransitives, ..... 342-340 Two classes of Dravidian verbs ; Hungarian objective and subjective verbs, 342. Three modes in which intransitive verbs are converted into transitives ; 1. By hardening and doubling consonant of formative, 343. Illustrations ; Telugu ; apparent resemblance to Sanskrit, 344. Hebrew dagesh forte; 2. By doubling and hardening initial consonant of signs of tense ; illustrations, 345. Intransitives sometimes do the same, in Tamil only ; 3. By adding a particle of transition to root ; origin of this particle, 346. 4. By doubling and hardening certain final con- sonants. 2. Causal Verbs, . . . . . . . 347-353 Causals diflferent from transitives, 347. Indo-European languages here fall behind Dravidian ; double accusatives, 338. Causals formed from transitives ; one and the same causal particle in all the dialects, except Tulu and Gond ; this appears to be i, 349. Explanation of cJiu in Telugu inchu ; explanation of p of pinchu, 350. Canarese causal particle isn ; identity of Telugu and Canarese particles, 351. Caiisal particle in Tamil i preceded by v, b, or pp / origin of these preceding letters, 352. Tamil future tense-signs throw light on those letters ; Tamil future originally an abstract verbal noun, 353. Origin of Dravidian Causal Particle, i. . , . . 354 Probably from t, to give, 354. 3. Frequentative Verbs. • . . . . . . 355 No peculiarity in their conjugation. 4. Intensive Verb, ....... 355 5. Inceptive Verb, . . . . . . , 355 6. The Passive Voice, ...... 355-358 Passive voice in Indo-European languages ; in Dravidian languages no passive voice, properly so cflled, 355. How the meaning of the passive IS expressed ; 1. It is expressed by the use of the intransitive verb ; 2. XXXVl CONTENTS. PACtE By appending auxiliary verbs meaning to become, to go, &c. ; verbal nouns much used in these passives ; third person neuter required ; simi- lar mode in Bengali ; use of active verbs as passives ; relative participial noun, 357. 3. Passive in Gond; 4. Formed by using the verb 'to eat' as an auxiliary ; this singular idiom in the Northern vernaculars also ; . 5. Much use is made of the auxiliary verb 'to suffer,' 358. This com- pound rather a phrase than a passive voice. 7. The Middle Voice, ...... 359 Only a few traces of such a voice appear, 359. 8. The Negative Voice, ...... 360-365 Combination of negative particle with verbal themes a Scythian pecu- liarity ; forms like Sanskrit ndsti very rare in Indo-European languages; Dravidian negative verb generally destitute of tenses; Tulu and Gdnd exceptions, 360. Rationale of absence of signs of tense ; Tamil pecu- liarity, 361. Telugu shows that the negative particle is a ; apparent exceptions, 362. Other dialects ; participial and imperative formatives, 363. Mr A. D. Campbell, Dr Stevenson ; explanation of Telugu ku and yfca, 364. Prohibitive particle in classical Tamil, 365. Gond manni ; resemblance to Tamil min ; explanation of this. Origin of K, the Dravidian Negative Particle^ .... 366,367 Not related to alpha privative ; equivalent to al, the particle of nega- tion ; illustrations; Dr Gundert, 366. a probably the primitive shape, al the secondary ; Dr Gundert, 367. al a negative in itself, not merely when followed by a vowel ; illustrations of force of al and il in Tamil ; prohibitive particles in other languages. 9. Appellative Verbs or Conjugated Nouns, . . . 3G8-371 Appellative compounds in Ugrian languages ; Mordvin, 368, Agree- ment with Dravidian appellative verbs remarkable ; Professor Hunfalvy , illustrations, 369. Telugu appellative verb ; Tamil more highly deve- loped, 370. Adjectives as well as nouns formed into appellatives, 371. Section IL— Conjugational System, ..... 372-441 Mode of annexing Pronominal Signs, ..... 372-376 Pronominal terminations suffixed, not directly to root, but to signs of tense, 372. 1. Personal signs suffixed, not prefixed; position of pro- noun in old Turanian dialects ; position in Buriat, in Semitic, in modern Indo-European dialects, 373. Position in Malay^lani ; 2. Dravidian personal signs suffixed, not to root, but to temporal particles ; three elements in every Tamil verb, 374. In Indo-European languages pro- nominal signs not appended to participles : Turkish, Bengali, 375. 3. In Telugu third person sometimes left destitute of conjugational signs ; similar usage in several other languages. 4. Traces in Tamil and Canar- ese of very primitive system of conjugation, 376. Dravidian verb appears to have been originally uninflected ; 5. distinctions of gender in Dravidian verb peculiarly minute. Formation of the Tenses, ...... 377-380 Participles must first be investigated. CONTENTS. XXXV 11 PAGE Verbal Participles, their Signification and Force, . . . 377 Verbal participles explained ; name not quite appropriate. 1 . Present Verbal Participle ; illustration. 2. Preterite do. do., do., 378. Sanskrit participle in tvd ; Dravidian participles continuative ; native definition ; Turanian participles ; Mr Edkins, 379. 1. The Present Tense, ....... 380 (1.) How formed in poetical Tamil ; (2.) Tamil and Malayalam seem formerly to have had a present participle ; (3.) Canarese usage ; (4.) Telugu usage, 380. Formation of the Present, ...... 381-385 Canarese participle in ut ; Mr Kittel's explanation ; Old Canarese par- ticiple in c^a^, 381. Mr Kittel ; Telugu present participle; Tulu, 382. Sign of present tense in Tamil and Malayalam ; Old Tamil inscription ; Malayalam form the same somewhat modified, 383. Which is the more ancient Tamil form, giru? or gindru? 384. Explanation of gindru; Dr Graul's " Outlines of Tamil Grammar ; " present tense seldom used in Tamil poetry; Tuda, 385. The Preterite Tense, . ...... 386 Semitic and Indo-European modes of forming preterite ; Dravidian mode, 386. Use of participles. 1. Formation op Preterite by Reduplication of Final Consonant, . 387 This mode confined to a small number of verbs ; how it differs from Indo-European reduplication, 387. 2. Formation of Preterite by suffixing Particle or Sign of Past Time, ....... Each dialect to be examined seriatim. (1.) The Canarese Preterite, ..... Signs of past time i or d ; d the more characteristic, 388-391. (2.) The Tamil Preterite, . . . . . The same signs of time as in Canarese. 388-39; -391 391-394 395 (3.) The Malayalam Preterite, ...... Substantially as in Tamil ; misleading spelling ; in Dr Gundert's Grammar and Dictionary, and Brigel's " Grammar of Tulu," Lepsius's method adopted, 395. (4..) The Telugu Preterite, . . , . . .395,396 Originally resembled Tamil, 395, 396. (5.) The Tulu Preterite, ....... Difference between imperfect and perfect. (6.) Preterites of Minor Dialects, ..... Tuda; Kota; Mr Metz,^Dr Pope; G6nd, 397. Conclusion; d, or XXXVlll CONTENTS. | PACE 1 some modification of it, the most characteristic sign of Dravidian pre- $ terite, ^ Origin of the Dravidian Sign of Past Time, .... 398-409 i 1. Origin ofi, ........ 398 J Originally a vowel of conjunction ; compare Sanskrit and Latin, 398. \ 2. Origin of T), . . . . . . . . 399-402 I Is it remotely connected with Indo-European suffix of passive parti- '} ciple ? certainly not borrowed from it ; Bengali preterite I ; Max Miiller ; } Bopp, 399. New Persian ; modern Teutonic preterite d ; Turkish pre- i terite di or d ; Hungarian d ; Finnish t, 400, May not this sign of the J preterite have had its origin in the Dravidian languages themselves? % Dr Graul's " Outlines of Tamil Grammar;" the d of adu, the demon- % strative, 401. Explanation of Turkish preterite di ; Max Miiller ; Mon- \^ golian gerund in d ; Mr Edkins, 402. \ 3. The Future Tense, ....... 403-406 \ Difference between formation of preterite and that of future ; two ; futures ; future the least distinctive tense ; form of the Tamil future \ surviving in the poets, 403. Ordinary mode of forming the future, 404. \ Aoristic future in um, 405. Future formed on the basis of the formed i verbal theme ; altogether impersonal, 406. u instead of um ; probably 1 the basis of the conjunctive. % Future Vtrhal Participle, . . .... 407, 408 ; Use of the participle in classical Tamil and Malaydlam, 407. Changes i in its initial consonant ; Cauarese and Telugu aoristic futures, 408. 'j 2. The more Distinctive Future, . . . . .409 ] Telugu and Canarese forms. Affinities of the Sign of the Future, . . . . ,409 Bengali fixture ; Latin future ; Max Miiller ; Ugrian affinities ; no affinities reliable, 409. . J 4. Compound Tenses, . . . . . . . 410 ; Mode of formation. The Relative Participle, ,,.... 410-412 J Dravidian languages have no relative pronoun ; use a participle in- | stead ; how North Indian vernaculars express meaning of relative, 410. 1 Explanation ; suffix of relative participle ; a most largely used ; Canar- "^ ese use, 411, Adjectives formed by means of the same suffix, 412. ii Oi^igin of the Relative Suffixes, . . , . . . 413 \ A possessive case-sign originally ; Manchu illustrates this ; Chinese ; • Mr Edkins ; light thrown on this part of speech by non-Aryan languages ; of Asia, 413, Use of relative pronoun, in Turkish and Finnish, I Formation of Moods, ....... 414-427 I Properly speaking, only one mood, 414. '! J CONTENTS. XXXIX 1. The Conditional or Subjunctive, ..... 415-418 Dravidian subjunctive formed by postfixing a particle expressing con- dition ; two forms in Tulu, 415. Telugu conditionals eni and ^, 416. Ancient Tamil conditional in il or in ; use of dgil, 417. Third form postfixes Ml; meaning of kdl ; fourth form in dl, 418. dl sign of instru- mental case ; origin of dl, 2. The Imperative, ....... 419-421 Second person singular imperative identical with root, 419. Impera- tive of transitives differing from that of intransitives ; particles added to imperative in Telugu and Tamil ; Canarese imperative, 420. Tamil imperative second person plural; um, used as a conjunctive and as a continuative ; plural imperative in classical Tamil, 421. Tam. and Mai. in and Old Canarese im identical ; Dr Gundert ; Gesenius ; Hebrew imperative. 3. The Infinitive, . . . . . . . 422-425 The true Dravidian infinitive a verbal noun incapable of being de- clined, 422. Various forms of the infinitive ; Max Miiller's supposition, 423. Formation of infinitive, 424. a alone the normal formative of Dravidian infinitive ; origin of infinitive in (/a in classical Tamil, 425. Telugu and Canarese infinitives. Origin of the Infinitive Suffix a, . . . . , 426 Probably identical with a, the demonstrative base ; connection be- tween a and al, 426. Use of the Infinitive, . . . . . . .427 Used in five ways ; illustrations of each, 427. Connection between infinitive and verbal noun in al ; Gond infinitive ; Armenian affinity. Formation of Verbal Nouns, ...... 428-441 Two classes of Dravidian verbal nouns — participial and verbal nouns, properly so called, 428. 1. Participial Nouns, ..... . 420-438 Formation of participial nouns ; neuter singular used in three different significations, 429. Analogy between these nouns and infinitives ; abstract participial nouns in Tamil and Malayalam ; abstract appellative nouns, 430. 2. Verbal Noujis, ....... 431 Such nouns express the act, not the abstract ; derivative nouns differ- ent from verbal nouns; illustrations, 431. 3. Derivative Nouns, ... ... 432-438 Various classes ; mode of formation of each class, 432. Four purposes served by the doubling of final consonants ; mode of formation of deriva- tive nouns, continued, 433-435. Alphabetical list of formatives used in the formation of derivatives, with illustrations, 436-438. 4. Nouns nf Agency, . • . . . . . . 439, 440 xl CONTENTS. PAGE *, the suffix of Dravidian nouns of agency, resembles Sanskrit, but not borrowed from it, 440. Adverbs, . . . . . . . . 441 Every Dravidian adverb either a noun or a verb, 441. Comparative Pabadigm of a Dravidian Verb, .... 442-451 PAET VI L GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES, 452-509 Comparison of vocables of less importance than comparison of gram- matical forms and structure, but useful when carefully conducted ; tes- timony of comparative vocabulary as to position occupied by Dravidian tongues. Section I. — Indo-European Affinities, .... 452-465 1. Indebtedness of Sanskrit to the Dravidian Languages, . . 452-465 Extraneous questions to be set aside, 452. Statement of the question at issue ; British words in English ; Greek and Latin in Sanskrit, 453. Six rules for detecting Dravidian words in Sanskrit lexicons. Words probably borrowed by Sanskrit from the Dravidian tongues, alpha- betically arranged, 454-461, Names of places not included; origin of name Malaya, 461, Remarks in Journal of American Oriental Society on this subject ; Professor Benfey's views, 462, Dr Gundert's views in Journal of German Oriental Society, 463, Selections from Dr Gundert's list of words, alphabetically arranged, 464. Selections from a list of similar words by Mr Kittel in the Indian Anti- quary, 465, 2. Sanskrit Affinities, . . , . , , ,466 Words which appear to be the common property of Sanskrit and the Dravidian languages, 467. List of such words alphabetically arranged, 467-474. 3. Extra- Sanskritic or West Indo-European Affinities, , . . 474 List of words, alphabetically arranged, which appear to bear a closer resemblance to the non-Sanskritic members of the Indo-European family than to Sanskrit, 475-490. Section II, — Semitic Affinities, ..... 491-495 Resemblances between Dravidian and Hebrew words interesting, but scarcely such as to establish relationship, 491. Alphabetical list of such words, 492-495. Section III. -Scythian Affinities, ..... 496-509 These aflEinities clearer and more direct than Indo-European or Semitic affinities ; vocabularies of the Scythian languages present extraordinary divergences, 496, Alphabetical list of words, 497-507. Hungarian affi- CONTENTS. xli PAGE nities ; Dr Gundert's, 508. Chinese, Japanese, and Mongolian affinities ; Mr Edkins's book ; Max Miiller's remarks ; these affinities adduced as aids to inquiry, 509. APPENDIX,' . 510-597 I. Minor Dravidian Dialects and Brahui, .... 510-521 1. Tuda. Information derived from Dr Pope, Mr Metz, and Colonel Mar- shall, 510. Dr Pope's conclusions respecting Tuda; 2. K6ta ; who are the Kotas ? paradigm of pronoun and verb ; resemblance to Ancient Canarese, 512. 3. Gdnd; publications by Mr Driberg and Mr Dawson ; particulars in which Gond agrees with Telugu and Canarese ; more numerous particulars in which it agrees with Tamil, 513. Particulars in which it takes a course of its own, 514, 515. 4. Ku; Mr Latchmaji's Grammar; Note. — agreements and disagreements with other idioms, 516. 5. HdjmaMl; list of words defective ; contains Dravidian element, 517. 6. Ordon; Mr Batsch's " Grammar and Vocabulary ; " OrS,on more dis- tinctively Dravidian, 518. Dravidian words in Or^on ; 7. Dravidian element in Brahui. Dr Bellew's book, 518. Brahut contains many Scy- thian elements, some distinctively Dravidian, 519. Illustrations of the Dravidian element, 520. Difference between Brahut and languages of the North-Eastern frontier, 521. II. Remarks on the Philological Portion of Mr Gover's "Folk- Songs OF Southern India," ..... 622-535 Real nature of the theory respecting the relationship of the Dravidian lan- guages to the languages of the Scythian group advocated in the first edition of this work. Reprint of an article in Madras Mail, 1872. Literary merits of Mr Gover's book, 522. Advance in philological science since issue of first edition of this work, 523. I ittle advance out- side the Aryan family, 524. Dr Caldwell's theory explained, 525. Illus- trative quotations, 526. That theory wide enough to include Mr Gover's theory, 527. Criticism in Journal of American Oriental Society ; any attempt to prove Dravidian languages distinctively Aryan will be open to keen scrutiny, 528. Origin of Dravidian word for ' devil/ 529-31. Dravidian words for 'light,' 532-33. Consequences of Scythic theory not so serious as Mr Gover supposed ; Dr Farrar, 534. Earliest Aryans and earliest Turanians not widely different, 535. III. SuNDARA Pandta, ....... 535-540 Extracts from Muhammedan historians referred to in Introduction ; passages from Rashiduddin, 535. Passages from Wassaf, 536. Who was Kales Dewar ? 537. Mr Rhys Davids's extract from Singhalese records respecting king Kula^ekhara, 538. Occurrence in two different connec- tions of the same three names, 539. Invasion of Malik Kafur, 540. IV. Are the Pariars (Pareiyas) of Southern India Dravidians? . 540-554 Supposition that the lower classes of Southern India are not Hindiis, 540. * Hindu' has become a term of religion, 541. Discrepancies in use of this term ; University use ; Mr Beames, 542. Are Shanars not HindHs ? Supposition of Europeans respecting origin of Pareiyas, 543. Origin of * mixed castes' fictitious ; cj^ldren of dancing-girls, 544. Pareiyas have a caste of their own ; numbers, 545. Are Pareiyas Dravidians ? Theory 4 Xlii CONTENTS. PAGE that they are pre-Dravidians, 546. Arguments in support of this theory, 547. Special privileges enjoyed by lower castes ; Mr Walhouse, 548. Meaning of name Pareiya, 549. Meaning of corresponding Telugu, Mala, and Malayalam Puleiya, 550. Still stronger arguments adducible against this theory, 553, 552. Eflfect of caste differences, 553. Essential unity of all Dravidian dialects argues unity of race, 554. v. Abe THE Neilgherry (NiLAGiRi) TuDAS Deavidians ? . . 555-557 Much more known now about the Tudas ; Mr Metz ; Dr Pope ; Colo- nel Marshal], 555. Reasons for supposing the Tudas a different race from their neighbours, 556. Those reasons inadequate, 557. Tudas probably Dravidians, 558. VI. Dravidian Physical Type, ...... 558-578 Conclusion derived from lingual comparison; Gdnds belong to the same race ; have the Gonds degenerated, or the South-Indian Dravidians risen ? 558. Mr Hodgson's comparison of Aryan and Tamilian types ; Professor Max Miiller's statement, 559. Puranic statements ; Dravi- dians of the South not Nishadas, 560. Quatrefage's theory ; differences in feature accounted for, 561. Type of higher classes ; Tuda type, 562, Colour of skin not necessarily unaccountable, 563, Blackening influence of heat ; local illustration, 564, Shanars ; Portuguese ; Brahmans, 565. Strabo and Herodotus ; peculiar blackness of Puleiyas on Malabar coast not easily accounted for, 566, G8nd type, Negrito or Mongolian ? Mr Hislop, 567, Central Provinces Gazetteer; mental development of Gonds, 5QS. Ascent from Mongolian type to Caucasian not unknown ; Indian Muhammedans, 569. Dr Carpenter's remarks on European examples of this ascent, 570. Magyar type, 571. Mongolian-looking Indian tribes entered by north-east; statement of Periplus, 572. Colo- nel Dalton's photographs; Sir George Campbell's " Ethnology of India," 573. Supposes the majority of South Indians of good caste to be Aryans; little or no ethnological objection to this theory, 574. Historical and linguistic difficulties numerous, 575. Statement of those difficulties, 576-78. VII. Ancient Religion of the Dravidians, .... 579-597 Religious usages of ancient Aryans, 579. Demonolatry of primitive Dravidians; Shamanism ; Note. — origin of word * Shaman,' 580. Pecu- liarities of Shamanite worship ; Note. — Demonolatry of Ceylon; demo- niacal element even in the Veda; explanation of sacrifice of Daksha, 681. Quotations illustrative of Shamanism from Marco Polo, Mr Hodg- son and others, 582-84. Shanar demonolatrous rites, 585. Similar system in Mj'sore; also in Chutid Nagptir, 586. Substantial identity of the two demonolatries, 587. Religion of the Khonds ; religion of the Tudas, 588. Colonel Marshall's researches and explanations, 589-90. Certain so-called Druidical remains erroneously attributed to the Tudas ; Note. — Glazed pottery ; Dr Hunter, 591. Antiquity of the cairns, 592. Discovery of similar cairns in many other places, 593. Different kinds of cairns ; information supplied by Mr Metz, 593. Hindus of the plains know nothing of the people who disposed of their dead in this manner ; meaning of Tamil names for cairns, 594. Malayalam name, 595. Theo- ries respecting origin of people referred to, 696. General conclusion respecting religion of ancient Dravidians, 597. INTKODUCTION. DRAVIDIAN COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR. INTRODUCTIOK It is the object of tlie 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 pursuing 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 grammatical structure of each Dravidian language and dialect will be investigated and illustrated in a greater or less degree, in proportion to its importance and to the writer's acquaintance with it, it will be his special and constant aim to throw light upon the structure of Tamil — a language which he has for more than thirty- seven 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 repre- sentative language 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 Dekhan in which Gujar^ti and Marathi are spoken, the whole of the peninsular portion of India, from the Vindhya mountains and the river Nerbudda (Narmadd) to Cape Comorin (Kuraari), 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 scattered offshoots from ttie same stem may be traced still farther 2 INTRODUCTION. north, as far as the Rajmahal hills in Bengal, and even as far as the mountain fastnesses of Beluchistan. Gujarati, Marathi (with its ojffshoot, Konkanl), and Oriya, the language of Odra-d^sa, or Orissa, idioms which are derived from the decomposition of Sanskrit, form the vernacular speech of the Hindti population in the peninsular portion of India within their respective limits : besides which, and besides the Dravidian lan- guages, various idioms which cannot be termed indigenous or verna- cular 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 their 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, Karnataka Brithmans, &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 properly the literary dialect of their ancestral tongue. Hindiistani is the distinctive language of the Muhammedan portion of the population in the Dekhan — most of which consists of the descen- dants of those warlike Patens, or Afghans, and other Muhammedans from Northern India by whom most of the peninsula was overrun some centuries ago. It may almost be regarded as the vernacular lan- guage in some parts of the Hyderabad country ; but generally through- out 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 ancestral tongue, if not more. Hindustani was never the ancestral language of the class of southern Muhammedans generally called by the English * Lubbies,' but by natives on the eastern coast Sonagas (Yavanas), and by those on the western coast Mappillas. These are descendants of Arab merchants and their native converts, and speak Tamil or Malayalam. SOUTH INDIAN VERNACULARS. 3 Hebrew is used by the small colony of Jews resident in Cocliin and the neighbourhood, in the same manner and for the same purposes as Sanskrit is used by the Brahmans. GujarMi and Marathi are spoken by the Gujarati bankers and the P^rst 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 employes and their descendants in the settlements of Pondicherry (Puduchch^ri), Carrical (K^reikkal), and Mah6 (Mayyuri), 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 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 Society), 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 adapt 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 Es, 25 per mensem and up- wards were attached. In 1867 the rule was made applicable to salaries of Es. 20 per mensem and upwards. TJJiis arrangement has been productive of much advantage both to the public service and to the community, even in the rural 4 INTRODUCTION. Use op 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 ' 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 Andhra-Brdvida-hhdshd, ' the Telugu- Tamil language,'* or rather, perhaps, ^ the language of the Telugu and 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 Hindtls, or even that it is likely to be used to any considerable extent as a lingua franca beyond the circle of Government employes and the alumni 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 Hindtistani 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 milliong : the number of Englishmen (and Americans) resident in those two pro- vincea iB under a hundred and fifty ! and that number includes the judges and magistrates who administer justice in those provinces, the oiB&cers 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 Hindiis ! * See an interesting article in the Indian Antiquary for October 1872, by Dr Burnell, M.C.S, " Kumftrila says, * It is now considered : — (as regards) words which are not known to the inhabitants of Arydvarta (not Sanskrit), if they have USE OF THE COMMON TEEM DRAVIDIAN. 5 Tamil countries.' This term is used by Kumarila-bhatta, a controver- sial Brahman writer of eminence, who is supposed to have lived at the end of the seventh century a.d. j and, though vague, it 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 Malay^lam 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 Dr^vida, the adjectival form of Dravida. This term, it is true, has sometimes 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 Br^h- mans, viz. — Paundrakas, Odras, Dravidas, K^mbojas, Yavanas, S'akas, a meaning known to the BllecJicha (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 cMr is the Tamil cMr-u, and means, as Kuma- rila states, boiled rice ; nader, way, is the Tamil nadai. So pdmp, snake, is per- fectly correct. (The text has pdp, but the MSS. have pdmp. In Tamil it is written pdmpu, though pronounced ^am6w.) <2Z=^ person, and vair — vayivu, the belly, are common Tamil words, and their meanings are correctly given. It must, however, be remarked that the consonantal terminations of chdr, pdmp, and vair, have now assumed a vowel ending, which is written u, but is pronounced in a vague and indeterminate manner." Dr Burnell remarks, " KumS,rila's evident acquaintance with this South Indian dialect (Tamil) is worth notice, as he is said to have been a native of the south." (T^ranS-tha, " History of Indian Buddhism.") The words Kum^rila cites are mostly Tamil, not Telugu or Canarese. na^e is Telugu as well as Tamil, but chdv-u and vayir-u are not in Telugu. The former is not in Canarese, and the latter appears under the shape of hasir-u. 'pdmbu, Tamil, is pdvu in Canarese, and pdmu in Telugu. dl, in Canarese and Tamil, means a person ; dl-u, in Telugu, a woman. Kum§,rila, however, calls dl, stri- pratyayam, a feminine affix (in grammar). The affix of the third person feminine singular in Tamil, Malayalam, and Old Canarese is dl. Telugu occasionally uses dl-u in a similar manner, but generally it uses the neut. sing, affix for the fem. sing. Kumarila cites the leng^iened form dl instead of al, apparently because it is in that shape that the affix appears in verbs — e.g., p6n-dl, she went. 6 INTRODUCTION. P^radas, Pahlavas, Chinas, Kir^tas, Daradas, and Khasas." Of the tribes here mentioned the only tribe belonging to Southern India is that of the Dravidas. This name, therefore, appears to have been supposed to denote the whole of the South Indian tribes. If any of those tribes were not intended to be included, it would probably be the Andhras, the Telugus of the interior, who had already been mentioned by name in the Aitareya Brahmana, and classed with Pundras, Sabaras, and Pulindas, as degraded descendants of Visvaraitra. The same state- ment is made in the Maha-bh^rata ; and in the two lists of degraded Kshatriyas therein given, the Dravidas are the only South Indian tribe mentioned. It must be concluded, therefore, that the term is generi- cally used, seeing that the more specific names of P^ndyas, Cholas, &c. , had become well known in Northern India by that time. Doubtless it is in the same sense that Satyavrata, the Indian Noah, is called in the Bh^gavata Purina '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- r^shtri, the Sauraseni, and the M^igadhi. Amongst minor or less known Prakrit dialects the DrUvidi, or language of the Dravidas, was included. A Sanskrit philologist quoted by Muir (vol. ii. 46) speaks of the language of Dravida as a vibhdshd, or minor Prakrit; 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 Paisachi Prakrit, a name which appears to have been applied promiscuously to a great number of provincial dialects, including dialects so widely difi'ering from one another as ' the language of the Pandyas ' (Tamil), and ' that of the Bhotas ' (Tibetan). The only property these languages can have possessed 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 Paisachi, the language of pisdchas, or demons. The more accurate term Dravidi has continued to be used occasionally by northern scholars up to our own time. As late as 1854, the learned HindU philologist Babu Bajendra L^l Mitra (quoted by Muir, vol. ii. 127), speaks of the 'Dravidi' as one of the recog- nised Prakrits, equally with the Sauraseni, and as being, like it, the USB OF THE COMMON TERM DEAVJDIAN. / parent of some of the present vernaculars of India. It thus appears that the word ' Dr^vida/ 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 Dr^viras.' The colloquial 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 Dr^viras.' By the Gauda or G4ura languages are meant the 'bhash^s,' or popular dialects of Northern India, at the head of which stands the Bangui, the G^ura proper. At present Bangali, Oriya, Hindi, with its daughter Hindustani, Panj^bi, Sindhi, Gujar^ti, and Marathi are the languages which may be re- garded as forming the ' Gaurian ' class ; to which I would add Cash- mirian, MdrwM, Assamese, and the court language of Nepal, thus reckoning in this class eleven idioms instead of five. The five Dravidas or Driiviras, according to the Pandits, are * the Telinga, the Karn^taka, the Marathi, the Gurjara, and the Drclvira,' or Tamil proper. The S'abda-kalpa-druma (Calcutta) gives the list thus : Dravida, Karn^ta, Gujar^ta, Mahar^shta, and Telinga. The Marathi and Gujarati are erroneously included in this enumeration. It is true that the Maha- rashtra or Marathi 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 Gurjara, or GujarMi, 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 Karn^taka or Canarese, the Telinga or Telugu, and the Dravida propej or Tamil, are not only members, but are 8 INTRODUCTION. certainly the principal members, of the Southern or Dravidian family. It will be observed that MalayMam 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 Dr^vida proper; the second was probably unknown, or was erroneously con- sidered a dialect of Canarese. The uncultivated dialects — the Tuda, K6ta, G6nd, 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 exclusively, have fallen into the same misapprehension 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 perfectly correct, it has furnished us with the only common terms India possesses for denoting the northern and southern families of the Indian languages respectively. It is not clear whether Var^ha-mihira (a.d. 404) regarded the term ' Dravida ' as generic or specific. [See Kern's translation of the Brihat-samhit^, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. '\ He places the Dravidas in the south-west, but mentions also an ' eastern half of the Dravidas.' The western half may have been on the Malabar coast. Par^sara placed the Dravidas in the east. This name seems to have been less firmly attached to a particular people than the more purely local and dynastic names of Chola, Pandya, &c. Varaha-mihira mentions * the Pandya king,' ' the king of Kalinga,' &c., but mentions * the Dravida kings ' in the plural. The local names he mentions are : Pandya, Chola, Kerala, Karn^taka, Kalinga, Andhra. He mentions Kdnchi (Kdnchi), KoUagiri (Quiloni North Malabar?), Lanka, the rivers Kav^ri and Tamraparnt, and the conch and pearl fisheries (in the Gulf of Manaar). In the Maha-bh^rata the Dravidas are dis- tinguished not only from the Kalingas, Ja 'S.ojdojtuv (or 2wf/- yuiv) of Ptolemy, and also the district ri^g idiug Xsyov/J^hrig Ua^aXiag Tuoiyyuv (or ^usr/yoov), in which the mouth of the Xa/3?igo;, the Kiv^ri, was situated. These seem remarkable anticipations of the name by which the coast was known in later times. 2. 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 Malay Mam word for mountain, as in the name Malay ^lam itself, and we can scarcely err in concluding 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 Malg held its place, nearly as Cosmos has it, without any such suffix as bdr, down to the eleventh or twelfth century. In 851 a.d. it occurs, he says, as Malai or Kulam-Malai, in 1150 as Malt and also Maliah. It is interesting to find the name of Quilon (Kulam, properly 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.d. 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 com- pound — is frequently found to change. Colonel Yule gives the follow- ing Arabian forms, — Malibar, Manibar, Mulib^r, Muniblr, M^ib^r ; and the following as the forms used by early European travellers, &c. — Minibar, Milibar, Melibar (Marco Polo), Minubar, Melibaria. From 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 word Mala, mountain, is correctly given. It has been more difficult 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. * 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 in consequence, not only is India, "which extends from the coast of the kingdom of Persia to Colon, a distance 9i 1200 parasangs, deprived of a regular ministry, but Persia itself is lying in darkness." — Colonel Yule. 2S 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 Malarvaram, Tam.-Mal. the foot of the mountains, and Malap- p^du, the mountain district. These derivations might be regarded at first sight as admissible ; but they are Indian vernacular 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 harr, 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 simi- lar conclusion. He preferred, however, the Persian bdr to the Arabic harr, 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-Mr (the country of the blacks), Kala-b^r (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," Hindti-bar. Burton says (Joiirnal of the Royal Geographical Society, vol. xxix. p. 30) that at Zanzibar, in distinguishing the mainland from the island, they call the former Barr-el-Moli, or * continent.' And in a note he adds, '' The word Moli, commonly used in the corrupt Arabic of Zanzibar, will vainly be sought in the dictionaries. Query, 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, Raj war, &c." This Persian derivation seems to me so satisfactory that it may safely be accepted. bdr, country, may have been added to Male to distinguish the mainland from the adjacent islands, the Maldives and the Laccadives. The 'M.dXdives may have been the dives or islands of MalS, whilst Mala6(2r 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 ifaMives, but in Tamil they are called Ji^Mives ; 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 Ibn Batuta, who calls them Dhibat- ENUMERATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 29 al-mali41, from the name of the ' atoll ' where the sultan of the islands lived — viz., Al-mahM. Mahfil is always corrupted into mdl in Tamil. The Persian hdr, one of the meanings of which is ' a country/ is regarded by Vuller (" Lexicon Pers.-Lat.") as identical in origin with the Sanskrit vdra, a noun of multitude. It does not follow, however, that it is identical with the affix vdr which we find in so many Indian names of countries, as Marwar, Dharw^r, Kattyw^r, &c. The apparent resemblance between this wdr and the Persian hdr and especially the Sanskrit vdr a disappears on investigation. This wdr is written vdd ; and Dr Trurapp assures me that its lineal descent from the Sanskrit vdta (vdta, vdd, vdr) is capable of proof, vdfa, Sans, means not only ' an enclosure,' but also ' a district ' — e.g., Frdchya- vd(a, the eastern district. Dr Eggeling informs me that he has found Dharwar written Dhara-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 varisd or varakhi. III. Telugu. — In respect of antiquity of culture and glossarial copiousness, Telugu is generally considered as ranking next to Tamil in the list of Dravidian idioms, whilst 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 Hindus 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 Tamil, to Chicacole, where it begins to yield to the Oriya, and inland it prevails as far as the eastern boundary of the Maratha country and Mysore, including within its range the ' Ceded districts ' and Karnul, a considerable part of the territories of the Nizam, or the Hyderabad country, and a por- tion of the Nagpur country and Gondvana. The district thus des- cribed was called Telingana by the Muhammedans. The Telugu people, though not at present the most enterprising or migratory, are undoubtedly the most numerous branch of the Dravidian race. In- cluding the Nayudus (Tam. N^akkas = Sans. Nayakas), Keddis,- and other Teluga tribes settled in the Tamil country, who are chiefly the descendants of those soldiers of fortune by whom the Pandya and Chola kingdoms were sub'\^rted, and who number not much less than a million of souls ; and including also the Telugu settlers in Mysore, 30 INTRODUCTION. and the indigenous Telugu inhabitants of the 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 speak- ing people in the Nizam's territory. Though the Telugu people cannot at present be described as the most migratory portion of the Dravidians, there 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 Hindis, 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 Hindus, who in the early centuries of the Christian era formed settlements, built temples, and exercised dominion in Sumatra and Java, appear to have been Telugus, not Tamilians ; and whilst the Tamil country was overrun by the Telugus in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, no correspond- ing 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 called 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 as early as in the " Aitareya Br^hmana of the Eig-veda," though represented therein 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 '' Peutinger 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.d,, who states that the lan- guage of the Andhras difi'ered from that of Central 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 ENUMEKATION OF DRAVTDIAN LANGUAGES. 3 1 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 common. It occupies the first place — not Kalinga or Trilinga — in the compound term, Andhra- Dr^vida-bhash^, by which Kumdrila-bhatta, shortly after Hwen Thsang'a 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 Tenuiigu. The name has been corrupted still further in various directions by Muhammedans and other foreigners. One of the above-mentioned forms, Tenugu or Tenungu, is sometimes represented by Telugu pandits as the original form of the word, and the meaning they attribute to it is sweetness. This derivation seems to have been an afterthought, suggested by the resemblance of the word to tene, 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 melli-^ViOW^ 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 represent, of the country of which three celebrated linga temples constituted the boundaries. This deri- 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 trilinga (without committing ourselves to the determination of the sense in which the word linga 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 Pur^nas, yet the existence of such a name seems capable of being established by reliable evidence derived from other sources. Taranatha, 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 antiquity), 32 INTRODUCTION. repeatedly designates the Telugu country Trilinga, and describes Kalinga as a portion of Trilinga, and Kalingapura as its capital. The name of Trilinga had reached Ptolemy himself at a time anterior probably to the date of the Puranas. It is true his Tp/yXuTrrov {Tpiy- Xvpov ?) TO xcci T^iXtyyov ISaaiXunv 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 mariners or merchants from whom he derived his information spoke of the place in question merely as beyond the Ganges, without being certain whether it was east or south. We have seen that in like manner the " Peutinger Tables " place the Andre Indi — about whose identity with the Telugu people there can be no doubt — beyond the Ganges. The foreign name Trilingam must have been the name by which the place was called by the natives of the place, whilst Tri- glypton 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 linga forms the second portion of the name of several Indian nations mentioned by Pliny (after Megasthenes), as the Bolingae, and the Maccocalingse, a various reading of which is Maccolingse. Another name mentioned by Pliny, Modogalingam, involves some difficulty. He says — " Insula in Gauge est magnse magnitudinis gentem continens unam, Modogalingam nomine." Mr A. D. Campbell, in the Introduction to his " Telugu Grammar," represented the modoga of this name as the ancient Telugu word for three, and hence argued that Mo- dogalingam 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 Telinga, Telungu, Telugu, and Tenugu, would be confirmed. The Telugu word for ' three,' however, is not modoga, but mMu. mMugu 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 Galingam. The change of c (yt) into g in such a connection would be quite in accordance with Telugu laws of sound, provided modo, as well as Galingam, were a Telugu word ; and if it were Telugu it would more naturally represent mitdUj 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 expressioii Tri-kalinga has ENUMEEATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 33 been found in actual use in India. General Cunningliam, 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-samhita," mentions that the name Tri-kaliuga is found in one of the Puranas ; 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, p. 171. General Cunningham thinks it probable that there is a refer- ence to these three Kalingas in the circumstance that Pliny mentions the Macco-Calingae and the Gangarides-Calingse as separate nations from the Calingse ; 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 Telingana. The term island has often been used very vaguely. Taran^tha 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 Godavari 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 iinga 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 Karnataka, 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- perly Kannadiyam, on the Malabar coast, a district which was sub- 34 INTEODUCTION. 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 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 Malayalam differ from the colloquial dialects of those languages — by 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, Mar^thi, Telugu, and Hindustani — 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 Karnata or Karnataka 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. Karndtaha (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 iidt-i), country — that 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 Varaha- mihira at the beginning of the fifth century a.d. Taranatha also men- tions Karnata. The word Karnata or Karnataka, 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 becam^e acquainted — the country above the ENUMERATION OF DRA VIDIAN LANGUAGES. 3 5 Ghauts, including Mysore and part of Teling^na^called tlie Kar- n^taka country. In course of time, by a misapplication of terms, they applied the same name, the Karn^tak, 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 Karn^taka was further corrupted by the Canarese people themselves into Kannada or Kannara, from which the language is styled by the English ' Canarese.' V. TuLU. — 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 destitute of a literature in the proper sense of the term, and never had 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 sake, and it is well worthy of careful study. This language is spoken in a very limited district and by a very small number of people. The Chandragiri and Kalydnapuri 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-sp^aking people has been found not to exceed 300,000, and their country is broken in upon to such a degree by other languages that Tulu might be expected soon to disappear. All Tulu Christians are taught Canar- 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 conservative portion of the Dravidian race. The name Tulu means, according to Mr Brigel, mild, meek, humble, and is to be regarded therefore as properly denoting the people, not their language. Tulu was supposed by Mr Ellis to be merely a dialect of Malaydlam ; but although Malayalam characters were and still are, ordinarily employed by Tulu Brdhmans in writing Sanskrit, in consequence of 36 INTllODUCTION. the prevalence of MalayMam in the vicinity, the supposition that Tula was a dialect of Malay^lam 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 Mam than Malay alam 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 Vellalas 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. KuDAGU or Coorg. — 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 than that of placing Tulu in this list. Coorg is a small but inter- 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 Kodagii^ 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 Canarese. It had been generally considered rather as an uncultivated dialect of Canarese, 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 ENUMERATION. OF DEAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. If Eev. B. Grater 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 Brabmanised, and they have no literature in the proper sense of the word." BurnelFs " 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. TuDA. — 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 polyandria, 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 tora, a herd ; but the d of Tuda is not the lingual c?, but the dental, which has no relationship to r or I. The derivation of the name may be regarded as at present unknown. See Appendix. VIII. KoTA. — 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 Kotas, two other languages are vernacular on the Neilgherry hills-rviz., 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 ('people of the darkness') and Kuruburs (Can. Kiiruharu, Tarn. Kurumhar, 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. See Appendix. IX. G6Np. — The language of the indigenous inhabitants of the extensive hilly and jungly tracts in Central India, formerly called G6ndwana. " In 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. G6ndwana extended from the Vindhya mountains to the Godavari, and embraced the SatpurS, range. Of the districts now under the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal, it included Korea, Sirguja, and Udaiplir; but Gond colonies are found as far east as the Katak Tributary MahMs, where they blend with the Kandhs and the Sauras, or Savaras, and they extend to Khandesh and M41w^ in the west, where they touch the Bhils. A considerable proportion 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 general name of Gonds number 1,634,578 souls. The Marias are regarded as the purest, and are certainly the wildest, tribe of G6nds. They sometimes call themselves KohitUr, a name which is evidently identical with Koitor, the name by which four out of the twelve tribes of Gonds call themselves. It has been asserted indeed that all the Gonds, when speaking of themselves in their own language, prefer to call themselves Koitors. This word is a plural appellative regularly formed from K6i. Much valuable information concerning the Gonds is contained in Colonel Dalton's " Ethnology of Bengal;" in the papers left in MS. by the late Eev. S. Hislop, edited by Sir K. Temple ; and in the Gazetteer of tlie Central Provinces. A grammar and vocabu- lary of the Gond language were published by the Bev. J. G. Driberg, at Bishop's College, Calcutta, in 1849. A translation of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark into Gond by the Kev. J. Dawson, published at Allahabad in 1872 — 73, furnishes us with a still more valuable contribution to the knowledge of the language. Mr Dawson 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- ENUMEEATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 39 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 G6ndwana, Gumsur, 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 kundru, a hill, literally a small hill, the Telugu form of which is Iconda. 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 G6nds, 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 kundru or konda, a hill, seems very doubtful. The term Ku is evidently allied to Koi, the name by which the Gonds call themselves, and which they are fond of lengthening into K6itor. The Khonds, according to the late census, number nearly 270,000 souls. See Appendix. XI. The Maler, commonly called the Rajmah^l, the language of the Pah&rias, or hill people, who seem to have been the original in- habitants of the Rajmah^l 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 Rajmahal idiom is in its basis Dra vidian. This lan- guage is not to be confounded with the speech of the SantMs, a branch of the extensive K61 family inhabiting at present the skirts of the RajmahUl hills (but said to be mostly emigrants from the Haz^- rib^gh 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. • XII. Oraon. — The Oraons of ChUti^ Nagpfir and the neighbouring 40 INTRODUCTION". districts are estimated to amount to 263,000. A higher estimate has 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 Malers, 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 their language prepared by the Kev. F. Batsch. Their traditions are said to connect them with the Konkan, from which it is supposed they derive the name Khurnk, by which they invariably call themselves. They assert that for many generations they were settled on the Rohtas and adjoining hills in the Patna district, and that when driven out from thence, one party emigrated to the Rajmahal hills, the other went south-eastward till they arrived in the highlands of Ch^tia Nagplir. This tradition of the original identity of the MMers and the OrSons 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 Oraons arrived in Chuti^ N^gpur later than the Miindas and other Kolarians. Tuda, Kota, Gond, and Ku, though rude and uncultivated, are undoubtedly to be regarded as essentially Dravidian dialects, equally with the Tamil, the Canarese, and the Telugu. I feel some hesitation in placing in the same category the Rajmahal and the Oraon, 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 Oraon was considered by Mr Hodgson as a con- necting link between the K61 dialects and the M^ler ; the M^ler 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 Or^on, perhaps because the M^ers, or hill men of Rajmahal, are locally more remote than the Oraons 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. See Appendix. The existence of a distinctively Dravidian element in two at least of these aboriginal dialects of the Central Provinces and Bengal being established, the Dravidian race can now be traced as far north as the ENUMERATION OF DEAVIDTAN LANGUAGES. 4I 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 have 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 Bhiiiyas, diffused through most of the Bengal districts, and massed in the jungle and tributary estates of Chllti^ N^gpur 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 Bhtiiyas 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 the Nizam's territory. I have estimated them at three millions. If 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 — 1. Tamil, 2. Telugu, 3. Canarese, . 4. Malay alam, 5. Tulu, * . G. Kudagu or Coorff, 14,500,000 15,500,000 9,250,000 3,750,000 300,000 150,000 Carryforward, . ... 43,450,000 42 INTRODUCTION. Brought forward, 43,450,000 7. Tuda, 752 8. Kota, 1,112 9. G6nd, 1,634,578 10. KhondorKu, 269,501 11.. Rajmah^l, . 41,089 12. Or^on, 263,000 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 Eamusis, the Lambadis, and various other wander- ing, predatory, or forest tribes. The Lambadis, the gipsies of the Peninsula, speak a dialect of Hindiistani ; the Ramiisis a patois of Telugu ; the tribes inhabiting the hills and forests, corrupted dialects of the languages of the contiguous plains. None of these dialects is found to differ essentially from the speech of the more cultivated classes residing in the same neighbourhood. The Male-arasas, ' hill- kings ' (in MalayMam, 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- Bpeaking districts. In the above list of the Dravidian languages I have not included the Ho, the Munda, or any of the rest of the languages of the Kols, 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 Gond or Ku, to Or^on or Eijmahal, and consequently to be of Dravidian origin ; but though a few Dravidian words may perhaps be detected in some of them, their grammjv- tical structure shows that they belong to a totally different family of languages. Without the evidence of similarity in grammatical struc- 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 j^eriod, not the original relationship either of races or of languages. I leave also out of account the languages of the north-eastern frontier of India, which are spoken by the Bodos, Dhim^ls, 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 DEAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 43 skrit-speaking race and its offshoots, belonged to one and tlie 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 K61arian ; but even this is at present little better than an assumption. Professor Max Muller proposed to call all the non- Aryan languages of India, including the Sub-Himalayan, the K61, and the Tamilian families, Nish^da-languages, the ancient aborigines being often termed Nish^das in the Pur^nas. 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 Bhutan 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 bo 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 distinctly 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 predeceteors. 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 Brahui 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 Panj^bi and Sindhi, 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 Grseco-Scythians, and the Turco-Mongolians, must have entered India by the north-western route.. See Appendix. The 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 Malayalam ; and yet it is only the simplest and most direct sentences in the one language that are intelligible to those who speak only the other. Involved sentences in either language, abounding in verbal and nominal inflexions, or con- taining conditions and reasons, will be found by those who speak only the other language, to be unintelligible. Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, 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, Malayalam, 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 various 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- DRA VIDIAN 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 Or^ion — 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, K6ta, G6nd, Khond, and Oraon, 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 Brdhmanical 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 Bengali 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 46 INTRODUCTION. 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 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 direct derivation of those languages from Sanskrit. The hypo- 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 prae-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 sujjposition of the direct derivation of the Dravidian languages from Sanskrit, in the same manner as Hindi, Bengali, 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 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 Telugu ; by which we are doubtless to understand the time when the Brhamans estab- lished themselves in the Telugu country. They say, " The adherents of king Andhra-r^ya, 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 consisting of nouns, verbals, and verbs, which were created by the god Brahma before the time of this king, are called ' pure (Telugu) words.' The date of the reign of this Andhra-r%a, or king of the Andhras or Andhras, who is now worshipped at Chicacole as a deity, is unknown. Mr C. P. Brown says, " The name Andhra R^ya occurs in none of the inscriptions recorded in my ' Cyclic Tables.' Nor have I found it in any poem. It was perhaps a title assumed by some raja of whom nothing is recorded." An Andha-bhritya dynasty of kings commenced to reign in Magadha, according to Wilson (Vishnu Purana) in 18 B.C. Pos- sibly, however, the Telugu king Andhra-r^ya 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 mtn, fish, are claimed as component parts of both languages, though I believe that both are of Dravidian origin. 48 INTRODUCTION. COMPARATIVE LIST of Sixty Words of Primary Importance (not including Pronouns and Numerals) in Sanskrit AND Tamil. Sanskrit. Tamil. Sanskrit. Tamil. father, pitri, appa{n). dog, han, ndy. mother, mdtri, dpi cat. viddla, punei. son, silmi, maga{n). tiger. vydghra, kadu-vdy. daughter, duhitri, maga{l). deer. mriga, mdn. head, siras, talei. monkey. kapi, kurang-u. eye, akshi, kail. bear. sriksha, karadi. ear. karna, sevi. hog, iukara, pandri. mouth, mukha, vdy. snake. sarpa, pdmhu. tooth. danta, pal. bird. vayas, paravei. hair. kesa, mayir. black. kdla, kar-u. hand, < Jiasta, ) karajf j kei. white, red. sukla, raktay vel. foot, pad^ kdl. great. mahat, per-u. Bun, sHrya, ndyir-u. small. alpa. SIT-U. moon. chandra, tingal. sweet. madhura, in. sky, div, vdn. sour. amla, puli. day. divasa, ndl. salt. lavana, uppic. night. iiak, iravu. eat. bhaksh, tin. fire, agni, tt drink. pd, kudi. water. ap, nira,^ nir. come, e. vd. fish, 1 matsya, \ mina* ] mtn. stand, garrif sthd, p6. nil. hill. parvata, malei. sit. ds, ir-u. tree, druma, mar am. walk, chary eg-u. stone. asman^ kal. run, dru, 6d-u. house. vesman, il. sleep. sva,pj uTang-u. village. grdma^ 'dr. hear, sru, Ml. elephant. hastin, dnei. tell. vad, hi horse, aha, kudirei. laugh. has, nagei. cow, 9^, . d. weep, rud, ar-u. buffalo, maJdsha, erumei. kill. Jmn, k'ol. (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 AflBnities, I. t See Glossarial Affinities, II. DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSKRIT. 49 some of the Dravidian languages wliich 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 ah 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 (S'en-Damir) or correct Tamil, in which nearly all the literature has been written, contains exceedingly little Sanskrit ; and differs from the colloquial dialect, or the language 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. TSo completely has this jealousy 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 words that have been borrowed from Sanskrit are chiefly those which express abstract ideas of philosophy, science, and religion, together with the technical terms 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. Of forty-three 50 INTRODUCTION. nouns and adjectives in tlie English version twenty-nine are Anglo- Saxon, fourteen Latin : of fifty-three nouns and adjectives in Tamil (tlia difference in idiom causes this difference in the number) thirty-two are Dravidian, twenty-one Sanskrit. Of twenty verbs in English, thirteen are Anglo-Saxon, seven Latin : of thirty-four verbs in Tamil, twenty- seven are Dravidian, and only seven Sanskrit. Of the five numerals 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 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 proportion which the native Dravidian element bears to the Sanskrit contained in Tamil. " All its joints, its whole articulation, its sinews and its ligaments, the great body of articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, numerals, auxiliary verbs, all smaller words which serve to knit together, and bind the larger into sentences, these, not to speak of the grammatical structure of the language, are exclusively Anglo- Saxon (Dravidian). The Latin (Sanskrit) may contribute its tale of bricks, yea, of goodly and polished hewn stones, to the spiritual build- ing, but the mortar, with all that holds and binds these together, and constitutes them into a house, is Anglo-Saxon (Dravidian) throughout." Though the proportion of Sanskrit which we find to be contained in the Tamil version of the Ten Commandments happens to correspond so exactly to the proportion of Latin contained in the English version, it would be an error to conclude that the Tamil language is as deeply indebted to Sanskrit as English is to Latin. Tamil can readily dis- pense with the greater part or the whole of its Sanskrit, (and by dis- pensing with it rises to a purer and more refined style ; whereas English cannot abandon its Latin without abandoning perspicuity. Anglo- Saxon has no synonyms of its own for many of the words it has borrowed from Latin ; bo that if it were obliged to dispense with them, 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 necessity, but from choice and the fashion of the age, that it makes DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSKRIT. 5 I use of Sanskrit. If the Ten Commandments were expressed in the speech of the lower classes of the Tamil people, the proportion cf 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 Brahmans. 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 S'udras, who constitute par excel- lence the Telugu people, seem almost entirely to have abandoned to the Brahmans 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 j and the highest rank in Tamil literature which has been reached by a Brahman is that of a commentator. The commentary of Parimelaragar on the Kural of Tiruvalluvar (supposed to have been a Pariar (Pareiya, see Appendix), 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 of Sanskrit, and but partially aspired to an independent literature ; that the principal compositions in Tamil, 52 INTEODUCTION. Telugu, Canarese, and Malaylllam, 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 Chintamani, are perfectly independent of Sanskrit, and original in design as well as in execution ; and though it is true that Tamil writers have imitated — I cannot say translated — the R^m^ana, the MahS,-bh^rata, and similar works, they boast that the Tamil Rllm^yana of their own Kambar is greatly superior to the Sanskrit original of V^Imiki. (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 languages 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 sufiixing 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- tions, but by means of suffixed post-positions and separable particles. DEAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSKRIT. 53 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 plural 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 hi, ki, or ge, bears no analogy to any dative case-termination which is found in Sanskrit or in any of the Indo-European languages; but it corresponds to the dative of the Oriental Turkish, to that of the language of the Scythian tablets of Behistun, and to that of several of the languages of the Finnish family. (v.) In those connections in which prepositions are used in the Indo- European languages, the Dravidian languages, with those of the 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 invariably precede the verbs they qualify. (vi.) 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 — i.e., to qualify other substantives — they do not admit any inflexional change, but are simply prefixed to the nouns which they qualify. (vii.) It is also a characteristic of these languages, as of the Mon- golian, the Manchu, and several other Scythian languages, in contra- distinction to the languages of the Indo-European family, that, wher- ever it is practicable, they use as adjectives the relative participles 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, the 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 jJerson plural, one of which includes, the other excludes, the party addressed, is a peculi- arity of the Dravidian dialects, as of many of the Scythian languages ; 54 INTEODUCTION. but is unknown to 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 tongues. (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 particijDles instead of relative pronouns. There is no trace of the existence of a relative pronoun in any Dravidian language except the Gond alone, which seems to have lost its relative participle, and uses instead the relative pronoun of the Hindi. The place of such pronouns is supplied in the Dravidian languages, 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 dl, literally ' the who-came person ; ' vand-ii^ the preterite verhal participle signi- fying ' having come,' being converted into a relative participle, equi- valent to * the-who-came/ by the addition of the old possessive and adjectival suffix a. (xiii.) 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 and in 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 ^re-position changes places with the noun and becomes a joos^position in virtue of its governing a case : and finally the sentence is concluded by the one, all-governing, finite verb. In each of these DRAVIDIAN TONGUES INDEPENDENT OF SANSKRIT. 5 5 important and highly characteristic peculiarities of syntax, the Dra- vidian languages and the Scythian are thoroughly agreed.* Many other diflferences in grammatical structure, and many differ- ences also in regard to the 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 so 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 diflferent family of tongues. They are neither derived from Sanskrit, nor are capable of being affiliated to 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 languages, 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 exceptious to the rule respecting the position of the governing word in the Dravidian languages are found in poetical compositions, in which, occasion- ally, for the sake of effect, the order of words required by rule is transposed, I cannot forbear quoting here a sentence from " Aston's Gramnaar 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 called in that work, the Altaic, family of tongues. It might have been supposed that the writer in- tended 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 va»bs with a conjugation resembling that of active verbs. Mood and tense are indicated by sufiSxes," 56 INTRODUCTION. Turanian rule. He tbinks also the position of the words in a Sanskrit prose sentence is Turanian rather than Aryan. It is an invariable law of the distinctively Turanian tongues that related sentences precede those to which they are related. It is another invariable law that the finite verb is placed at the end of the sentence. In both these parti- culars Mr Edkins thinks that Sanskrit has yielded to Turanian influ- ences. This certainly seems to be the case with regard to the verna- culars which have been developed out of the old colloquial Sanskrit ; but in so far as the Sanskrit of literature is concerned, the Turanian rule is far from being universally followed. Mr Edkins himself gives 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 necessary to hold that Latin syntax is more ' Turanian' than Greek, and German more * Turanian ' than English. Is THEEE A DeAVIDIAN ElEMENT IN THE VeENACULAR LANGUAGES OP Noetheen India 1 The hypothesis of the direct derivation of the Dravidian tongues 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 Hodgson, of Nepal,t and some other Orientalists, (1) that the North-Indian vernaculars had been derived from Sanskrit, not so much by the natural process of cor- ruption and disintegration, as through the overmastering, remoulding 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 aborigines of India. * Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bomhay. + Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal j also "Aborigines of India," Cal- cutta, 1849. NON-SANSKRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS. 5/ 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, Bengali, (fee, has been shown to have arisen from that natural process of change which we see exemplified in Europe, in the corruption of Latin into Italian and Spanish. 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 Sanskrit has to a considerable extent been non-Aryan, and that this must have been owing, in what way soever it may have been brought about, to the operation of non-Aryan influences. The modifications which the grammar of the North Indian languages have received, being generally of one and the same character, and in one and the same direction, it may be concluded that there must have been a common modifying cause ; and as the non-Sanskritic portion of those languages, which Professor Wilson styles " a portion of 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 Mar^thl 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 Brahmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, the greater part of Northern India was peopled by rude aboriginal tribes, called by Sanskrit writers Dasyus, Nish^das, Mlechchas, &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 prse-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, partly in the addition of ne\\^ words, and partly also in the introduction of a new spirit and tendency. 58 INTRODUCTION. Tliis hypothesis seems to have the merit of according better than any other with existing phenomena. Seeing that the northern verna- culars possess, with the words of the Sanskrit, a grammatical structure which in the main appears to be Scythian, it seems more correct to represent those languages as having a Scythian basis, with a large and I almost overwhelming Sanskrit addition, than as having a Sanskrit basis, with a small admixture of a Scythian element. The existence of a * Tartarean or Chaldee,' that is, of a Scythian, element in the colloquial dialects of Northern India was first asserted by Sir W. Jones (" Asiatic Researches," vol. i.), and till of late has been generally admitted. It has recently been called in question in the Indian Antiquary (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 in that dialect can be regarded as certain. The second part of the hypothesis of Dr Stevenson, viz., the identity 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, 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 Kamayana. This hypothesis certainly 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, the 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-Sanskritic 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 Drayidian Ian- NON-SANSKRIT ELEMENT IN NOETIIEEN VEKNACULAES. 59 guagcs, in 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 Persian 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 j)ost-fixed particles 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 diff'er from the Turkish or the Mon- golian (and there are many such points of difference) has as yet been discovered, so far as I am aware, in the North-Indian idioms. For 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 w^ords for ' head,' ' foot,' ' eye,' ' ear,' &c. ; but I have not been able to discover any reliable analogy in words belonging to this class. The only resemblances which have been pointed out are those which Dr Stevenson traced in a few words remote from ordinary use, an^ on which, in the absence of analogy in • primary roots, and especially in grammatical structure, it is impossible 6o INTEODUCTION. to place any dependence.'^ The wideness of the difference between the Dravidian vocabulary and that of the languages of Northern India with respect to primary roots, together with the essential agreement of all the Dravidian vocabularies one with another, will appear from the following comparative view of the pronouns of the first and second persons singular. It sometimes happens that where one form of the pronoun is used in the nominative, another survives in the oblique cases, and a third in the verbal inflexions ; it also sometimes happens that the ancient form of the pronoun differs from the modern. Where such is the case I have given all extant forms a place in the list, for the purpose of facilitating comparison. Peoj^oun of the First Person Singular. Gaurian Idioms. (Sanskrit primary form, aliam _ secondary forms, ma^ mi, m Turkish primary form, man.. ) Dravidian Idioms. Tamil, wan, ydn, 4n, en. Canarese, dn, ydn, nd, ndnu, en, Sne. Tulu, ydn, yen, e. MalayS,]am, ndn, in, en, ena, eni, ini. Hindi, main. Telugu, nenu, nS, inn, i, nd, nu, ni. Bengali, mHi. Tuda, dn, en, eni, ini. Maratbl, ■mt K6ta, dne, en, e. Gujarat!, hun. Gond, annd, nd, dn, na. Sindhi, man. Ku, Rajmabai, Oraon, dnu, nd, in, e. en. enan. Pronoun OF THE Second Person Singular. Gaurian Idioms. Dravidian Idioms. (Sanskrit primary forms. , tvam, Tamil, nt, nin, nun, ei, i, dy, 6y. tav, te : secondary form, si, s; Canarese, nin, ninu, nt, nin, (ly, e, tyc. Turkish primary form. sen. ) i,i. Tulu, i, nin, ni. Hindi, tu, tun, te. Malayaiam , nt, nin. Bengali, tAi, to. Telugu, nivu, ivu, nt, nin, vu, vi. Marathi, tUn, tu, to. Tuda, nt, nin, i. Gujarat!, tUn, ta. K6ta, nt, nin, i. Sindhi, tun, to. G6nd, Ku, Oraon. Rajmabai, Brahu!, imma, ni, t. tnu, nt, i. nten. nin. nt, nd. Scythic of the Behistun tablets, nt. * In many instances Dr Stevenson's lexical analogies are illusory, and dis- appear altogether on a little investigation. Thus, he supposes the North Indian ped, ' the belly, the womb/ to be allied to the first v^ord in the Tamil compound petta pillei, own child. That word should have been written pettra in English, to accord with the pronunciation of the Tamil word : the Tamil spelling of it, NON-SANSKRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS. 6 1 % From the striking dissimilarity existing between the Gaurian pro- nouns and the Dravidian, it is obvious that, whatever may have been the nature and origin of the influences by which the Gaurian languages 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 n, which forms the final of most of the pronouns. We cannot fail also to notice the entire disappearance of the nominative of the Sanskrit pronoun of the first per- son singular, and the substitution for it of the Turkish-like main 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. Thus far I had written in the first edition of this work. Since then the subject has been much discussed, especially in Muir's " Sanskrit Texts," vol. ii., and in Beames's '' Comparative Grammar of the Modern Aryan Languages of India." The general result appears to be that it 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 hand, Dr Gundert argues strongly — not indeed for the existence of Dravidian elements in those vernaculars, as distinguished from their existence in Sanskrit — but for the existence of such elements in Sanskrit itself. See his remarks on this subject (from the Journal of the German Oriental Society for 1869), in the section on Glossarial Afifinities. 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 down in the outset, viz., that the proportion of words in the Hindi vocabu- however, is perra. It is the preterite relative participle of per-u, ' to obtain, ' signifying 'that was obtained.' Per-u, 'to obtain/ has no connection with any word which signifies * the womb,' and its derivative noun per-u, means ' a thing obtained, a birth, a favour.' The relationships of this root will be inquired into in the Glossarial Affinities, * In an article " On the Na«-Aryan Element in Hindi Speech," by F. S. Growse, Esq., M.A., B.C.S., in the Indian Antiquary for April 1872. 62 INTRODUCTION. lary not connected with Sanskrit forms is exceedingly inconsiderable ; such fact appearing — first, from the silence of the early grammarians as to the existence of any such non-Sanskritic element ; secondly, from the discovery that many of the words hastily set down as barbarous are in reality traceable to a classic source ; and, thirdly, from the unconscious adherence of the modern vernacular to the same laws of formation as influenced it in an admittedly Sanskritic stage of deve- lopment." The following more extended remarks in confirmation of the same view of the subject are from Mr Beames's " Comparative Grammar " (Introduction, pp. 9-10,* § 3): — ''Next comes the class of words described as neither Sainskritic nor Aryan, but x. It is known that on entering India the Aryans found that country occupied by races of a different family from their own. With these races they waged a long and chequered warfare, gradually pushing on after each fresh victory, till at the end of many centuries they obtained possession of the greater part of the territories they now enjoy. Through these long ages, periods of peace alternated with those of war, and the contest between the two races may have been as often friendly as hostile. The Aryans exercised a powerful influence upon their opponents, and we cannot doubt but that they themselves were also, but in a less degree, subject to some influence from them. There are consequently to be found even in Sanskrit some words which have a very non- Aryan look, and the number of such words is much greater still in the modern languages, and there exists, therefore, a temptation to attribute to non- Aryan sources any words whose origin it is difficult to trace from Aryan beginnings. " It may be as well here to point out certain simple and almost obvious limitations to the application of the theory that the Aryans borrowed from their alien predecessors. Verbal resemblance is, unless supported by other arguments, the most unsafe of all grounds on which to base an induction in philology. Too many writers, in other respects meritorious, seem to proceed on Eluellen's process, ' There is a river in Macedon, and there is also moreover a river in Monmouth, and there is salmon in both.' A certain Tamil word contains a P, so does a certain 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 as well as physically to the aborigines, and probably therefore imparted to them more than they received from them. Moreover, the Aryans were in possession of a copious language before they came into India ; * "A Comparative Grammar of the Modern Non-Aryan Languages of India," &c., by John Beames, Esq., B.C.S. London, 1872. NON-SANSKRIT ELEMENT IN NORTHERN VERNACULARS. 63 > they would therefore not be likely to borrow words of an ordinary, ^tf^^^JT^ 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 Z^"***^ /''^'^*^ they would be likely to borrow would be names for the new plants,/i^.f2^ ^y> animals, and natural objects which they had not seen in their forme rly ^*^^/ ^^ abodes, and even this necessity would be reduced by the tendencw^ ' 1 » J inherent in all races to invent descriptive names for new objects, K/t%4,/fyCrt^ third limitation is afforded by geographical considerations. Which f^^. fklttjn were the tribes that the Aryans mixed with, either as friends or foes? f^ ^: 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 j 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 i 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 i 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 i in that language the origin of modern words." j I coincide generally in the above remarks, especially in so far as they I bear on the question of the influence of the Dravidian languages, pro- \ perly so called, on the North-Indian or Aryan vernaculars. That -j influence, as I have always held, must have been but slight. It is a \ different question whether the influences by which the Aryan verna- \ culars have been moulded into their present shape may not have been \ in some degree Scythian or at least non-Aryan, Dravidian, Scythian, \ and non- Aryan are not convertible terms. Mr Beames himself says, in j 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 \ been at work is almost beyond a doubt." In treating of ' the break- ] ing down of a and d into e' in the northern vernaculars, he says, 1 " this seems to be one of those points where non-Aryan influences have \ been at work." — (P. 140.) Jn treating also of the cerebral I, he says, 1 " This curious heavy I is very widely employed in the Dravidian group | 64 INTRODUCTION. of languages, where it interchanges freely with r and d, and it is also found in the Kole family in Central India. The Marathas and Oriyas are perhaps of all the Aryan tribes those which have been for the longest time in contact with Koles and Drayidians, and it is not sur- prising, therefore, to find the cerebral I more freely used by them than by others."— P. 245. Dr Ernest Trumpp, in his " Grammar of the Sindhi Language," maintains that the northern vernaculars exhibit decided traces of non- Aryan influences. He thinks we shall be able '' to trace out a certain residuum of vocables, which we must allot to an old aboriginal lan- guage, of which neither name nor extent is now known to us, but which in all probability was of the T^tar stock of languages, and spread throughout the length and breadth of India before the irruption of the Aryan race." In confirmation of this view he adduces the preference of cerebral consonants to dentals. " Nearly three-fourths," he thinks, *' of the Sindhi words which commence with a cerebral are taken from some aboriginal non-Aryan idiom which in recent times has been termed Scythian, but which he would prefer to call Tat^r." "And this," he proceeds to say, " seems to be very strong proof that the cere- brals have been borrowed from some idiom anterior to the introduction of the Aryan languages." In noticing the aversion of the Prakrit to aspirates, he remarks that " this aversion seems to point to a Ti,tar underground current in the mouth of the common people, the Dravi- dian languages of the south being destitute of aspirates." He attri- butes also to Dravidian influences the pronunciation of ch and j in certain connections as ts and dz, by Mar&thi as by Telugu. To WHAT Group of Languages aee the Deavidian Idioms to be AFFILIATED ? Prom the commencement of my Tamil studies I felt much interested in the problem of the ulterior relationship of the Dravidian family of languages ; and before I was aware of the opinion which Professor Rask of Copenhagen was the first to express, I arrived by a somewhat similar process at a similar conclusion — viz., that the Dravidian lan- guages are to be affiliated not so much to the Indo-European as to the Scythian group of tongues. I described the conclusion I arrived at as similar to Rask's, not the same, because I did not think it safe to place the Dravidian idioms unconditionally in the Scythian group, but preferred considering them more closely allied to the Scythian than to the Indo-European. In using the word ' Scythian,' I use it in the wide, general sense in which it was used by Eask, who first employed AFFILIATION OF DP.AVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 65 it to designate that group of tongues which comprises the Finnish, the Turkish, the Mongolian, and the Tungusian families. All these lan- guages are formed on one and the same grammatical system, and in accordance with the same general laws. They all express grammatical relation by the simple agglutination of auxiliary words or particles ; whilst in the Semitic languages gramm^vtical relation is expressed by variations in the internal vowels of the roots, and in the Chinese and other isolative, monosyllabic languages, by the position of words in the sentence alone. The Indo-European languages appear to have been equally with the Scythian agglutinative in origin ; but they have come to require to be formed into a class by themselves, through their allow- ing their agglutinated auxiliary words to sink into the position of mere signs of inflexion. The Scythian languages have been termed by some the Tatar family of tongues, by others the Finnish, the Altaic, the Mongolian, or the Turanian ; but as these terms have often. been appro- priated to designate one or two families, to the exclusion of the rest, they seem too narrow to be safely employed as common designations of the entire group. The term ' Scythian' having already been used by the classical writers in a vague, undefined sense, to denote generally the barbarous tribes of unknown origin that inhabited the northern parts of Asia and Europe, it seemed to me to be the most appropriate and convenient word which was available. Professor Eask, who was the first to suggest that the Dravidian lan- guages were probably Scythian, did little 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 statements of the Scythian relationship of the Dravidian languages, with a few grammatical illustrations, occupy a place in Prichard's " Researches," and have been repeated in several more recent works. Prichard himself wished to see the problem, not merely stated, but solved ; but I believe it can never be definitely solved without pre- viously ascertaining, by a careful intercomparison of dialects, what were the most ancient grammatical forms and the most essential char- acteristics of the Dravidian languages and of the various families of languages included in the Scythian group respectively. It was not till after I had commenced to carry the first edition of this work through the press that I became acquainted with Professor Max MUller's treatise " On the Present State of our Knowledge of the Turanian Languages," included in Bunsen's " Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History." Notwithstanding the great excellence of that treatise, I did not find my o^wi work forestalled by the Professor's. His was a general survey of the whole field. It was my object to e 66 INTRODUCTION. endeavour to cultivate more thoroughly one portion of the field, or at 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 these languages, in their dialectic interchanges and displacements, and in their declensional and conjugational forms, which cannot be under- stood without special study. In the course of the grammatical analysis and comparison of the Dravidian languages on which we are about to enter, I hope to help forward the solution of the problem of their ulterior relation- ship. 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 knowledge of the Dravidian languages themselves. However interesting the question of affiliation may be, I regard that question as quite sub-'' sidiary 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 Boiler's treatises : " Die Finnischen Sprachen " and " Die Conjuga- tion in den Finnischen Sprachen," Schott's treatise " Uber das Finnish- Tatarische Sprachengeschlecht," and Gastrin's " De Affixis Personalibus Linguarum Altaicarum ; " in addition to which we have now Professor Hunfalvy's paper " On the Study of the Turanian Languages," in which lie 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 Bohtlingk'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 afliliation, I do so with considerable diflBdence. Professors Pott and Friedrich MUller, 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 AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 6/ a common origin. They admit them to be morphologically or physiolo- gically related, but do not concede to them any genealogical 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 same family." On the whole, however, the resemblances apparent amongst these languages, both in structure and vocabulary, as pointed out by Gastrin 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 Mtiller'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 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 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 in the Scythian group — stand to that group in some sort of relationship. In some important particulars the Dravidian languages have un- doubtedly 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 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 KL the roots to which they are Upended. They have never so far co- nvalesced with the roots — as such words have generally done in the I 68 INTRODUCTION. Indo-European languages — as to form with tlie roots only one integral word, in which it is almost impossible to determine which is the root and which is the modificatory element. It is also to be remembered that the Turkish, Finnish, Hungarian, and Japanese languages, though in many particulars distinctively Turanian, have become still more in- flexional 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 considerable 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. I cannot say that I think the resemblances of the Dravidian languages to the Chinese very numerous. Mr Edkins holds the original unity, 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 to us respecting 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 I 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 Eelative Par- ticiple," in Part Y., on " The Verb.") A remarkable confirmation, on the whole, 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 AFFILIATION OF DEAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 69 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. Professor Oppert holds that the people by whom this language was spoken were Medians, but agrees with Mr Xorris in considering the language Scythian — that is, Turanian. We are now enabled, therefore, to compare the Dra vidian 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, t, d, and n. These sounds exist also in Sanskrit, but I have long suspected that Sanskrit borrowed them from the indigenous Dravidian languages {yide 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 consonant as a surd in the beginning of a word, and as a sonant in the middle, and in pronouncing the same consonant as a sonant when 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 Dravidian languages are ni in the Telugu, na or a in Gond or Brahui, and in in Tamil. (4.) The dative of the tablets is ikJci or ikka. There are analogies 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 Icu, hi, ha, &c., preceded as the suffix generally is in Tamil and Malay^lam, by an euphonic u or i, and a consequent doubling of the h. Compare nin-ihha, to thee, in the language of the tablets, with the corresponding nin-a-ge, in Canarese, and especially the Malayalam nin-a-hhu. (5.) The pronouns of the language of the tablets form their accusa- tive by suffixing un, in,. or n. Compare the Telugu accusative inflexion nu or ni, and the Canarese am, ami-u, &c. (6.) The only numeral written in letters in the Scythian tablets is hir, one, with which appears to be connected the numeral adjective, or indefinite article, ra, or irra. In Telugu, ' one ' is oha, and in Tamil 70 INTRODUCTION. or. The Ku numeral adjective ' one ' is ra, corresponding to the Tamil oru, but more closely to the ra or irra of the tablets. In the language of the tablets all ordinal numbers end in im, in Tamil in dm, in Samoiede in im. (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; the oblique form, which is also the accusative, is nin. Unfortu- nately 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 usfe of a relative participle. A relative pronoun is used in addi- tion to the relative participle ; but Mr Norris supposes the use of this pronoun to be owing to the imitation of the Persian original. The particular particle which is used in the tablets in forming the relative participle differs from that which is geiierally 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 grammar of every unaltered dialect of the Scythian family. (9.) The negative imperative, or prohibitive, particle of the tablets is inni, 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 which 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 j and that from thence, after parting company with the Aryans and the Ugro-Turanians, and leaving a colony in BeMchist^n, they entered India by way of the Indus. Whilst I regard the grammatical structure and prevailing character- istics of the Dravidian idioms as in the main Scythian, I claim for them also, and have always claimed, as will be seen further on, the possession AFFILIATION OF DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 7 1 of certain remarkable affinities to the Indo-European family. In so far as they may be regarded as Scythian, they are allied not to the Turkish family, or to the Ugrian, or to the Mongolian, or to the Tungusian (each of which families differs materially from the others, notwithstanding generic points of resemblance), but to the group or class in which all these families are comprised. The Scythian family to which, on the whole, the Dravidian languages may be regarded as most nearly allied, is the Finnish or Ugrian, with some special affinities, as it appears, to the Ostiak branch of that family ; and this supposition, which I had 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 Avhich 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 vocabu- laries, the languages comprised in this family differ from one another more widely than the various idioms of the Indo-European family mutually differ. Thus, whilst in nearly all the Indo-European lan- guages the numerals are not only similar, but the same — (the Sanskrit * Professor Hunfalvy does not admit that the Finno-Ugrian race arrived in Europe before the Celts, Teutons, and Slavonians. I 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. 72 INTKODUCTION. word for one being the only real exception to tlie rule of general iden- tity) — not only do the numerals of every Scythian family differ so widely from those of every other as to present few or no 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 diver- sity existing amongst the Scythian tongues, that, whilst the Indo- European idioms form but one family, the Scythian tongues form 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 possess in common. The Indo- European languages may be regarded as forming but a single genus, of which each language — (Sanskrit, Zend, Old Persian, Greek, Latin, Gothic, Lithuanian, Slavonic, Celtic) — forms a species ; whilst the lan- guages of the Scythian group, more prolific in differences, comprise at least five or six authenticated genera, each of which includes as many species as are contained in the solitary Indo-European genus, besides twenty or thirty isolated languages, 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, from whatever cause this difference may have arisen, it is obvious that in weighing evidences of relationship this circumstance must be taken into account ; and that 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 also says, " In most cases the languages of two neighbouring islands may show their common derivation in their structure (the safest proof of all, I 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 AFFILIATION OF DEAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 73 been universally admitted by students of Dravidian philology. From the brief remarks bearing on this question contained in Dr Pope's various publications, it is evident that that eminent Dravidian scholar considers the Dravidian languages in the main Indo-European. In 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 are . certainly not mere Prakrits, or corruptions of Sanskrit. I have 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 family, in points even where Sanskrit presents no parallel." In the 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 Cjeltic and Teutonic languages. Had leisure and space permitted, he was prepared to have exhibited in detail these analogies. In a next 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 he says respecting the existence of 'analogies/ and * affinities,' and * traces of a close connection ' between the Dravidian languages and various members of the Indo-European family, I not only perfectly coincide with him, but pointed out many of those particulars of agree- ment or resemblance myself (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-European — though it regards the former as, on the whole, closer and more essential. With regard 74 INTRODUCTION. 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 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 II. for some remarks on the philo- logical portion of Mr Cover'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 which I have referred ; and, rejecting affinities which are unreal and which disappear on investigation (such as the connection of the Tamil numerals ondru or onnu, one ; anju, five ; ettu, eight ; with un-us, panch-an, and asht-an, — a connection which looks very plausible, but appears to me to be illusory (see section on "Numerals"), — I think it highly probable that a small number of the grammatical forms of the Dravidian lan- guages and a 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 a few analogies of this character, the most essential features of the grammar of the Dravidian idioms seem to me to be undoubtedly Scythian, and therefore I think the propriety of placing those idioms in the Scythian group is indicated. Though many Hebrew roots have been shown to be allied to Sanskrit, yet the Hebrew language does not cease to be regarded as Semitic rather than Indo-European ; so, not- withstanding many interesting analogies with Sanskrit, Greek, Gothic, Celtic, and Persian, which may be discovered 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 main Scythian. Dr Gustave Schlegel, in his " Sinico-Aryaca " (Batavia, 1872), a treatise on Chinese and Aryan affinities, endeavours to establish the existence of an ultimate relationship between the Chinese roots and those of the Aryan languages. Supposing this point established, it would not follow that Chinese is an Aryan tongue. It would only follow that it had succeeded in preserving certain exceedingly primitive forms of speech which had also been preserved in the languages of the Aryan family. Not Chinese only, but Sanskrit and Hebrew, are now AFFILIATION OF DKAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 75 known to liave been originally monosyllabic; and the monosyllabic character of most Dravidian roots, if not of all, will appear in every section of this work. Dr Bleek (in a paper in the Journal of the Antliro'pological Society for 1871) has thrown out the idea that the Aryan funiily of languages may possibly have been exposed at an early period to Dravidian injBuences. He says : " The Aryan are dis- tinguished from the other sex-denoting languages by the possession of a neuter gender. The Dravidian languages 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- 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 this threefold gender — i.e., masculine, feminine, and neuter) should have developed the neuter gender quite independently of each other. The Dravidian languages have not as yet been proved to belong to our own sex-denoting family of languages; and although it is not impossible that they may be shown ultimately to be a member of this family, yet it may also be that at the time of the formation of the Aryan languages a Dravidian influence was exerted upon them, to which this, among other similarities, is due." The Dravidian lan- guages had a neuter pronoun of the third person at the earliest period to which their forms can be traced ; but I suspect it was at a later period of their history that gender made its appearance in the verb. When the Dravidians entered India their verb must, I think, have been without personal terminations, and therefore without gender. It will be seen hereafter that gender is more fully and systematically developed in the verb of the Dravidian literary dialects than in any other language in the world. This could not have been owing to the influence of Sanskrit, but must have been ah intra. In stating that the Dravidian languages contain certain roots and forms allied to Sanskrit, and to the Indo-European languages gene- rally, it is necessary to preclude misapprehension. During the long period of the residence of the Dravidian and Aryan races in the same country, the Dravidian vocabularies have borrowed largely from Sans- krit. It is necessary therefore to remind the reader that the analogies to which I refer are not founded on the existence in the Dravidian 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 "J^ INTRODUCTION. distinguisliing 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 (Sa?/zskrita) of written compositions, but the crude, original Sanskrit, which is discoverable by analysis and comparison, — the Vor- 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. (1.) 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 oi d oi t 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 a. (5.) The formation of the remote demonstrative from a base in a, the proximate from a base in i. (6.) The formation of most preterites, as in Persian, by the addition oid. (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 tongues, there are not a few Dravidian roots which seem more nearly allied to the western Indo-European idioms than to the Sanskritic or eastern. If therefore the Dravidian languages may be classified, as I am still inclined to classify them, as essentially and in the main Scythian, I must add that I consider them as of all Scythian tongues those which present the most numerous, ancient, and interest- AFFILIATION OF DEA VIDIAN LANGUAGES. 77 ing analogies to the Indo-European languages. The position which 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- European appears to have been severed from it, and on which the most distinct traces of the original identity of the families still remain. If 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 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 separation of the yet undivided Indo- European race from that portion of the common stock which was after- wards styled Scythian. It is a curious circumstance that in the vocabulary of the Dravidian languages, especially in that of Tamil, a few Semitic analogies may also 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 Latin ave-o, to desire, and in Sanskrit aVy of which * to desire ' is a subordinate meaning ; yet the corresponding Tamil words avd, desire, 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 avvdh, desire. In addition, however, to such general analogies as pervade several families of tongues, including the Dravidian, there are a few roots discoverable, I think, both in the Dravidian languages and in Hebrew, to which I am not aware of the existence of any resemblance in any language of the Indo-European family. Illustrations of these special analogies will be found under the head of '' Glossarial AfiBnities : 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 more numerous and important class of analogous roots which are found in the Indo-European languages, as well as in Hebrew, but of which the Hebrew form is more closely allied to the Dravidian (see the " Glos- sarial Affinities "), these analogies, such as they are, constitute an addi- tional element of interest in the problem of the origin and pra3-historic connections of the Dravidian race. I do not adduce these analogies for the purpose of endeavouring to prove the existence of any relation- ship between the Dravidian language and Hebrew. Aware of the danger of proving nothing by attempting to prove too much, I content myself with merely staUng those analogies, without attempting to deduce any inference from them. The Indo-European analogies are so ^S INTEODUCTION. 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, however, 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 can be accounted for on the hypothesis — a very easy and natural one — that the primitive Dravidians 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 w^ay 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. Dravidian. Australian. Tibetan. Chinese. > ndn, yd7i, nd, en, nga, ngaii, iigatsa, nganya, nga, nge, nged, iigo. Whilst the base of this pronoun seems to be closely allied to the corresponding pronoun in Tibetan, and in the Indo-Chinese family generally, the manner in which it is pluralised in the Australian dialects bears a marked resemblance to the Dravidian, and especially to Telugu. Telugu forms its' plurals by suffixing lu to the singular ; the Australian dialects by a similar addition of lu, li, dlu, dli, &c. In this particular some of the dialects of the north-eastern frontier of India exhibit also an agreement with Telugu — e.g., compare Dhimal M, thou, with nyel, you. In the Australian dialects I find the follow- ing plurals and duals of the pronoun of the first person — we, or we two, ngalu, ngadlu, ngadli, ngalata, &c. Compare this with the manner in which the Telugu forms its plural — e.g., vavd'u, he, vdndlu, they ; and even with the Tamil ' plural exclusive ' of the pronoun of the first person — e.g., ndn, I, ndngal, we. The resemblance between the Australian pronouns of the second person, both singular and plural, and those of the Dravidian languages is more distinct and special, and is apparent, not only in the suffixes, but in the pronominal base itself. The normal forms of these pronouns in the Dravidian languages are — singular, ntn, plural, nim. The per- AFFILIATION OF DEA VIDIAN LANGUAGES. 79 sonality resides in the crude root ni, thou, which is the same in both numbers, with the addition of a singular formative n {nin, thou), and a pluralising formative m (ni-m, thous, or you). In some cases the phiralising particle m has been displaced, and r, which I regaj-d as pro- perly the sign of the epicene plural of the third person, has been sub- stituted for it — e.g., ntr, you (in Telugu mir-u.) This abnormal form ntr is most used as a nominative, the older and more regular 7iim retains its place in the compounds. Whilst i is the vowel which is almost invariably found in the singular of the pronoun of the second person, it is found that in the plural i often gives place to u, as in the classical Tamil numa, your, and the Brahui num, you. It is to be noticed also that the modern Canarese has softened nim into nlvu or niwu, in the nominative. It is singular, in whatever way it may be accounted for, that in each of the particulars now mentioned the Aus- tralian dialects resemble the Dravidian. See the following comparative view. Under the Australian head I class the dual together with the plural, as being substantially the same. Dravidian. Adstealian. thou, nin, nin, ninna, nginne, ngintoa, ningte. you, n%m, nim, ntr, num, nivu, nimedoo, nura, niwa, ngurle. Compare also the accusative of the first person singular in Tamil, ennei, me, with the Australian accusative emmo. The grammatical structure of the Australian dialects exhibits a gene- ral agreement with the languages of the Scythian group. In the use of postpositions instead of prepositions ; in the use of two forms of the first person plural, one inclusive of the party addressed, the other exclusive j in the formation of inceptive, causative, and reflective verbs by the addition of certain particles to the root ; and, generally, in the agglutinative structure of words and in the position of words in a sentence, the dialects of Australia resemble the Dravidian — as also the Turkish, the Mongolian, ajid other Scythian languages; and in the same particulars, with one or two exceptions, they difi"er essentially from the dialects which are called Polynesian. The vocabularies of the Australian dialects which have been compiled do not appear to furnish additional confirmation to the resemblances pointed out above ; but it is difficult to suppose these resemblances to be unreal or merely acci- dental, and it is obvious that the Australian dialects demand (and pro- bably will reward) further examination."^ * See a paper " On the position of the Australian languages," by W. H. J. Bleek, Esq., Ph.D., read at a Meeting of the Anthropological Society. London, 1871. 80 INTRODUCTION. It is singular also, and still more 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 sen- tences syllables expressive of doubt, interrogation, and emphasis, in a peculiarly Dravidian manner, and its verb has a negative voice. It has an objective verb, as well as a subjective, like the Hungarian. The most distinctive resemblance to the Dravidian languages I notice is in the pronoun of the second person, which is ni, 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." Which Language or Dialect best represents the Primitive Condition of the Dravidian Tongues 1 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 {S en- D amir), or the classical 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 ; and the Khond or Ku, one of the rudest dialects, the grammar of which was reduced to writing only a few years ago, is the only dialect which throws light on the masculine and feminine terminations of the Dravi- dian pronouns of the third person. Still it is unquestionable that the largest amount of assistance towards ascertaining the primitive condi- tion of the Dravidian languages will be afforded by Tamil, and in par- ticular by Shen-Tamil; and this naturally follows from the circum- THE REPEESENTATIVE DIALECT. 8 I stance that of all the Dravidian idioms Tamil appears to have been the earliest cultivated. (1.) Literary, classical dialects of the Dravidian Languages : To what extent may they he regarded as representing the primitive condition of those Languages ? It is a remarkable peculiarity of the Indian languages that, as soon as they begin to be cultivated, the literary style evinces a tendency to become a literary dialect distinct from the dialect of common life, with a grammar and vocabulary of its own. This is equally characteristic 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 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., th^ speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero testify. When we call those languages dead, we merely mean to describe them as the speech of the dead past, not that of the living present. Sanskrit cannot properly be called a dead language in this sense. Probably it was never the actual, every- day speech of any portion of the Aryans of India at any period of their history, however remote. Its name Sam.skrita, the elaborated or deve- loped speech, illustrates its origin. It was the language not of any race or district, but of a class — the class of bards and priests, the lite- rary men of the first ages ; or rather it was the language of literature ; and as literary culture made progress, the language of literature became ever more copious, euphonious, and refined. If life means growth, and if growth means change, Sanskrit must be regarded as having for a long period been, not a dead, but a living tongue ; though it must be admitted that it changed slowly, like everything else in India — more slowly, doubtless, than the colloquial dialects. The Sanskrit of the Puranas differed from the Sanskrit of the Vedas ; and in the Vedas 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 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 / 82 INTRODUCTION. the most orthodox vehicle for the expression of every variety of ortho- dox thought. " The great reformer Buddha, in the sixth century before Christ, adopted the popular speech as the vehicle of his teachings ; his suc- cessors were infected with an unbounded cacoethes scribendi, and have left behind a literature of enormous extent. Here again, however, the fatal mistake common to all Indian writers was committed. 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 the vulgar living tongue of the people. In the present day we see the same process going on in Bengal. Few Bengali writers, save those whose minds have been to some extent moulded on English models of thought and feeling, are content to write 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, 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 Kesava'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 Malayilam 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 any special name. It is regarded by native Telugu scholars as differing from ordinary Telugu only in being purer and more elevated. The most appropriate name for any of the literary dialects, as it appears to me, is that by which the higher dialect of Tamil is designated. It is called Shen-Tamil (Sen-Damir) — that is, classical or correct Tamil, literally * straight Tamil,' by which name it is meant to be distinguished not THE EEPRESENTATIVE DIALECT. 83 merely from the colloquial Tamil of tlie masses, but still more from certain rude local dialects, said to be twelve in number, mentioned by the grammarians by name, and included under the generic designation of Kodun-Damir — that is literally, ' crooked Tamil.' The name ordinarily given by Europeans to the literary dialect of Tamil is ' High Tamil ;' and 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 is a sense in which each of these literary dialects may be described as ' old,' their most essential characteristic is the extraordinary amount of polish and refinement they have received. Classical Tamil bears nearly 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 the modern Gaurian vernaculars. Even at the time the oldest extant High Tamil compositions were written, there was probably almost as wide a difference between the language of the vulgar and that affected by the literati as there is at present. It is inconceivable that so elaborately refined and euphonised a style of language as that of the 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 j but forms that had come to be regarded as vulgar by the time that literary culture had commenced (no matter how great their anti- quity), seem to have been systematically rejected. The speech of the masses may therefore contain forms and words as old as, or even older than, the corresponding forms and words of the literature ; and yet there is an important difference between the two to be borne in mind. No argument in favour of the antiquity of a word or form can be founded 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 the grammars and vocabularies of that dialect, proves at least that it was in existence when that dialect was fixed, which certainly cannot have been less than a thousand years ago. There is an additional presumption in favour of its antiquity in the circumstance that all poets, even the earliest, have been accustomed to regard expressions that were considered more or less archaic in their own time, as pecu- liarly suitable to poetical compositions. (2). High antiquity of the literal^ 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 DAvidian comparative grammar, I shall here adduce a few of the evidences on which this conclusion rests. 84 INTRODUCTION. 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 vEneid 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 colloquial 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 intra. 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 antiquity of the literary cultiva- tion of Tamil. 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 of obsolete forms, cast-off inflexions, and curious anomalies. Many of 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 than 58,500 words ; notwithstanding which, it would be neces- sary to add several thousands of technical terms, besides provincialisms, and thousands upon thousands of authorised compounds, in order to render the list complete. Nothing strikes a Tamil scholar more, on examining the dictionaries of the other Dravidian dialects, than the paucity of their lists of synonyms in comparison with those of Tamil. The Tamil vocabulary contains not only those words which may be ANTIQUITY OF THE TAMIL. 85 regarded as appropriate to the language, inasmuch as they are used by- Tamil alone, but also those which may be considered as the property of Telugu, Canarese, &c. Thus, the word used for ' house ' in ordinary Tamil is vidu; but the vocabulary contains also, and occasionally uses, the word appropriate to Telugu, il (Tel. illu), and the distinctive Can- arese word, manei (Can. mana); besides another synonym, Tcudi, which it has in common with Sanskrit and the whole of the Finnish languages. The grammar and vocabulary of Tamil are thus to a con- siderable extent the common repository of Dravidian forms and roots. We may conclude, therefore, that the literary cultivation of Tamil dates from a period prior to that of the other idioms, and not long subsequent to the final breaking up of the language of the ancient Dravidians into dialects. 3. Another evidence of the antiquity and purity of Tamil consists in the agreement of the ancient Canarese, the ancient Malay4|am, the Tulu, and also the Tuda, Gond, and Ku, with Tamil, in many of the particulars in which modern Canarese and modern Telugu differ from it. 4. The fact that in many instances the forms of Telugu roots and inflexions have evidently been softened down from the forms of Tamil, is a strong confirmation of the higher antiquity of the Tamilian forms. Instances of this will be given in the section on the phonetic system of these languages. It will suffice now to adduce, as an illustration of what is meant, the transposition of vowels in the Telugu demonstra- tive pronouns. The true Dravidian demonstrative bases are a, remote, and i, proximate ; to which are suffixed the formatives of the genders, with V euphonic,, to prevent hiatus. The Tamil demonstratives are avan, ille, and ivan, hie. The Telugu masculine formative answering to the Tamil an, is du, udu, or adu ; and hence the demonstratives in • Telugu, answering to the Tamil avan^ ivan^ might be expected to be avadu and ivadu, instead of which we find vdd2i, ille, and vtdu, hie. Here the demonstrative bases a and i have shifted from their natural position at the beginning of the word to the middle, whilst by coales- cing with the vowel of the formative, or as a compensation for its loss, their quantity has been increased. The altered, abnormal form of the Telugu is evidently the later one ; but as even the high dialect of the 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 Tamil. • S6 INTRODUCTION. 5. Another evidence of antiquity consists in the great corruption of many of the Sanskrit tadhhavas 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 S'aiva-Siddh^nta, or that of the philosophy of the Agamas, the most popular system amongst the Tamil Sudras, the school of S'ankara Acharya, the apostle of Advaita, and the chief rival of 'both, the school of S'ri Vaishnava, founded by Rjimanuja 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., 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 Chintamani, and the classical vocabularies and grammars were written. The Sanskrit derivatives found in the writings of this period are very considerably altered, so as to accord with Tamil euphonic rules. Thus Idha, Sans, the world, is changed into ulagu ; rdj'd, a king, into a^^asu. Nearly the whole of the Sanskrit derivatives found in Telugu, Ca- narese, and MalayMam belong to the periods now mentioned, or at least they accord on the whole with the derivatives found in the Tamil * 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 and zeal of the adherents of the Saiva-Siddh^nta 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 ^aiva 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. 8/ of those two periods, especially the former or more recent. 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 with it — i.e., words which are identical with Sanskrit — and tad-hhava, of the same nature with it = derived from it — i.e., words which are derived from a Sanskrit origin, but have been more or less corrupted or changed by local influences. The former class, or tatsama words, are scarcely at all altered, and generally look like words which have been used only by Brahmans, or which had been introduced into the vernaculars at a period when the Sanskrit alphabetical and phonetic systems had become naturalised, through the predominance of the later forms of Hinduism. Sanskrit derivatives of the second class which have been altered more considerably, or tadhhava words, do not appear to have been borrowed direct from Sanskrit, but are represented by Telugu and Canarese grammarians themselves as words that have been borrowed from the Prakrits, or colloquial dialects of the Sanskrit, spoken in ancient times in the contiguous Gaura provinces. (3.) In addition to the Sanskrit tatsama and tadhhava derivatives of the two periods now mentioned — the modern Vedantic, Saiva, and Vaishnava periods, and the Jaina period — Tamil contains many deriva- tives belonging to the very earliest period of the literary culture of the language — derivatives which are probably of an earlier date than the introduction of Sanskrit into the other dialects. The derivatives of this class were not borrowed from the northern Prakrits (though much more corrupted than even the derivatives borrowed from those Prakrits by Canarese and Telugu), but appear to have been derived from oral intercourse with the first Brahmanical priests, scholars, and astrologers, and probably remained unwritten for a considerable time. The San- skrit of this period is not only greatly more corrupted than that of the 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 Sanskrit of the period now under consideration — the earliest period — the changes that have been introduced seem to be in utter defiance of rule. The following are instances of derivatives of this class : (a.) The Sans, ir^, sacred, was altered into tiru, whilst a more recent alteration of the Sanskrit word is into sirt, sirt, and si. (b.) The Sans, karman, a work, is in the Tamil of the more modern periods altered into karumam and hanmam; but in the older Tamil it was corrupted into Jcam. (c.) Several of the names of the Tamil months supply us with illu- 8S INTEODUCTION. strations of early corruptions of Sanskrit. The Tamil months, though 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. J^'.g., the asterism pilrva-dshddani, is changed into pitrddam : ashddam, also, is changed into ddam, from which is formed ddi, the Tamil name of the month July — August. The name of the asterism asvint has been corrupted into eippasi, which is the Tamil name of the month October — November. The change of pHrva hhadra-pada, the Sanskrit name of one of the asterisms, into 'purattdsi is still more extraordinary. PHrva-hhadra-pada was first changed into pitraftddi, the name of the corresponding asterism in Tamil ; and this, again, by the shortening of the first syllable and the change of di into si, became purattdsi, the Tamil month September — October. 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 be inferred from Tamil inscriptions. In Karnataka and Teling^na, 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 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 I 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 P^ndyan 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 Dra- vida Brahmans ; those of an earlier age either in an old form of the existing Tamil character,* or in a still older character, which appears to * I have long hoped at some period to make public the items of information contained in those inscriptions, not one of which is included in the inscriptions 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 ANTIQUITY OF THE TAMIL. 89 Lave been common to tlie Tamil and the ancient Malayalam countries, and is the character in which the ancient sdsanas 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 plurals (e.g., ningal, yous, instead of ntr, 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 inscription of any antiquity in Teling^na or Karn^taka 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 its national independence to a considerable extent, may fairly be concluded. I may here remark that the Cochin and Travancore sdsanas or tablets which are referred to above, and which have been translated by Dr Gundert, prove amongst other things the substantial identity of ancient MalayMam with ancient Tamil. The date of these documents is pro- bably not later than the ninth century a.d., nor earlier than the seventh ; f for the technical terms of solar- siderial chronology (derived from the Surya-Siddh^nta of Arya-bhatta) which are employed in these the long lists of kings of Madura, each with a high-sounding Sanskrit name, which are contained in the local Purdnas and other legends, and which have been pub- 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- racy of most of the references to the P^ndya and Chdla dynasties contained in the MahS,-wanso and other historical records and compilations of the Singhalese Buddhists. 3. The fact, or proof of the fact, of the subjection of the whole of the P^ndya country, including South Travancore, to the Cholas in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. 4. The probable identification of Sundara Pandya, by whom the Jainas (sometimes erroneously termed Buddhists) were finally expelled from Madura, and whom Professor Wilson has placed in the eighth or ninth century A.D., with the * Sender Bandi,' who is said by Marco Polo to have been reigning in the southern part of the peninsula during his visit to India in the end of the thirteenth century. The same Sundara P^ndya is placed by native Hindbi6vuv {KcLvbmctiv is evidently an error) — the Paiidya king and people. This name is, as we have seen, of San- skrit origin, and Pandse, the form which Pliny, after Megasthenes, gives in his list of Indian nations, comes very near the Sanskrit. The more recent local information of Pliny himself, as well as the notices of EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 95 Ptolemy and the Periplus, supply us with the Dravidian form of the word. The Tamil sign of the masculine singular is an, and Tamil inserts i euphonically after nd, consequently Iia\tbiuiv, and still better, the plural form of the word Tlccvhong faithfully represents the Tamil masculine singular P^ndiyan. Ptolemy is quite correct in giving the same name to the people and their prince. The people were P^ndyas, the prince the PUndya, or the P^ndya-d6va. The form of the mas- culine singular in ancient Canarese, corresponding to the Tamil an, is am ; in Telugu it is udu, so that P^ndiyudu in Telugu answers to Pandiyan in Tamil. Consequently we learn, that as early as the Christian era, Tamil diflfered dialectically from the other Dravidian 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- sion Mobov^a (3a6/Xsiov Uaydiovig that the PSndyas had transferred their capital from Kolkei on the Tamraparni to Madura on the Veigei (or Veghavati) before the Christian era. Modovsa itself (in Pliny Modura) is the Sanskrit Mathura, pronounced in the Tamil manner. The cor- responding city in Northern India, Muttra, is written by the Greeks (2.) 6 Kyiso(36dpog. The prince called by this name by Ptolemy is called K»37rflo/3oV^o; by the author of the Periplus. The insertion of T is clearly an error, but more likely to be an error of a copyist than that of the author, who himself had visited the territories of the prince in question. He is called Cselobothras in Pliny's text, but one of the MSS. gives it more correctly as Celobotras. The name in Sanskrit, and in full, is Keralaputra, but both Kera and Kela are Dravidian abbreviations of Kerala. They are Malayalam, however, not Tamil abbreviations ; and the district over which Keralaputra ruled is that in which the Malayalam language is now spoken. (3.) ^ojoai vofji^ads; — 'Apkoltov fSao/Xsiov ^ujoa — '^ OoQcvoa ^affiXsiov 2w» myoi — HaPuXla ^uorjrojv (or ^oo^r/w) ; also UasaXia TuPiyyuv (which should evidently have been Sw^/y/wi', seeing that it included the mouth of the river Xa^ri^og). Without entering here on any minute topographical discussions with regard to details, it seems evident to me that the word Sw^a, which we meet alone and in various combina- tions in these notices, represents the name of the northern portion of the Tamilian nation. This name is Chola in Sanskrit, Chola in Telugu; but in Tamil Sora or Chora. 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 Soras, but also as Soragas and Soi'iyas, and ^en as Sdringas ; their country also is called Soragam. The r of the Tamil word Sdra is a peculiar sound, not g6 INTRODUCTION. contained in Telugu, in which it is generally represented by d, nor in Sanskrit and Pali, in which it is represented by d or I. The translitera- tion of this letter by the Greeks as ^ seems to show that then, as now, the use of this peculiar r was a dialectic peculiarity of Tamil. The Indian equivalent of the name of the king Sornax has not survived (as those of 6 Uavdiuv and 6 Kr}po^6d^o; 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 S6ras was Ureiyur (pronounced Oreiytir), we may safely identify this name with Ptolemy's "Ophv^a, the capital of the liaoa'h'ia iMPYiruiv. (4.) 'AfxaroD (SccgiXtiov 2wea. "A^xarof is here represented, not as a country, people, or city, but as the name of a prince. As General Cunningham has pointed out, Swoa is represented as the name of a city, where a king called "A^Karog 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 2i!;oa is identical with that of the people of the district, whom Ptolemy himself calls Sw^a/ vofiadsg, and "A^xaroj 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 inhaMtants of that part of the Chola or S6ra 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 mentioned by Ibn Batuta. The 'name is properly dr'-Md', Tarn, the six forests, and the Hindus of the place regard it as an ancient city, though not mentioned by name in the Puranas, and point out the * six 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 Md' is Mtf, and the word ordinarily used in Telugu for forest is not Md\ but adavi or atavi. (5.) Kdoov^a iSaffiXiio]) KrjooScdpov. Karur is mentioned in Tamil traditions as the ancient capital of the Ch^ra, Kera, or Kerala kings, and is generally identified with Karur, an important town in the Coim- batore district, originally included in the Chera kingdom. KarHr means the black town, and I consider it identical with Kdragam and Kaddram, names of places which I have frequently found in inscrip- tions in the Tamil country, and which are evidently the poetical equivalents of Karitr. The meaning of each of the names is the EARLIEST TEACES OF THE DEAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 97 same. Ptolemy's word Kcloovoa represents the Tamil name of the place with perfect accuracy ; kar means black, and ilr (sometimes pro- nounced itr-u), a town. Neither of these words seems to have altered in the least in sound or signification for 1800 years. (6.) Modogalingam nomine, Pliny. I have already, in p. 32, dis- cussed the meaning of this name. I add here that if modo be regarded as a Telugu word, meaning three, we have here an interesting illustra- tion of the antiquity of Dravidian dialectic peculiarities ; for three is in Telugu mddu, in Tamil mUtidru, in Canarese mUru, in Tulu milji. (7.) Damirice, and also Scytia Dymirice, Peutinger Tables ; Dimi- 7'ica, in the Bavenna Cosmography, see p. 14. The Dymir of Dymi- rice was supposed by Dr Burnell to represent the word Tamir, and if so, 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^/ax>j, and it seems pro- bable that this was the district to which the name of Aryaka was given by Varaha-mihira several centuries afterwards {Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. v.) It appears probable, therefore, that the difference 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 know from other sources of information have always been inhabited by Aryans and Dravidians respectively. (8.) I content myself with simply noting the following names of places on the Malabar coast. Movt^iPig appears to be the Muyiri of Muyiri-cotta j Tvvdig is Tundi ; and the Kynda of Nelkynda (or as Ptolemy has it MiX-Kvvda, i.e., probably Western Kynda) seems to be Kannettri, the southern boundary of Kerala proper. One MS. of Pliny writes the 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 indebted to Dr Burnell. (9.) Cottonara, Pliny ; Korrovae/x^, Perip. ; the district where the best pepper was produced. It is singular that this district was not mentioned by Ptolemy. Cottonara was evidently the name of the district ; TLorrovdoiKov^ the name of the pepper for which the district was famous. Dr Buchanan identifies Cottonara with Kadatta-nMu, the name of a district in the Calicut country celebrated for its pepper. Dr Burnell identifies it with Kolatta-nadu, the district about Telli- cherry, which he says is the pepper district. Jcadatta, in Malayalam, means transport, conveyance; nddu, Tam.-Mal., means a district. (10.) Sa'tyaga. The author of the " Periplus " calls by this name the canoes formed out of gingle trees, in which pepper was brought from Cottonara to Barace. The Malayalam name of these boats is 9 98 INTEODUCTION. changddam^ Tulu jangdla. Compare Sanskrit samghddam, a raft. I have never been able to explain xoXa\/di6(pojvTa, tlie name of the large vessels that sailed from the western coast to Ceylon and the Ganges. (11.) KoTTidooc. This is the name of a place in the country of the 'A/0/ of Ptolemy, in the UapaXia 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 Komoipa MTjr^oTroX/c, and must have been a place of considerable importance. The. town referred to is probably Kottdr-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 hod-u, Tam.-Mal. a fort, and dr-u, a river. It is a rule both in Tamil and in Malayalam that when a word like kod^ is the first member of a compound, the final d 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 - dt-u becomes by rule K6tt-dT-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. (12.) KoficcPia axpov, Ptol. ; Ko^ticcp, Ko/^aps/, Perip. Cape Comorin has derived its name from the Sanskrit kumdri, a virgin, one of the names of the goddess Durg^, the presiding divinity of the place ; but the shape this word has taken, especially in Kojaao, is distinctively Tamilian. In ordinary Tamil ku7ndrt becomes kumdri; and in the vulgar dialect of the people residing in the neighbourhood of the Cape, a virgin is neither kumdri nor kumdri, but kumdr^ pronounced Mmdr. It is remarkable that this vulgar corruption of 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 Ko,aa^, where there is a ^picIp/ov (probably ^povpiov, a fort; hpov is less likely), and a harbour, where also people come to bathe and purify them- selves, ... for it is related that a goddess was once accustomed to bathe there monthly." This monthly bathing in honour of the goddess Durga is still continued at Cape Comorin, but is not practised 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 the continued encroachments of the sea, the harbour the Greek mari- ners found at Cape Comorin, and the fort (if that were meant) have EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 99 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.) Ila^aXia. There are three Paralias mentioned by the Greeks, two by Ptolemy (the Paralia of the Soreti, and the Paralia properly so called, that of the Toringi), one by the author of the " Periplus." The Paralia mentioned by the latter corresponded to Ptolemy's country of the "A/0/ and that of the Kagso/, that is, to South Travancore and South Tinnevelly. It commenced at the Red Cliffs, south of Quilon, and included not only Cape Comorin, but also KoX^oi, where the pearl fish- ing was carried on, and which belonged to King Pandion. Dr Burnell identifies UasaXla. with Purali, which he states is an old name for Tra- vancore, but I am not quite able to adopt this view. It is true that, if the Greeks found any part of the Travancore coast called Purali, they would naturally proceed to convert that name into a word of their own, bearing an intelligible and appropriate meaning; but, on the other hand, it is not clear that any part of the coast was ever called by that name. Purali is stated by Dr Gundert (" Malayalam Dictionary" in loc.) to be the name of a fort belonging to the old kings of Kdttaya- gam in the interior. Hence PuralUan, lord of Purali, was one of the titles of those kings. This title is now poetically applied to the kings of Travancore ; but it seems probable that it was adopted by them at a comparatively late period, on their gaining possession of the territory to which the title belonged, in the same manner as they adopted the title of Vanji-bhilpati, lord of Vanji, a name of Karur, the ancient Chera or Kerala cjipital. It is also to be remembered that the Paralia of the " Periplus " included not only the coast of South Travancore, but also the coast of Tinnevelly as far as Kolkei. It appears to me, therefore, that Ua^aXia is to be taken as a Greek word, though possibly it may have corresponded in meaning, if not in sound, to some native word meaning coast. This will appear probable from the next item. (14.) 01 Kaoioi . The Carei of Ptolemy inhabited the southern por- tion of Tinnevelly, between Cape Comorin and Kolkei ; consequently their country constituted the eastern portion of the Paralia of the "Periplus." Karei is the Tamil word for coast or shore, from the verbal theme ka7'ei, to be melted down, to be washed away, and is obviously identical in meaning with the Greek UaoaXia. Up to the present time several portions of the Tinnevelly coast (including that part where I have myself lived and laboured for more than thirty years) are called Karei, the coast, or Karei-{ch)chuttru, the coast circuit, and a caste of fishermen further north aife called Kareiydr, coast-people. There can- not be any doubt that the last portion of two names of places men- 100 INTRODUCTION. tioned by Ptolemy represents the Tamil Jcarei^ coast^ viz., KaXataa^lag and TLspiyxa^sT. If the latter word had been written Us^wyx-apsT, it would have been perfectly accurate Tamil, letter for letter. The mean- ing is great shore ; and perum, great, becomes perung before Ic by rule. perum itself, instead of peru, is a distinctively classical form. (15.) ri lu'kriv. 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 Kav^ri, and it entered the sea south of Ko'Xp/o/, the emporium of the pearl trade, which was certainly at the mouth of the Tamraparni. It is diffi- cult, however, to explain how it came to be called Sw?.^!/. This word means in Greek a shell-fish, a mussel ; and it seems uncertain whether the Greeks 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, then as now, carried on at its mouth. The name by which the river seems always to have been called in India is Tamra- parni, a name which bears no resemblance whatever to Solen. In Tamil poetry it is often called the Porunei, which is merely a Tamil- isation of the second portion of its Sanskrit name. Tdmraparnt 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 Mah^-bharata, though whether the passage in which it is mentioned is older than Ptolemy may be regarded as uncertain. The name T4mra-parnl being identical with the oldest name of Ceylon — Tambapanni in P^li, Ta'7r^6(Sav7) 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 Sylaur, erroneously represented in Lassen as the name of the principal tributary of the Tamraparni. This tributary is called the Chitra-nadi, commonly the Chitt^r, which means in Tamil the small river, and it is physically impossible that it ever can have been, as Lassen conjectured, the principal stream, the mountain dis- trict it drains being very much smaller than that which the Tamra- parni drains. (16.) Bi^rriyu). This, according to Ptolemy, was the name of the mountain range in which the '^uXtiv — the Tamraparni — took its rise, in addition to two rivers on the western coast, the Bcco/j and Itfeudoff- TOfMog. The mountain range meant is evidently that of the Southern Ghauts — that is, the range of mountains stretching from the Coim- batore gap to Cape Comorin. The Tamraparni rises in a beautiful conical mountain included in this range, visible from the mouth of the EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIUIAN LANGUAGES. 10 1 river, and visible also from ILoX-xoi, the emporium frequented by the Greeks. Wlien the Greeks asked where the river took its rise, they would naturally be directed to this conspicuous mountain, and on learn- ing its name would naturally give the same name to the whole range. This mountain is commonly called by the English Agastier — that is, the rishi Agastya's hill — Agastya being supposed to have finally retired thither from the world after civilising the Dravidians ; but the true Tamil name of the mountain is Podigei, pronounced Pothigei (the Podi- yam of the poets) or Feria (the greater) Podigei^ in contradistinction to a smaller mountain in the same neighbourhood. The root meaning of podi being ' to cover,' * to conceal,' podigei may have meant * a place of concealment ; ' but, whatever may have been its meaning, it seems to come as near the Greek B/jrr/yw as could be expected. (17.) KoX^oi efM'TTooiov. This place is mentioned both by Ptolemy and by the author of the " Periplus," both of whom agree in represent- ing it as the headquarters of the pearl-fishery, and as belonging to King Pandion. It was the first place east of Cape Comorin frequented by the Greeks, and was situated to the north of the river Solen. It is 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 Gulf of Manaar was called by the Greeks the Colchic Gulf. The Tamil name of the place is almost identical with the Greek. It is Kolkei; and though this is now euphonically pronounced Korkei, through the change of I before k into r by rule, yet it is still pronounced Kolka in Malay alam, and I have found it written Kolkei in an old Tamil inscription in the temple at Trichendoor. Doubtless it was so pronounced in the time of the Greeks, when euphonic refinements could not have advanced very far. Korkei is well known in Tamil traditions as the place where the germs of civil government made their first appear- ance amongst the Tamilians — the government set up in common by the three mythical-patriarchal brothers, Sevan, Soran, and Pdndiyan. Vira-R^ma, the poet-king, one of the later P^ndyas, in a little poem called " Vettri-v^rkei," styles himself Korkei{y)dli — that is, ' ruler of Korkei.' This place is now about three miles inland, but there are abundant traces of its having once stood on the coast^ and I have found the tradition that it was once the seat of the pearl-fishery still surviving amongst its inhabitants. After the sea had retired from KoX^oi, in consequence of the silt deposited by the river, a new emporium arose on the coast, which was much celebrated during the middle ages. This was Kayal (meaning in Tamil ' the lagoon '), the Gael of Marco Polo. (See Colonel Yule's ''Marco Polo," vol. ii.) Kayal in turn became in time too far from the sea for the convenience of trade, and Tuticorin 102 INTRODUCTION. {TUttrulcudi) was raised instead by the Portuguese from the position of a fishing village to that of the most important port on the southern Coromandel coast. The pearl-oyster has nearly disappeared now, I am sorry to say, from the coast, and the staple trade of Tuticorin has long been, not pearls, but cotton. The identification of K6X-)(oi with Kolkei is one of much importance. Being perfectly certain, it helps forward other identifications. Kol in Tamil means 'to slay;' Icei, is 'hand.' The meaning of Kolkei, therefore, is 'the hand of slaughter,' which is an old poetical term in Tamil for ' an army,' ' a camp,' the first instrument of government in a rude age. In so far as the two words included in this name are concerned, the Tamil language does not seem to have altered in the slightest from that day to this. The junction of the words has been euphonised, but the words themselves remain the same. (18.) Kw^y. Ptolemy describes Kw^u 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 E^m^svaram, a long narrow island terminating in a long spit of land. The bay between Point Calymere and the island of Eamesvaram is called ' Eama's bow,' and each end is called Dhanu Mti, ' the tip of the bow,' or simply Jcdti (in Tamil Jcddi), ' the tip,' * end,' or * corner.' The most celebrated of the two Jcodis was that at Elira^s- varam, and this word kodi would naturally take the form of Jcori or Mru. The ease with which this change might take place is shown by the fact that it is this very word koti which is meant when we speak of the high number called by the English a crore. It is remarkable that the Portuguese, without knowing anything about the Kwpu of the Greeks, called the same spit of land Cape Eamanacor^i, (19.) KaXXr/ixov. According to Ptolemy, Kupv, the Eamesvaram spit of land, was also called KaXXiymov, but it seems probable that he was mistaken in this identification, and that we are to understand by KaXXiyiTiov the promontory called Calingon by Pliny, by which it appears to me that Point Calymere was meant. The circumstance that there were two places called Ku^v — 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 Koj^v as also called KaXX/y/xoV. The Tamil name of Point Calymere is Kalli-medu, — that is, ' the euphorbia eminence,' — and it seems probable that the Greek KaXki and the Tamil Jcalli are identical. (20.) KuXig. In the various Greek and Eoman geographers prior to the time of Ptolemy, the name KwX/; occupies an important place. It appears first (in the shape of an appellative) in Strabo, who speaks EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. IO3 of Ceylon as seven clays' sail from the southernmost part of India, the inhabitants of which he calls Kw>./a/co/ ; but it is probable that Strabo herein follows Onesicritus, a writer ,three centuries older, who repre- sented Ceylon (Taprobane) as twenty days' sail from the same place. Pomponius Mela 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 and it there was a shallow coral sea. Dionysius Periegetes, who brings KuiXig into greater prominence than any other writer, transfers to it (by a poetical licence) the description of Aornis near the Indus, given by the writers of Alexander's period, and gives to Ceylon itself a name which seems to be derived from KuiXig — viz., JLuXiag. In Ptolemy KuXfg disappears, and Kcoov, a name previously unknown, comes up instead. I have no doubt that the words KuXig and Kupv are iden- tical, and that the places denoted by these names were one and the same — viz., the island-promontory of P^m^svaram, 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 KwX/j with Cape Comorin, as the southern- most point of India; but in the times preceding Ptolemy (e.ff., in the "Peutinger Tables") what we now call Cape Comorin was not known to be a cape ; and the Cape Comorin of the period (that is, wliat was supposed to be the southernmost point of the Indian continent) was Koti, or Pamesvaram, the point from which the passage to Ceylon (Rama's or Adam's bridge, the Ma'bar of the Arabians) was most easily made. I do not consider KoJXig a corruption of Kuyj. On the contrary, I regard both names as equally representing the same word. Kdti, ' 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 island of REimesvaram. Pomponius Mela regarded it as an ' angulus,' not of that bay merely, but of India, viewed as a whole. He supposed it to be the termination towards the east of the southern coast, which extended thus far in a straight line nearly due east and west from the Indus ! K&X/-g seems to me somewhat nearer the Indian original Koti or Kddi, than K%y ; and the change of the Sanskrit d into the Tamilian r or I, we have already seen exemplified in the change of the d of Dravid into the r or I of Tamir or Tamil. (21.) Main, quorum Mons Maleus ; Pliny. This mountain seems to have been to the north of the country of the Calingas, and General Cunningham identifies it with Mahendra Male in Ganjam. It is difficult to determine the situation of the places in India mentioned in Pliny ; but it seems certain that, wherever the Mons Maleus may 104 INTRODUCTION. have been, its name embodied the well-known Dravidian word (which we see also in the Sanskrit Malaya) malei, ' a mountain.' The name of the people was probably derived from the same word, and signified, like the Tamil maleiyar and the K^jmah^l Mdler or Malcr, ' moun- taineers.' (22.) It may be noticed that the rendering of the Sanskrit Buddha by Clemens Alexandrinus as Bourra, and his rendering of the Sanskrit sramana (Buddhistic ascetics) by l.i[Lvoi, accord better with the Tamil forms of these words {Putta and ^amana) than with the Sanskrit originals. (23.) It is remarkable how many names of places in Southern India mentioned by Ptolemy end in oxjo or ovoa, '■ town.' There are twenty- three such places in all. The following are examples : — SaAou^, Ko^s- oypa, Hobo'TTS^ovoa, HccXovpcc, 'Agg/x/Soiii', MayouP, MatiriTTOus, K.ooivdtQ-JP. In addition to these there is Ka^o-j^a mentioned already. It is scarcely possible to doubt that Uobo'^TSPouoa means pudu-per-ilr, 'new great- town;' or UaXoupu, pdl-Hr, 'milk-town.' Probably a letter or two in the rest may have been changed, so that we cannot be quite certain what they meant, except the places should be identified, which has not yet been done ; but they sound wonderfully Tamil-like. The conjunc- tions of consonants {nt, nd, mh, tt) 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. M6h\}pa, Madura, is a Sanskrit word ; so also is TLavbim, the king's name. Xd^i>}^og, ' the yellow river,' the Kavert, is claimed by Sanskrit, though possibly Dravidian. There is no doubt that JLofidpia, Cape Comorin, is Sanskrit ; and probably Kojpv is Sanskrit also. Ptolemy says that Brahmans (Boap/.aam/ Mayo/) dwelt in the country under the mountain Byjrriyuij smd as far as the country of the Baro/ — sv oJs itoKk; rjds, Bpdy^fLYi. Can this B^d')(^(i7i be Brahmadesara, 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 1 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 — MaXs, 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 crarai/a, ' town,' a word which, though found in Sanskrit, is, I think, EARLIEST TRACES OF THE DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGES. 1 05 Dravidian origin ; and of these, one (Uovbo'Trdirava) gives us the distinctively Tamil vrord pudu, new. There is still on the same coast a town called by this name, which, like many other ^ Newtons,^ must be a town of considerable antiquity, seeing that it has long been regarded by native authorities as the northern boundary of Kerala proper and of true Kerala usages. This fitaMha of Cosmas is slightly more correct than the 'Koh^i of Ptolemy's <7rodo'7rsoovoa. Colonel Yule (Bombay Antiquary for August 1874) identifies the place with the ' Bodfattan ' of Ibn Batuta, and the ' Peudefitania ' of Nicolo Conti. Though the Greek geographers have not given us any information respecting the languages of India, beyond what little is furnished by the names of places contained in their works, the information derived from those lists is exceedingly interesting. The earliest extant traces of the Dravidian languages which possess reliable authority, are those with which we have been famished 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 tke last two thousand years, but probably also that the principal dialects that now prevail had a 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. The art of writing had probably been introduced, the grammar of the Dravidian languages had been fixed, and some progress made in the art of composition before the arrival of the Greek mer- chants ; '^ and the extraordinary fixity with which those languages * 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 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 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. It may be desirable to mention here the approximate dates of the Greek and Roman geographical writers referred to above. B.C.— Herodotus 420 ; Ctesias 400 ; Onesicritus 325 ; Megasthenes 300. A.D.— Strabo 20; Pomponius Mela 50; Pliny 77 ; Periplus Maris Erythraei 80 ; Dionysius Periegetes 86 ; Ptolemy 130 ; Arrian 150 ; Clemens Alexandriuus 200 ; Eusebius 320 ; Festus Avienus 380 ; Marcian 420 ; Cosmas Indicopleustes 535; Stephen of Byzantium 560; Ravennatis Anonymi Cosmographia, 7th century ; Georgius Syncellus 800 ; Eustathius, the commentator on Dionysius ]"'eriegetes, 12th century ; Uranius, a writer quoted by Stephen of Byzantium, date unknown. The date of the Peutinger Tables is unknown, but an examina- tion of the Asian segment of those tables convinces me that the author could not have had any acquaintance wi|,h Ptolemy, and therefore probably lived at an earlier period. I06 INTRODUCTION. 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 the commencement of their literary cultivation. 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 traced up to the Christian era. Mr Norris says, "I know of nothing written in the Magyar language earlier than the fifteenth century, and of the other Ugrian languages we have nothing above fifty or sixty years old. The great Finnish heroic poem, the ' Kalevala,' may be of any age, but as it appears to have been brought down to us only by word of mouth, it has naturally varied, like all traditional poetry, with the varying forms of the language." The Uigurs or Oriental Turks acquired the art of writing from the j^estorian Christians, the Mongolians from the Uigurs ; so that the literary cultivation of neither of those languages can be compared in poii^ 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 : — Turkish of the Altai. Modern Turkish. Tamil. black, old, chieftain, Icoro, Icori, Mn, quard, gori, khdn, karu. kira. kon, or ko. I am strongly inclined to consider the last Tamil word, kdn or kd, to be identical with the kdn, khdn, or klidgan of the Turko-Mongolian languages. The Ostiak, an Ugrian dialect, has khon. In the old Tamil inscriptions I have invariably found kd or kdn instead of the Sanskrit rdjd : but the word has become obsolete in modern Tamil, except in compounds, and in the honorific caste title kdn, assumed by shepherds. This conjunction of meanings (king and shepherd) is very interesting, and reminds one of the Homeric description of kings as rroifihig Xauv. The Tamil literature now extant enables us to ascend, in 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. Beyond that period, the compari- son of existing dialects is our only available guide to a knowledge of EELATION OF DEAVIDIANS 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 Celtic, the Old High and the Old Low dialects of Teutonic, and the Finnish and Magyar dialects of Ugrian, had probably become sepa- rate 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 condition of the Dravidian languages before the Dravidians had finally abandoned their original abodes in the central tracts of Asia. Political and Social Eelation of the Primitive Dravidians to THE Aryan and Prje- Aryan Inhabitants of Northern India. The arrival of the Dravidians in India must have been anterior to the arrival of the Aryans, but there is some difficulty in determining whether the Dravidians were identical with the aborigines whom the Aryans found in possession of the northern provinces, and to whom the vernacular languages of Northern India are supposed to be indebted for the non-Sanskritic elements they contain, or whether they were a distinct and more ancient race. The question may be put thus : — Were the Dravidians identical with the Dasyus, by whom the progress of the Aryans was disputed, and who were finally subdued and incorporated with the Aryan race as their serfs and dependents 1 or were they a race unknown to the Aryans of tj^e first age, which had already left, or been expelled from. Northern India, and migrated southwards towards the I08 INTRODUCTION. extremity of the peninsula before the Aryans arrived? This question of the relation of the Dravidians to the Aryanised aborigines of Nor- thern India is confessedly involved in obscurity, and can be settled only by a more thorough investigation than any that has yet been made of the relation of the Dra vidian 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 JNTorth-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 prse-historic irruption of another race. Some inquirers have held the identity of the Dravidixans with the primitive Sudras ; and something may be said in support of this hypothesis. I am not competent to pronounce a decided opinion on a point which lies so far beyond my own 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 Sudras 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 never expelled by the Aryans. Neither the subjugation of the Cholas, 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 Pandyas, Cholas, Keralas, 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 Gondvana and Dandak^ranya — the great Dravidian forest — prior to the dawn of their civilisation, the tribes that subdued and thrust them southwards must have been prse- Aryans. Those, prse- Aryan Scythians, by whom I have been supposing the RELATION OF DEAVIDIANS TO NORTH INDIANS. 109 Dravidians to have been expelled from the northern provinces, are not , to be confounded with the Kols, Santals, Bhtls, Doms, and other abori-s»/ ginal tribes of the North. Possibly these tribes had fled into the for- ests from the Dravidians prior to the prae- 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 BhM^n 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 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- rian languages. The tribes of Northern India whom the Aryans gran dually incorporated in their community, as S'udras, whoever they were, must have been an organised and formidable race. They may have been identical with the '■ ^Ethiopians from the East,' who, according to v Herodotus, were brigaded with other Indians in the army of Xerxes, and who differed from other ^Ethiopians in being ' straight-haired.' I admit that there is a diflSculty in supposing that the Dravidians, who have proved themselves superior to the Aryanised Sudras of Nor- thern India in mental power, independence, and patriotic feeling, should have been expelled from their original possessions by an irrup- tion of the ancestors of those very Sudras. It is to be remembered, however, that the lapse of time may have effected a great change in the warlike, hungry, Scythian hordes that rushed down upon 'the first Dravidian settlements. It is also to be remembered that the dependent and almost servile position to which this secondary race of Scythians, was early reduced by the Aryans, whilst the more distant Dravidians were enjoying freedom and independence, may have materially altered their original character. It is not therefore so improbable as it might at first sight appear, that after the Dravidians had been driven across the Vindhyas into the Dekhan by a newer race of Scythians, this new race, conquered in its turn by the Aryans and reduced to a dependent position, soon sank beneath the level of the tribes which it had ex- pelled ; whilst the Dravidians, retaining their independence in the southern forests into which they were driven, and submitting eventually to the Aryans, not as conquerors, but as colonists and instructors, gra- dually rose in the social scale, and formed communities and states in the extreme South, rivalling those of the Aryans in the North.* • — — ■ * DeTchan is a corruption of the Sanskrit dakshina, the south, literally, the no INTRODUCTION. Mr Curzon {Journal of the Royal Asiatic Societu, vol. xvi.) attempted to meet the difficulty I heave stated by supposing that the Tamilians were never in possession of Arya-varta, 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 G6nds and Kus are Dravidian equally with Tamil itself ; that the Oraon and the R^jmahM are also substantially Dravidian ; and that Brahui partakes so largely of tlie same character (not to speak of the language of the Scythic tablets 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 Ttvdrs, islanders) and the Iravars, Singhalese (from Iram, Ceylon, a word which appears to have been corrupted from the Sanskrit Simhalam, or rather from the Pali Sihalam, by the omission of the initial s), both of them Travancore castes, are certainly immigrants from Ceylon; but these and similar immigrants are not to be con" sidered as Singhalese, in the proper sense of the term, but as off- shoots 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 (Sdlis, Pdndis, and other Damilos — i.e., Cholas, Pandyas, and other Tamilians) frequently invaded Ceylon, as we are informed by the Maha-wanso, both before and subsequently to the Christian era. 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 pHrva, 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 vd^ei), which is probably connected with vdd-u, to wither — the north wind being regarded by Tamilians with as much dread as the south wind (mythologically the car of Kdma, 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 ; ' the West, the region of the Ghauts, ' upward.' The cocoa- nut, tennei, Tam. seems to mean 'the southern tree,' this tree having been brought, according to tradition, from Ceylon. IVJr C. P. Brown derives tenkdya, cocoa-nut, from tenTci, covert, shell, and kdya (Tam. kdy), fruit. USE OF THE TERM ' S'UDRA/ 1 1 1 On several occasions tliey acquired supreme power, and at length per- manently occupied the northern provinces of the island. There is no direct affinity, however, between the Singhalese language — the language of the Singhalese, properly so-called, who appear to have been colonists from Magadha — and the language of the Tamilians ; nor is there any reason for supposing that the natural course of migration (viz., from the mainland to the island) was ever inverted to such a degree as to justify the supposition that the whole mass of Dra vidians entered India from Ceylon. Dr Gundert's suggestion, mentioned in p. 24, is better capable of being defended than Mr Curzon's, but is also, as it appears to me, encumbered with greater difficulties than the ordinary theory. Oeiginal Use and Pkogressive Extension of the Term 'S'touA.' The mass of the Dravidians are now so commonly designated S'tldras, especially by Brahmans and those Europeans who take their caste nomen- clature from Brahmans, and the Dravidians themselves are so generally content to be called by this name, that it cannot but be regarded as a remarkable circumstance that they were originally designated, without distinction or exception, as Kshatriyas, by the highest and most ancient authorities in such matters — viz., Manu and the Mah^-bharata. The references will be found in Muir's 'Sanskrit Texts,' vols, i., ii., in which will also be found extracts from various genealogical lists in which the Dravidians are represented to be the descendants of Kshatriya princes. It is true that they are represented also as having fallen from the rank of Kshatriyas into the condition of vrishalas, * outca sts or Sudras,' by the neglect of Brahmanical rites; but this does not affect the statement made regarding what was supposed to have been their original condition. However remarkable this state- ment may be, in consequence of its contrariety to more modern ideas, its ethnological value must be admitted to be very small, seeing that not only are the S'akas, a Scythian race, and the Chinas, or Chinese, of all Mongolians the most Mongolian, described as originally Kshat- riyas, equally with the Dravidians, but both they and the Dravidians are placed in the same category with the Yavanas or Greeks, of all Aryans the most normally Aryan. Perhaps the chief value of the statement consists in the proof it furnishes that the Dra vidian inhabi- tants of the southern part of the peninsula were regarded from the earliest times as occupying a very different position from that attri- buted to the Nishadas and other rude forest tribes (some of whom- at least seem to have been^equally Dravidians in origin) inhabiting the forests and hilly ranges in Central India, and occasionally disturbing 1 1 2 INTRODUCTION. the contemplations and interrupting the sacrifices of holy risliis. The latter are generally described as vile sinners, as ugly and uncouth as they -were savage. Possibly also vi^hen we read of the r^khasas 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 Pandyas, Cholas, and other Dravidian races were represented at the same time as having been originally, not r^kshasas or monkeys, but Kshatriyas, 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 ' S'Mra,' which is now the common appellation of the mass of the inhabitants of India, whether Gaurians 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 2vd§og on the lower Indus ; and especially in that of the nations of the ^vdsoi in Northern Arachosia. He supposes them to have been, with the Abhiras and Nish^das, 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 S udras having been the first tribe that was reduced by the Aryans to a dependent condition, that the name ' S'udra ' was afterwards, on the conquest of the aborigines in the interior part of the country, extended to all the servile classes. Whatever may have been the origin of the name ' S'udra,' 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 'Ml^chcha' 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 S'fidras, 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- tion, I am unable to assent to the universality of this. It seems to me to be probable that a considerable proportion of the servants, dependents, or followers of the Aryans belonged from the first to the Aryan race. As the Slavonian serfs are Slavonians, and the Magyar USE OF THE TERM S UDRA. 113 serfs Magyars, there is no improbability in the supposition tliat a large! j number of the Aryan serfs or S'tldras (perhaps at the outset the major- \ ity) were Aryans ; and I cannot on any other supposition account for ) tlie 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 S'fidras, 1 seems also most in accordance with the very old mythological state- i ment of the origin of the Sudras from Purusha's or Brahma's feet ; for though the Br^hmans, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, the twice-born classes,*] /^. JoUA are represented as springing from more honourable parts of the body,! / J JL yet the S'tidras are represented to have sprung from the same divinity , | ^ ^ though from an ignoble part; whereas the Nishadas, or barbarian! Av^Wt^ aborigines, are not represented to have sprung from Brahma at all,) fyt^^^^^tJi but formed what was called in later times a ' fifth class,' totally uncon- nected with the others. It appears probable from this mythological tradition that the S'tidras were supposed in the first ages to differ from the 'twice-born ' Aryans in rank only, not in blood. I regard as con- firmatory of this view the statement of Manu that * all who become^ outcasts are called Dasyus, whether they speak the language of the Ml^chchas or that of the Aryans : ' for in the same manner, all who enjoyed the protection of the Aryans, as their dependents and servants, would naturally receive a common appellation, probably that of S'Udras, — whether, as aborigines, they spoke ' the language of Ml^ch- chas,'(the non-Aryan vernacular,) or whether, as Aryans of an inferior rank in life, they spoke 'the language of Aryans, '(a colloquial dialect of Sanskritj, It is true that the three twice-born castes alone are called Aryans by the S'atapatha-Brahraana of the Rigveda: but as 'the four classes,' including the Sudras, but excluding the Dasyus and NishMas, are. distinctly referred to in the Vedic hymns; as outcast Aryans are styled ' Dasyus ' by Manu ; and as the higher classes of the Tamilians monopolise the national name in this very manner, and pretend that the lower classes of their race are not Tamilians, I think that we may safely attribute the statement in question (in part, at least) to the pride of ' the twice-born.' Even the Vr^tyas, who are distinguished from the S'tidras, and are regarded as an inferior class, did not differ from the Br^hmans in language, and must, therefore, have been Aryans. The aboriginal non- Aryan inhabitants of India seem to have been' subdued, and transformed from Dasyus and Mlechchas into S'tidras, by slow degrees. In the age of Manu, they retained their independence and the appellation of ' Mlechchas ' in Bengal, Orissa, and the Dekhan ; but in the earlier period re^rred to in some of the historic legends of the Mah^-bh^rata, we find the Mlechchas and Dasyus disputing the h 114 INTKODUCTION. possession of Upper India itself with tlie Aryans. Sagara, the thirty- fifth king of the Solar dynasty, is related to have laboured in vain to subdue the heterodox aborigines residing on or near his frontier : and in the reign preceding his, in conjunctioiy^with certain tribes connected with the Lunar line, those aborigines had succeeded in overrunning his territories.* V The introduction of the Dravidians wifthin the pale of Hinduism appears to have originated, not in conquest, but in the peaceable pro- cess of colonisation and progressive civilisation. There is no tradition extant of a 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 survived. All existing traditions, and the names by which the Brahmanical race is distinguished in Tamil — viz., Eiyar, fathers, instructors, and Pdrpjydr, overseers (probably the iiriGxo'Trot of Arrian) — -tend to show that the Brahmans acquired their ascendafTcy'by their intelligence and their administrative skill. * Sagara, finding himself 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 had been accus- tomed. One of those marks is worthy of notice in an inquiry into the relations of the early Dravidians. "The P^radas," it is recorded, ''wore their hair long in obedience to his commands." Professor Wilson observes, with reference to this statement (in his notes on the Vishnu Purdna), " 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 more primitive castes in the southern provinces of the Tamil country, and of some of the castes that occupy a more respectable position in society. In 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 K6tas of the Nilgherry Hills wear their hair in the same manner. The Tudas wear their hair long, but without yf- 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 pictures, Dr Gundert informs me, in the early Portuguese books of voyages, representing the Tivdr and other Malay^lam castes, in which they invariably appear with long hair. The wearing of the hair long appears to have been re- garded by the early Dravidians as a distinctive sign of national independence : whilst the shaving of the hair of the head, with the exception of the sikhd or Jcudumi, the lock at the back of the head, corresponding to the tail of the Chinese, seems to have been considered as a sign of Aryanisation, or submission to Aryan customs, and admission within the pale of Aryan protection. USE OF THE TEEM S'UDRA. II5 The most adventurous immigrations from Northern India to the Dekhan were those of the oifshoots of the Lunar dynasty, a dynasty wl^ich originated from the Solar, and whose chief city Ayodhya, Oude, was the traditional starting point of most of their migrations. The P^ndya kings of Madura were feigned to have sprung from the Lunar line. The title ' Pandya ' is derived, as has already been mentioned, p. 16, from the name of the Pandavas of Northern India, the cele- brated combatants in the great war of the Mah^-bh^rata, to whom every Cyclopean work of unknown antiquity is traditionally ascribed. This derivation of the name of P^ndyas is doubtless correct ; but there is very little reason to suppose that the kings of Madura, by whom this name was assumed, sprang from any of the royal dynasties of Northern India. The marriage of Arjuna to a daughter of the second king of the Pandyan dynasty, whilst on his travels in the South, according to the Mah^-bh^rata, falls far short of proving (what it is sometimes sup- posed to prove) that the Pandya kings were Kshatriyas. Besides, what are we to conclude from Arjuna's abandonment of his Pandyan bride shortly afterwards, according to the same story ? The Aryan immigrants to the South appear to have been generally Br^hmanical priests and instructors, rather than Kshatriya soldiers ; and the kings of the P^ndyas, Choi as, Kalingas, and other Dravidians, appear to have been simply Dravidian chieftains, whom their Br^hmanical preceptors and spiritual directors dignified with Aryan titles, and taught to imi- tate and emulate the grandeur and cultivated tastes of the Solar, Lunar, and Agni-kula races of kings.* In later times we may see the progress * A similar opinion respecting the relation that subsisted between the Aryans and the early Dravidians was expressed by Professor Max Miiller (" Keport of British Association for 1847"). *' Wholly different from the manner in which the BrS,hmanical people overcame the north of India, was the way they adopted of taking possession of and settling in the country south of the Vindhya. They did not enter there in crushing masses with the destroying force of arms, but in the more peaceful way of extensive colonisation, under the protection and counte- nance of the powerful empires in the north. Though sometimes engaged in wars with their neighbouring tribes, these colonies generally have not taken an offen- sive but only a defensive part ; and it appears that, after having introduced Br^hmanical institutions, laws, and religion, especially along the two coasts of the sea, they did not pretend to impose their language upon the much more nume- rous inhabitants of the Dekhan, but that they followed the wiser policy of adopt- ing themselves the language of the aboriginal people, and of conveying through its medium their knowledge and instruction to the minds of uncivilised tribes. In this way they refined' the rude language of the earlier inhabitants, and brought it to a perfection which rivals even the Sanskrit. By these mutual concessions, a much more favourable a^imilation took place between the Aryan and aboriginal race ; and the south of India^ uecame afterwards the last refuge of Brdhmanical science, when it was banished ^rom the north by the intolerant Mahommedans. Il6 INTEODUCTION. of a similar process in Gondvana, where we find that Gond chieftains have learned from their Brahman preceptors, not only to style them- selves R^j^hs, 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 Appendix : Dravidian physical type) shows how the P^ndya and Ch61a chieftains of the South may originally have been Dravidian Poligars {Pdleiyahkdran, the holder of a pdleiyam, a feudal estate), like those of Eamnad and Puducottah 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 the entire mass of the Dravidians were regarded by Manu and the authors of the Mah^-bh^rata and the Puranas as Kshatriyas by birth, it is remarkable that the Br^hmans 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 S'tadra. They might have styled the agricultural classes Vaisyas, and reserved the name of S'tidra for the village servants and the unenslaved low castes ; but acting apparently on the principle that none ought to be called either Kshatriyas or Vaisyas but Aryans, and that the Dravidians were not Aryans, they seem always to have called them Sudras, however respectable their position. In consequence of this the title Sudra conveys a higher meaning in Southern than in Northern India. The primitive S'tidras of Northern India seem to have been slaves to the Aryans, or in a condition but little superior to that of slaves. They seem to have had no property 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 ' S'lidra' was conferred ; and the classes that appeared to be analogous to the servile S'udras of Northern India, were not called ' S'udras, but ' Pallas,' ' Pareiyas,' &c., names which they still retain. The aj^plication of the term * S'udra ' to the ancient Dravidian chieftains, soldiers, and cultivators does not prove that they had ever been reduced by the Br^hmans to a dependent position, or that they ever were slaves — as the northern S'iidras appear It is interesting and important to observe how the beneficial influence of a higher civilisation may be effectually exercised, without forcing the people to give up their own language and to adopt that of their foreign conquerors, a result by which, if successful, every vital principle of an independent and natural develop- ment is necessarily destroyed." PKiE- ARYAN CIVILISATION. 11/ } i to have been — to any class of Aryans. The Br^hraans, who came in * peaceably, and obtained the kingdom by flatteries,' may probably have^jy^^ /3^4u/ persuaded the Dravidians that in calling them S'udras they were con- 7^ ^ L ferring upon them a title of honour. If so, their policy was perfectly .^^^ / successful; for the title of 'S'Adra' has never been resented by the"> y . \ Dravidian castes ; and hence, whilst in Northern India the Sudra ^^j^^^^^x supposed to be a low-caste man, in Southern India he generally ranks '•^^^^ •] next to the Brahman. The term S'^dra, however, is really, as we have \ seen, as inappropriate to any class of Dravidians as the term Kshat- ^ riya or Vaisya. It is better to designate each Dravidian caste simply J by its own name, as Vellalas, Nayakkas, &c., in accordance with the ; usage prevailing amongst the people themselves in each locality, \ without attempting to classify the various castes according to Manu's ; principles of classification, which in reality are quite inapplicable to j them, if not, indeed, equally inapplicable to the castes now existing in \ the north. Pk^-Aryan Civilisation of the Dravidians. Though the primitive Dravidians were probably unacquainted with the higher arts of life, they do not appear to have been by any means a barbarous and degraded people. Whatever may have been the condition of the forest tribes, it cannot be doubted that the Dravidians, properly so called, had acquired at least the elements of civilisation, prior to the arrival amongst them of the Brahmans. If we eliminate from the Tamil language the whole of its Sanskrit derivatives, the primitive Dravidian words that remain will furnish us with a faithful picture of the simple, yet far from savage, life of the non-Aryanised Dravidians. Mr Curzon holds that there is nothing in the shape of a record of the Tamil mind which can recall to us any- thing independent of an obvious Sanskrit origin ; and that^if the con- trary supposition were tenable, we ought to find the remains of a literature embodying some record of a religion different from Hinduism. Traces of the existence amongst the non-Aryanised Dravidians, both ancient and modern, of a religion different from Hinduism, will be pointed out in the Appendix. At present I will merely adduce those records of the primitive Tamil mind, manners, and religion which the ancient vocabularies of the language, when freed from the admixture of Sanskrit, will be found to furnish. From the evidence of the words in use amongst the early Tamilians, we learn the following items of information. They had ' kings,' who dwelt in ' strong houses,^ and ruled over small 'districts of country.' 1 1 8 INTRODUCTION. They had * minstrels/ who recited * songs ' at ' festivals,' and they seem to have had alphabetical ' characters ' written ^yith a style on palmyra 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- ledged the; existence of God, whom they styled Ico, or king — a realistic title little known to orthodox Hindliism. They erected to his honour a ' temple,' which ,they called K^-il, 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 Ceylon, 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 necessary 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 of the higher class. They had no acquaintance with ' sculpture ' or ' architecture ;' with ' astronomy,' or even ' astrology ;' and were igno- rant, not only of every branch of 'philosophy,' but even of 'grammar.' Their undeveloped intellectual condition is especially apparent in words relating to the operations of the mind. Their only words for the ' mind ' were the ' diaphragm ' (the (p^v of the early Greeks), and * the inner parts ' or ' interior.' They had a word for ' thought,' but no word distinct from this for ' memory,' 'judgment,' or ' conscience ; ' and no word for ' will.' To express ' the will ' they would have been obliged to describe it as ' that which in the inner parts says, I am going to do so and so.' This brief illustration, from the primitive Tamil vocabulary, of the social condition of the Dravidians, prior to the arrival of the Brdhmans, will sujffice to prove that the elements of civilisation already existed amongst them. They had not acquired much more than the elements ; and in many things were centuries behind the Br^hmans whom they DATE OF DBA VIDIAN CIVILISATION. II 9 revered as instructors, and obeyed as overseers : but if they had been left altogether to themselves, it is open to dispute whether they would not now be in a better condition, at least in point Of morals and intellectual freedom, than they are. The mental culture and the higher civilisation which they derived from the Br^hmans, have, I fear, been more than counterbalanced by the fossilising caste rules, the unprac- tical, pantheistic philosophy, and the cumbersome routine of inane ceremonies, which were introduced amongst them by the guides of their new social state. Probable Date of Aryan Civilisation of the Dravidians. It would appear from the unanimous voice of ancient legends that the earliest Dravidian civilisation was that of the Tamilians of the Pandya kingdom, and that the first place where they erected a city and established a state was Kolkei, on the T^mraparnl river (see p. 101),' near the southern extremity of the peninsula. This civilisation was probably indigenous in its origin, but it seems to have been indebted for its rapid development at so early a period to the influence of a suc- cession of small colonies of Aryans, chiefly Br^hmans, from Upper India, who were probably attracted to the South by the report of the fertility of the rich alluvial plains watered by the K^v^ri, the T^mraparni, and other peninsular rivers ; or as the legends relate, by the fame of Kama's exploits, and the celebrity of the emblem of S'iva, which E^ma discovered and worshipped at Ramisseram, or R^mesvaram, a holy place on an island between the mainland and Ceylon. The leader of the first or most inj&uential Br^hmanical colony is traditionally said to have been Agastya, a personage who is celebrated in Northern India as one of the authors of the Vedic hymns, then as the holiest of hermits, performing sacrifices and austerities in the remotest forests, and ever- more penetrating farther and farther into the hitherto unknown South. In the South he is venerated as the earliest teacher of science and literature to the primitive Dravidian tribes. It is very doubtful whether Agastya (if there ever were such a person) was really the leader of the Brahman immigration ; more probably he is to be con- sidered as its mythological embodiment. ' The Vindhya mountains,' it is said, ' prostrated themselves before Agastya j ' by which I under- stand that they presented no obstacle to his resolute southward progress ; for he is said to have penetrated as far south as the vicinity of Cape Comorin. He is called by way of eminence the Tamir muni, or Tamilian sage, and is celebrated for the influence he acquired at the court of Kulasekhara, according to tradition the first Pandyan king, and 120 INTRODUCTION. for the numerous elementary treatises lie composed for the enlighten- ment of his royal disciple ; amongst which his arrangement of the grammatical principles of the language 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 near Cape Comorin as Agast^svara. By the majority of orthodox Hindus he is believed to be still alive, though invisible to ordinary eyes, and to reside somewhere on the fine conical mountain, commonly called ' Agast'ya's hill,' from which the Porunei or Tamra- parni, the sacred river of Tinnevelly, takes its rise. (See p. 100.) The age of Agastya and the date of the commencement of the Br^h- manical civilisation of the Tamilians cannot now be determined with certainty ; but data exists for making an approximate estimate. It was certainly prior to the era of the Greek traders, for then the greater part of the country appears to have been already Br^hmanised, the principal places had received Sanskrit names, and the P^ndya 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, Dravidas, &c., which are contained in the present text of the Maha-bharata, 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 E^mayana 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, which, like a similar allusion to the Chinas in the Mah^-bharata, looks very modern) being generally now placed lower than ever, it is hard to say 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- mation required. The immigration into Ceylon of the colony of Aryans from Magadha, headed by Vijaya, is placed by the Mahawanso 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 in, the Dekhan and the Coromandel coast, and must have taken some steps towards clearing and civilising the Dand,akaranya, or primitive forest of the peninsula, before they thought of founding a colony ia DATE OF DRAVIDIAN CIVILISATION. 121 Ceylon. We have no documentary evidence, however, for any of these particulars earlier than the date of the composition of the Mah^wamso, which is placed between 459 and 477 a.d. Though the date of the arrival in Ceylon of the colony from Magadha is uncertain, it is (juite certain that some such colony must have arrived in Ceylon several centuries before the Christian era. This appears from the evidence of language. T^mraparni (in Pali T^mbapanni) was the name given by the Magadha colonists to the place where they landed in Ceylon (said to have been near Putlam), and afterwards to the whole island. This name, in the shape of Ta'7^^o/3a^>J, became known to the Greeks as early as the time of Alexander the Great, and it is singular that this is also the 'name of the principal river in Tinnevelly on the opposite coast of India. (See p. 100.) This river Tamraparni is mentioned by name in the Mah^-bh^rata as a river in which the gods bad once bathed, and it is evident from this reference to it in the Maha-bh^rata that it must have been known by that name from a very early period, and that there must have been some special reason for its celebrity. We are led, therefore, to infer that the Magadha colony which settled in Ceylon may previously have formed a settlement in Tinnevelly, at the mouth of the T^mraparnt river — perhaps at Kolkei, which appears, as we have already seen, to have been the earliest residence of the P^ndya kings. Vijaya, the leader of the expedition into Ceylon, is related in the Mah^-wanso to have married the daughter of the king of P^ndi ; 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 of the Singhalese demons) ; this at least is certain, that it was the per- suasion of the earliest Singhalese writers, who were, on the whole, the most truthful and accurate of oriental annalists, that the P^ndyan kingdom on the coast of India opposite to Ceylon (the first kingdom established on Aryan principles in the peninsula) existed prior to the establishment of the Magadha rule in the neighbouring island. Dr Burnell, in an article in the Indian Antiquary for October 1872, attributes the introduction of Brahmanical civilisation to a much later 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 and Tamil people as a language of Mlechchas), Brahmanical civilisation had but little penetrated the south of India. " Br^hmans had, no doubt, begun to find the South a promising field of labour, but there could have been very few settlers." . . , " I do not mean," he says, " to 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, 122 INTRODUCTION. but they occur only in the fertile deltas or important seaports of the South, and were probably introduced by Buddhist missionaries." A distinction may perhaps be drawn between the elementary Brahmanical civilisation of the era of the introduction of which I have been treating and the development of Dravidian literature. There is no proof of Dravidian literature, such as we now have it, having originated much before Kum^rila'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 perhaps even to a certain degree Br^hmanised, some centuries before the Christian era. Doubt- less the Jainas themselves used Sanskrit in Southern as in Northern India at the commencement of their work as teachers (probably for a century or two), before they set themselves to the task of developing amongst each of the Dravidian races a popular literature independent of the language of their rivals the Br^hmans. The early Sanskrit names of places in Southern India, with two exceptions, are neither Buddhistical nor Brahmanical, but simply descriptive. One of those exceptions, however, Knmdri, Cape Comorin, is clearly Brahmanical, not Buddhistical, as appears from the statement of the author of the "Periplus" himself; and the other, Mathurd, Madura, is evidently a reminiscence of Mathurd, the capital of the Y^davas— and therefore of Brahmanical origin. It seems probable that Aryan merchants from the mouth of the Indus must have accompanied the Phoenicians and Solomon's servants in their voyages down the Malabar coast towards Ophir (wherever Ophir may have been), or at least have taken part in the trade. If Mr Edward Thomas's supposition (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1871) that the basis of the Mt 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 the 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 Phoenicians 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 confirmation. It appears certain from notices contained in the Vedas that the Aryans of the age of Solomon practised foreign trade in ocean-going vessels, but it remains uncertain to what ports their ships sailed. ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE, 1 23 Eel ATI VB Antiquity of Dra vidian Literature. Notwithstanding the antiquity of Dravidian civilisation, the anti- quity of the oldest Dravidian literature extant is much inferior to that of Sanskrit. It can boast of a higher antiquity than that of any of the Aryan vernaculars of Northern India ; but, except in this connec- tion, and in comparison with the literature of the modern languages of Europe, it is questionable whether the word ' antiquity ' is a suitable one to use respecting the literature of any of the Dravidian languages. Age of Telugu Literature. — The earliest writer on Telugu grammar is said to have been a sage called Kanva, who lived at the court of Andhra-r^ya, the king in whose reign Sanskrit is said to have been first introduced into the Telugu country, according to the tradition formerly mentioned. For this tradition there is probably a historical groundwork, the introduction of Sanskrit derivatives being necessarily contemporaneous with the immigration of the Br^hmans ; and the statement that the first attempt to reduce the grammatical principles of the language to writing proceeded from a Brahman residing at the court of a Telugu prince, is a very reasonable one. Kanva's work, if it ever existed, is now lost j and the oldest extant work on Telugu grammar (which is composed, like most Telugu grammars, in Sanskrit) was written by a Brahman called Nannaya Bhatta, or Nannappa, who is also said to be the author of the greater part of the Telugu version of the Mah^-bh^rata, which is the oldest extant composition of any extent in Telugu. Nannappa lived in the reign of Vishnu Vardhana, a king of the Kalinga branch of the Chalukya family, who reigned at Kajamundry. The reign of this king is placed by Mr A. D. Campbell about the commencement of the Christian era ; but Mr C. P. Brown, in his Cyclic tables, places it, on better authority, in the beginning of the twelfth century a.d. Appa-kavi, who ranks next to Nannaya Bhatta as a grammarian, wrote his commentaries not in Sanskrit, but in Telugu verse. 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 to have been written in the fourteenth and subsequent centuries, after the establishment of the kingdom of Vijaya-nagara ; and many of them were written in comparatively recent times. Though the Telugu litera- ture which is now extant cannot boast of a high antiquity, the language must have been cultivated and polished, and many poems that are now lost must have been written in it long prior to the twelfth century — the date of Nannaya's translation of the Maha-bharata : for as this translation is considered * the great standard of Telugu- poetry,' it 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 Ganarese Literature. — Much new light has been thrown on the antiquity of Canarese literature by the publication of the S'abda- manidarpanam (''Jewel-Mirror of Words"), the most ancient and esteemed grammar of classical Canarese, written by Kesava or Kesi- raj^, in the preface to which the editor, Mr Kittel, 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. Kesava 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.d., several additional centuries must be allowed for the appearance of an indi- genous Jaina literature in so distant a region as the Canarese country. Kesava cites eleven predecessors in the art of poetry by name, besides referring to others, and styles them frequently ' the poets of antiquity,' ' the ancients,' &c. 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 r, which is retained in Tamil and Malay^lam, 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 Malay^lam, and to a certain extent in Telugu. Both these letters are retained in the Badaga * See Gover's "Folk-Songs of Southof-n India." Mr Gover was inclined to attribute to Vemana a much higher antiquity. ANTIQUITY OF DKAVIDIAN LITERATURE. 12$ dialect, an old Canarese patois spoken by the Badagas of the Neil- gherry hills, a Canarese colony long separated from the parent stock. These circumstances tend to bring down Kesava'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 Kesava to ' the burn- ing sword of Tailapa.' The dynasty of the Ch^tlukyas, to which Tailapa belonged, reigned in Kaly^na from about 800 a.d. to 1189, when it was extinguished ; and the Tailapa probably referred to (the warlike Tailapa II.) restored the dynasty in 973 a.d. Kesava does not cite the Basava-Purana, which is known to have been written in 1369 A.D., and therefore, probably, was anterior to it. He is men- tioned by name as a famous author in a book written in 1637 a.d. The Hari-va?7i8a had been translated into Canarese before Kesava 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-bb4rata and the lUmayana, these works do not appear to have been rendered into Canarese at that time. On the whole, therefore, but especially from the reference to Tailapa, Mr Kittel concludes that Kesava lived about 1170 a.d., a period which, as will be seen, was one of great literary activity in the Tamil country also. It is a remarkable fact that at the time when Kesava wrote, ' Sanskrit words in a fixed form, either as tatsamas or tadbhavas, apparently to the same amount as in our days, had already been appropriated by the Canarese people.' Kesava's work is still the only true standard for all the nice- ties of the Canarese of the present day, the essential features of the language having remained wholly unchanged. In the Indian Antiquary for January 1875, Mr Kittel has followed up this account of Kesava and his times by an article on old Canarese literature in general, under the four heads of Jaina, Lingliita,- S'aiva, and Vaishnava. Age of Malay dlam Literature. — Interesting as the Malay alam lan- guage undoubtedly is, both in itself and on account of the light it throws on the point of development which had been reached by Tamil before Malayalam finally separated from it and set up for itself, it must be confessed that Malayalam literature can advance fewer claims to anti- quity than the literature of any other cultivated member of the Dravi- dian family. The following is the substance of the information on this subject given us by Dr Gundert, our best authority as to Malayalam questions, in the preface to his Malayalam dictionary. If we except a few inscriptions in copper and stone, the history of Malayalam literature commences with the "K^ma Charita," which is probably the oldest Malayalam poem still in existence. This poem was com- posed before the introduction of the Sanskrit alphabet now used in 126 INTRODUCTION. writing Malayfilam, 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 words this poem is the only authority. The bulk of the other great poems (the " M^ha-bh^rata," the "Ramayana," and the versions of the Pur^nas) were composed within the last two or three cen- turies. Many Malayalam compositions of later date, especially such as are current among the Vedantists, evidently affect Tamil modes of expression. Age of Tamil Literature. — Tamil literature is older than Telugu or Canarese, and considerably older than Malayalam, though the high antiquity which is ascribed to some portions of it by the Tamilian literati cannot be admitted. The sage Agastya occupies in Tamil literature a place of still greater eminence and importance than that of Kanva in Telugu. Not only is the formation of the Tamil alphabet attributed to Agastya, and the first treatise upon Tamil grammar, together with the original settlement of the grammatical principles of the language ; but he is also said to have taught the Tamilians the first principles of medicine, of chemistry or alchymy, of magic, of architecture, astronomy, and law ; and about fifty treatises on these sciences, most of. them appa- rently very modern* are attributed to his pen. Portions of the treatise on grammar attributed to him exist, but their authenticity is not gene- rally admitted by well-informed Tamilians, who are peculiarly well versed in questions relating to grammar and grammatical works. Though the literary cultivation of the Tamil language may have commenced, as the Tamilians believe, in the age of Agastya (premising, however, that it is undecided whether he was a real personage, or is only to be regarded as the mythological representative of a class or period), I feel quite certain that none of the works which are com- monly ascribed to Agastya were written at so early an age. Probably there is not any one of them older than the tenth century a.d. Of the works attributed to him, those which advocate the system of the Siddhas (in Tamil ^ittar), a mystical compound of monotheism, quiet- ism, and alchemy, with a tinge of Christianity, must certdnly 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 of the people for whose use the books were composed. We cannot doubt that the substance of the following stanza, which is contained in the Ndna nicTu, or * Centum of Wisdom,' a small poem attributed to Agastya, has been borrowed from statements of Christianity, notwith- ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATUKE. . 12/ standing that Christianity is not directly named in it, or in any other work of this class : — •* Worship thou the Light of the Universe ; who is one ; Who made the world in a moment, and placed good men in it ; Who afterwards himself dawned upon the earth as a Guru ; Who, without wife or family, as a hermit performed austerities ; Who, appointing loving sages (siddhas) to succeed him, Departed again into heaven : — worship him." It is a striking illustration of the uncritical structure of the ordinary Hindti mind, that this stanza is supposed, even by Tamil literati, to have been written by Agastya himself many thousands of years ago. Hindtls endeavour to give it an orthodox Hindu meaning, and native Christians regard it as a prophecy. Though there is not a single archaism in it ; though it is written not only in the modern dialect, but in a colloquial idiom, abounding in solecisms, neither party enter- tains any doubt of its antiquity. Next to the fabulous Agastya, though many centuries before the treatises ascribed to him, we may perhaps place the author of the Tol- kappiyam (Tam. tol, ancient; Sans. Tcdvya, poem), or ancient book, a real person, though fabled to have been one of Agastya's disciples, who quarrelled with his master and set up for himself. The Tol-k^ppiyani is generally admitted to be the oldest extant Tamil grammar, and has been supposed, though on somewhat slight evidence, to be the oldest Tamil composition now extant, with the exception of certain fragments to be referred to presently. Though written by a S'aiva, its S'aivism is not that of the mystical schools of the Ved^nta or S'aiva-siddhanta ; and in the chapters which are still in existence (for much of it is supposed to have been lost), native grammarians have noticed the existence of various gram- matical forms which are considered, but I think without sufficient warrant, to be archaic. It is traditionally asserted that the author of this treatise, who is styled technically * Tolk^ppiyan^r,' the man of the 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 many anonymous works of modern times to Agastya himself : neverthe- less, if any relics of poems of the first age of Tamil literature still survive, they are to be found amongst the poetical quotations which are con- tained in this and similar works, and in commentaries which have been written upon them. Some of those quotations are probably the very oldest specimens of the poetical style that are now extant. Whatever antiquity may be attributed to the Tolk^ppiyam, it must have been preceded by many centuries of literary culture. . It lays down rules for 128 INTEODUCTION. 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 poems, had preceded the Tolk^ppiyam, for it contihually cites rules which had been laid down by preceding grammarians. Hence the formula which so frequently recurs, enmandr pulavar, ' the poets (i.e., the grammarians) say.' [This form, enmandr instead of enhar, is one of the supposed archaisms of this writer ; but enhar 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 Hindu 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- posed to have done, they neither knew nor cared. Still less did they 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. — I 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 Naladiy^r and the Kural — are said 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 books now extant ascribed to members of the college, or said to have ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE. 1 29 been approved by them, are such commonplace productions in compa- rison with those two, that I prefer regarding the college as merely *the shadow of a great name,' and describing the principal works of the period, not as those which emanated from the college, but as those of the Jaina cycle, from the internal evidence of the works themselves. Leaving out of account the isolated stanzas already referred to, of high but unknown antiquity, which are quoted as examples in the grammatical and rhetorical works, the oldest Tamil works of any extent now extant are those which were written, or claim to have been written, by the Jainas, or which date from the era of the literary activity of the Jaina sect. The Jainas of the old P^ndya country were animated by a national and anti-Br^hmanical feeling of peculiar strength ; and it is chiefly to them that Tamil is indebted for its high culture and its com- parative independence of Sanskrit.* The S'aiva and Vaishnava writers of a later period, especially the S'aivas, imbibed much of the enthusiasm for Tamilic purity and literary independence by which the Jainas were distinguished ; in consequence of which, though Tamil literature, as a whole, will not bear a comparison with Sanskrit literature, as a whole, it is the only vernacular literature in India which has not been con- tented with imitating Sanskrit, but has honourably attempted to emu- late and outshine it. In one department at least, that of ethical apoph- thegms, it is generally maintained, and I think must be admitted, that Sanskrit has been outdone by Tamil. The Jaina period extended probably from the eighth or ninth century a.d., to the twelfth or thir- teenth. In the reign of Sundara P^ndya, called also Kun or Kubja PUndya, the date of which will be considered further on, the adherents of the religious system of the Jainas are said to have been finally expelled from the P^ndya country; consequently, all Tamil works which advocate or avow that system may be concluded to have been written before the middle of the thirteenth century a.d,, and probably before the decadence of Jaina influence in the twelfth. An exception * Dr Burnell, in the article already quoted, says — "All earlier civilisation in Southern India, so far as it is known, is connected with the Jainas. Hiwen Thsang, who visited the Telugu and Tamil countries in 639-40 a.d., mentions that the inhabitants were chie&y Nirgranthas [i.e., Digambara Jainas). He mentions a few Buddhists, but has not a word about Brdhmans. The vague term by which the Tamil language is mentioned (by Kumdrila), Indhra-Dr^vida- bhasha, is remarkable, as it indicates that a systematic study of the so-called Dravidian languages can hardly have begun in the eighth century. . . . There can be little doubt that Bha^ta Kumarila regarded the South Indian (Dravidian) dialects as Mlechcha, or un-Bra^manic, uncivilised languages. He does not say so expressly, but his words imply that he thought so." i 1 30 INTRODUCTION. must be made in behalf of the Ch1\d^mani Nighantu, a classical dic- tionary, by Mandala-purusha, a Jaina writer of the sixteenth century, who enjoyed the protection of one of the kings of Vjaya-nagaram. The Kural of Tiruvalluvar, a work which consists of 1330 distichs, or poetical aphorisms, on almost every subject connected with vir- tue, wealth, and pleasure (the three chief objects of human existence, according to Hindi! writers — the three puruslidrthas), and which is regarded by all Tamilians (and perhaps justly) as the finest composi- tion of which Tamil can boast, is generally regarded not only the best but the oldest Tamil poem of any extent which is now in existence. I think we should not be warranted in placing the date of the Kural later than the 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 distinctive doctrines of Sankara Ach^rya. It teaches the old S^nkhya 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 S'aiva-siddh^nta school — a school which, since about the eleventh century a.d., has exercised a more powerful influence on Tamil literature and the Tamil niind 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 Puranic system ; of Bliahti, or exclusive, enthusiastic faith in any one deity of the HindU Pantheon. The work appears to have been written before S'aivism and Vaishnavism had been transformed from rival schools into rival sects ; before the Puranas, as they now stand, had become the text-books of Hindii theology; and whilst the theosophy of the early Vedanta and the mythology of the Maha-bharata com- prised the entire creed of the majority of Hindus. (4.) The author of the Kural is claimed with nearly equal reason by S'aivas and Jainas. He is claimed also, but very feebly, by Vaish- navas. On the whole, the arguments of the Jainas appear to me to preponderate, especially those which appeal to the Jaina titles by 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 the true ascetic, but also the highest virtue. Nevertheless, from the indistinctness and undeveloped character of the Jaina element con- ANTIQUITY OF DEAVIDIAN LITEEATUEE. 1 3 I tained in it, it seems probable that in Tiruvalluvar's age the Jainism of the Tamil country was rather an esoteric ethical school, than an independent objective system of religion, and was only in the process of development out of the older Hinduism. This would carry back the date of the Kural to the ninth or tenth century. (5.) The Kural is referred to and quoted in grammars and pro- sodies which were probably written in the eleventh or twelfth century. For these reasons, such as they are, we seem to be warranted in placing the Kural in the tenth century a.d., at least. It must be remembered, however, as in almost every similar inquiry pertaining to 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 also for regarding it as possible that the Kural should be placed several centuries later. It is the concurrent voice of various traditions that Tiruvalluvar lived before the dissolution of the Madura College, and it is certain that the Kural is included in a poetical list of eighteen works which the college-board — (in this case tradition says it was literally a hoard) — sanctioned. Those traditions go on to state that the Kural was the very last work presented for the approval of the 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 its author), that the college ceased to exist. The board miraculously expanded itself to receive the Kural, and then miraculously contracted itself so 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 themselves. If any weight could be attached to this tradition, it would bring down the date of the Kural considerably, for other traditions connect Nakkirar (who is always represented as the president of the college) with the reign of Karik^la Chola, who seems to have lived in the thirteenth century. Another tradition of a similar ten- dency is that which places Auveiy^r (Tiruvalluvar's sister) in the reign of Kulotunga Chola, who is known to have lived in the twelfth century. We must be cautious, however, of placing the Kural so late as Kulotunga Chola's reign, for it may be regarded as certain that it was in that reign that the Tamil Eam%ana was completed and published ; and Tamil scholars are of opinion that there is internal evidence in the R^m^ana of its author's acquaintance with the Kural, espe- cially in certain stanzas relating to the duties and qualifications of ambassadors. It is a remarkable circuiastance that the author of the Kural is represented to have been a Pareiya, — born, according to the legend, at 132 INTKODUCTION. Meilapiir, near Madras. Another legend represents him to have been the offspring of a Brahman father by a Pareiya mother. His real name is unknown. The Valluvas are the priestly division of the Pareiyas, and also soothsayers, and the author of the ' Kural * is known only as Tiruvalluvar, ' the sacred Valluvan ' or Pareiya 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 Pareiya woman ! Auvey^r's real name, like that of her brother, is unknown, — Auvei or Auveiydr, signifying 'a mother,' 'a venerable matron.' The Jaina period produced another great ethical poem on " the three objects of existence," called the Naladiydr. 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 ancient. There is a still stronger argument, I think, for its priority to the Kural. As it is admitted on every hand that the Kural excels all 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 : N^ladi means ^ four feet,' refer- ring probably to the four line stanza in which the poem is written. The name of the author is unknown, as well as his date. All that is known is that he was a Jaina, that he wrote in the P^ndya country, 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 whole of the Naladi is not the composition of one author, but that on the contrary it appears by internal signs to be a collection of stanzas by different hands. The Chint^mani,* a brilliant, romantic epic, containing 15,000 lines, is the most celebrated Tamil poem written by an avowedly Jaina author. Partly from its Jaina origin, partly from the difficulty of its style, it is little known ; but Beschi, who made the Chint^mani the model on which he composed his Temb^vani, was probably right in asserting that the author " may with justice be called the prince of Tamil poets." The style is considered superior even to that of Kam- * Chintdmani, Sana, the gem which yields all one desires, a favourite title of books in all the Indian languages. ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE. 1 33 bar's Tamil R^m^yana. The name of the author is unknown. It is the opinion of some native scholars that the Chintamani preceded the Kural. They think they can trace allusions in the Kural to matters contained in the Chintamani, also amplifications in the Kural of matters which the Chintamani expresses more briefly. These reasons are adduced still more confidently to prove the priority of the Kural to the Tamil Ramayana. It would be a remarkable circumstance if it were capable of being clearly proved that the ^Chint^maiii, which is without doubt the greatest epic poem in the Tamil language, is also the oldest Tamil composition of any extent now extant. To this period also belongs the oldest classical dictionary of the Tamil language, called the Divakaram (divd-kara, the day-maker, the sun), a work ascribed to S'^ndanar, a writer who is said to have been a mem- ber of the Madura College. The other two classical Tamil dictionaries, the Pingalandei and the Chud^mani Nighantu, were also the composi- tion of Jainas. We have to place in this period, though probably near its close, the most celebrated and authoritative of Tamil grammars, the Nanniil of Pavananti. This is regarded up to the present day as the standard grammar of the language, though its method, like that of all Indian grammars, is very perplexing. No Tamil grammar appears to have been written by a Jaina before the time of Pavananti. The Jainas of the early period were great dictionary-makers, but they seem to have left the writing of grammars to S'aivas. (2.) The Tamil Edmdyana Cycle. — The Tamil version of the K^mH- yana is an imitation rather than a translation of V^lmiki's celebrated poem. The Sanskrit original is sometimes rhetorical, sometimes simple, touching, and natural, sometimes prosaic and prolix. The Tamil imitation never condescends to be natural, much less prosaic, but is always elaborately rhetorical and ornate. It piles up epithet on 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 judgment its sweetness borders upon lusciousness, and its harmony too often suggests the idea of monotonous jingle. The difierence between the Tamil and the Sanskrit R^m^ana may be compared to the differ- 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 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 R^m^yana is undoubtedly a great poem, and in this department of composition the Chintamani alone can dispute with it for the palm of supremacy. The author, Ktmbar, is so called from the name of the 134 INTRODUCTION. district to which he belonged, Kamba-n^du, in the Tanjore country, a portion of the ancient Chola-desa. " His fame as ^_a poet having reached the ears of R^jendra Ch61a, he was invited to his court, and honoured with the title of the king of poets. Several poets undertook to prepare a Tamil version of the E4mS,yana. When recited in the presence of Kulotunga Ch61a, who had succeeded to the throne, Kam- bar's version was preferred." * Several other works are attributed to him, of which the flr-erubadu, 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 Kambar's time (in particular Pugarendi, OttakkMtar, and Auveiy^r), that I have thought the litera- ture of this period best described by the name of the RamHyana cycle, and it becomes in consequence a point of interest to endeavour to determine its date. Nothing has been definitely ascertained respect- ing the date of the first or Jaina cycle • but as Kambar'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 at present to deter- mine — 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 autho- rity, attributed to the author himself, it is stated that it was finished in the year of the S'alivabana era corresponding to a.d. 886. This date used to be 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 R^raayana might fairly claim to be the oldest Tamil composition now extant — a supposi- tion 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 am acquainted in the whole range of Tamil literature, is, I fear, an unauthorised addition to Kambar's poem, pre- fixed to it by some admiring editor 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 Ch61a kings. Kambar is connected with the reigns of R^jendra Ch61a and his successor Kulotunga 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. 1 35 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 undesigned coincidences, that I think their evidence, at least with regard to the point of contemporaneousness, may safely be accepted. I do not find it stated in any inscriptions that Kulotunga was Raj^n- dra's son, but that he was his successor (whether his immediate suc- cessor or not) appears from an inscription I obtained at Kott^r, near Nagercoil, in the Tamil-speaking part of Travancore. This inscription is cut on the walls of a temple, and states that the temple in question was erected in KottUr, called also ' the good town of the triple crowned Chola,' by Kulotunga S'6ra devar, ' to the great divinity Eijendra S'oresvaram' (i.e., to S'iva as worshipped by Rajendra Chola, or to Rajendra Chola himself considered as identified with S'iva after his death). t This inscription is dated in the thirty-first year of Kulo- tunga S'6ra. [I have found several records of gifts made to this and other temples dedicated to Rajendra Cholesvara in succeeding reigns, including one in the reign of Sundara Pandya. Only one of these inscriptions furnishes us with a date, and that unfortunately is a late one. It is a record in the same temple at Kottar of a gift to the same Chola king's divinity, and is dated in the S'aka year answering to A.D. 1370, in the fifth year of Parakrama Pandi d^var. Rajendra himself is generally in inscriptions in the Pdndya country called simply Rajendra Ch61a, but in one inscription I have found him called R^j^n- dra Chola Pandiyan.] What was Rajendra's date? I have found two inscriptions at Cape Comorin, one in the fourth year of his reign, and another in the fifth, in each of which Rajendra is related to have achieved a victory over Ahava Malla (a Jaina king of the Chalukya race) on the banks of the Tunga-bhadra. The date which I supposed to be contained in one of these inscriptions I found afterwards was unreliable ; but an in- scription found by Sir Walter Elliot (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society) in the western Chalukya country, in which the same battle is mentioned (though the victory is claimed for the Chalukya king), places Ahava Malla, Rajendra's contemporary, in the middle of the eleventh century. According to inscriptions obtained by Sir Walter Elliot in the Kalinga country or Northern Circars (at that time ruled over by the eastern branch of the Chalukya dynasty), which were * These traditions have recently been collected in a book called the Vinodarasa Manchari, by Virasv4mi Chettidr, late head pandit of the Presidency College, Madras. f Compare the Roman title ' Divus Augustus,' that is, Augustus regarded as" deified after bis death. • 136 INTRODUCTION. utilised by Dr Eggeling in a paper [read before the International Congress of Orientalists in 1874, Raj^ndra Chola commenced to reign in A.D. 1063, and ruled not only over the Ch61a country, but over the Kalinga country, and, as my inscriptions prove, over the P^ndya country also. The battle between him and Ahava Malla must, there- fore, have taken place between 1063 and 1066. I have an inscrip- tion of Raj^ndra Chola's, belonging 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 Kul6- tunga Chola, is at present uncertain, but Sir Walter Elliot places this event in a.d. 1112, after a reign of forty-nine years. I have an in- scription dated in the forty-fourth year of Kul6tunga Ch61a ; but it is unnecessary to place the publication of Kambar's ' R^mayana ' so late as this. Supposing that it was commenced in R^j^ndra's reign, and finished in Kul6tunga's, as all traditions represent, its publication cannot have been much before a.d. 1100, and was probably not much after that date. Supposing that it was published as late as the twenty- fourth year of Kulotunga'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 250 years. It seems certain that Kambar was posterior to Rdm^nuja, the celebrated founder of the S'ri Vaishnava system. He refers to R^manuja by name in a poem called the ' S'adagopar AntMi,' which is always attributed to him. It might be supposed doubtful whether this poem were really written by Kambar, but native scholars think there can be no doubt about its authorship, as Kambar's style, they say, was sui generis, and incapable of being imitated. As Ram^nuja is placed by Professor Wilson, on what appears to be conclusive evidence, in the beginning of the twelfth century a.d.,* Kambar's date must be posterior to Ram^nuja's. The supposition that he lived in the following century in the reigns of Rajendra Ch61a and Kul6- tunga Chola, will perfectly suit all the circumstances of the case. The same traditions and stories which place- the poets Pugarendi and Ottakkiittar, together with Kambar, in the reign of Kulotunga Chola, place also Auveiy^r, the reputed sister of Tiruvalluvar, in the same 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 efifect either of discrediting the tradition * Brown, in his " Cyclic Tables," places King Vishnu Vardhana's conversion by Ramduuja in 1133 a.d. ♦ ANTIQUITY OF DBA VIDIAN LITERATURE. 1 37 which represents her as Tiruvalluvar's sister, or of bringing down the age of the Kur^l lower than the internal evidence of style and matter seems to warrant. This period, however, does not seem too late for Auveiyjir herself. The two sets of brief verses called the Atti-iildi and the Kondrei-vendan, each commencing with a con- secutive letter of the Tamil alphabet, which are ascribed to Auveiy^r, appear to be of considerable antiquity : but the Advaita work which is called Auveiy^r's Kural must have been written subsequently to the arrival of the Muhammedans in Southern India ; and the collection of moral epigrams (most of them possessed of real poetic merit) which is called the ' Mudurei,' or ' proverbial wisdom,' appears to have been written after the arrival of Europeans, perhaps even after the arrival of the English. The proof of the modern origin of the ' Mlidurei ' is ' contained in the following simile : — " As the turkey that had seen the forest peacock dance, fancied himself also to be a peacock, and spread his ugly wings and strutted, so is the poetry which is recited by a conceited dunce." As it is certain that the turkey is an American 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 ' MMurei,' if this stanza was always an integral portion of it. When I have mentioned this anachronism to native scholars, and have called their attention to the circumstance that the Tamil word for ' turkey ' (like the words denoting 'tobacco,' * potato,' &c.), is not an original root, but a descriptive compound — viz., vdn-kori, signifying * the great fowl,' they have courageously maintained that the turkey was always found in India. Another and more ingenious explanation has been advanced by Mr T. M. Scott of Madura, a warm admirer of Tamil poetry. In an edition of the ' Mudurei ' Mr Scott maintains that by vdn-kdri we are to understand, not the turkey, but the pea-hen. Though this ex- planation is ingenious, I think it inadmissible, on grounds both of philology and of natural history. The pea-hen could not have been described as having ' ugly wings ; ' and if it had been the intention of the authoress Ijo distinguish the hen from the cock, she w^ould not have marred her purpose by styling the cock alone ' the pea-fowl,' and its hen 'the great fowl,' thereby necessarily suggesting the idea that what she called ' the great fowl ' was a totally different bird. It would be safer to argue that the stanza in question was not originally contained in the collection — of which, however, no proof can be adduced. (3.) The S'aiva Revival Cycle. — To this period belongs two large col- lections of hymns — an earlier and a later — in praise of S'iva and S'aiva temples, breathing an inteasely religious spirit, and mostly advocating I3S INTEODUCTION. the S'aiva-siddhanta system of religious philosophy. The earlier collec- tion, called Tiru-vdsagam^ composed by Mdnikka-vdsagar (Manikya- v^chaka), 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- 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 Tiruvdd4r 'piirdnam ; we can scarcely err, therefore, in placing him earlier, perhaps at least a century earlier, than the other great apostle of S'aivism in the Tamil country, Ndna Samhandhar, who flourished during the reign of Sundara-Pandya (the date of whose reign will be considered further on), and whose opponents were Jainas. M^nikka-v^sagar is not included amongst the sixty-three Bhaktas or S'aiva devotees, belonging to Nana Sambandhar's period, whose lives are recorded in the Tiruttondar j^urdnam, 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 Madurei Sthala pur^nam places M^nikka-v^sagar 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-v^sagar, lived before Sundara. The later and larger collection of Saiva hymns was composed chiefly by Ndna-Samhandhar, a native of Sheally {$igdri), near Chellum- brum (Chidamhara), a sacred S'aiva temple in the Chola country, who together with his disciples (of whom the most eminent w^ere Sun- darar and Appar, 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 Devdram {devdrha, Sans, worthy of God). Sambandhar's hymns, 384 in number, have been published in three volumes ; Sundarai's and Appar'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 Tiruttondar purdnam (the purdna of the holy disciples), com- monly called the Periya purdnam, or great purdnam, composed by a poet called ^ekkirdr. Some of the incidents in Sambandhar's career, especially his reconversion of Sundara Pdndya, king of Madura, from Jainism, and the impaling of eight thousand Jainas, who had been van- ANTIQUITY OF DKAVIDIAN LITERATURE. 1 39 quished in discussion and outdone in miracles, are related also in the last portion of the Tiruvileiyddal purdnam, the Sthala purdna of Madura. The date of the Tiruttondar purdnam is unknown ; but if it be true, as is related, that the Tiruvileiyddal purdnam was translated from the Sanskrit original at the request of Ati-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, ^eramdn Ferumdl, who is said to have been a son of one of the S'era or Kerala 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 S'aivas, it becomes as important to endeavour to ascertain the date of this king's reign as it was to fix that of Kul6tunga Ch61a. In the first edition of this work, I stated that Sundara Pandya seemed to me to be identical with the Sender-bandi mentioned by Marco Polo, who visited Southern India in a.d. 1292. This identification, however, has not found much acceptance. Mr Nelson, in his " Madura Manual," 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 favoured me, states that he considers it clear from the statements of the Muhammedan historians, Wassaf and Kashiduddin, that there were two Sundars in Ma'bar about Polo's time, and that whilst he thinks Polo's Sender-bandi was identical with the earlier of the two, he is inclined to the opinion that this person was not a genuine king of Madura, but an adventurer, and therefore not the Sundara Pandya, the date of whose reign I am anxious to ascertain. The question of the date of this Sundara Pandya, the last king of the old Pandya line, is beset with difiSculties. Inscriptions belonging to his reign are very numerous. There are at least twenty in my own 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 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 would be at an end. It ftight be necessary in that event to abandon 140 INTRODUCTION. Marco Polo's Sender-bandi altogether ; but till then I feel reluctant to give him up. That the true Sundara Plindya, who impaled the Jainas, and with whose name the ancient list 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 KSj^ndra 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 Kslj^ndra Sores- 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 E^jendra's reign. It is in the highest degree probable that Sundara was preceded also by Kulotunga Chola who, as we know from an inscription already referred to, ruled over the whole of the Pandya country, like Rajendra himself, without a rival, shortly after R^j^ndra's reign. It is certain that he was preceded by Vikrama P4ndya, called also Vikrama Ch61a-P^ndi, 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 R^j^ndra Ch61a and Sundara Pandya. I may add that his reign must have been subsequent (probably a considerable time sub- sequent) to the era of RUmanuja, who flourished in the beginning of the twelfth century a.d. In several of the inscriptions belonging to Sundara Pandya's reign in my possession, gifts to S'ri Vaishnava establishments are recorded, and in one of these one of the witnesses to the gift is designated Ramanuja-ddsa, the servant or devotee of RS,m^nuja, a clear proof that R^m^tnuja 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 R^m^yana.] This seems to me quite 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 Kun 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 Tiruvileiyddal purdnam, and that all traditions repre- sent his reign as having been followed by a period of anarchy, during which several Muhammedan dynasties were established at Madura) — then it must be considered certain that his reign comes nearly down ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATUEE. 141 to tlie period of the two Sundaras mentioned by the Muhammedan historians, one of whom may have been the Sender-bandi of Marco Polo himself. The statements of the Muhammedan 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 Pandya of the inscriptions. If we leave out of account Wassafs 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 Muhammedan historians that at the close of the thirteenth century there reigned in Madura a Sundara Pandya who was Dewar — that is, as they interpreted the. title, lord paramount — of Ma'bar = the P^ndya-Chola 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 inscriptions ; 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 diflS- culty can be involved. Polo represents his Sender Bandi as ruling over Soli, which he describes as ' the best and noblest province of India.' Colonel Yule is quite right, I have no doubt, in identifying Soli with Tanjore — that is, with the Chola country — but this, instead of being a difficulty in the way of identifying Sender Bandi with the Sundara Peindya of the inscriptions, is in reality an argument in favour of this identification ; for whilst Sundara is called in some inscriptions simply Sundara Pandya, in a still larger number he is called Sundara Chola-Pandya, and represented as having conquered the Chola country and had himself consecrated there as Chola king. It is clear, however. 142 INTRODUCTION. that Polo's Sender Bandi ruled not only over the Chola country, but also over at least the coast district of Madura and Tinnevelly (the Pandya 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. Eashiduddin represents his Sundara as suc- ceeded by a Muhammedan, and Wassaf agrees with Bashid in giving him a Muhammedan minister. Now it is clear from an inscrip- tion in Nelson's " Madura Manual," recording the confirmation by Virappa N^yakkar, in a.d. 1573, of a grant originally made by Kun P4ndi {i.e., the Sundara Pandya of the inscriptions, called also Ktln P^udiyan) 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 (Kun) P^ndi 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 Pandya ever reigned. In whatever part of the Pandya country this name appears, the epithets by which he is described invariably show that the person referred to is one and the same. For 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 Tirukolur, 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 " {i.e., the Pandya and Chola coun- tries), " who cultivates the Theee kinds of classical Tamil, who cherishes the Four Vedas, the Five species of sacrifice, and the Six (orthodox S'aiva) sects.^' The Madura inscription goes on to Eight.] The Sundara Pandya of the inscriptions had a long reign. I have one inscription dated in the thirty-second year of his reign, that in which a gift is recorded to the temple of Bajendra Cholesvara. It was natural therefore, especially seeing that it synchronised with the S'aiva 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 DEAVIDIAN LITERATURE. 1 43 reigns, and certain also that we have dated inscriptions pertaining to subsequent reigns ; 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, &c., of Ma'bar, 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 KUn Pandya of the inscriptions and the S'aiva revival. (See Appendix III.) (4.) The Vaishnava Cycle. — The poetical compositions of seven of the twelve Arv^rs or Vaishnava devotees, followers of Ramanuja, which are included in the Ndldyira [p)prahandham or Peria Prabandham ('the Book of the Four Thousand Hymns' or 'the Great Book'), are still more numerous than those of Manikya Vachakar, Nana Sambandhar, and the other S'aiva devotees previously referred to, and are considered not inferior to them in religious fervour or poetical merit. As the Tiruv^sakam and collection of Devarams are regarded by the Saivas as "the Tamil Veda," so the same title is claimed by the Vaishnavas for the Ndldyira {p)prabandham, especially for those parts of it which are called Peria tiru-mori, 'the Great Sacred Word,' and Tiru-vdy- mori, ' 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 S'aiva revival, not only in consequence of there being no chronological data in the poems themselves (a defect which they share with almost all Tamil, and indeed with almost all Hindu, poems), but also in con- sequence of there being no incidents on record connecting their authors with any of the Chola or Pandya kings. Rfim^nuja's own date is fixed with tolerable accuracy to the beginning of the twelfth century, in consequence of the fame of his conversion of Peddata, the Jaina king of the Hoisala race, afterwards called Vishnu Vardhana; and Nana Sambandhar's reconversion of Sundara Pandya from Jainism to S'aivism, furnishes us with the materials for approximately deter- mining his age ; but no such important conversion to the Vaishnava faith is attributed to any of the authors of the Nalayira (p) prabandham. We are, therefore, left very much in the dark as regards the age of the poems of this cycle, except with regard to one particular, viz., that they are all subsequent (probably several generations subsequent) to the era of Ramsinuja, the great teacher whose system they advocate, and to whom they frequently refer by name. Probably we shall not greatly err if we attribute to the older of these compositions nearly the same date as Manikya Vlichakaijjs Tiruvdsagam ; and place the latter, with the Devarams of Sambandhar, Sundarar, and Appar, somewhere about 144 INTRODUCTION. ' the era of Sundara P^ndya'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 the 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 contemporary ; 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 one the greatest poet, the other the greatest prose- writer, of his age. If there was so wide a separation between Puritans and Churchmen in the seventeenth century in England, we need not wonder that many centuries earlier the S'aiva and Vaishn^va poets of the Tamil country, though probably contemporaries, or nearly so, believed that they had no ideas in common, and moved in the orbits of their several creeds far apart. (5.) 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 Ati-vtra-rdma Fdndya, an elegant and prolific writer, without much original genius, whose chief aim seems to have been to reproduce the glory of the Chintamani and the other great classics of the earlier age. The most celebrated of the compositions attributed to him is the Neidadam (Naishada), a version of the story of Nala in eleven hundred Tamil stanzas, all of them exceedingly ornate, and many of them ex- ceedingly voluptuous. Another celebrated composition attributed to him is the Kdsi Mndam, which from its title might be supposed to be the hdrpdam, or book, of that name which professes to form a portion of the Skanda pur^na, 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 Pur&nas, the Linga and the Ktirma. His best work from a moral point of view, and the only one in which he shows any real originality, is a little poem called the * Tettri Verkei,' in the first line of which he mentions his own name— a great novelty in Tamil litera- ture. We may attribute also to this period, I think, the Tamil version of the Maha-bharata, mainly by Villi Putttlrar, which, though not so celebrated as the Tamil Eam^yana of Kambar, is regarded as a very fine composition ; together with a large number of translations from Sanskrit on all subjects, including most of the Purfinas. Perhaps the most valuable, certainly the most thoughtful, compositions of this period, were the philosophical treatises in explanation of the Yedantic and ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE. 1 45 S'aiva Siddhantic doctrines, some of them translations from Sanskrit, and some imitations. In this class the Nana Vasishtham, the prin- cipal Tamil Vedantic poem ; and the S'iva-ni,na-bodham, with its commentary the S'iva-ii^na-siddhi, the most authoritative exposition in Tamil of the Agama or S'aiva- Siddhantic system, may be regarded as worthy of special notice. Probably this was the period in which most of the medical treatises were composed ; and also the erotic pgems, which betoken a late period and a depraved taste. Most of the compositions included in the list of Tamil " Minor Poets," and some at least of those attributed to the members of the Madura College, appear to me to belong to this period — a period of translations and elegant extracts, of moral platitudes and pedantic conceits, rather than one of original thought. Ati-Vira-R^ma Pandiyan has sometimes been regarded as a mythical person. His name never appears in any traditions respecting the poli- tical history of his country ; and if really a reigning king, it is concluded that he could scarcely also have been a poet, but must most likely have been merely a patron of poets. It is difficult of course to ascertain whether he may not have received help from the poets of his court, especially in his long translations from the Sanskrit Paranas ; but it is so rare a thing for a Hindu king to be also a celebrated poet, that it seems unlikely so many poems should have been attributed to him, especially poems evincing what natives regard as such exquisite taste, if he had not really been their author. However this may be, I find it to be certain that this personage really existed and reigned, and I find also a satisfactory reason why his name does not occur in the political history. ' Ati-Vira-Ptama ' was not his real name, but his assumed literary name — his nom de plume. His real name, by which he was known as a reigning sovereign, was Vallabha Deva. I had many inscriptions in my possession pertaining to Vallabha Deva's reign, which were without date. At length I found a dated inscrip- tion, which turned out to be a peculiarly valuable one for Tamil literary history. This is an inscription in Sanskrit, in the Grantha character, found in the interior of the temple at Courtallum, Tinnevelly. It is in the fortieth year of Vallabha Deva, " who is Ati-Vira-Bdma ;" and that this person with the double name is the very person we are in search of appears from this also that he is praised for his skill in sangita-sdliitya, 'music and belles lettres.^ This fortieth year of Vallabha Deva corresponds to the S'aka year 1527 (a.d. 1605). It thus appears that Ati-Vira-Rama, the poet-king, came to the tlirone in A.D. 1565. A predecessor of his (apparently his immediate predecessor) h 146 INTRODUCTION. was Vikrama Pandya (called also Kdsi kanda, he who visited Benares), the year of whose accession, according to an inscription in my posses- sion, was A.D. 1543 ; and he again was preceded by Parakrama 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 Egija of Vijayanagara, 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 Vijayanagara, 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 Vijayanagara. 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-Eama Pandiyan'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 Tiruvileiy^dal Puranam was translated from Sanskrit ; and doubtless this was not the only case of the kind that occurred. (6.) The Anti-Brahmanical Cycle. — I refer here to the compositions of the so-called S'ittar 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 ' (in Tamil S'ittar) were a Tamil sect, the adherents of which retained S'iva as the name of God, but rejected everything in the S'aiva system which was inconsistent with pure theism. They cultivated alchymy {rasdyana) as sedulously as the Arabians, from whom they appear to have derived their knowledge of it. One of their number is said to have visited Arabia, and another refers to the Franks. Several of them refer to the Turukkas, 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- ving of commendation ; but it was a peculiarity of theirs of which we cannot approve, that most of them took to themselves without warrant the names of liishis or of renowned teachers and poets. Thus one of ANTIQUITY OF DRAVIDIAN LITERATURE. 1 47 them called himself Agastya, another Kapila, another S'ankara Acharya, another Gautama, another Tiruvalluvar. What is surprising is that this audacity was perfectly successful. The writers are now almost universally supposed to have lived at an early period ; and as the school has ceased to exist, this contributes to throw around their writings an air of antiquity. They are much quoted by native Christians, who generally fancy them to have been endowed with a prophetic spirit, and to have meant Christ by the Sat-Guru (true teacher) to whom they constantly refer. I have no doubt that they were more or. less acquainted with Christianity, and that their prophecies were after the event, like those of the Sybils of ancient Europe. Who could doubt the allusions to Christianity in the following 1 — " God is one and the Veda is one ; The disinterested, true Guru is one, and his initiatory rite one ; When this is obtained his heaven is one ; There is but one birth of men upon the earth, And only one way for all men to walk in : But as for those who hold four Vedas and six Shastras, And different customs for different people, And believe in a plurality of gods, Down they will go to the fire of hell ! " The author of this composition calls himself Konkanar, the name of one of the supposed disciples of Agastya. To me, however, he appears by the adoption of that name to identify himself with the neighbour- hood of Goa (in the Konkana country), the first place where Christian teachers from Europe formed a settlement, I quote the last stanza from a striking series of verses by a writer of this school on the identity of God and love — premising that the word used for God is Slvam, the neuter of S'iva — " The ignorant think that God and love are different. None knows that God and love are the same. Did all men know that God and love are the same, They would dwell together in peace, considering love as God." The writer calls himself Tirumula, the name of another supposed disciple of Agastya. Tirumula was the name also of one of ' the sixty- three' S'aiva devotees mentioned in the Tiruttondar purdnam; but this must have been a different person, for no one can attribute the idea conveyed in the verse quoted above to any but a Christian source. Another of the writers of this school is called Pattira-gwiydr (from the name of the place to which he belonged). I quote one verse out of more than two hundred of his Pulamhals or Lamentations, to illu- 148 INTEODUCTION. strate the anti-Brahmanical feeling pervading the writings of this school. " Oh ! when will the time come that I shall burn the S'^stras, and prove the four Yedas to be a lie, and discover the mystery, and obtain salvation 1 " Undoubtedly the most striking compositions emanating from mem- bers of this school are those contained in a book called ^iva-vdhyam, ' Words about God/ the author of which is known only as ^iva-vdhyar, 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 sound 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 hours, 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. J Beating my breast, aloud How oft I called the crowd To drag the village car ; how oft I stray'd, In 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 Shephekd 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 quote the above poetical version of a remarkable stanza of S'iva- vakyar's from "Specimens of Tamil Poetry," by my son, Mr R. C. * Probably the poet hj Andar{'k)lc6n meant only 'king of the gods,' but the words used suggest the more poetical meaning given above. ANTIQUITY OF DEAVIDIAN LITEKATUEE. 1 49 Caldwell, in tlie Indian Antiqiiary (Bombay) for April 1872. See also Mr Gover's " Dravidian Folk-songs." The poems of the Sittar school should be attributed, I think, to the seventeenth century. Looking at their matter and style, we might suppose them to have been written during the last century ; but the school from which these remarkable poems emanated has passed so entirely away without leaving a relic behind, that we seem to be obliged to place it a century earlier. Its nearest representative in the present day is the Brahma Samaj, 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 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 Prabhu Linga Lil^, a translation from the Canarese, which is considered the finest composition in Tamil pertaining to the Vira S'aiva or Jan- gama sect. Another is a small ethical treatise called the Niti-neri- 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 contemporary poets, one a native, the other a foreigner. The former of these, Tayum^navar (' he who became a mother also,' the name of the manifestation of S'iva wor- shipped at Trichinopoly), was a religious-minded S'aiva, in whose poems it is believed that a distinct tinge of Christianity can be traced. He 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 religious earnestness, as well as by much beauty of language. The other, whose poems occupy a still higher place in literature, was the celebrated Beschi, not a Tamilian, 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 150 INTRODUCTION. acquired over that or any other Indian language. His prose style in the colloquial dialect, though good, is not of preeminent excellence ; but his poems in the classical dialect, especially his great poem, the Tembavani, a long and highly wrought religious epic in the style of the Chintamani, are so excellent — from the point of view of Hindti ideas of excellence ; that is, they are so elaborately correct, so highly ornamented, so invariably harmonious — that I have no doubt he may 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 Chintamani, the Kama- yanam, the NM^diyar — 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 Tembavani 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 HindAise the facts and narratives of Scripture, and even the geography of Scripture, for the purpose of pleasing the Hindil taste. It is a 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 — viz., 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 Tamilians are concerned) deserves to be remembered. It was Tanclava-raj^a Mudaliyar, 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 Maha-bharata, &c., in the same style of flowing and elegant, yet perfectly intelligible, prose. There has been a considerable amount of literary activity, according to Dr Gundert, in Malayalam during the period under consideration, the Kerala Utpatti, or Origin of Kerala, with some other works of irapor- ANTIQUITY OF DEA VIDIAN LITERATURE. iSi 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 following list of Tamil books printed in Madras up to 1865, com- pared with Bengali books printed in Calcutta, is taken from Murdoch's *' Classified Catalosrue of Tamil Printed Books." Bengali. Protestant Books and Tracts, Koman Catholic Publications, Muhammedan Books, S aiva do. Vaishnava do. Vedantic do. Brahma Samaj do. Jurisprudence, Ethics, Medicine, . Poetry and the Drama, Tales, Tamil. 263 587 2 87 41 36 37 237 80 103 40 101 51 3 49 19 59 48 24 43 53 103 53 42 Tamil works surpass Bengali works in numbers, but it does not follow that they are of a higher character. Dr Murdoch asserts that they are not. He says, with regard to Madras publications, " Keprints of old 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 with an estimate of the intrinsic value of Dravidian poetry. I have only space to remark here that, whilst an elevated thought, a natural, expressive description, a pithy, sententious maxim, or a striking com- parison, may sometimes be met with, unfortunately elegance of style has always been preferred to strength, euphony has been preferred to truthfulness, and poetic fire has been quenched in an ocean of conceits. Nothing can exceed the refined elegance and * linked sweetness ' of many Telugu and Tamil poems; but a lack of power and purpose, and a substitution of sound for sense, more or less characterise them all ; and hence, whilst an anthology composed of well-selected extracts would please and surprise the English reader, every attempt to trans- late any Tamil or Telugu poem in extenso into English, has proved to be a failure. 152 INTRODUCTION. It is deserving of notice tliat alliteration is of the essence of Dravi- 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 rhyme. The rhyme of modern European poetry is supposed by some to have had a Welsh or Celtic origin ; but Dravidian rhyme was invented by Dravidians. The chief peculiarity of Dravidian rhyme consists in its seat being, not at the end of the line, but at the beginning — a natural result of its origin in a love of alliteration. The rule in each Dravidian dialect is that the consonant which intervenes between the first two vowels in a line is the seat of rhyme. A single Tamil illustration must suffice : — " sirei (t)te^il, erei (t)tedu." — Auveiyar. " If you seek for prosperity, Seek for a plough." The agreement of those two consonants constitutes the minimum of rhyme which is admissible ; but often the entire first foot of one line rhymes with the same foot in the second ; sometimes the second feet in each line also rhyme ; and the rhyme is sometimes taken up again further on in the verse, according to fixed laws in each variety of metre. The mental physiology of the Indo-European and Dravidian races respectively is illustrated by their literature. It is illustrated in a still greater 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 welding 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 Dravidian family of languages prefers softening away difficulties to grappling with them : it aims at ease and softness of enunciation rather than impressiveness. Multiplying vowels, separating consonants, assimi- lating differences of sound, and lengthening out its words by successive agglutinations, it illustrates the mental characteristics of the races by which it is spoken, by the soft, sweet, garrulous effeminacy of its utterances. 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- ANTIQUITY OF DEAVIDIAN LITEEATUEE. 1 5 3 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 be expected to flourish, and where it had ceased to flourish could never be expected to revive, where the follow- ing distich (contained in the " Nan-ntil," or classical Tamil grammar) was accepted as a settled principle : — " On whatsoever subjects, in whatsoever expressions, with whatsoever arrange- ment, Classical writers have written, so to write is denoted propriety of style.^' For the last two hundred years Dravidian literature appears to have made but little real progress. This is sometimes attributed by natives 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 European Christianity are becoming known and felt by so many of the HindHs themselves, it may be expected that the Dravidian mind will ere long shake itself free from its thraldom, and be stimulated to enter upon a new and brighter career. If the national mind and heart were stirred to so great a degree a thousand years ago by the diffusion of Jainism, and some centuries later by the dissemination of the S'aiva and Vaishnava doctrines, it is reasonable to expect still more important results from the propagation of the grand and soul-stirring truths of Christianity, and from the contact of the minds of the youth with the ever-progressive literature and science of the Christian nations of the West. It is a great and peculiar advantage of the English and vernacular education which so many Hindlis are now receiving from European missionaries and from Government teachers, that it is communicated to all who wish to receive it without distinction of caste. In former ages the education of the lower castes and classes was either prohibited or sedulously discouraged ; but now the youth of the lower classes are being admitted to the same educational advantages as those enjoyed by the higher castes. The hitherto uncultivated minds of the lower and far most numerous classes of the Hindti community are now for the first time in history being brought within the range of humanising and elevating influences. A virgin soil is now for the first time being ploughed, turned up to the air and light, and sown with the seed of life ; and in process of time we may reasonably expect to reap a rich crop of intellectual and moral results. 154 INTRODUCTION. In the Appendix I have adduced the evidence formerly contained in the Introduction, proving that Tuda, Kota, G6nd, and Ku are Dra- vidian tongues, and have also reprinted son^e remarks on the late Mr Gover's " Folk Songs of Southern India." I have added an excursus on Sundara Pandya, and I have endeavoured to answer the question, "Are the Pareiyas and the Tudas Dra vidians ? " and have subjoined some remarks " On the Dravidian physical type," and " On the religion of the ancient Dravidian tribes." COMPARATIYE GRAMMAR. r NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION, All foreign words, to whatever family of languages they may belong, are represented in this work in Roman characters, for the double pur- pose of preventing unnecessary expense and trouble, and of facilitat- ing comparison. Long vowels are invariably marked thus, — d: when no such accent is placed over a vowel, it is intended that it should be pro- nounced short. E and o, being invariably long in Sanskrit, are left unaccented in the transliteration of Sanskrit words in works treating of Sanskrit. The Dravidian languages having short e 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, ei, as will be explained, corresponds to the Sanskrit ai. The " lingual " or " cerebral " consonants are denoted by a sub- scribed dot — e.g., tf d, n: the peculiar vocalic r, and the surd /, of the South Indian languages are denoted in a similar manner — e.g., r, I: the obscure, inorganic nasal n ot m is represented by n with a super- scribed line — e.g., n: the nasal of the guttural row of consonants, ordinarily represented by ng, is written n ; the nasal of the palatal row, ordinarily written nj or wy, is written ri ; and the hard rough r is represented by a heavier letter r. The dental d in Tamil, and the corresponding ^ or c? in Malayalam, are pronounced in the middle of a word, or between two vowels, like the English th in than ; and in Telugu, / and ch, when followed by certain vowels, are pronounced like dz and ts : but as these are merely peculiarities of pronunciation, and one consonant is 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 ch, should be represented. The difficulty is owing to the circumstance that its pronunciation, when doubled, differs considerably from its pronunciation when single. When single, its pronunciation closely resembles that of the Sanskrit * Dr Burnell, in his " Specimens of South Indian Dialects," No. 1, Konkanl (Mangalore, 1872), mentions that Professor H. H. Wilson, being accustomed to Bpeak North Indian dialects •nly, used always -to say T4lngu, instead of Telugu. 4 NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION. ^; when doubled, it is identical with that of the Sanskrit chch. I have thought it best, therefore, to represent it by these letters. This is the way in which I have dealt 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 tt; and d, which, when doubled, becomes in like manner ft. There is a tendency in all the Dravidian languages to pronounce e 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, y before e, and v or w before o, are often written as well as pronounced. In Canarese and Tulu 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 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 y 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 Mar^thi and Konkani ; and Dr Pope, in his '' Outlines of the Grammar of the Tuda Language," points 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 y and v 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 e and o pure.* * Europeans often notice the appearance of this peculiarity in the pronuncia- tion of English by the people of South India. " Every " becomes "yevery," and "over" "woven" 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." DRAVIDIAN GRAMMAR, PART I. SOUNDS. It will be my endeavour in this section to elucidate the law3 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 various shapes they assume, and to which it will frequently be necessary to allude in the subsequent sections of this work. Dravidian Alphabets. — Before entering on the examination of the Dravidian sounds, it is desirable to make some preliminary observa- tions on the alphabets of the Dravidian languages. There are three different Dravidian alphabets at present in use, viz., the Tamil, the Malayalam, and the Telugu-Canarese. I class the Telugu and the Canarese characters together, as constituting but one alphabet; for though there are differences between them, those dif- ferences are few and very unimportant. Tulu has ordinarily been written hitherto in the MalayMam character, but Canarese characters are now used in the books printed at the German Mission Press at Mangalore. It is this character which is used in Brigel's Tulu 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 would have been for expressing the Ku sounds. The other uncultivated dialects of this family have hitherto been con- tent to have their sounds expressed in the Roman character. The three Dravidian alphabets which have been mentioned above, viz., the Tamil, the Malayalam, and the Telugu-Canarese, together with their older but now obsolete shapes, and the Gvaniha, or character in which Sanskrit is written in the Tamil country, have all been derived, 6 SOUNDS. it is supposed, from the early Deva-ndgari, or rather from the still earlier characters contained in Asoka's inscriptions — characters 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," Introduction, 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, Singhalese, and Burmese. The chief peculiarity in the type of all ll 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, and having hardly such a thing as a straight line among them. The straight, angular letters which Asoka used are exhibited in the inscriptions found at Seoni on the Narmad^ (Nerbudda) in more than their pristine angularity, but adorned with a great number of additional lines and squares, which render them almost as complicated as the glagolitic alphabet of St Cyril. The next modification of these letters occurs in the inscriptions found at Amravati on the Kistua, 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 is evidently of Aryan origin, as its system of Pasangans, or separate forms for the second letter of a nexus, and Sandangans, or vowel and diacritical signs, sufficiently testify. " Whether the Oriyas received the art of writing from Bengal or from Central India is a question still under dispute Assuming that they got their alphabet from Central, rather than from Northern, India, the reason of its being so round and curling has now to be explained. In all probability, in the case of Oriya, as in that of the other languages which I have mentioned above, the cause is to 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 jlabelliformis). 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-formed fold of the fan. On these leaves, when DRA VIDIAN ALPHABETS. 7 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 matr^, or top line of the Deva-n%art 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, tlie style being held in the right hand and the leaf in the left, the thumb of the left hand serves as a fulcrum 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 TMpatra will question the accuracy of the assertion ; and though the fact 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 their 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 TMpatra, 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 of sounds peculiar to Sanskrit; and that from this amalgamation, which they called Grantha, or the book {grantha lipi, or " the book character"), the existing Tamil characters have been derived. There can be little doubt of the derivation of the Tamil character in ordinary use from the Grantha ; for some characters are identical with Grantha letters which are still in use, and others with more ancient forms of the Grantha ; but the other part of the hypothesis, viz., the existence of a Prse-Sanskrit Tamil character, out of which the Grantha itself was developed, is more doubtful ; and though it is true that there is a native Tamil word which signifies " a letter," and another which signi- 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 immigrants. The character called Hala Kannada, or old Canarese, and the various characters in which Tamil is found to be written in old inscriptions, seem to me to be founded on the basis of an alpha- betical system which was originally intended for the use of Sanskrit. 8 SOUNDS. Mr Edward Thomas, in an article on "Recent Pelilvi Decipher- ments/' in the Jour. R.A.S. 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 eflfected 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 c, though the form used for the latter is made to do duty for ai. On the other hand, " the oldest known Dravidian alphabet," published by Dr Burnell, which is to be described presently, makes no difference between long e 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 sdsanas, 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 tinged with the peculiarities of Malayalam. The alphabet of these inscriptions has been printed by Dr Burnell, of the Madras Civil Ser- vice, in the Ijidian Antiquary for August 1872 (Bombay). The characters have been taken from a facsimile of the copper sdsanas 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. 774. Dr Burnell says of these sdsanas, " Palaeographi- cally they are of the greatest value, for they are the oldest inscriptions 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 Mllpillas 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 DRA VIDIAN 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 century A.D.) are in this character. I have found inscriptions of the time of Sundara Pandiya (called also Chola-P^ndiya) 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 Burn ell considers the Tamil-Malay S,- 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 Phoenicia, 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 Ethiopia — 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 (in the third century B.C.) was gradually modified into the Tamil-MalayMam 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 more than an adoption or imitation of the Tamil-Malayalam character, even though we should grant that the latter may originally have pre- sented some differences of form — of which, however, there is now no proof. The fact that the " oldest known South Indian alphabet " makes no distinction between long and short e, or long and short o, but has only // ^f one character for each vowel, like the Sanskrit alphabets and the modern MalayMam, whilst it has different characters for the long and short forms of the other vowels, a, i, u, tends to show that it was framed originally for the expression of Sanskrit sounds, not for those of the Dravidian languages. On the other hand, may it not be said that the fact that different characters are provided in Asoka's alphabet for the expression of the dental and the lingual sounds respectively, points to the origination of that alphabet amongst a people in whose 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 Ure-re_ 10 SOUNDS. Lingual or Cerebral Sounds, that whilst the difference in question seems to have been in Sanskrit the result of gradual development, it 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 period in North India. The characters may best be described as an archaic form of the Hala Kannada. Much information on the subject of Indian characters is contained in Mr Edward Thomas's edition of " Prinsep's Essays on Indian Anti- quities." The question 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 alphabets, 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 mainly " developed 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-n^gari type ; but there is a marked resemblance between some of the Telugu- Canarese characters and the corresponding characters found in the sdsanas of Cochin. The modern Malayalam character is manifestly derived from the Tamilian Grantha. On the whole, there seems to be reason to conclude that all the alphabetical characters which are used or known in Southern India have a common origin, whether or no their origin is the same as that of the existing alphabets of Northern India, namely, the system of characters in which Sanskrit was first written. The greatness of the difference between the Southern and the modern Northern alpha- bets arises probably from the greater antiquity of the literary culti- DRAVIDIAN ALPHABETS. 1 1 vation of the Southern vernaculars, as compared with the Northern. The Southern vernaculars appear to have begun 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-n^gari. 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 e and o, and a hard r, which is unknown to Sanskrit, are contained in those alphabets, together with a surd /, which is not used in modern Sanskrit, but is found in the Sanskrit of the Vedas, as well as in the Dravidian languages. Old Canarese possesses also the vocalic r of Tamil and Malay^lam. In other re- spects the characters of those alphabets are convertible equivalents of the Deva-n%ari. The Malay al am alphabet generally agrees with the Telugu and the modern Canarese : it differs from them in having the vocalic r of the Tamil, in addition to the other characters mentioned above ; and in having only one character for long and short e, and another for long and short o. The aspirated letters and sibilants which all those alphabets have borrowed from Sanskrit, are seldom used except in pronouncing and writing Sanskrit derivatives. Those letters are not really required for native Dravidian purposes j though, through the prevalence of Sanskrit influences, they have acquired a place in the pronunciation of a few words which are not derived from Sanskrit. The letters ch and j are pronounced in Telugu in certain situations U and dj ; but no additional characters are employed to represent those sounds. The Tamil alphabet differs more widely than the Malay^lam 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 Sanskrit modes of pronunciation being almost unknown to Tamilians,. the phonetic system of Tamil demanded, and has secured for itself, a faithful expression in the Tamil alphabet. The materials of that alphabet appear to be wholly, or in the main, Sanskrit ; but the use which is made of those materials is Tamilian. The following are the principal peculiarities of the Tamil alphabet. In common with the Telugu and Canarese alphabets, the Tamil alphabet possesses separate characters for long and short e, and for long and short o. Formerly it had but one character for the long and short sounds of these vowels ; and it is believed that the marks by which the long are now distinguished from the short were first iutro- 12 SOUNDS. duced by the celebrated missionary Beschi. The Tamil has no char- acters corresponding to the liquid semi-vowels ri and Iri, which are classed amongst vowels by Sanskrit grammarians; and it has not adopted the anusvdraf or obscure nasal, of 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 ?**, the nasal of the guttural row of consonants ; and it is changed in a similar manner into ri, n, or Uf according as it is followed by a palatal, a cerebral, or a dental. The Tamil alphabet has nothing to correspond with the half anusvdra 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 half anitsvdra has arisen, is in full operation in Tamil. Tamil makes no use whatever of aspirates, and has not borrowed any of the aspirated consonants of Sanskrit, nor even the isolated aspirate h. It professes to possess a letter, half vowel, half consonant, corresponding in some respects to the Sanskrit visarga, and called dydam (that which is subtle, minute). It is pronounced like a guttural h, but is only found in the poets, and is generally considered a pedantical invention of the grammarians. In arranging the consonants, the Tamil alphabet follows the Deva- n^gari in respect of the vargas, 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 n, omitting hh^ g, and gh : in the second or palatal row, it adopts cA, and its corresponding nasal Jt, omitting cM, /, and jh : in the third or cerebral row, it adopts f, and its nasal n^ omitting th, d, and dh : in the fourth or dental row, it adopts t, and its nasal ?^, omitting th, cf, and dh : in the fifth or labial row, it adopts p^ and its nasal m, omitting ph, h, and bh. Thus the Tamil alphabet omits not only all the aspirated conson- ants of the Deva-nagari, but also all its soft or sonant letters. The 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, 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 — viz., the tenuis or surd in each of the Deva-n^gari vargas. In the varga of the semi-vowels, Tamil follows the Deva-nagari ; but it subjoins to that varga a row of four letters which are not con- tained in the Deva-n^gart. These letters are a deep liquid r, which will always be represented in this work as r/ a harsh, rough ?•, which will be represented as r; /, a peculiar surd /, with a mixture of r; and n, a letter to which it is unnecessary to affix any distinctive mark, the difference between it and the n of the dental varga being one of form rather than of sound. This n is that which is invariably used as a final, and it is also much used, in combination with r, to represent the peculiar Tamil sound of ndr. The Tamil alphabet is destitute of the Sanskrit sibilants s, 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 grammars of 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 occasionally borrowed to express Sanskrit sounds. The first of the three Sanskrit characters referred to above, namely, the s of ^iva., is never used at all in pure Tamil : the Tamil palatal or semi-sibilant which corre- sponds to the Sanskrit ch, and which is pronounced as a soft s or sh when single, and as chch or 66 when doubled, is the letter which is used instead. The following comparative view of the Deva-n^gari and the Tamil alphabets exhibits the relations which the one bears to the other. Vowels. Sanskrit a, a : i, i: u, H : ri, rt : Irt Tamil a, d : i, i: Uj 4: .• — , — e:at: — 6 : aH : n : ah ?, e : ei r o, 6 : aH : — .• — h Consonants. Gutturals, Sans. h, hh , • ff, gh . • h Ditto, Tamil h — • n Palatals, Sans. ch, chh • J\ Jk • n Ditto, Tamil c\- . ' — • n Linguals, Sans. t, th . d, dh . ' n Ditto, Tamil u — . — ' ^ Dentals, Sans. t, th . d, dh . • n Ditto, Tamil t, - . • n Labials, Sans. p, ph . b, bh . • m Ditto, T^il P, — . . m 14 ♦ SOUNDS. Consonants — continued. Semi-vowels, Sans. y, r, I, v Ditto, Tamil y, r, I, v; Sibilants and aspirate, Sans. i, sh, s, h Ditto, Tamil * "Early 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 {i.e., Stephens, an Englishman), about 1600, speaks of the Roman character as exclusively used for writing Kon- kani, and the system of transcription which he used in his Konkani Grammar {Arte 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 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. About 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.e., Amhalakhddu, or ' Church wood') 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 conclu- 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- torians ; 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 became a place of great importance to the mission. Sanskrit, Tamil, Malayalam, 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 Ambalacdtta in lig- num incisi alii characteres Tamulici per Ignatium Aichamoni indigenam Malaba- rensem, iisque in lucem prodiit opus inscriptum : Vocabulario Tamuelco com a signijicdgao Portugueza composto pello P. Antem de Proen<^a da Camp, de Jesu, Miss, de Maduri.' The first Malabar-Tamil (? Malayfi,lam) types had been cut by a lay brother of the Jesuits, Joannes Gonsalves, at Cochin, in 1577. Ambalac&tta 1 The German Jesuit Hanxleden, who died at Pds'ur (in South Malabar) in 1732, possessed a comprehensive knowledge of Sanskrit literature. DRAVIDIAN SYSTEM OF SOUNDS. 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- n^gari 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 uyir or the life of a word ; consonants as mey, or the body ; and * the junction of a vowel and consonant as UTjir mey, or an animated hody. I. Vowels. — (1.) d and d. The sound of these vowels in the Dravidian languages corresponds to their sound in Sanskrit, as pro- nounced everywhere in India except in Bengal, where d is pronounced as 6. In Tamil, d is the heaviest of all the simple vowels, and there- fore the most liable to change. It evinces a tendency to be weakened into e — (comp. Sanskrit halariy strength, with Tamil helan; Sanskrit japa, prayer, with Tamil sebam. See also the pronoun of the first person.) In the other dialects it maintains its place more firmly; but even in them it is ordinarily strengthened at the end of words by ^ the addition of the euphonic syllable vu, consisting of the enunciative vowel u, and the v euphonically used to prevent hiatus, d has almost ' entirely disappeared from the end of nouns in Tamil, and has been , succeeded by u or ei. Where final a changes into ei in Tamil, it ' generally changes into e in Canarese, or else it is propped up by the addition of vu. In Telugu, and especially in Malayalam, this vowel is less subject to change. Neuter plurals of appellatives and pronouns, which originally ended in a in all the dialects, and which still end in a in Malayalam, now end in most instances in ei in colloquial Tamil, in i in Telugu, and in u in Canarese. Thus, ava, those (things), was destroyed by order of Tipu, when his army invaded Cochin and Travancore ; 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 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 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 " Doctrina Christiana," which was followed the next year by a book entitled the " Flos Sanctorum." After mentioning the Tamil Dictionary, printed in 1679, he adds, " From that period the Danish missionaries at Tranquebar have printed many works." • k 16 • SOUNDS. Las become avei in Tamil, avi in Telugu, avu in Canarese : in Malay- ^lam alone it is still ava. The long d, which is formed in Tamil by the coalescence of two short as, becomes poetically 6. Vinna-v-ar, heavenly ones, becomes vintidr. In old Canarese, even short a becomes sometimes o. The long final d of Sanskrit feminine abstracts becomes in Tamil ei — «.(/., dsd, Sans., desire, Tam. dsei; Chitrd, Sans., April — May, Tam., ^ittirei. The same d becomes e in Canarese — e.g., Gangd, the Ganges, is in Canarese Gauge or Gange-yu. The diphthong into which final a and d are weakened in Tamil is represented more properly as ei than as ai. The origination of the Tamil ei from cr, and the analogy of the Sanskrit diphthong ai, which is equivalent to di, might lead us to regard the Tamil diph- thong as ai rather than ei. It is curious, however, that though it ori- ginated from a, every trace of the sound of a has disappeared. It is represented in Grantha and MalayMam by a double e, and in Telugu- Canarese by a character which is compounded of e and i : it accords in sound also very nearly with the sound of e or ey in Turkey. It is also to be observed that the Tamil ei is the equivalent of the e of the Malay- ^lam accusative, and is the ordinary representative of the final e of Canarese substantives and verbal nouns. It is worthy of notice also that Kumarila-bhatta, in transliterating the Tamil nadei into Sanskrit characters, writes it, not as nadai, but as nade. He evidently consi- dered the Dravidian ei nearer e than ai. I conclude, therefore, that this sound is best represented by the diphthong ei, which corresponds to the e^of the Greeks. " The change from a to e is rare in bases, though more frequent in inflexions. 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 a into e Instances also occur in which not only a, but even d, is thus modulated. This process, which is irregular and capricious, resembles our own English habit of turning a into e The e in the modern Indian languages is never short, as in Prakrit, but is constantly long The breaking down of a and d into e seems to be one of those points where non-Aryan influences have been at work. The Sanskrit admits of the modulation of i into e by the addition of an a sound, but it does not include within the range of its phonetic system the VOWELS. 17 process of flattening a into e by the appendage of an i 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 e as one of their original simple vowel sounds, side by side with the e corresponding to the Sanskrit e. The Tamil further substitutes for the Sanskrit e- — i.e., d + i — a sound of ei — i.e., e + i. This short e of the Dravidians is often found in Canarese to replace the a and d of Sanskrit, and in Tamil ei 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. 137-1-il. (2.) i and i. These vowels call for no remark. (3.) u and 'd. In the Indo-European languages, and also in the Semitic, the vowels u and u are very decided, inflexible sounds, which admit of little or no interchange with other vowels, or euphonic softening. In the Dravidian languages, long u is sufficiently persis- tent ; but short u is of all vowels the weakest and lightest, and is largely used, especially at the end of words, for euphonic purposes, or as a help to enunciation. In grammatical written Telugu, every word without exception must end in a vowel ; and if it has not naturally a vowel ending of its own, u is to be suffixed to the last consonant. This rule applies even to Sanskrit derivatives; and the neuter abstracts ending in m, which have been borrowed from Sanskrit, must end in m-u in Telugu. Though this u is always written, it is often dropped in pronunciation. In modern Canarese a similar rule holds, with this additional develop- ment, that u (or with the euphonic copula v, vu) is suffixed even to words that end in a — e.g., compare the Tamil sila, few (things), and pala, many (things), with the corresponding Canarese Jcela-vu and pala-vu. The Tamil rule, with regard to the addition of u to words which end in a consonant, accords with the rule of the ancient Canarese. That rule is, that in words which end in any hard or surd consonant, viz., in k, ch, t, t, or p (each of which is the leading consonant of a varga), or in the hard, rough r, which is peculiar to these languages, the hard , consonant shall be followed by z^ (as q by slCvd in Hebrew), in con- sequence of its being impossible for Tamilian organs of speech to pro- nounce those letters without the help of a succeeding vowel. In most instances this enunciative u is not merely short, but so very short that \ its quantity is determinecf by grammarians to be equal only to a fourth - a J 18 SOUNDS. of tlie quantity of a long vowel. In Malayalam a short a sometimes replaces the short ii 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 u of Tamil is still further shortened in Northern Malayalam, 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., IziraW — Tcirdkk-u. The same usage prevails still more extensively in Tulu, in which the pronunciation of this final u is still more like the Hebrew sNvd. After all vowels except 6 and 4 it is hardly possible to catch the sound. In so far as it is enunciated at all, it resembles a very short German il. The change of the Tamil iladu (there is not) into the Telugu Udu, 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 ic or a has been appended, is doubled, apparently for the purpose of furnishing a fulcrum for the support of the appended vowel. Thus, the Sanskrit vdk, speech, becomes in Tamil vdlc{k)-u; ap, water, becomes ap{p)-u; and so in all similar cases. The rule is further extended in Tamil so as to apply to the final consonants of syllables, as well as to those of words. If a 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 u is aflSxed. Thus, advaita, Sans., in- duality, becomes in Tamil attuveida. The rule by which d, when thus doubled, becomes t, will be explained hereafter. In modern colloquial Tamil, u 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., sol{l)-u, speak, instead of simply sol. The employment of u 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. (4.) e, e: o, 6. The Dravidian languages possess and largely employ the short sounds of the vowels e 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 e and o. The entire absence of those VOWELS. 19 sounds from a language whicli attends so nicely as Sanskrit, to the minutest gradations of sound, cannot be the result of accident j 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 a and i, and the interrogative base e, the short vowel has sometimes been converted into a long one by becoming the seat of emphasis ; but such cases are rare and excep- tional, and in general the difference between short e and o and the corresponding long vowels is a difference which pertains not to 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, tel means clear, and tel scorpion ; hdl, stone, and Ml, foot. " The first trace of the adoption of this short e by Aryan populations is found in Prakrit, and takes the form, not of a distinct sound, from the long Sanskrit e, but of a shortening of that sound itself. Thus, words which in Sanskrit exhibit long c, followed by a single consonant, occur in Prakrit with e followed by a double consonant. As Prakrit is always very careful to preserve the quantity of Sanskrit words, it is apparent that the common people who spoke Prakrit, having come to regard e as a short sound, felt it necessary to double the following con- sonant, in order to preserve the quantity ; the vowel, which in Sanskrit was long by nature, becoming thus long by position These words were pronounced with a short e, as in English get, bed; and the barren- ness of invention of the persons who reduced Prakrit to writing is shown by their omitting to provide a separate character for this new sound, as the Dravidians have done." — Beames, p. 141. (5.) ei. It has already been mentioned that ei, unlike the Sanskrit diphthong ai, represents e and ^, not a and i. The primitive Dravi- dian a changes into e, and this again into ei. Thus, the head is tala in Telugu and Malay^lam, tale in Canarese, and tali in Tamil. This Malayalam a is not pure, but, according to Dr Gundert, is a modification of ei. Hence e, not a, appears in the dative. When ei is succeeded in Tamil by another ei, with only a single consonant between them, the first ei, though naturally long, is considered short by position, and is pronounced short accordingly — e.g., udeimei, pro- perty, is regarded in prosody as udeimei. In such cases, ei is seen to be equivalent to its original d or S. (6.) au. This diphthong has a place in the Tamil alphabet; but it 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 only in the pronunciation of Sanskrit derivatives ; and when such 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 a and w, 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 sauhhyam, health, is ordinarily pronounced and written in Tamil saviikkiyam. It is a peculiarity of the Tamil system of sounds, as distinguished from that of the other languages of the family, that the vowels ^, i, e, e, and n, acquire before certain consonants followed by a and its cognate ei, a compound, diphthongal sound, which is different from the sound which they have as simple vowels. Thus, i before f, n, r, r, r, I, and I, followed by a or ei, acquires something of the sound of e : i, before the same consonants, with the exception of the first r and the first /, and followed by a or ei, takes a sound resembling H: '(I remains always unchanged ; but u, not only before the above-mentioned seven consonants, but before all single consonants, when it is not succeeded by i, 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, e, with the same exceptions, acquires a sound similar to 6. This change of e into o especially distinguishes Tulu. Thus, the Tamil vendum, must, is in Tulu hdd; velli, silver, is holli. These changes in the sounds of the Dravidian vowels under certain circumstances are not owing exclusively to the influence of the 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 a and its cognate ei penetrating into the preceding syllable. The circum- stance most worthy of notice, in connection with these changes, is that each of the short vowels ^, u, and e, retains its natural sound, if it is succeeded by another i, u, or e. Thus, ura, Tamil, infinitive, to have, to be, is pronounced ova, but the imperative utu 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 a, occurring in the last syllable of a word ending in n, n, r, r, I, or I, acquires a slender sound resembling that of e — e.g., avar, Tamil, they (honorifically, he), is pronounced aver. This change corre- sponds to the weakening of the sound of heavy vowels in the ultimate r CONSONANTS. 21 or penultimate syllables of words, which is sometimes observed in the Sanskrit family of tongues. 11. Consonants. — Tamil grammarians divide all consonants into three classes — (1.) Surds, "which they call vallinam, or the hard class, ) "^ viz., h, ch or s, t, t, p, r; (2.) Nasals, which they call melUnam, or the : soft class, viz., n, n, n, n, m, with final n; and (3.) Semi-vowels, which ^ they call ideiyinam, or the medial class, viz., y, r, /, v, r, I. ' '^ e^ In this enumeration, as I have already observed, the sonant equiva- /^j"^ lents of the surd consonants (viz., g, the sonant of h; j, the sonant of ch or s; d, the sonant of t; c/, the sonant of t; and 6, the sonant of p) are omitted. In the Northern Dravidian dialects the difference between surds and sonants is generally expressed by the use of different charac- ters for each sound, in imitation of the system of the Deva-nagari ; but in Tamil and in Malayalam, in accordance with the peculiar Dravidian law of the convertibility of surds and sonants, one set of consonants serves for both purposes, and the difference between them is expressed in the pronunciation alone. It is desirable, before proceeding further, to inquire into this law, viz. : — 27ie Convertibility of Surds and Sonants. — We have seen that the Tamil alphabet adopts the first and last of each of the Deva-nagari vargas, or rows of consonants, viz., the unaspirated surd and the nasal of each varga; we have also seen that the Tamil has not separate characters for surds and sonants, but uses one and the same character — that which, properly speaking, represents the surd only— to express both. This rule does not apply merely to the written characters of the language, but is the expression of a law of sound which is inherent in the language itself. There are distinct traces of the existence of this law in all the Dra- vidian dialects; but it is found most systematically and most fully developed in Tamil and Malayalam. The law, as apparent in the Tamil- Malayalam system of sounds> is as follows : — h, t, t, p, the first un- aspirated consonants of the first, third, fourth, and fifth vargas, are always pronounced as tenues or surds {i.e., as k, t, t, p) at the begin- ning of words, and whenever they are doubled. The same consonants are always pronounced as medials or sonants [i.e., as g, d, d, h) when single in the middle of words. A sonant cannot commence a word, neither is a surd admissible in the middle, except when doubled ; and so imperative is this law, and so strictly is it adhered to, that when words are borrowed from languages in which a different principle pre- vails, as Sanskrit or English, the consonants of those words change k 22 SOUNDS. from sonants to surds, or vice versd, according to their position — e.^., danta, Sans, a tootli, becomes in Tamil, tandam; hhdgya, Sans, happi- ness, becomes pdhhiyam. 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. J anna-dammulu, (for anna-tammulu\ elder and younger brothers ; Jcotta-hadu (for Jcotta-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.y in- stead of Jcotta-baduy 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 ch or c (the Tamil i), the s first consonant of the second varga. When single, it is pro- nounced as a soft, weak sibilant, with a sound midway between s, s/i, 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 chch or cc. 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 — i.e.^ as s. By theory it should be pronounced as ch at the beginning of a word, — and it is worthy of notice that it always receives this pronunciation at the beginning of a word in vulgar colloquial Tamil : and in Malayalam 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 k in one position and as g in another — as ty t, p, in one position, and as d, d, h, 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- cient for the expression of both classes of sounds. This circumstance clearly proves that ah initio the Dravidian phonetic system, as repre- sented in Tamil, its most ancient exponent, diflfered essentially from that of Sanskrit. In none of the Indo-European languages do we find surds and sonants convertible ; though Hebrew scholars will remember the exist- ence in Hebrew of a rule which is somewhat similar to the Tamilian respecting k, t, p, and their equivalents. The Hebrew consonants composing the memorial words be^ad kephath, are pronounced in two different ways, according to their position. When any of those con- 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 aspirated letter, it is then deprived of the aspirate which it naturally possesses. To denote this, such consonants have a point, called a dagesh, inscribed in them. When those consonants are found in any other position, they are pronounced as sonants, and two of them, ph and thj as aspirates. This rule resembles the Tamilian in some parti- culars ; but the resemblance which will be found to exist between the Tamilian rule and the law of sounds which prevails in some of the languages of the Scythian family, amounts to identity. In the Finnish and Lappish there is a clearly marked distinction between surds and sonants : a sonant never commences a word or syllable in either tongue. But in the oldest specimen of any Scythian language which is extant — the Scythic version of the inscription at Behistun — Mr Norris ascer- tained (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1853) the existence of a law of convertibility of sonants and surds w^hich is absolutely 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 detail. (1.) The guttural varga: k, (/, and their nasal h or 7ig. These con- sonants are pronounced in the Dravidian language precisely as in San- skrit, g^ the sonant of ^, which is expressed by the same character in :, Tamil, is pronounced in Tamil-Malayalam in a peculiarly soft manner. / Its sound resembles that of an Irish gh, and is commonly used to express the h of other languages. Thus, the Sanskrit adjective mahd, great, is written in Tamil magdj but so soft is the y, that it may be considered 24 SOUNDS. as an equivalent to h, pronounced with less roughness than is usual with that aspirate. (2.) The palatal varga : ch or s,j, and ii. It has been observed that the Tamil rejects the Sanskrit sibilants s, sh, and s. The consonant which it adopts instead is ch, which is pronounced in Tamil in a manner somewhat similar to the soft aspirated s of Siva, or as a very soft sh, with as little sibilation or aspiration as possible. In fact, it may be regarded as a palatal, not as a sibilant ; and when it is doubled, it takes precisely the sound of the Sanskrit palatal ch or c, 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 iey, to do, is pronounced chey, as in Telugu. It is probably the ancient pronunciation of this letter which is retained by the lower classes. The very soft sound of it as s is probably a refinement originating with the higher classes. When the Tamil alphabet was arranged, and s was made the equivalent of ch, and even after the arrival of the Europeans in India, when the Portuguese wrote S'oramandalam as Choramandel, and the missionary Ziegenbalg wrote Siidra as Tshuddira, the harder palatal sound seems to have been the one in general use. This letter should perhaps be represented as ch in the Roman character, like the corresponding Telugu letter, but the sound of s is the sound so generally heard at present, when the letter is single, that the use of ch or c would be puzzling to the student of Tamil. I have, therefore, resolved to adhere to s as in the former edition. j, 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 ch is sometimes pronounced like/ The same sound of j is sometimes admitted in the use of those Sanskrit derivatives in which the letter j is found in Sanskrit ; but ordinarily the Tamil sound of ch or s is used instead. n, the nasal of this row of consonants, is pronounced as in Sanskrit in all the Dravidian languages, n, nj, or ny, as this letter is commonly transliterated in English, being a double letter, and liable to mislead, I think it better to represent this sound by n. The n of the lingual series will be represented as before by n; the dental n, as before, by oi, without any diacritical mark. We frequently find n {nj) used in Malay alam, as an initial, where the Tamil uses n — e.g., ndn, 1, instead of the Tamil ndn. Possibly both the Tamil n and the Malay alam n are representatives of an ancient y, as will appear in the examination of the personal pronouns, ndn, ndn = ydn. Tamil nandu, a crab, is nandu in Malayalam, and yandri in Canarese. CONSONANTS. 25 It is necessary here to notice the existence in Telugu of a peculiarly- soft pronunciation of ch and /, with their aspirates, which is unknown in Sanskrit and the Northern vernaculars, and is found only in Telugu and in Marathi. Ch is pronounced as ts, and / as dz, before all vowels > except i, i, e, e, and ei. Before these excepted vowels, the ordinary sounds of ch and / are retained. Whether the Telugu borrowed these sounds from the Marathi, or the Marathi from the Telugu, I can scarcely venture to express an opinion ; but this is not the only par- ticular in which those languages are found to agree. A sound repre- sented as zh is much used in the Tuda dialect, especially in connection with r and /. " Marathi has two methods of pronouncing the palatals. In tatsa- mas and modern tadhhavas, and before the palatal vowels i, i, e, and at, ch and j are pronounced as in Sanskrit ; but in early tadhhavas, dUajas, and before the other vowels, ch sounds ts, and j, dz. This peculiarity is not shared by any of the cognate languages, while, on the other hand, the ts and dz sounds (so to speak, the unassimilated palatals) are characteristic of the lower state of development of the non-Aryan, Turanian, or what-you-call class of languages. Tibetan on the one side, and Telugu among the Dravidians on the other, retain them. Marathi, from its juxtaposition to Telugu and other non-Aryan forms of speech, might naturally be expected to have under- gone somewhat of their influence, and this pronunciation of the palatals is probably an instance in point. By the expression *' unassimilated palatals " I mean that, whereas, in the Aryan palatals, the dental and sibilant of which they are composed have become so united into one sound that the elements can no longer be separately recognised, in the Turanian class the elements are still distinct." — Beames, p. 72. Dr Trumpp also attributes the pronunciation of ch and j in certain con- nections, as ts and dz in Marathi, to Dravidian influences. (3.) The lingual or so-called cerebral varga: t, d, n. The pro-~ nunciation of the consonants of the cerebral varga in the Dravidian languages does not essentially differ from their pronunciation in San- . skrit. In expressing these consonants, with their aspirates, in Roman characters in this work, a dot will be placed under each, to distinguish them from the t, d, and 7i, of the dental row. Though t is the surd consonant of the Unguals, it is not pronounced at the beginning of any word in Tamil, like the other surds. Its sound is too hard and rough to admit of its use as an initial ; and, therefore, in those few Sanskrit derivatives which commence with this letter, t is preceded in Tamil by the vowel *, as a help to enunciation. When t is thus preceded by a vowel, it is no longer an initial, and therefore no longer a surd ; and 26 SOUNDS. hence it becomes d by rule ; so tliat the sound of t is never heard in Tamil, except when d is doubled. In the other Dravidian dialects, t is sometimes pronounced singly, as in Sanskrit. Tamil diflfers from the other dialects in refusing to combine t with ti, and changing it into d when n 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 nt^ ntj and mp^ which are admissible in Telugu and Canarese, are inadmissible in Tamil, in which ndy nd, and nib, must be used instead. This rule applies also to k and ch, which, when combined with the nasals corresponding to them, become g and /. 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, an example of the absorption of the dental in the nasal. In colloquial, or vulgar, Tamil this euphonic insertion of n is .carried further than grammatical Tamil allows. Thus, sey-d-a, done, and pey-d-ay rained, are vulgarly pronounced sey-nj-a and pey-nj-a. 3. A third use of the euphonic nasal is the insertion, in Tamil, of n ov n before the final d or d oi some verbal roots. The same rule sometimes applies to roots and forms that terminate in the rough r, or even in the ordinary semi-vowel r. Thus, kar-Uj Can. a calf, is TcanT-u in Tamil (pronounced kandr-u) ; and miXr-Uy Can. three, is in Tamil mUnv-u (pronounced mUndr-u). In the first and second classes of instances in which nunnation is used for purposes of euphony, the Dravidian languages putsue a course of their own, which is different 70 SOUNDS. from the usages of the Scythian, as well as of the Syro- Arabian and Indo-European families of languages. In the Syro- Arabian languages, especially in Talmudic Hebrew, euphonic n is always a final, and is often emphatic as well as euphonic. In Turkish, n is used between the bases of words and their inflexions in a manner similar to its use in Sanskrit. In the North- Indian vernaculars an obscure nasal, w, is often used as a final. But none of 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 scindo, cuhui with cumho, tetigi with tango, fregi with frango. Com- pare also the Latin centum with the Greek e-xaroi/. In Greek, compare the roots iLa& and "ka.^ with the nasalised forms of those roots found in the present tense — e.g., /U-av^-avw, to learn, and Xa^^-avw, 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 difi"er- ence consists in this, that in the Indo-European languages the insertion of a nasal appears to be purely euphonic, whereas in Tamil it gener- ally contributes to grammatical expression. The consonant to which n is prefixed by neuter verbs is not only deprived of the n, but also hardened and doubled, by transitives. Prevention of Hiatus. — An 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 a is followed by a vowel, n is added to it to prevent hiatus, and a becomes an, in, or un. In the Latin and Germanic languages this n, which was used at first euphoni- cally, has become an inseparable part of the privative particles in or un. In the greater number of tlie Indo-European languages this is almost the only conjuncture of vowels in which hiatus is prevented by the insertion of an euphonic n. In Sanskrit and Pali, n is also used for the purpose of preventing hiatus between the final base-vowels of nouns or PREVENTION OF HIATUS. 71 pronouns and their case terminations, in order that the vowels of the base may escape elision or corruption, and be preserved pure. In some instances (a probably older) m is used for this purpose instead of n. This usage is unknown in the cognate languages, with the excep- tion of the use of n between the vowel of the base and the termina- tion of the genitive plural in Zend and old high German. It is in Greek that the use of n, to prevent hiatus, has been most fully de- veloped; for whilst in Sanskrit contiguous vowels are combined' or changed, so that hiatus is unknown, in Greek, in which vowels are more persistent, n is used to prevent hiatus between contiguous vowels, and that not only when they belong to the same word, but also, and still more, when they belong to different words. On turning our attention to the Dravidian languages, we may chance at first sight to observe nothing which resembles the system now mentioned. In Tamil and Canarese, and generally in the Dra- vidian languages, hiatus between contiguous vowels is prevented by the use of v or y. Vowels are rarely combined or changed in the Dravidian languages, as in Sanskrit, except in the case of compounds which have been borrowed directly from Sanskrit itself ; nor are final vowels elided in these languages before words commencing with a vowel, with the exception of some short finals, which are considered as mere vocalisations. In Telugu and Canarese a few other unimportant vowels are occasionally elided. Ordinarily, however, for the sake of ease of pronunciation, and in order to the retention of the agglutinative structure which is natural to these languages, all vowels are preserved pure and pronounced separately ; but as hiatus is dreaded with pecu- liar intensity, the awkwardness of concurrent vowels is avoided by the interposition of 2; or y between the final vowel of one word and the initial vowel of the succeeding one. The rule of Tamil, which in most particulars is the rule of Canarese also, is that v is used after the vowels a, u, and 0, with their long vowels, and au, and that y is used after i, e, with their long vowels, and ei. Thus, in Tamil, vara illei, not come, is written and pronounced vara-iyyUlei, and vari-alla (it is) not the way, becomes vari-{y)-alla. This use of v in one conjunction of vowels, and of y in another, is doubtless a result of the progressive refinement of the language. Originally, we may conclude that one consonant alone was used for this purpose, and this may possibly have been v changing into m, n, and y. In Malayalam, as Dr Gundert observes, y has gradually encroached on the domain , of v, pure a having become rare. Words like the Tamil avan (a + (v) + n), he, remote ; ivan (i + {v) + n), he, * proximate, changing in Telugu into vdndu and vindu, prove suflBciently 72 SOUNDS. the great antiquity of v. They appear to me to prove that even in Telugu y is more recent than v. Possibly, also, the n of the Telugu is more recent than m. The only thing, however, perfectly certain, is that m, n, v, and y interchange in Telugu, Tulu, and Canarese, and n, V, and ^ in Tamil. Euphonic insertions between contiguous vowels are observed in the common conversation of Dravidians, as well as in written compositions ; and they are found even in the barbarous dialects — e.^., in the Ku, which was reduced to writing only a few years ago, v may optionally be used for euphony, as in Tamil. Thus, in Ku, one may say either ddlu, she, or d{v)dlu. This insertion of v or y takes place, not only when a word terminating with a vowel is followed by a word beginning with another vowel, but also (as in Sanskrit) between the final vowels of substantives and the initial vowels of their case terminations — e.g., puli-{y)-il, in the tamarind, pild-{y)-il, in the jack. The use of alpha privative to produce negation being unknown to the Dravidian languages, there is nothing in any of them which corresponds to the use of an, in, or un privative, instead of a, in the Indo-European languages, before words beginning with a vowel. The only analogy which may at first sight have appeared to exist between the Dravidian usage and the Greek, in respect of the preven- tion of hiatus, consists in the use oivovy by the Dravidian languages as an euphonic copula. When we enter more closely on the examina- tion of the means by which hiatus is prevented, a real and remark- able analogy comes to light ; for in many instances where Tamil uses Vj Telugu and Tulu, like Greek, use n. By one of the two classes into which all words are arranged in Telugu for euphonic purposes, y is used to prevent hiatus when the succeeding word begins with a vowel ; by the other, a very numerous class, n is used, precisely as in Greek. Thus, instead of tinnagd egenu, it went slowly, Telugu requires us to say tinnagd-in)-egenu. When n is used in Telugu to prevent hiatus, it is called druta, and woxds which admit of this euphonic appendage are called druta praTcrits, words of the druta class. Druta means fleeting, and the druta n may be interpreted as the n which often disappears. The other class of words consists of those which use y instead of n, or prevent elision in the Sanskrit manner by sandhi or combination. Such words are called the hala class, and the rationale of their preferring y to n was first pointed out by Mr Brown. Whenever n (or its equivalent, ni or nu) could have a meaning of its own — e.g., wherever it could be supposed to represent the copulative conjunction, or the case sign of the accusative or the locative, there its use is inadmissible, and either y or sandhi must be used instead. PREVENTION OF HIATUS. 73» Hence, there is no difference in principle between n and y, for the latter is used in certain cases instead of the former, merely for the purpose of preventing misapprehension ; and it can scarcely be doubted that both letters were originally identical in origin and in use, like v and y in Tamil. An euphonic peculiarity of Telugu may here be noticed, ni or nu, the equivalents of n, are used euphonically between the final vowel of any word belonging to the druta class {the class which uses n to prevent hiatus), and the hard, surd initial consonant of the succeeding word — which initial surd is at the same time converted into its corre- sponding sonant. They may also be optionally used before any initial consonant, provided always that the word terminating in a vowel to which they are aflBxed, belongs to the class referred to. It is deserving of notice, that in this conjunction ni or nu may be changed into that form of m (the Telugu amisvdra) which coalesces with the succeeding consonant. Occasionally, m is used in Telugu to prevent hiatus between two vowels where we should have expected to find n, or, in Tamil, v. m may perhaps be regarded as the original form of the euphonic copula of Telugu, and n and y as a softening of the same. A dis- tinct trace of the use, apparently a very ancient use, of m to prevent hiatus, instead of n or v, may be noticed in classical Canarese, in the accusative singular of certain nouns — e.g., instead of guru-v-am, the accusative of gur^i, a teacher, guru-m-am may be used. On the other hand, in Tulu, an older v seems to have changed into wi, and even into mh. Thus, mol, Tulu, she (prox,), stands for imal, and that for ival: mer, they (prox.), for imar, and that for ivar, whilst the sing. masc. of the same is irnbe, for ivan. Compare the Tulu remote sing, masc, dye, he. The evidence of all the other dialects in favour of v being originally the euphonic vowel of the pronouns is so strong that the Tulu m must, I think, be regarded as a corruption. In colloquial Tamil m is used in some instances instead of v, where v alone is used, not only by the classics, but by scrupulously correct writers up to the present day — e.g., ennamo, whatever it may be, instead of the more correct ennavoy from enna, what, and 6, the particle expressing doubt. It may be noticed here, that where n is used in later Sanskrit to prevent hiatus between base vowels and case terminations, y is often used instead in the Sanskrit of the Vedas. I regard m as the original form of the euphonic copula of the Telugu, and n and y as a soften- ing of the same. It has been mentioned that v and y are the letters which are used in Tamil for preventing hiatus, where n and ?/ are used by Telugu. On examining more closely the forms and inflexions of classical 74 SOUNDS. Tamil, we shall find reason for advancing a step farther. In Tamil, also, n is used instead of v in a <;onsiderable number of instances, especially in the pronominal terminations of verbs in the classical dialect. Thus, the neuter plural demonstrative being avei (for a-{y)-a from A-a), we should expect to find the same a-{v)-ei, or the older a-(v)-a, in the third person plural neuter of verbs ; but we find a-(n)-a instead — i.e., we find the hiatus of a-a filled up with n instead of v — e.g.y iruk]cindra{n)a, they are (neuter), instead of irukkindra{v)a. So also, whilst in the separate demonstratives avan, he, and avar, they (epicene), the hiatus is filled up with v — e.g., (a-{v)-an, a-(v)-ar), in the pronominal terminations of verbs in the classical dialect we find a-{n)-an often used instead of a-{y)-an, and a'(n)-a7' instead of a-{v)-ar — e.g., irunda[n)an, he was, instead of irunda{v)an, or its ordinary contraction irunddn. We sometimes also find the same n in the neuter plural of appellative nouns and verbs in the classical dialect — e.g., porula{ii)a, things that are real, realities, instead of porula(v)a, or simply porula. varu-{n)-a — varuhavei, things that will come. "We find the same use of n to prevent hiatus in the preterites and relative past participles of a large number of Tamil verbs — e.g., hdtti{n)en, I showed ; Mtti{n)a, which showed ; in which forms the n which comes between the preterite participle Tcdtti and the terminations en and a, is clearly used (as v in ordinary cases) to prevent hiatus. The euphonic character of this n (respecting which see the Section on " Verbs, Preterite Tense ") is confirmed by the circumstance that n optionally changes in classical Tamil into y — e.g., we may say Tcdtti{y)a, that showed, instead of Mtti{n)a. Another instance of the use of n in Tamil for the prevention of hiatus appears to be furnished by the numerals. The compound numerals between ten and twenty are formed by the combination of the word for ten with each numeral in rotation. The Tamil word for ten is pattu, but padu is used in the numerals above twenty, and padi, identical with the Telugu word for ten, is used in the numerals from eleven to eighteen inclusive. Between this padi and the units which follow, each of which, with the exception of mUndru, three, and ndlu, four, commences with a vowel, n is inserted for the prevention of hiatus where the modern Tamil would have used V. The euphonic character of this n appears to be established on comparing the Tamil and Canarese numerals with those of the Telugu, in most of which h is used instead of n — e.g., Telugu. Tamil and Canarese. fifteen padi-{h)-enu /ja(ii-(72)-eMi(/?^ (Can. eidu) sixteen 'padi-\li)-drii padi-{ri)-dTu seventeen padi-{h)-edu padi-{n)-eru (Can. elu) PREVENTION OF HIATUS. 75 In the Tamil compound numeral, padi-{n)-miXndru, thirteen, we find the same n used as in the previous examples, though there is no hiatus to be prevented. Telugu has here pada-mUdu, the Canarese hadi-muru; and as Canarese uses n, like Tamil, in all the other compound numbers between eleven and eighteen inclusive, and dis- penses with it here, I think it may be concluded that in the Tamil padi(n)mundriCj the n has crept in through the influence of the numerals on each side of it, and in accordance with the euphonic tendencies of the language in general. Dr Gundert thinks padin hardly an example of n used for the prevention of hiatus. He prefers to regard the in of these numerals as the in of the oblique case, and considers padin- miLndra (in Malay alam, 'padim-munu) as decisive to this effect. He adduces also omhadin-dyiram (Tam. onhadin), nine thousand, and enhadin Jcodi (also capable of being used in Tamil), eighty crores. (^n the other hand, it may be replied that the h used by Telugu cannot be regarded as a sign of the oblique case, and that if it be admitted that it is used simply for the prevention of hiatus, this fact should be allowed to throw light on the use of n in the same words in the other languages. It would be quite natural, however, that m, the inflexional increment of the Tam.-Mal. oblique case, should be used instead of the merely euphonic w, where it appeared to fit in suitably. Identity of sound would recommend it for occasional use. In the Coorg dialect n appears in all the compounds after padu, the form of pattu, ten, used in construction — e.g., padunanje, fifteen, padundru, sixteen, padunelu, seventeen. Notwithstanding this, the inflexional increment of the Coorg does not contain ??-, but is either da or ra. Similarly in Tulu, in which the possessive increment is a, ta, or da, and the locative cT or t\ du or tUy n is inserted between pad\ ten, and the words for four, &c., in the compound numerals from fourteen to nineteen inclusive — e.g., pad\7i)ormba, nineteen. The n thus inserted must surely be euphonic. We have an indubitable instance of the use of n, even in common Tamil, to prevent hiatus, in appellative nouns ending in ei — e.g., when an appellative noun is formed from ilei, youth, or young, by annexing an, the sign of the masc. sing., the compound is not ilei-{i/)-an, but ilei-(n)-an, or even ilei-{n)-an. n is merely a more liquid form of n, and in Malayalam regularly replaces n in the pronoun of the first person. Probably also mandr, the epicene plural of the future tense of the Tamil verb in some of the poets, is for morar — e.g., enma-{n)-dr, they will say, for enmdr, and that for enhdr, the more common form. There is thus reason to suppose that originally Tamil agreed with Telugu in using a nasal instead of a semi- vowel to keep contiguous vowels separate. It may be objected that n evinces no tendency to 76 SOUNDS. change into v. I admit this ; but if we suppose m, not n, 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 v, and on the other to n. Nor is it a merely gratuitous supposition that Telugu may have used m at a former period instead of n, for we have already noticed that ni or nu, the euphonic equivalents of n, are interchangeable in certain conjunctions with the anusvdra or assimilat- ing m; that in two important instances (the copulative particle and the aorist formative) the n of Telugu replaces an older m of Tamil ; that m is occasionally used instead of n, to prevent hiatus between contiguous vowels • and that in Sanskrit also, instead of the n which is ordinarily inserted between certain pronominal bases and their case terminations, an older m is sometimes employed. It may also be noticed that the ni or nu, which may be considered as the euphonic suffix of the accusative in Telugu, is replaced in old Canarese by m. In Tulu, n is sometimes used to prevent hiatus. When the personal pronouns beginning with a vowel are suffixed to participles for the pur- pose of forming participial nouns, n is euphonically inserted where v would ordinarily be inserted in Tamil and Canarese — e.g., malpu-(n)- dye, he who makes. Tamil agrees with Tulu in thus inserting n after past participles ending in i — e.g., compare panni-{n)-avan, Tam. he who made, with hatti-{n)-dye, Tulu, he who came. Sometimes this euphonic n is inserted in Tulu where y would be inserted in Tamil — e.g., dhore-{n)-dhulu, Tulu, gentlemen, Tam. durei-{y)-avargal (plural used honorifically for singular). In amma-{n)-dkulu, Tulu, mistresses, Tamil would run the vowels together. When the adverbial particle aga is added to the root of a verb, to denote the time at which an action takes place, n inserted between the concurrent vowels — e.g., malpu-{n)-aga, when making. Compare with these particulars the uses of the druta n of Telugu. The emphatic particle e becomes in Tulu not only ye or ve, according to the nature of the preceding vowel, as in Tamil, but also ne, after a, and sometimes after e — e.g., dye-{n)-e, he himself, n is inserted in like manner before d and 6, the interrogative particles, where v would be inserted in Tamil, as also before e when used interrogatively. The reader cannot fail to have observed that whilst the Dravidian languages accord to a certain extent with Sanskrit in the point which has now been discussed, they accord to a much larger extent with Greek, and in one particular (the prevention of hiatus between the contiguous vowels of separate words) with Greek alone. It is impossible to suppose that the Dravidian languages borrowed this usage from Sanskrit, seeing that it occupies a much less important HARMONIC SEQUENCE. 77 place in Sanskrit tlian in the Dravidian languages, and has been much less fully developed. It should be mentioned here that the letter r is in some instances used to prevent hiatus in each of the Dravidian idioms. In Tamil, M, the imperative singular of the verb to preserve, becomes in the plural, not kd-{v)-um, but 'kd-{r)-u'm. Canarese in certain cases inserts r or ar between the crude noun and the case terminations, instead of the more common v, n, or d — e.g., karid'-ar-a, of that which is black. This ar, however, is probably only another form of ad. Telugu inserts r in a more distinctively euphonic manner, as, for instance, between certain nouns and dlu, the suffix by which the feminine gender is some- times denoted — e.g., sundaru-{r)-dlu, a handsome woman. Compare this with the Tamil soundariya-{y)-al, in which the same separation is effected by the use of the more common euphonic v. r is inserted euphonically in Telugu in other connections also — e.g., poda-r-illuy from poda, leaf, and iUu, house = a bower. The d which intervenes between the i of the preterite verbal parti- 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 simply as an euphonic insertion. This d becomes invariably n in Telugu and Tamil ; and in Tamil it is sometimes softened further into y. t is sometimes stated to be used in Telugu for a similar purpose — viz., to prevent hiatus between certain nouns of quality and the nouns which are qualified by them — e.g., kaTaku-t-amrmc, a sharp arrow, but I have no doubt that this t is identical with ti, and was originally an inflexional particle, g is in some instances used by Telugu to prevent hiatus, or at least as an euphonic formative, where Tamil would prefer to use v — e.g., the rational plural noun of number, six persons, may either be dru{g)ur-u or dru(y)ur-u. k seems to be used for the same purpose in padakondu {pada-k-ondu), eleven, gddu, he, for vddu, and gdru, they, for vdru, are instances of the use of ^ for 2^ in Telugu. Harmonic Sequence of Vowels. — In all the languages of the Scythian group (Finnish, Turkish, Mongolian, Manchu) a law has been observed which may be called *' the law of harmonic sequence." The law is, that a given vowel occurring in one syllable of a word, or in the root, requires an analogous vowel, i.e. a vowel belonging to the same set (of which sets there are in Turkish four) in the following syllables of the same word, or in the particles appended to it, which, therefore, alter their vowels accordingly. This rule, of which some traces remain even in •modern Persian, appears to pervade all the 78 SOUNDS. Scythian languages, and has been regarded as a confirmation of the theory that all those languages have sprung from a common origin. In Telugu a similar law of attraction, or harmonic sequence, is found to exist. Traces of it, indeed, appear in all the Dravidian lan- guages, especially in Tulu, which in this particular comes nearest to Telugu ; but it is in Telugu that it comes out most distinctly and regularly. The range of its operation in Telugu is restricted to two vowels i and u; but in principle it appears to be identical with the Scythian law, u being changed into ^, and i into u, according to the nature of the preceding vowel. Thus the copulative particle is ni after i, i, ei; and nu after u and the other vowels, hu^ the sign of the dative case, becomes in like manner hi after i, i, and ei. In the above- mentioned instances it is the vowels of the appended particles which are changed through the attraction of the vowels of the words to which they are suffixed ; but in a large number of cases the suffixed particles retain their own vowels, and draw the vowels of the verb or noun to which they are suffixed, as also the vowels of any particles that may be added to them, into harmony with themselves. Thus, the Telugu pluralising termination or suffix being lu, the plural of katti, a knife, would natu- rally be hattilu; but the vowel of the suffix is too powerful for that of the base, and accordingly the plural becomes Tcattulu. So also, whilst the singular dative is katti-Jci, the dative plural is, not hattila-lci, but hattula-hu; for la, the plural inflexion, has the same power as the pluralising particle hi to convert Tcatti into Tcattu, besides being able to change ki, the dative post-position of the singular, into ku. In the inflexion of verbs, the most influential particles in Telugu are those which are marks of time, and by suffixing which the tenses are 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 with the vowel of the particle of ^time. Thus, from kaluguy to be able, du, the aorist particle, and nu, the abbreviation of the pronoun nenu, I, is formed the aorist first person singular kahigu-du-nu, I am able. On the other hand, the past verbal participle of kalugu, is not kalugi, but >fca%i, through the attraction of the final ^, the characteristic of the tense ; and the preterite of the first person singular, therefore, is not kalugi-ti-nu, but kaligi-ti-ni. Thus, the verbal root kalu becomes hali; nu, the abbreviation of nenu, becomes ni; and both have by these changes been brought into harmony with ti, an intermediate particle, which is probably an ancient sign of the preterite. This remarkable law of the Telugu phonetic system evidently accords with the essential principles of the law of harmonic sequence by which PRINCIPLES OF SYLLABATIOK 79 the Scythian languages are characterised, and differs widely from the prevailing usage of the Indo-European languages. The change which is apparent in the pronominal terminations of the various tenses of the Telugu verb {e.g., nu in the first person of the present tense, ni in the preterite), have been compared with the variation in Greek and Latin of the pronominal terminations of the verb according to the tense. But the change in Greek and Latin arises merely from euphonic cor- 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 I have directed attention only to the examples of this law which are furnished by Telugu, in which it is most fully developed, traces of its existence could easily be pointed out in the other dialects. Thus, in the Canarese verbal inflexions, the final euphonic or enun- ciative vowel of the abbreviated personal pronouns is u, e, or ^, accord- ing to the character of the preceding vowel — e.g., mdduttev-e, we do, mdduttir-i, ye do, mddidev-u, we did. If in the means employed to prevent hiatus between contiguous vowels, the Dravidian languages appeared to have been influenced by Indo-European usages, still more decided traces of Scythian influences may be noticed in the phonetic law now mentioned. Principles of Syllabation. — The chief peculiarity of Dravidian syllabation is its extreme simplicity and dislike of compound or concurrent consonants; and this peculiarity characterises Tamil, the earliest cultivated member of the family, in a more marked degree than any other Dravidian language. In Telugu, Canarese, and Malay- Mam, the great majority of primitive Dravidian words — i.e., words which have not been derived from Sanskrit, or altered through San- skrit influences — and in Tamil all words without exception, including even Sanskrit derivatives, are divided into syllables on the following plan. Double or treble consonants at the beginning of syllables, like str in strength, are altogether inadmissible. At the beginning, not only of the first syllable of every word, but also of every succeeding syllable, only one consonant is allowed. If in the middle of a word of several syllables, one syllable ends with a consonant and the succeeding one commences with another consonant, the concurrent consonants must be euphonically assimilated, or else a vowel must be inserted between them. At the conclusion of a word, double and treble con- sonants, ngth in strength, are as inadmissible as at the beginning : and every word must terminate in Telugu, Tulu, and Canarese, in a vowel ; in Tamil, either in a vowel or in a single semi-vowel, as I or r, or in a 80 SOUNDS. single nasal, as n or m. Malayalam resembles Tamil in this, but evinces a more decided preference for vowel terminations. It is obvious that this plan of syllabation is extremely unlike that of Sanskrit. The only double consonants which can stand together in the middle of a word in Tamil without an intervening vowel, are as follows. The various nasals, «, ^, n, n, and m, may precede the sonant of the varga to which they belong; and hence n-g, n-s, or n-chf n-d, n-d, m-h, may occur, also nn, nn^ nn, nn, mm^ nm^ and nm : the doubled surds, M, ii or chcli^ tt^ tt, pp, II, rr (pronounced ttr ; also tk, and tp; Tk, rch, and r^ ; yy, II, vv ; and finally nr, pronounced ndr. The only treble consonants which can coalesce in Tamil, under any circumstances, are the very soft, liquid ones, rnd and ynd. 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 Sanskrit, nasals are combined, not with sonants only, but also with surds — e.g., pamp-u, Tel. to send, ent-u, Can. eight. The repugnance of Tamil to this practice is so very decided, that it must be concluded to be non-Dra- vidian. Generally i 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 u is employed instead of ^. Thus the Sanskrit preposition pra is changed into pira in the compound derivatives which have been borrowed by Tamil ; whilst Krishna becomes Kiruttina-n (tt instead of sh), or even Kit- tina-n. Even such soft conjunctions of consonants as the Sanskrit dya, dva, gya, &c., are separated in Tamil into diya, diva, and giya. 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 sufiixed. Thus, tatva, Sans, nature, becomes in Tamil tatit)uva; aprayojana, unprofitable, ap((p)irayosana. 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 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. PRINCIPLES OP SYLLABATION. .81 Finnish, Hungarian, and other languages of the same stock, allow of only one consonant at the beginning of a syllable. When foreign words which begin with two consonants are pronounced by a Magyar, the consonants are separated by the insertion of a vowel — e.g., Jcrdl becomes Tcirdly. Where the first consonant is a sibilant, it is formed into a distinct syllable by a prefixed vowel — e.g., schola becomes ishola. How perfectly in accordance with Tamil this is, is known to every European resident in Southern India who has heard the natives speak of establishing, or sending their children to, an Eng- lish isMl. The same peculiarity has been discovered in the language of the Scythic tablets of Behistun. In rendering the word Sparta into Scythian, the translator is found to have written it with a preced- ing i — e.g., Is'parta, precisely as it would be written in the present day in Magyar or in Tamil. Professor Max Miiller, in his *' Lectures on the Science of Language, Second Series," adduces many similar instances in other families of lan- guages. " Many words in Latin begin with sc, st, sp. Some of these are found, in Latin inscriptions of the fourth century after Christ, spelt with an initial i — e.g., isperitus. It seems that the Celtic nations were unable to pronounce an initial s before a consonant, or at least that they disliked it. Richards, as quoted by Pott, says, * No British word begins with s when a consonant or w follows, without setting y before it; and when we borrow any words from another language which begin with an s and a consonant immediately following it, we prefix a y before such words, as from the Latin schola, ysgol ; spiritus, yspryd.' The Spaniards in Peru, even when reading Latin, pronounce estudium for studium, eschola for schola. Hence the constant addition of the initial vowel in the Western, or chiefly Celtic, branch of the Roman family. French esperer, instead of Latin sperare; stabilire, became estaUir, lastly e^a&^^r, to establish." — P. 195. " Words beginning with more than one consonant are most liable to phonetic corruption. It certainly requires an effort to pronounce distinctly two or three con- sonants at the beginning without intervening vowels, and we could easily understand that one of these consonants should be slurred over and allowed to drop. But if it is the tendency of language to facilitate pronunciation, we must not shirk the question how it came to pass that such troublesome forms were ever framed and sanctioned. Most of them owe their origin to contraction — that is to say, to an attempt to pronounce two syllables as one, and thus to save time and breath, though not without paying for it by an increased consonantal effort." — P. 187. " There are languages still in existence in which each syllable consists either of a vowel, or of a vowel preceded by one consonant p 82 SOUNDS. only, an(l in wHch no syllable ever ends in a consonant. This is the 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 Bd-ntu family, agree in general with regard to the simplicity of their syllables. In the other family of South African speech, the Hottentot, compound consonants are equally eschewed at the beginning of words. In Kafir we find gold pronounced igolide. If we look to the Finnish, and the whole 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 assimilated and softened con- sonants, which are spelt as double letters, were originally simple sounds. The Esthonian, Lapp, Mordvinian, Ostiakian, 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 simple consonants and simple vowels." — P. 190. The mode in which compound consonants are dealt with in Prakrit and the modern North Indian vernaculars, is investigated and explained by Mr Beames in chapter iv. of his " Comparative Grammar." The Prakrit rules for the assimilation of compound consonants bear a con- siderable resemblance, up to a certain point, to the Dravidian, especially in regard to the combination called by Mr Beames '' the strong nexus " — that is, the combination, without a vowel, of the strong consonants only, such as ht, tp, &c., respecting which the rule of the Prakrits, as of Tamil, is that the first consonant should be assimilated to the next. Vararuchi expresses the Prakrit rule rather peculiarly by saying that the first consonant is elided, the second doubled. The corresponding Tamil rule applies only to the treatment of tadhharas, no such con- junction of consonants as U^ &c., being possible in words of purely Dravidian origin. Minor Dialectic Peculiarities, 1. Eiiplionic Displacement of Consonants. In the Dravidian languages, consonants are sometimes found to change places through haste or considerations of euphony, especially, but not exclusively, in the speech of the vulgar. We have an example of this in the Tamil takiy flesh, which by a displacement of consonants, and a consequent change of the surd into MINOR DIALECTIC PECULIARITIES. 83 the sonant, has become iadei : Tcudirei, a horse, is in this manner often pronounced by the vulgar in the Tamil country Tcuridei; and looking at the root-syllable of the Telugu word, gur-ram, it is hard to decide whether kuridei or hudirei is to be regarded as the true Dravidian original, though the apparent derivation of the word from hudi, Tarn, to leap, inclines me to prefer kudirei. In many instances^ through the operation of this displacement, we find one form of a word in Tamil, and another, considerably different, in Telugu or Canarese. Thus, koppul^ Tam. the navel, is in Telugu pokkili, in Malayalam pokkul and pokkil; and padar, Tam. to spread as a creeper, is in Canarese parad-u. In comparing words in the different dialects, it is always necessary to bear in mind the frequent recurrence of this displacement. 2. Euphonic Displacement of Vowels. In Telugu we find many instances of a still more curious displace- ment of vowels. This displacement occurs most commonly in words which consist of three short syllables beginning with a vowel; and when it occurs, we find that the second vowel has disappeared, and 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. We have here to deal, therefore, with an euphonic amalgamation of vowels, as well as an euphonic displacement. I take as an example the Dravidian demonstrative pronouns, remote and proximate ; and I select the plural, rather than the singular, to get rid of the disturbing element of a difference which exists in the forma- tives. In Tamil those pronouns are avar, they, remote ; and ivar, they, proximate, corresponding to illi and hi. Canarese adds u to each word, so that they become avaru and ivaru. By analogy this is the form we should expect to find in Telugu also ; but on examination, we find in Telugu vdru instead of avaru, and viru instead of ivaru. The neuter demonstrative pronouns of Telugu being dissyllables, there is no displacement in their nominatives {adi, that, idi, this, correspond- ing closely to the Tamil adu, idu) ; but when they become trisyllables by the addition of the inflexional suffix ni^ we find a displacement similar to that which has been described — e.g., adini, it, or of it, becomes ddni, and idini becomes dini. Many ordinary substantives undergo in Telugu a similar change — e.g., ural, Tamil, a mortar, pro- nounced oral, should by analogy be oralu in Telugu ; but instead of oralu we find rdlu. In each of the instances mentioned, the change seems to have been produced by the rejection of the second vowel, and the substitution for it of a lengthened form of the first. This unsettled- ness of the vowels, as Dr Gundert calls it, attaches chiefly to the enunciation of I, r, and other liquid consonants. 84 SOUNDS. 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 Tamil and Canarese, are found to be the same or but slightly altered. Thus Mdu, Tel., it will not be, or it is not, is found to be the same as the Tamil dgddu ; ledu, there is not, corresponds to the Tamil illadu, or iladu; and by an extension of a similar rule to monosyllables, we find 16, Tel. within, to be iden- tical with ul, Tam. ; 61, old Canarese. A similar rule of displacement appears in Tulu, though in a less degree. 3. Rejection of Radical Consonants. Telugu and Canarese evince a tendency to reject or soften away liquid consonants in the middle of words, even though such consonants should belong to the «root, not to the formative. Thus, neruppu, Tam. fire, is softened into nippu; elumhu, a bone, into emmu; udal (pronounced odal), body, into ollu; porudu^ time, into poddu; erudu, an ox, into eddu ; marundu, medicine, into mandu. For the last word Tulu has mardu, Can. maddu (ancient Can. mardy). For the Tam. erupadu, seventy, Can. has eppattu ; for eruppu, Tam. to raise (root, Tam. eru, to rise. Can. elu), Can. has ehhisu. For the Tam. horuppu, Icorumei, fat, Can. has hohhe, Tulu komTne. So Tam. erumei, a buffalo, Tulu erme, Can. emme. Something similar to this process takes place, but not so systematically, in vulgar colloquial Tamil. In a few instances, on the other hand, Telugu appears to have retained a radical letter which has disappeared in some connections from Tamil. For example, 6dii, with, together with, is the suffix of the Tamil conjunctive case. On examining Telugu, we find that the corresponding suffix is t6da. It has already been shown that d in Telugu corresponds to r in Tamil ; and consequently t6da would become in Tamil tora. t6ra {t6ra-mei) is contained in Tamil, and means com- panionship — a meaning which appears also in many Telugu compounds ; and thus by the help of Telugu we find that the Tamil 6du and tdra are closely allied, if not virtually identical ; that the meaning of the suffix 6du accords with its use ; and that there is also reason to 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- ing connection, and todar^ a verbal root, to follow, to join on, written also tudar. Dr Gundert is right in considering 6du a lengthened secondary form of odu, which is still used in MalayMam poetry (and equally so in Tamil). Old Can. has oda, odam, modern Can. odane; Tulu ottugu, 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. todu, Tarn, tora, companionship, the root of which latter word is torn (found with this meaning in Tam. torudi, a crowd), todar, to follow, explains itself as a verbal noun of todu, 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 of the three roots, difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are sub- stantially identical. The lengthening of the root vowel in secondary forms of roots is quite common in Tamil, and the close relationship of the radical meanings of the shorter forms, odu, todu^ 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- ings of odu and todu. The former, as we see from its verbal noun ottu, means to touch so as to adhere, the latter simply to touch. The slight variations apparent in form and meaning appear to me to be specialisations of a common root. See the section on the radiation of roots, through " Particles of Specialisation.'' 4. Accent. It is generally stated that the Dravidian languages are destitute of accent, and that emphasis is conveyed by the addition of the e em- phatic alone. Though, however, the Dravidian languages are destitute of the Indo-Greek system of accents, the use of accent is not altogether unknown to them ; and the position of the Dravidian accent, always an acute one, accords well with the agglutinative structure of Dravidian words. The accent is upon the first syllable of the word; that syllable alone, in most cases, constituting the base, prior to every addition of formatives and inflexional forms, and remaining always unchanged. The first syllable of every word may be regarded as the natural seat of accent ; but if the word be compounded, a secondary accent distinguishes the first syllable of the second member of the compound. As in other languages, so in the Dravidian, accent is carefully to be distinguished from quantity; and in enunciation an accented short vowel is more emphatic than an unaccented long one. Thus, in the intransitive Tamil verb adangugivadu, it is contained, the second syllable, ang, is long by position, yet the only accent is that which is upon the first syllable ad, which, though shorter than the second, is more emphatic. Another example is furnished by the compound verb udeind^-iruhlciadu, it is broken; literally, having been broken it is. Though in this instance the second syllable of the first word of the compound is long, not only by position, but by nature, and the second syllable of the auxiliary word is long by position, yet the principal accent rests upon the first syllable of the first word, ud, the most emphatic portion of the Compound, and the secondary accent rests upon 86 SOUNDS. ir, the first syllable and crude base of the auxiliary ; hence it is pro- nounced udeindimJchiTadu, 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.^., dduvdn means either he will read, or one who reads — i.e., a reader. Even in the colloquial dialect the third person neuter singular, especially in the future tense, is constantly used in both senses — e.g., dduvadu^ means either it will read, or, that which will read, or abstractly, 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.^ oduvdn; 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., dduvdn. Dr Gundert (in an article in the Journal of the German Oriental 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. Old tadbhavas, 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 accordance with rule, though some appear to be arbitrar}% 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 Tarn, and Mai. idaba and edava; and also to show how the Sans, parva, a season, becomes in Tam. paruva, in Can. habba; and how Brahma 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 tadbhavas. One of these laws consists in the simple omission of non-Dravidian sounds, such as the sibilants. Thus, sahasram, Sans, for one thousand, becomes in Can. savira, in Tulu sdra, in Tam. dyiram. The latter has been formed, he thinks, thus — sahasiram = a-a-iram = dyiram. So, out of the Pali name for Ceylon, Sihalam, the old Tamil formed Ilam. The nakshatras Mrigastrsham and Srdvanam, have become in Mai. Magayiram and Onam. ^ramana, a Jaina ascetic, becomes in Tamil Saman.a-n, and also Amana-n ; Sisamy lead, becomes tyam. MINOR DIALECTIC PECULIARITIES. 87 Another rule, which shows itself especially in Canarese, is the short- ening of the long vowels of Sanskrit. Thus, from Sans. Jcumdrty a young girl, comes Tamil humari (whence Gomorin), from ireshti, a superior, comes Setti (chetty), the title of the merchant caste. A noticeable illustration is Sanskrit, sneha, oil, which in all the Dravidian dialects becomes net/. Another important rule consists in the separa- tion of vowels. No old Dravidian word can commence with I or r. Hence rdjd, a king, becomes commonly Msd; lokay ulogam. The pre- dilection for short vowels produces a further change in these words — rdjd becomes in Tamil arasa-n and araya-n; loha, ulagam^ and ulagu; Sans. Revatty the nakshatra, becomes Iravati. 88 ROOTS. PART 11. BOOTS. Befoee proceeding to examine and compare tlie grammatical forms of the Dravidian languages, it is desirable to examine the characteristics of Dravidian roots, and the nature of the changes which are effected in them by the addition of the grammatical forms. The manner in which various languages deal with their roots is strongly illustrative of their essential spirit and distinctive character ; and it is chiefly with refer- ence to their differences in this particular, that the languages of Europe and Asia admit of being arranged into classes. Those classes are as follows : — (1.) The monosyllabic, uncompounded, or isolative languages, of which Chinese is the principal example, in which roots admit of no change or combination, and in which all grammatical relations are expressed either by auxiliary words or phrases, or by the position of words in a sentence. (2.) The Semitic or intro-mutative languages, in which grammatical relations are ex- pressed by internal changes in the vowels of dissyllabic roots. (3.) The agglutinative languages, in which grammatical relations are expressed by affixes or suffixes added to the root or compounded with it. In the latter class I include both the Indo-European and the Scythian groups of tongues. They differ, indeed, greatly from one another in 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 appear to agree, or to have originally agreed, in the principle of 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 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 BOOTS. 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 flmily there is, properly speaking, only one declension and one conju- gation. It is to be remembered that the three classes mentioned above, into which 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 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. I here proceed to point out the most notable peculiarities of the Dravidian root-system, and of the manner in which roots are affected by inflexional combinations. Arrangement of Dravidian Hoots into Classes. — Dravidian roots, considered by themselves, apart from formative additions of every 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 the most numerous class j (2.) Nouns which cannot be traced up to any extant verbs. 1. Verbal Hoots. — The Dravidian languages differ from Sanskrit and Greek, and accord with the languages of the Scythian group, in gener- ally using the crude root of the verb, without any addition, as the imperative of the second person singular. This is the general rule, and the few apparent exceptions that exist are to be regarded either as corruptions, or as euphonic or honorific forms of the imperative. In a few instances, both in Tamil and in Telugu, the second person singular of the imperative has cast off its final consonant, which is generally in such cases a soft guttural or a liquid; but in those instances the unchanged verbal theme is found in the less used second person plural, or in the infinitive. A considerable proportion of Dravidian roots are used either as verbal themes or as nouns, without addition or alteration in either case ; and the class in which they are to be placed depends solely on the connection. The use of any root as a noun may be, and in general is, derived from its use as a verb, which would appear to be the primary condition and usfi of most words belonging to this class; 90 EOOTS. but as such words, when used as nouns, are used without the addition of formatives or any other marks of derivation, they can scarcely be regarded as derivatives from verbs; but in respect of grammatical form, the verb and the noun must be considered either as twin sisters or as identical. The following will suffice as examples of this twofold condition or use of the same root : — sol, Tam. as a verb, means to speak ; as a noun, a word ; tari, Tam. as a verb, to lop, to chop off ; as a noun, a stake, a loom ; mwr^, Tam. as a verb, to break in two ; as a noun, a fragment, a document written on a fragment of a palm-leaf, a bond. In these instances it is evident that the radical meaning of the word is unrestrained, and free to take either a verbal or a nominal direction. Moreover, as the Dravidian adjective is not separate from the noun, but is generally identical with it, each root may be said to be capable of a threefold use — viz., (1.) as a noun,, (2.) as an adjective, and (3.) as a verb. Thus, in Tamil, kad-u, if used as the nominative of a verb, or followed by case terminations, is a noun, and means harshness or pungency ; if it is placed before another noun for the purpose of quali- fying it, it becomes an adjective — e.g., Mdu-nadei, a sharp walk ; Tcadu- vdy, the tiger, literally harsh mouth; and when standing alone, or preceded by a pronoun of the second person, expressed or understood, it becomes a verb — e.g., Tcadu, be sharp. With the formative addition gu, the same root becomes Icadu-gu, mustard, that which is pungent. Again, when the included vowel is lengthened,, it becomes Mdu, a forest, literally what is rough, harsh, or rugged. It would appear that originally there was »o difference in any in- stance between the verbal and the nominal form of the root in any Dravidian dialect. Gradually, however, as the dialects became more cultivated, and as logical distinctness was felt to be desirable, a sepa- ration commenced to take place. This separation was effected by 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 others also. In many instances the theme is still used in poetry, in 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. 2. Nouns. — In Sanskrit and the languages allied to it, all words, with the exception of a few pronouns and particles, are derived by native grammarians from verbal roots. In the Dravidian languages 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 considered to be underived roots are in reality verbal nouns or verbal derivatives. CLASSIFICATION OF BOOTS. 91 Many Dravidian dissyllabic nouns have for their second syllable al, a particle which is a commonly used formative of verbal nouns in Tamil, and a sign of the infinitive in Canarese 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 trace of the verb from which they have been derived is now apparent. I cannot doubt that the following Tamil words, generally regarded as primitives, are derived from roots which are still in use — viz., viral, a finger, from viri, to expand ; kadal, the sea, from kada, to pass beyond ; pagal, day as distinguished from night, properly mid-da.y, from pag-u, to divide ; hudal, a bowel, from kudei, to hollow out. There are many words in the Dravidian, as in other languages, de- noting primary objects which are identical with, or but slightly altered from, existing verbal roots, possessing a more generic signification. What is specially noticeable is the smallness of the change the roots have undergone in the Dravidian languages. One might suppose the name of the object to have been affixed to it only a few years ago. These languages present in consequence the appearance of fresh youth, yet doubtless the true inference is that they have remained substan- tially unchanged (possibly in consequence of the high cultivation they received) from a very early period. The change effected consists in general only in the addition to the root of a formative particle, or in the lengthening of the included vowel of the root. Either way the name of the object is simply a verbal noun with the signification of a noun of quality. The following illustrations are from Tamil : — nilam, the ground, from nil, to stand j nddu, the cultivated country, from nadu, to plant ; Mdu, the forest, from Jcadu, to be rugged (com- pare also kadam, a rough way, a forest) ; vin, the sky, from vil, to be clear ; min, a star, also a fish, from min, to glitter ; velli, the planet Venus, also silver, from vel, white ; kudirei, a horse, from kudi, to leap ; pandri (pal-ti), a hog, from pal, a tusk ; ddu, a sheep, from ddu, to frisk. (Dr Gundert carries this noun still further back, but with some risk of error, to adu, to fight or cook, the sheep being re- garded as the fighting animal, or the animal that was cooked) : kan, the eye, identical with kdn (in the past tense kan), to see ; miXkku, the nose (Tel. mukku, Can. milgu), from mug-ar, to smell ; nAkku, the tongue, from nakku, to lick (compare the probably older nd, the tongue, with ndy, a dog, the animal that licks). Probably also kei, the hand, bears the same relation to sey, to do (Can. geyu), that the Sanskrit kara, the hand, bears to kar {kri), to do. In Telugu, che, the hand, is identical with che, to do {kei also is used in Telugu). I may here re- mark that the names of animals in the Dravidian languages are not 92 BOOTS. imitations of the so^inds 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 cannot now be traced to any ulterior source. In this class are to be included the personal pronouns ; some of the particles of relation which answer to the case signs and prepositions of other languages ; and a considerable number of common nouns, including some names of objects^— e.^., Ml J foot. Teal, a stone, and most nouns of quality — e.g., Tear, 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 dal, is plainly derived from a verb in mu, now lost ; so that, after all, mun itself appears to be a verbal derivative : met, above, may similarly be traced to a lost verb mi, apparent in the Telugu and Tamil midu, above ; met is equivalent to mi-y-al : Mr, below, may be traced to Mr (found in Mr-angu, root). A large majority of the Dravidian post-positions and adverbs, and of the particles employed in nominal and verbal inflexions are known to be verbs or nouns adapted to special uses. Every word belonging to the class of adverbs and prepositions in the Dravi- dian languages is either the infinitive or the participle of a verb, or the nominative, the genitive, or the locative of a noun ; and even of the inflexional particles which are employed in the declension of nouns, and in conjugating verbs, nearly all are easily recognised to be derived from nouns or verbs. Thus, in Telugu, the signs of the instrumental ablative, die and cheta, are the nominative and locative of the word hand. So also the Tamil locative of rest may be formed by the addi- tion of any noun which signifies a place ; and the locative of separation, a case denoting motion from a place, or rather the place from whence motion commences, is formed by the addition of in or of il, the ordi- 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, 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 original meaning shines more or less distinctly through the technical appropri- ation ; but it is doubtful whether any trace whatever remains of the LOOTS ORIGINALLY MONOSYLLABIC. 93 original meaning of huy H, or ge, the sign of the dative and particle of direction. The Dravidian dative has, therefore, assumed the character of a real grammatical case ; and in this particular the Dravidian lan- guages have been brought into harmony with the genius of the Indo- European grammar. Dravidian Koots originally Monosyllabic. — It may appear at first sight scarcely credible that the Dravidian roots were originally monosyllabic, when it is considered that the majority of the words in every Dravidian sentence are longer than those of (perhaps) any other language in Asia or Europe {e.g., compare irukhivadu, Tamil, it is, with the Latin est), and are inferior in length only to the words of the poly- synthetic languages of America. The great length of Dravidian words arises partly from the separa- tion of clashing consonants by the insertion of euphonic vowels, but chiefly from the successive agglutination of formative and inflexional particles and pronominal fragments. A considerable number of Dra- vidian verbal themes, prior to the addition of inflexional forms, are trisyllabic ; but it will generally be found that the first two syllables 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 formative addition, which appears to have been the sign of a verbal noun in its origin, but which now serves to distinguish transitive verbs from intransitives. In some instances the first syllable of the verbal theme contains the root, whilst the second is a particle anciently added to it, and compounded with it for the purpose of expanding or restrict- ing the signification. The syllables that are added to the inflexional base are those which denote case, tense, person, and number. Hence, whatever be the length and complication of Dravidian words, they may invariably be traced up to monosyllabic roots, by a careful removal of successive accretions. Thus, when we analyse ptrugugiv- adUf Tam. it increases, we find that the final adu represents the pro- noun it, giT 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 its removal we come to peru, the real root, which is used also as an adjective or noun of quality, signifying greatness or great. Nor is even this dissyllable peru the ultimate condition of the root j it is an euphonised form of per, which is found in the adjectives per-iya and per-um, great ; and an euphonically lengthened but monosyllabic form of the same is per. Thus^ by successive agglutinations, a word of six syllables has been found to grow out of one. In all these forms, and 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 scholar. 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 Scythian tongues {e.g., of the Turkish and the Hungarian) ; whilst in 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 themselves naturally in two classes, each originally monosyllabic ; one class ending in a vowel generally long — e.g., d, to become; sd, to die; p6, to go; or ending in a consonant, in which case the vowel is short — e.g., ad\ to approach; an\ to be in contact ; nil, to stand ; sel, to go. (Additions to these monosyllabic roots are either formative particles, particles of specialisa- tion, or helps to enunciation.) It is desirable here to explain in detail the manner in which Dra- vidian roots, originally monosyllabic, have been lengthened by the insertion or addition of euphonic vowels, or by formative additions, or in both ways. Euphonic Lengthening op Roots.* — Crude Dravidian roots are sometimes lengthened by the addition of an euphonic vowel to the base. This euphonic addition to the final consonant takes place in grammatical Telugu and Canarese in the case of all words ending in a consonant, whatever be the number of syllables they contain. Vowel additions to roots which contain two syllables and upwards, seem to be made solely for the purpose of helping the enunciation ; but when the additions which have been made to some monosyllabic roots are examined, it will be found that they are intended not so much for vocalisation as for euphonisation. When it is desired merely to help the enunciation of a final con- sonant, u is the vowel that is ordinarily employed for this purpose, and this u is uniformly elided when it is followed by another vowel ; but u is not the only vowel which is added on to monosyllabic roots, though * Dr Gundert considers the " euphonic lengthening of Dravidian roots " very- doubtful. He prefers to consider the lengthened forms of the roots secondary- verbal themes. On the other hand, the interchangeableness of the added vowels 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 forms of Dravidian roots are undoubtedly to be regarded as secondary verbal themes. These will be considered further on. EUPHONIC LENGTHENING OF ROOTS. 95 perhaps it is most frequently met with ; and in some of the instances under consideration, it becomes so intimately blended with the real base that it will not consent to be elided. Next to w, the vowel which is most commonly employed is i, then follows a, then e or e^, according to the dialect. Verbal roots borrowed from Sanskrit have generally i added to the final consonants in all the Dravidian languages, to which Telugu adds nchuy and Canarese su, formatives which will be noticed afterwards. Thus, sap, Sans, to curse, is in Tamil sahi, in Tel. sapinchu, in Can. sahisu. On comparing the various Dravidian idioms, it will be found that all these auxiliary or enunciative vowels are interchangeable. Thus, of Tamil verbs in a, mora, to forget, is in Canarese mare; of Tamil verbs in % hadi, to bite, is in Telugu hara^ chu; gelij to win, is in Canarese gillu. Of Tamil verbs in ei, mulei, to sprout, is in Telugu moluchu. These final vowels being thus inter- changeable equivalents, it appears to me evident that they are intended merely as helps to enunciation, that they are not essential parts of the themes to which they are suffixed, and that they do not add anything to their meaning. Dr Gundert considers u to be the only enunciative or euphonic vowel. The other auxiliary vowels a, i, ei, dec, he considers the for- mative particles of secondary verbal themes. One Canarese dialect, he observes (the modern), prefers e — e.g., nade, to walk, instead of the Tamil nada; the other (the ancient), i, — e.g., nadi. The radical form he considers to be nad-u, a root no longer used in Tamil in the sense of to walk, but meaning to plant. He suggests that mulei, to sprout, may be from a lost mul, to come forth, to protrude, whence mul, a thorn. This also he suggests may be a verbal noun, a derivative of mu, to be prominent, to be before. The verb nada, to walk, adduced by Dr Gundert, seems to me to prove that in this instance at least, and therefore probably in some other instances, the vowel added to the root is simply, as I have represented it to be, a help to enuncia- tion. On comparing Tam.-Mal. nada, anc. Can. nadi, mod. Can. nade, Tel. nadu — all which forms convey exactly the same meaning — I feel obliged to conclude that the a, i, e, and u are interchangeable equiva- lents, and therefore merely euphonic. On the other hand, where a series of verbal roots followed by these vowels is met with in the voca- bulary of one and the same dialect, and we find that each root so altered possesses a meaning of its own, I have no hesitation in classing the added vowels in question with Particles of Specialisation (which see). We may fairly conclude this to be the case with one of the verbs referred to by Dr Gundert — viz., padu. In this shape in Tamil it appears to mean primarily, to come in contact with, commonly, to lie 96 ROOTS. down, to be caught, to suflfer; padi is to settle down, to subside; padei, to lay down, to present food, &c. (padei, a layer in a building, an army). Compare also padar^ to spread, padal, a slab, and padagu, a boat. FonMATiVB Additions to Koots. — 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 is single when it marks the intransitive or neuter signification of the 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 the same time changed from a sonant into a surd. The 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 chic or nchu ; (2.) sw, and its transitive ksu or chchu; (3.) du or ndu, and its transitive ttu, with its equivalent du or tidu, and its transitive ttu; and (4.) hu or mhu, with 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 of gender, number, and case, and also of mood and tense, are appended ', 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 HOOTS. 97 they express a grammatical relation, viz., the difference between the transitive and the intransitive forms of verbs, and between adjectival and independent nouns. In this particular, perhaps, more than in any other, the high gram- matical cultivation of Tamil has developed a tendency to imitate the Indo-European tongues by retaining syllables of which it has test the original distinctive meaning, and combining such syllables after a time with the radical element of the word, or using them for a new purpose. I proceed to consider the various formatives more particularly, with examples of their use and force. (1.) leu, pronounced gu, with its nasalised equivalent ngu, and its transitive hhu. Tamil examples : peru-gu, intrans. to become increased, peru-hkuj trans, to cause to increase ; ada-ngu, to be contained, ada-khuj to contain. So also in the case of dissyllabic roots — e.g., d-gu, to become, d-kku, to make ; ni-ngu, to quit, ni-hhu, to put away. There is a considerable number of nouns, chiefly trisyllabic, in which the same formative is employed. In this case, however, there is no difference between the isolated shape of the noun and the adjectival shape. Whatever particle is used, whether gu, ngu, or TcTcu, it retains its position in all circumstances unchanged. Examples : pada-gu, a boat, kira-ngu, a root, haru-kku, a sharp edge. From a comparison of the above examples, it is evident that ng is equivalent to g, and euphonised from it ; and that ng, equally with g, becomes kk in a transitive connection. In a few instances, hku, the transitive forma- tive, is altered in colloquial Tamil usage to ch, chu, according to a law of interchange already noticed — e.g., kdykku, to boil (crude root kdy, to be hot), is generally written and pronounced kdychchu. This altered form of the sign of the transitive, which is the exception in Tamil, is in Telugu the rule of the language, kku being regularly replaced in Telugu by chu. In Telugu the intransitive formative gu is not euphonically altered into ngu as in Tamil ; but an obscure nasal, the half anusvdra, often precedes the gu, and shows that in both languages the same tendency .to nasalisation exists. It is remarkable, that whilst Tamil often nasalises the formative of the neuter, and never admits a nasal into the transitive formative, Telugu, in a large number of cases, nasalises the transitive, and generally leaves the neuter in its primitive, un- nasalised condition. Thus in Telugu, whenever the base terminates in i (including a large number of Sanskrit derivatives), chu is converted into nchu; though neither in this nor in any case does the kku of the Tamil change into ngku. ^.g.-, from ratti, double, Tamil forms ratti-kka (infinitive), to double j whilst the Telugu form of the same 98 ROOTS. is retti-ncha. manni-ncha, to forgive, in Telugu, corresponds in the same manner to the Tamil manni-kka. In some cases in Telugu the euphonic nasal is prefixed to chu, 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 (cot-responding to the Tamil transitive peru-Tcku), 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 k 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 ch has no tendency to be converted into v, h, or p, whilst h OT'g constantly evinces this tendency to change into v, not only in Telugu, but also in colloquial Tamil ; and v is regularly interchangeable with h 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 chu, and in Canarese still further softened into hi. (2.) ^w, and its transitive ssu, 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 ku and Jcku, by the ordinary softening process by which k changes into s or ch, and kk into chch. A Tamil example of this formative is seen in adei-su, to take refuge, of which the transi- tive is adei-chchu, to enclose, to twine round. (3.) du or ndu, with its transitive form ttu. — There appears to be no difference whatever between this formative and the other three, gu, su, or bu, in meaning or grammatical relation; and as gu is eupho- nised in the intransitive to ngu, so is die to ndu; whilst in the transi- tive the doubled d (and its equivalent nd) changes by rule into tt The euphonic change of du to ndu has so generally taken place, that ndu is invariably used instead of du in the formatives of verbs of this class; and it is only in the formatives of nouns that du, 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 ttu, when used adjectivally, in the same manner as in the transi- tive voice of verbs. Tamil examples of this formative : tiru-ndu, to become correct, tirvrttu, to correct; maru-ndu, medicine, adjectival form of the same, maru-ttu — e.g., maruttu-(p)pei, a medicine bag. The primitive unnasalised du and its adjectival ttu are found in such words as eru-du, a bull, an ox, and eru-ttu-(p)pi2ttic, 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 trisyllabic. Of the few dissyllabic verbs of this class in Tamil, the most interesting is ntndu, to swim, of which I am inclined to consider ni as the crude form. Nindu is evidently an euphonised form of n%du (du changed into ndu) ; for the verbal noun derived from it, nittal, swimming, is without the nasal, and Telugu uses idu for the verb itself, instead of indu, Tulu nanda, Can. Uu, tju. I have little doubt that the du, ndu, or ju of this word is simply a formative. It is open to question whether the initial n of the Tamil word is a cor- ruption, owing to the fondness- of the Tamil for nasal sounds, so that the original shape was t or idu, or whether the Tel. and Can. word had the initial n originally, but lost it in course of time. Comparing the Tamil word with mr, the word for water in all the Dravidian dialects, I am inclined to consider nt the primitive base, answering to the Greek i-e-w, the Latin no, nato, and also to nau, Sans, a boat, of which Sanskrit does not appear to contain the root. Derivative nouns formed from verbs which have formative suffixes, always prefer as their formative the transitive suffix, or that which doubles and hardens the initial consonant. Thus from tiru-ndu, Tarn, to become correct, is formed tiru-ttam, correction ; and from tH-ngu, to sleep, til-kham, sleep (comp. tuyil, sleep). In some instances the crude root of a verb is used as the intransitive, whilst the transitive is formed by the addition of ttu to the root. JE.g., padu, Tam. to lie down, padu-ttu, to lay; tdr, to be low, tdr-ttu, to lower; nil (Tel. nilu), to stand, nivu-ttu (for nilu-ttu), to establish. In such cases Canarese uses du instead of the Tamil ttu — e.g., tM-du, to lower, instead of tdr-ttu. This transitive formative is sometimes represented as a causal ; but it will be shown in the section on ''' The Verb " that i is the only real causal in the Dravidian languages. In all the cases now mentioned, where ttu is used as the formative of the transitive by Tamil, Telugu uses chu or pu. I class under the head of this formative all those nouns in which the cerebral consonants d, nd, and tt, are used in the same manner and for the same purpose as the dentals d, nd, and tt — e.g., Tcuru-du, blindness, adjectival form of the same, kuru-ttu, blind ; ira-ndu, two, adjectival form, ira-ttu, double. Telugu hardens, but does not double, the final d of such nouns — e.g., 6d-u, a leak, 6ti, leaky. In some instances in Tamil the hard rough r, when used as a final, seems to be equiva- lent to du, or du, and is doubled and pronounced with a t — e.g., Hna-Tu, a well, Mna-rru (pronounced Tcinattru), of a well. (4.) hu or mbu, with its transitive ppu. — In Canarese, hu, the 100 BOOTS. original form of this intransitive suffix, has been softened into vii, and in Tamil, h^o has universally been euphonised into mhu. This Tamilian formative mhu is in some instances softened in Telugu nouns into mu. The hu ox mhu of Tamil verbs is superseded by vu or gu in Telugu ; and the forms answering to the Tamil transitive ppu are pu and mpu, rarely pp^i. 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 nir reappears in the related verbs nir-a, nir-avu, nir-ei, and mr-et, to be full, to be level, &c. Telugu has nindu instead of niramhu; but the transitive nimpu answers very nearly to the Tamil nirappu. Example of a noun in mhu and ppu: iru-mhu, Tam. iron, adjectival form, iru-ppic, of iron — e.g., iruppu-(k)k6l, an iron rod. In Telugu irumhu is softened into inumu, adjectival form inupa. Canarese still adheres to the original form of this suffix, generally softening h into 2;, but leaving it always unnasalised — e.g., Canarese hdvu, a snake, properly 2^dvu: Tamil pdmhu, nasalised from pdhu; adjectival form pdppu — e.g., pdppu-{k)kodi, the serpent banner : Telugu, still further altered, pdmu. 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- tive of transitive verbs where Tamil uses ppu. It should be added that even in those cases where Tamil uses the other form^a- tives previously noticed, viz., kku and ttu, Telugu often prefers p)'^' Compare the following infinitives in Tamil and in Telugu — e.g., meykka, Tam. to feed cattle, mepa, Tel. ; nirutta, Tam. to establish, nilupa, Tel. "Where kku in Tamil, and pu in Telugu, are preceded by i, this formative becomes in Telugu either mpu or nchu — e.g., compare oppuvi- kka, Tamil, to deliver over, with the corresponding Telugu infinitive, oppagi-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 primitive Tamilians as possessing some quality in common. The 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 act 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 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 g, S, d, dj or 6, should be suffixed as a formative to any particular verb 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 inherent in the idea of active or transitive verbs, as distinguished from intransitives. Whilst the use of these formatives appears to have originated mainly in considerations of euphony, Dr Gundert thinks that in some instances traces of a frequentative meaning may be discovered. He adduces minvMgUf to glitter, from min, to shine. This instance seems to carry weight. The other instances adduced by him, such as velu-velulcka, are properly infinitives of iterative, mimetic verbs. From the statements and examples given above, it may be concluded that wherever Dravidian verbs or nouns are found to terminate in any of the syllables referred to, there is reason to suspect that the first part of the word alone constitutes or contains the] root. The final syllables gu, ngu, kku; sw, cku; du, ndu, ttu; du, ndu, ttu; hu, mbu> mpu, pu, ppu ; mu, vu, may as a general rule be rejected as formative additions. This rule will be found on examination to throw unex- pected light on the derivation and relationship of many nouns which are commonly supposed to be primitive and independent, but which, when the syllables referred to above are rejected, are found to be derived from or allied to verbal roots which are still in use. I adduce, as examples, the following Tamil words : — Tcombu, a branch, a twig ; vembuy the margosa-tree j vambu, abuse ; pdmbu, a snake. As soon as 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 derived from Jco-^, to pluck off, to cut ; ve-mbu, the margosa-tree, is from ve-1/, to screen or shade (the shade of this tree being peculiarly prized) ; va-mbu, abuse, is from vei, properly va-'^ (corresponding to the Canarese bayyu\ to revile ; pd-mbuy a snake, is from pd-y, to spring. In these instances, the verbal base which is now in use ends in ?/, a merely euphonic addition, which does not belong to the root, and which disappears in the derivatives before the consonants which are added as formatives. The same principle applied to nouns ending in the other formative syllables will be found to yield similar results — e.g., marunda, a medical drug, from maru, to be fragrant; and hirangu, a root, from kir, to be beneath, the i of which, though long in the Tamil ktr, is short in the Telugu kinda, below. 102 ROOTS. Keduplication of the Final Consonant of the Koot. — 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.y., from rnddu, an ox, is formed mdtt-u{t)tdl, ox-hide; (2. ) for the purpose of converting an intransitive or neuter verb into a transitive — e.g., from 6d-u, to run, is formed ottu, 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 reduplication 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 transition 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 Dravidian 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 in 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 Hebrew root corresponds with Sanskrit, the second syllable does not in any manner correspond to any Indo-European synonym. It is found also that the second syllable has not any essential connection with the first, and that a considerable number of families of roots exist in which the first syllable is the same in each case, whilst the second continually varies. It is therefore inferred that in such cases the first syllable alone (comprising two consonants, the initial and the final, together with the vowel used for enunciation) contains the radical base and generic signification, and that the second syllable, perhaps the fragment of an obsolete auxiliary verb, has been appended to the first and afterwards compounded with it, for the purpose of giving the generic signification a specific and definite direction. According to this view, which appears to be in the main correct, Hebrew roots are to be regarded, not singly and separately, as independent monads, but as arranged generically in clusters or groups, exhibiting general resem- blances and special differences. The family likeness resides in the first syllable, the radical base ; the individuality, or special peculiarity, in the second, the particle of specialisation. It is true that in some instances the second syllable of Semitic roots meets with its counterpart in the Indo-European languages, as well as the first, or even instead of the first ; but the peculiar rule or law now referred to is found to pervade so large a portion of the Hebrew roots, that it justly claims to be considered as a characteristic of the language. Thus, there is a family of Hebrew roots signifying generally to divide, 104 ROOTS. to cleave, to separate, &c. The members of this family are jpdlah, pdlag,pdld, pdlal; and also (through the dialectic interchange of I with r) pdrash, pdras, Chaldee peras. It cannot be doubted that 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), 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-r, p-l, and the Greek 'tto^-u, the Latin pars, par-tis, and the Sanskrit phaU to divide, but we also discover the existence of an analogy with the Dra- vidian languages. Compare with the Hebrew p-r, p-l, the Tamil piri, to divide, and pdl, a part ; pila^ and por, to cleave ; as also pagir 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. \ 7 f > to be contained, to enclose. adi to drive in, commonly to beat, adi, as a noun, the basis of any thing, a footstep, a sole. PARTICLES OF SPECIALISATION. 105 adei to attain, to get in, to roost; transitive, to enclose. adeisu 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 adalchu are properly aduk and adah, but final h in Tamil is always vocalised by the help of u, and often doubled, as in this instance, before receiving the u and a of the root. andu (Tel. antu)^ to approach. This verb seems to be identical with adu, 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. 2. Koots which radiate from the base syllable an : — anu, anugu to approach, to touch. ani to put on, to wear. anei to connect, to embrace ; as a noun, a weir, a dam. anavu to cleave to. annu to resort to, to lean upon. (From this verb is derived annal or annan, an elder brother, one to lean upon, a derivation which has at least the merit of being poet- ical). The corresponding Telugu verb is dnuta. anmu to be near. The generic idea signified by the base syllable an is evidently that of contact ; and this group differs from the previous one as actual contact differs from contiguity or nearness. Probably dni, a nail, a fastening, is derived from the same verb, and it appears probable also that this is the origin of the Sanskrit ani or dni^ the pin of an axle. 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 shown in a previous part of this section, that the vowels a, z, u, e, and ei are sometimes added euphonically to monosyllabic roots. It is obvious, however, that this is not the only purpose for which those vowel additions are used ; and it is of importance to know that 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- stances, but have lost in others. 106 ROOTS. The examples already given may suffice to illustrate the use of appended voioels as specialising particles. Syllables ending in conson- ants, especially in I and r, 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 Boots," 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 I and r may stand as finals. The other -dialects add u to the final consonant of each of these particles. Tamil requires this euphonic addition of u 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 : — :nal Particles. Verbs. Nouns. ar volar, to grow. sudar, lustre. ir tulir, to sprout. ugir, a finger nail. ur nudur-i(, Tel. the forehead. ar pugar, to praise. idar, a flower petal. ir magir, to rejoice. avir, a grain of rice. ar-u idar-u, to trip. MnaT-Uy a well. iv-u ndyiv-u, the sun. al sural, to whirl. iral, the liver. it kuyil, to utter a sound. veyil, sunshine. ul pagul-u, Tel. to break. al tuval, to bend. tingal, the moon. il madil, a fort wall. 111 u7mL to roll. irul, darkness. Of all the thirteen specialising particles ending in consonants of which examples have now been adduced, only one appears occasionally to be used as an equivalent for a vowel addition : ar alternates with ei — e.g.f 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 valei. 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 il, which survives as a substantive, meaning here or a house, the particle used as the most PARTICLES OF SPECIALISATION. 107 common case sign of the locative in Tamil-MalayMam, and ul, 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 vdi/il, a doorway, literally the mouth house (from vd^, mouth) ; ve7/il, the heat of the sun, literally, that in which heat resides (from vey, to be hot). Dr Gundert suggests also ]oorul, wealth, which may come from por2i, to unite ; arul, grace, from aru, to be scarce, precious ; and irul, dark- ness, from ir, to be dark, the root of ird, night. I here subjoin an example of another peculiar and interesting set of 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- ant appears to represent the ultimate or radical base, whilst the initial and final vowels alter in accordance with the particular shade of signi- fication which it is desired to convey. When we compare idit, Tam. to press or crush, odu, to squeeze^ to bring into a smaller compass, and idi, to bruise, to beat down, as also adi, to drive in, or odi, to break in two, and tidei (pronounced odei), 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 mutually related ; and that possibly the whole of them have an ulterior relationship, in virtue of their possessing in common the same nucleus or radical base, the central consonant d, and the same generic signification. 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 ^arp; to shout by nad, to rejoice by nand ; to join by yu or yuj, to glue together by yaut.^^ In another place (i. 274) he says, " In the secondary roots we can gener- ally observe that one of the consonants, in the Aryan languages generally the final, is liable to modification. The root retains its 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 Semitic roots to the more^ primitive biliteral." In the Dravidian languages the change under consideration is as often in the vowel of 108 BOOTS. 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 the 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. I proceed to point out some noticeable exceptions to this rule. Exceptions. — 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, together with the coalescence of the vowels that preceded and followed it. It has been shown that g has a tendency to be softened into v and then to disappear, and that s 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 tdl; pesar, Can. a name, becomes in Tamil first peyar, and then per. So in Tamil, togup-pu, a collection, is softened into tdp-pu, which has the restricted meaning of a collection of trees, a tope. In like manner the medial v of the Tamil avan, he, disappears in the personal terminations of verbs, and the preceding and following vowels coalesce, when avan becomes dn or 6n. So also the length of the demonstrative roots, a remote, and i proxi- •mate, varies in different dialects, and even in different connections in the same dialect, through considerations of euphony. 2. The exceptions that follow in this and the following paragraphs are not euphonic merely, but real. They pertain to grammatical expression. In most of the Dravidian languages the quantity of the 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 those pronouns are long — e.g., ndn, Tamil, I, ndm, we ; ni, thou, ntr, you. But in Tamil, Canarese, Malay^lam, and Tulu, in all the oblique cases the vowels are shortened before receiving the sufiixed inflexional particles. Thus, in Canarese, to me is not ndn-a-ge, but ndn-a-ge ; to thee is not nin-a-ge, but nin-a-ge. Telugu, Gond, and Ku generally retain the quantity of the vowel of the nominative unaltered — e.g., in Telugu we find ni-hu., to thee, as well as nt, thou ; but in the accusa- tive, nin-u or ninn-u, thee, the quantity is altered. It is open to us to regard the shorter form of the pronouns as the original, and the longer as the form that has been altered ; and it will be seen, when the pro- nouns are under discussion, that this is the view I prefer. Singularly enough, this exception from the general rigidity of the root-vowels is a Scythian exception, as well as a Dravidian one. In the Scythian version of the Behistun tablets, whilst the nominative of the pronoun of the second person is ?^^, thou, as in the Dravidian languages, the possessive case is ui, thy, ^nd the accusative nin, thee, corresponding in quantity to the Dravidian oblique cases — e.g., Telugu nin-u, thee ; 110 Hoots. Tulu nin-ay thy, nin-an^ thee ; High Tamil nin, thy, and nlnnei, 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 being made. If any formative particle is added to a verbal root to 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 Jced-u, to destroy or to become destroyed, may become a verbal noun by the addition of the formative di — e.g. J kedudi, 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 Jced-u is lengthened into Tced-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-u, a suffering ; from min, to shine, min, a star ; from sud-u, to burn, sUd-u, heat ; from per-u, to obtain, per-u, a benefit obtained j and from kol, to receive, kol, 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 languages. 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 veda, 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 tax-free tenement). Dr Gundert derives ver, Tam. a root, from vir, the radical part of viri, to expand (compare viral, 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. Ill tion of tlie Sanskrit law in question. Another derivation which I regard as still more probable is that of ner, Tara. straight, from mVa, to be level. These very rare exceptions, however, do not nullify the rule. I must here notice a class of verbal nouns formed after this manner which are much used adjectivally. All Dravidian adjectives, gramma- tically considered, are nou-ns, 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 ^er, large, Mr, black, and dr, precious, furnish good illustrations of the class of verbal nouns to which I refer, 'per and dr are used exclusively as adjectives, Icur both as an adjective and as a noun. As an adjective it means black, as a noun, blackness, a cloud, the rainy season, &c. The radical forms of these words are also in use. These are ^ler-u, to be large, kar-u, to be black, and ar-u, to be precious. The final u is, as usual, merely enunciative ; the roots are per, Tear, and ar. When we find a Dra- vidian root in two shapes, one with a longer, the other with a shorter vowel, it may generally be assumed, and can often be proved, that the shorter form is the radical one. Where both forms are in use, as in the 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. It is to the shorter and probably more ancient form that mei, the formative of abstract nouns, like our English nouns end- ing in neas, is suffixed — e.g., aru-mei, preciousness. The same change 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 ir, and these are often lengthened, when the numeral is used not as a substantive but as an adjective, into 6r and tr. There are also two forms of the numerals three, six, and seven {mu and mH, aru and dru, eru and erii), biit in these instances it is the shorter forms that are used adjectivally. These shorter forms cannot stand alone, they can be used only as adjectives, whereas the longer ones are used as numeral substantives. The formation of verbal nouns by means of the length- 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 (in the previous part of this section) in the case of certain nouns exclu- sively used as substantives. For instance, pdr (Tam.) desolate, is evidently a verbal noun from par-u, to grow old. To grow mature or 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 formation is paragu, to be(jpme used to anything. When the final consonant of the crude root belongs to this class of 112 EOOTS. 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, Tarn, to be green, when lengthened becomes, not pds (as per J kdr^ &c.), but pdsu, green. A change sometimes takes place in the internal vowel of this word which has been supposed to accord 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 paiu), is changed in certain conjunctions into peim — e.g.y peim-pon (Tam.) excellent, literally green, gold. This change, however, is merely euphonic. It has already been shown that s, 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, peim. We have a parallel instance of this in the noun Tcasuppu (Tam.), bitterness, which may optionally be written and pronounced Iceippu; kaiuppu changing first into kayuppu and then into Iceippu. It should also be observed that peim 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 L The process, on this supposition, would have to be reversed ; pei^ 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 euphonic 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 pasumei, greenness, by the omission of the final ei ; for mei, not e^, is the particle by which abstract nouns of quality are formed, and the initial m is the most essential portion of that particle. Pasum is evidently derived from pa^, the crude verbal root, with the addition of um, 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 Tamil — e.g., ve, to burn, has for its preterite participle, not vendu, hut vendu; 7i6, to be in pain, has for its preterite, not ndndu, but nondu; Mn, to see, becomes, not hdnduy but Tcandu. Another instance is id, to die, which takes not CHANGES IN EOOT-VOWELS. 113 sdttUf but ^ettu. The Malaydlam and Canarese form of this participle, ^attu or cliattu, 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., i, to give, has for its preterite in Tamil tndu, in Canarese ittu. There are two verbs in Tamil, vd, to come, and td, to give, which involve peculiarities of which it is difficult to give a satisfactory expla- nation. Each of them is regularly conjugated, except in the preterite and imperative, as if from roots in var and tar (e.g., varugiren, I come, tarugiren, I give) ; each takes the root with the long vowel without r for its imperative singular, and inserts r between this form of the root and the personal termination in the imperative plural (e.g., vd, come, td, give ; vdrum, come ye, tdrum, give ye) ; and each forms its preterite by shortening the vowel without inserting r, as if from roots in vd and td, after the manner described in the previous paragraph (e.g., vanden, I came, tanden, I gave, like nonden, I felt pain, from the root no). Dr Pope, in his " Tamil Handbook," p. 62, considers the r of these verbs euphonically inserted to prevent hiatus and the whole of the tenses built upon the roots in vd and td. I should have no objection to this view if the r made its appearance in the plural im- perative only, as in kdrum, protect ye, from kd, to protect, the only other instance I know of r being used for this purpose in Tamil, and one which I have already mentioned in the chapter on " Prevention of Hiatus." On the other hand, the appearance of the roots in var and tar, in every part of the verb, except the preterite and the singular imperative alone, and in all the verbal nouns without exception (e.g., var at, varattu, varuttu, varudal, varavu, varugei, each of them meaning a coming), leads to the conclusion that var and tar (whatever be the origin of their difference from vd and to) are treated in Tamil as verbal themes. If r were not a portion of the root, we should expect to find the pre- sent, future, infinitive, negative voice, verbal nouns, &c., formed from vd and td, with the addition of ^ or v as a formative suffix, as we find to be the case with the parallel verbs nt, aring velldl-atti, a woman of the cultivator caste, with velldl-an, a man of the same caste ; oru-tti, one woman, una, with oru-{y)-an, one man_, unus; and van7id-Ui, a washerwoman, with vannd-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, instead of the classical and correct oruvan. With this exception its use is exclusively feminine. The same suffix is iti or ti in Canarese — e.g.^ arasiti, a queen (corresponding to the Tamil rdsdtti), oJckalati, a farmer's wife. The Telugu uses adi or di — e.g., h6mati-{y)-adi or * It is more doubtful whether the Tulu dl, Gond-Telugu dl-u, a woman, is allied to the Tamil common noun dl, a person ; and yet the existence of some alliance appears to me probable, dl appears to mean properly a subject person, a servant — male or female — a slave. It is derived from dl (Tel. el-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 ^en, the literal signification of which is said to be desire, from the verbal root 'p^n, 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 dl, 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 *)f the Tamil dl and the Telugu dlu : their identity, however, ia not admitted by Mr C. P. Brown. 126 THE KOUN. Jcomati-di, a woman of the Komti caste ; mdla-di, 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., adi, 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 i to the crude or neuter noun; and it is only in quantity that this i differs from the long I, which is so much used by Sanskrit as a feminine suffix. 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., talei-{v)-i, Tam. a lady (compare talei-{v)-an, a lord), from talei, a head ; compare also the Gond perd- gal, a boy, with 2^erdgi, a girl. This feminine suffix is not to be con- 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 close 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 arriy 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 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. 127 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 al, is that which constitutes the termination of the neuter singular of demonstrative pronouns and appellative nouns. This pronoun is in Tamil, Canarese, and Malay^lam, adu, that, idu, this ; in Telugu adi, idi ; in Gond ad, id. In the Tulu pronoun the d has dropped out. The pronoun ' that ' is avu. Dr Gundert considers this simply a corruption, and he shows that the language had its neuter singular in d originally, like its sister languages, by adducing such words as att\ 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 a and i [a remote, i 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, id-i, are merely euphonic, and have been added only for the purpose of helping the enunciation, it i"^ evident that d 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, i, or short a, with a preceding euphonic v or n — e.g., compare adu (a-d-u), Tam. that, with ava (a-(v)-a), Malayilam, those. It will be shown afterwards that this final a is a sign of the neuter plural. Appellative nouns which form their masculine singular in Tamil in an, and their feminine singular in al, form their neuter singular by annexing die, with such euphonic changes as the previous consonant happens to require — e.g., nalla-du, a good thing ; al-du, euphonically andru, a thing that is not ; periya-du or peri-du, great, a great thing. This neuter singular suffix d is largely used in all the dialects in the formation of verbal nouns — e.g., pogita-du, Tam. the act of going, p6na-du, the having gonQ, ^6va-du, the being about to go. This form has been represented by some, but erroneously, as an infinitive ; it is 128 THE NOUN. a concrete verbal or participial noun of the neuter gender, which has gradually come to be used as an abstract. The affinities of the neuter singular suffix in d 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 tat, that ; in tyat, that ; in adas, a weakened form of adat, that j in etat, this ; and in the relative pronoun yat, who, which, what. We find it also in the Latin illud, id, &c. (compare the Latin id with the Tamil id-u, 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 net, if not, apparently in the same manner as in Telugu the aoristic neuter ledu, there is not, is compounded of the negative la for ila, and the suffix du. Though the Dra vidian languages appear in this point to be allied to the Sanskrit family, it would be unsafe to suppose that they borrowed this neuter singular suffix from Sanskrit. The analogy of the Dravidian neuter plural in a, which though Indo-European, is foreign to Sanskrit, and that of the remote and proximate demonstra- tive vowels a and i, 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 Plueal: 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 pliiralising particle to words which denote animated beings : all other words are left destitute of signs of number. Even the Tartar, or Oriental Turkish, ordinarily pluralises the pronouns alone, and leaves the number of other nouns indeterminate. In Brahui also, 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 NUMBER — PLURALISATION. 129 are regularly pluralised; and the number of an indeterminate noun may often be ascertained from the number of the verb with wliich it agrees. With respect to principles of pluralisation, most of the Dravidian tongues differ considerably from the Indo-European family, and accord on the whole with the languages of the Scythian stock. The number of Tamil nouns, especially of neuter nouns, is ordinarily indefinite ; and it depends upon the connection whether any noun is to be regarded as singular or as plural. It is true that when more persons than one are referred to, the high-caste or rational pronouns that are used are almost invariably plural, and that even neuter nouns them- selves are sometimes pluralised, especially in polished prose composi- tions ; but the poets and the peasants, the most faithful guardians of antique forms of speech, rarely pluralise the neuter, and are fond of using the singular noun in an indefinite singular-plural sense, without specification of number, except in so far as it is expressed by the context. This rule is adhered to with especial strictness by Tamil, which in this, as in many other particulars, seems to exhibit most faithfully the primitive condition of the Dravidian languages. Thus in Tamil, mddu, ox, means either an ox or oxen, according to the con- nection j and even when a numeral which necessarily conveys the idea of plurality is prefixed, idiomatic speakers prefer to retain the singular or indefinite form of the noun. Hence they will rather say, ndlu mddu meygivadu, literally four ox is feeding, than ndlu mddugal meygiTidrana, four oxen are feeding, which would sound stiff and pedantic. Telugu is an exception to this rule. In it neuter nouns are as regularly pluralised as masculines or feminines, and the verbs with which they agree are pluralised to correspond. In Tuda, on the other hand, the only words that appear to be ever pluralised are the pronouns and the verbs which have pronouns for their nominatives. In Coorg neuter nouns have no plural. We find a similar usage occasionally even in English, as Mr C. P. Brown points out, in the military phrases, a hundred /oo^, three hundred horse. In Tamil, even when a neuter noun is pluralised by the addition of 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 the neuter singular being naturally indeterminate. This is almost invariably the practice in the speech of the lower classes ; and the colloquial style of even the best educated classes exhibits a similar characteristic. Tamil contains, it is true, a plural form of the third person neuter of the verb ; ^but the use of this neuter plural verb is 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 caste-less, 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 inflexions, 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 ; w^hilst the number of caste-less 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 neuter plural. 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 madu, one or a certain ox. Europeans 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 etiphony or usage recommend it, this is done by Tamilian s 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 has a different 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 singular, or crude form of the noun, and the case-terminations. I 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. In the Indo-European languages, each inflexion includes the twofold idea of number and of case. Thus there is a genitive singular and a 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 connection between the case-termination of the singular and that which is used in, and which constitutes, the plural. In those few cases in which the sign of number and the sign of case seem to have been originally distinct, and to have coalesced into one, the sign of case seems to have preceded that of number — e.g., the Gothic plural accusative ws is derived from n or m, the sign of the accusative singular, and s, the sign of plurality. When the Scythian family of languages is examined, it is found that each of their case- 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 the exception of those few trivial changes which are required by euphony. The sign of plurality also is not only distinct from the case-sign^ but is one and the same in all the cases. It is an unalter- able postposition — a fixed quantity ; and it is not post-fixed to the 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 itself, and followed by the signs of the different cases. In the Dravidian languages a similar simplicity and rigidity of structure characterises the use of the particles of plurality. They are 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 as in the nominative. The signs of ease are the same in the plural as 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 particle, after the addition of that particle to the crude noun. The only exception to this rule is in Tulu, in which a, the sign of the genitive, keeps its place in the singular, as in the other dialects, but is weakened to e in the plural. 132 THE NOUN. L Hungarian, hdz^ a house, is declined as follows : — Singular. Plural. Nom. hdz. Gen. hdz-nak. Dat. hdz-nak. Ace. hdz-at. Nom. hdzak. Gen. hdz-ak-nak. Dat. hdz-ak-nak. Ace. hdz-ak-at. I Tamil, manei, a house, is declined as follows : — Singular. Plural. Nom. manei. Ace. manei-{y)-ei. Instr. manei-{y)-dl. Conj. manei-{y)-ddu. Dat. manei-kku. Ablat. manei-(y)-il-irundu. Gen. manei-{y)-inadu. Locat. manei-{y)-idatt-il. Voc. manei-{yye. Nom. manei-gal Ace. manei-gal-ei. Instr. manei-gal-dl. Conj. manei-gal-6du. Dat. manei-gal-(u)-kku. Ablat. manei-gal-il-irundu. Gen. manei-gal-inadu. Locat. manei-gal-idatt-il. Voc. manei-gal-^. (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 being identical with the crude base, when the pluralising particle is attached to a neuter noun, it is attached to it not as a substitute for any suflSx 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 singular 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 either to add a pluralis- 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 sinf^ular, the masculine of rational nouns is distinguished from the feminine. In the plural both those genders are combined ; the high- 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 difi'erent 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 pluralising 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. Arrangements 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 alsa very common. Thus, the Sanskrit plural in as is masculine-feminine y so is the Latin plural in es, and the Greek in g?. The chief difference with respect to this point between the Dravidian system and the Indo-European one lies in this, that in the' Dravidian languages the masculine-feminine particle of plurality is carefully restricted to rational beings ; whereas in the Indo- European languages irrational and even inanimate objects are often complimented with inflexional forms and pluralising particles which imply the existence, not only of vitality, but even of personality — that is, of self-conscious intelligence. A still closer analogy to the Dra- vidian system is that which is exhibited by the New Persian. That dialect possesses two pluralising particles, of which one, dn, is suffixed to nouns denoting living beings, "^ the other, hd, to nouns denoting inanimate objects. The particles employed in Persian are different from those which are used in the Dravidian languages, but the prin- * Bopp derives an, the New Persian plural of animated beings, from the San- skrit an, the masculine plural accusative. I am inclined with Sir Henry Rawlin- 8on to connect this particle with the Chaldaic and Cuthite plural an, allied to im and in {e.g., anctn, Chald. we) ; the New Persian being undoubtedly tinged with Chaldgeo-Assyrian elements, through its connection with the Pehlvi. One is tempted to connect with this suffix our modern English plural suffix en, in brethren. Bopp, however, holds that this en is an ancient formative suffix origi- nally used by the singular as well as the plural. Compare mediaeval Eng. brethren with Anglo-Saxon brSdkra. ffhe Dutch use both hroeders, the older form, and broederin, the more modern. 134 THE NOUN. ciple is evidently analogous. The Persians specialise life, the Dravi- dians reason ; and both of them class the sexes together indiscrimi- 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 ar-u for their mas- culine' and feminine singular suffixes, whilst the substantives and some of the appellative nouns append hi, which is properly the neuter sign of plurality, instead of the more correct ar-u. Thus the Telugu demon- strative pronoun vdr-ti, they (the plural of vdndu, he), corresponding to the Canarese avar-u, exhibits the regular epicene plural ; whilst mag- andu, a husband (in Tamil magan, a son), takes for its plural not mag- aru, but magalu ; and some nouns of this class add lu to the masculine or feminine singular suffix — e.g., alludu, a son-in-law, makes in the plural not alluru, nor even allulu, but allundlu, nasalised from alludlu; and instead of vdru, 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 mctkhal 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. guruhkal, in Can. guru- galu. Tulu also has guruhulu. 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 (/-ew.), mokulu, they (prox.) It uses also dr' (Tam. avar) for the former, and mer' (Tam. ivar) for the latter, but rather as honorific singulars than as plurals. It also uses nikulu for you, instead of w'', the latter having come to be used as an 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 drti, which is identical with the ar of the other dialects. Modern colloquial Tamil seems to have been influenced in some degree by the usage of Telugu, and has adopted the practice of adding the NUMBER — THE EPICENE PLURAL. 135 irrational 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 preferred by modern Tamil is the double one avargal. So also the plural of the second person is properly nir ; but the plural which is most commonly used is nin-gal (from nim, an older form of nir, and gal), which is a double plural like avar-gal. Two forms of the epicene plural being thus placed at the disposal of the Tamil people (the classi- cal nir and avar, and the colloquial nih-gal and avar-gal), they have converted the former, in colloquial usage and in prose compositions, into an honorific singular, and the same practice is not unknown in 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 old inscriptions in my possession, any instance of the use of the epicene plural as an honorific singular, except in connection with the names and titles of the divinities, whether those names and titles are applied to the gods themselves, or are conferred honorifically upon kings. Even in those cases, however, the corresponding pronoun follows the ordinary rule, and is very rarely honorific. In modern Telugu a double plural, similar to that of the Tamil, has gained a footing — e.g., vdra-lu (for vdr-u), they, and mira-lu (for mir-u), you. In Malayalam, avar is still constantly used for the ordinary epicene plural, and avargal is used more commonly as an honorific singular. This use of avargal is also common in Tamil, and the corresponding gd7'u equally so in Telugu. (Tam. durei-avargal = Tel. dora-gdru, the gentleman, literally the gen- tlemen, his honour.) In Canarese, avaru is commonly used simply as a plural ; dtanu is regarded as the honorific singular, though avaru also is sometimes used in this sense, ningal in Tamil and Malayalam is both plural and honorific singular, like Can. nivu and Tel. miru. Telugu, as has been observed, pluralises masculine and feminine substantive nouns by the addition, not of the rational, but of the neuter or irrational, sign of plurality. By a similar inversion of idiom, Gond sometimes uses the rational plural to pluralise neuter nouns — e.g., kdwdlor, crows. Such usages, however, are evidently exceptions to the general and more distinctively Dravidian rule, according to which the neuter pluralising particle is restricted to neuter nouns, and the epicene particle to rational or personal nouns, i.e., masculines and feminines. We shall now consider in detail the pluralising particles themselves. 1. Epicene Pluralising Particle. — This particle is virtually one and the same in all the dialects, and the different forms it has taken are owing merely to euphonic peculiarities. In Tamil nouns, pronouns, 136 THE KOUN. and verbs, it assumes the forms of ar, dr, 6r ; ir, ir : in Canarese and Telugu, aru, aru; dre, eru; ri, ru: in Tulu, er : in Ku, dru : in Gond, c)r. The lengthened forms include 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 ur or ar. I 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 n%, thou, forms its plural in modern Tamil by simply adding r ; but this does not prove that r alone was the primitive form of the epicene plural, for an older form of nir^ you, is ni-(v)-ir or ni-{y)-ir, from which nir has evidently been derived. It might naturally be supposed that in this case ir is used instead of ar, through the attraction of the preceding long vowel t; but we also find ir used as a pluralising particle in magalir, High Tam. women, and also a longer form, tr, in magalir; consequently ir 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 r, which is plainly essential, was preceded by a vowel, and that that vowel was probably a. May we regard this a as identical with the demonstrative a? On this supposition, ar would be simply an older form of a{v)aj; and would mean those persons ; ir would mean these persons. On the other hand, may we venture to identify ir and tr with the second numeral ir and ir, two 1 nir would on this suppo- sition have been originally a dual, meaning ye two. It is not impos- sible, indeed, 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 ir or nir, you, is that the ar of avar, 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 Canarese rational plural suffix andar — e.g., avandar-u (for avar-u), tZ^i, and ivandar-u (for ivar-u), hi seems to be identical with the Tel. indefinite plural andar-u, indar-u, so many, the final ar of which is the ordinary suflix of the epicene plural. In old Canarese, ir is a plural vocative of epicenes. Tamil and Malay ^lam 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 i^ suflixed to the noun which it qualifies in a difi'erent manner from ar ; for whilst ar is substituted for the masculine and feminine suffixes of the singular, not added to them, mdr is generally added to the singular suffix by idiomatic writers and speakers. Thus in Tamil, purushan NUMBER — THE EPICENE PLURAL. 137 (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 is 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 originally no difference in signification between ar and mar or mdr. In modern Tamil, mdr is suffixed to nouns signifying parents, priests, kings, &c., as a plural of honour, but it may be suffixed, if necessary, to any class of nouns denoting rational beings. In Malay 41am it is used with a wider range of application than in Tamil, and in cases in which an honorific meaning cannot be intended — e.g., Jcallan-mdr, thieves. The antiquity of many of the forms of the Malayalam grammar favours the supposition that in ancient Tamil, which was apparently identical with ancient Malay 41am, mar or mdr may generally have been used instead of ar, as the ordinary pluralising particle of high-caste nouns. A few traces of the use of the particle mdr, as the ordinary sign of epicene plurality, survive in classical Tamil, mar, which is evidently equivalent to mdr, forms the epicene plural of a few nouns — e.g., . enmar, eight persons. As a,r is older than dr (the latter being euphon- ised from avar by the coalescence of the vowels), so in like manner it may be concluded that mar is older than mdr. This mar again seems to have been derived from var, or to be an older form of it, m and v being sometimes found to change places. When the Tam. ndlvar, four persons, eivar, five persons, are compared with enmar, eight persons, it is evident that mar is equivalent to var, and probable that the use of m for v is an euphonic change, ndlmar would be impossible in classical Tamil ; enmar is not only possible, but euphonic. var is a verj'- common formative of epicene appellative nouns in Tamil and Malayalam, and often appears as avar, in which case we cannot but regard it as the pronominal avar, they, used as a plural formative — e.g., vinnavar, Tam. the heavenly ones, from vin, heaven, with avar affixed. Compare this form with participial nouns like seydavar, Tam. they who did, from seyd-{u), having done, and avar, they, and the identity in origin of the avar of vinnavar and that of seydavar will be evident. This avar, again, seems to have been abbreviated into var, like the Telugu avaru, they, into vdru. The v of eivar, five persons, might be regarded as simpjjr euphonic, as a soft consonant inserted to prevent hiatus, but this explanation is inadmissible in the case of 138 THE NOUN. ndlvar, four persons, there being no hiatus here to be provided against. This var being identical in use with avar, it may safely be concluded to be identical with it in origin ; and if var is a pronominal form, an abbreviation of avar, may not mar be the same 1 The example of the lengthening of ar into dr (i.e., the substitution of the plural pronoun itself in an euphonised form for the bare particle of plurality) would naturally lead to the lengthening of var into vdr (the origin of the v being by this time forgotten) ; and when once mar had established itself instead of var, this also would naturally be lengthened into mdr. Thus tagappan-mdr would come to be used instead of tagappan-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 h or v, the sign of the future, and there appears no reason why m should not be used instead of v or 6 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 enha. When the personal terminations of the third person plural are suffixed to the root, we find ' they will say ' represented indifferently by enhar, or enmar, enhdr, 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 h, 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 NUMBER — THE EPICENE PLURAL. 139 terminations, or pluralising suffixes, of other languages. It might at first sio-ht be supposed that the formation of the plural by the addition of r to the singular which characterises some of the Teutonic tongues, is analogous to the use of r or ar in the Dravidian languages. In the Icelandic the most common plural is that which terminates in r — some- times the consonant r alone, sometimes the syllables ar, ^V, ur — e.g.^ Tconungur, kings. A relic of this plural may be traced in the vulgar English childer, for children. The same plural appears in the old Latin termination of the masculine plural in or which is found in the Eugubian tables — e.g., subator for subacti, and screhitor for scripti. Compare also mas, the termination of the first person plural of verbs in Sanskrit, with mar, the corresponding termination in Irish, answer- ing to the Doric i^ig and the ordinary Greek /asv. In these cases, how- ever, the resemblance to the Dravidian plural ar is perhaps rather apparent than real ; for the final r of these forms has been hardened from an older s, and the s of the Sanskrit nominative singular is hardened in some of the Teutonic tongues into r, equally with the as or s of the plural ; whilst there is no evidence, on which we can rely, of the existence of a tendency in the Dravidian languages to harden s into r, and therefore no evidence for the supposition that the Dravidian epicene ar has been derived from, or is connected with, the Sanskrit masculine-feminine as. It should also be noted that the Irish mar is a compound of two forms, ma, the representative of the singular of the personal pronoun I, and r, the hardened equivalent of the plural suffix s ; and that, therefore, it has no real resemblance to the Dravidian mar, which is entirely and exclusively a plural suffix of the third person. There is more probability perhaps of the Dravidian plural suffixes being related to the pluralising particles of some of the Scythian languages. The Turkish plural suffix, which is inserted, as in the Dravidian languages, between the crude noun and each of the case- terminations, is lar or ler — e.g., dn-lar, they. Dr Logan says, but on what authority does not appear, that nar is a plural suffix in K61. Mongolian nouns which end with a vowel are pluralised by the addi- tion of nar or ner, a particle which is evidently related to, or identical with, the Turkish lar or ler : and the resemblance of this Mongol 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 be softened into n (witness the change of the Sanskrit mama, my, into mana in Zend) ; and in this manner it may perhaps be supposed that the Dravidian mar may be allied to the High Asian nar. The Tamil ileinar {ilei-nar), young pec^le, a plural appellative noun, formed from ilei, youth, exhibits a form of pluralisation which at first sight seems 140 THE NOUN. very closely to resemble the Mongolian nar. Nay, nar is actually used in this very instance instead of nar by some of the poets, and it is certain that n and n often change places. Unfortunately we find this n or n in the singular, as well as the plural; which proves it to be inserted merely for euphony in order to prevent hiatus, and therefore ileinar must be re-divided, and represented not as ilei- Oar, but as ilei-{n)-ar or ilei-{n)-ar, equivalent to ilei-('?/)-ar. The resemblance of the final syllable ndr, of the Tamil verb enmandr, already commented on, to the Mongolian plural suffix nar, seems more reliable, and yet that also seems to disappear on further examination. Turkish, besides its ordinary plural lar or ler, uses ^ as a plural suffix of the personal pronouns, as may be observed in biz, we, and siz, you ; and the Turkish terminal z corresponds to the r of some other Scythian languages. Thus 7/dz, Turkish, summer, is in Magyar ydr or ndr (compare the Tamil ndyiv-u, 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 r are remotely connected, as the last remain-"^ 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. I 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 linguistic 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 Suffix gal, with its Varieties. — It has already been noticed that gal is occasionally used in Tamil and Canarese as the plural suffix of rational nouns and pronouns ; and that 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 a suffix of the neuter plural. This suffix is in both dialects of the 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 gal, is doubled, or preceded without NUMBER — THE NEUTER PLURAL. 141 an intermediate vowel by another consonant, gal is regularly hardened into hal or khal. Thus hal-gal, stones, is changed by rule into har- hal. gal is occasionally lengthened in Tamil poetry into gdl. In MalayMam this particle is generally gal, kal, or kkal, but sometimes the initial k coalesces with a preceding nasal and becomes n — e.g., nin-nal, you, instead of nim-kal, in Tamil nin-gal. In modern Canarese we have gal-ii, in ancient gal, as in 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. In Telugu the corresponding neuter plural suffix is lu, of which the I answers, as is usual in Telugu, to the lingual I of the other dialects ; l-u, therefore, accords with the final syllable of the Canarese gal-u. The only real difference between the Telugu and the Tamil-Canarese consists in the omission by the former of the initial consonant k or g. Traces, however, exist, in Telugu, of the use of a vowel before lu. Thus, in gurrdlu, horses, the long d is derived from the combination of the short final a of the inflexional base gurra and a vowel, evidently a, 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-u could easily have been softened from gal-u. Conjecture, however, is scarcely needed, for in some nouns ending in n-u, of which the Tamil equival- ents end in m, the old Dravidian pluralising particle in gal is exhibited in Telugu almost as distinctly as in Tamil. Thus, kolan-u, a tank (Tamil kulam), takes as its plural kolan-kul-u, a word cited in this form by Nannaya Bhatta (Tamil kulan-gal), and gon-u, the name of a species of tree, forms its plural in gon-gul-u. When kul-u and gul-u are compared with the Tamil-Canarese forms kal, gal, and gal-u, it is obvious that they are not only equivalent but identical. An illustra- tion of the manner in which the Telugu lu has been softened from gal-u, may be taken also from colloquial Tamil, in which avar-gal, they, is commonly pronounced aval; Firdmanargal, Brahmans, Pird- mandl. k ox g is dropped or elided in a similar manner in many languages of the Scythian family. Tulu, though locally remote from Telugu, follows its example in many points, and amongst others in this. It often rejects the k ot g of the plural, and uses merely lu, like Telugu. It uses the full form kulu more rarely. The same form of the pluralising particle appears in the languages of some of the tribes of the north-eastern frontier — languages which pos- sibly form a link of connection between the Dravidian and the Tibetan families. In the Miri or Abor-Miri dialect, no, thou, forms its plural in nolu, you ; and in the Dhimal, ne, thou, is pluralised into ni/el, you. The pronoun of the Mikir it pluralised by adding li — e.g., na-li, you, 142 THE NOUN. whilst substantives have no plural form. In the Dhimal, substantive nouns are pluralised by the addition of galai, which is possibly the origin of the pronominal plural I, though this particle or word, galai, is not compounded with, or agglutinated to, the noun, but placed after it 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 galai to the Tamil-Canarese gal or galu, is distinct and remarkable. The pluralising particle of the Naga also is Jchala. 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 leal, gal, or galu, and omitted the initial ha, ga, or Tc, we may expect to find this Tc used as a pluralising particle in some other Dravidian dialect, and the final lu or I omitted. Accordingly, in Gond we find that the plural neuter is commonly formed by the addition of k alone — e.g., nai, a dog, naik, dogs (compare Tamil ndykal, pronounced ndygal). The? Seoni-Gond forms its plural by adding nk — e.g., neli, a field, nelnk, fields. The Ku dialect uses ngd, and also shd, of all which forms k or g constitutes the basis. k is sometimes found to interchange with t, especially in the lan- guages of High Asia. This interchange appears also in the Gond pluralising particle; for whilst k is the particle in general use, the pronouns of the first and second persons form their plurals, or double plurals, by the addition of t to the nominative — e.g., amat, we, imat, you. The same interchange between k and t appears in Brahui. Though a separate word is usually employed by Brahui to denote plurality, a suffix in k is also sometimes used ; but this k is found only in the nominative plural, and is replaced by t in the oblique cases. When we turn to the grammatical forms of the Finnish family of languages, we find some tolerably distinct analogies to this Dravidian plural suffix. Compare with the Dravidian forms noticed above the Magyar plural in k or ak; the Lappish in h, ch, or h: also the t by which k is replaced in almost all the other dialects of the Finnish family ; and observe the reappearance of the sound of I in the Ostiak plural suffix tl. In Ostiak, the dual suffix is kan or gan; in Samoied- Ostiak, ga or ka; in Kamass, gai. Castren supposes these suffixes to be derived from the conjunctive particle ka or ki, also ; but their resemblance to the Dravidian signs of plurality is worth noticing. Even Armenian forms its plural in k — e.g., tu, thou, tuk, you; sirem, I love; siremk, we love. In Turkish also, k is the sign of NUMBER — THE NEUTER PLURAL. 143 plurality in some forms of tlie first person plural of tlie verb — e.g.^ idum, I was, tduh, we were, t, on the other hand, is the sign of the plural in Mongolian, and in Calmuck is softened into d. Even in Zend, though a language of a different family, there is a neuter plural in t. Thus, for imdni (Sans.), these things, Zend has imat. In those instances of the interchange of t and ^, in which it can be ascertained with tolerable clearness which consonant was the one origi- nally used and which was the corruption, t sometimes appears to be older than k. Thus, the Doric rrivog is in better accordance with related words, and therefore probably older, than the iEolian x^vog, the origin of l-Titlvog. The Semitic pronoun or pronominal fragment ta, thou (preserved in attd and antd), is also, I doubt not, a more accurate and older form than the equivalent or auxiliary suffix ka. In several of the Polynesian dialects, k is found instead of an apparently earlier Sanskrit or pre-Sanskrit t On the other hand, as Dr Gundert points out, k sometimes appears to be older than t, particularly in Greek — e.g., compare Gr. rtg with Sans. kas. If, in accordance with a por- tion of these precedents, where k and t are found to be interchanged, t is to be regarded as older than k, it would follow that kal, the Dravi- dian plural suffix now under consideration, may originally have been tal. I cannot think that the Dravidian gal has been derived, as Dr Stevenson supposed, from the Sanskrit sakala (in Tamil sagala)y all. kal, the base of sa-kala, has been connected with oX-og ; but el, the root signifying ' all,' which is found in all the Dravidian languages — Tel. ella; Tam.-Mal. elld, elldm, elldvum (the conjunction um inten- sifies the meaning) — if it were related to any Indo-European word at all, which is doubtful, would be connected, not with the Gr. oX, Heb. kol, Sans, sar-va, &c., but with the Germanic alia, Eng. all.* The Dravidian tala, one of the meanings of which is a heap, a quantity, would suit very well ; but even this derivation of kal is destitute of evidence. The supposititious Dravidian tal may be compared with the Ostiak plural suffix tl ; but in the absence of evidence it is useless to proceed with conjectural analogies. The New Persian neuter plural, or plural of inanimate objects, which corresponds generally to the Dravidian neuter plural, is hd, a form * Dr Gundert is right, I think, in deriving this word from el, a boundary (Tarn. el-vei, el-gei, 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. The Tamil ellavar, all (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 elld or elldm, all, is used affirmatively, in \t^ natural sense, to signify whatever is included within the measure or limits of the thing referred to. 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 ha in the pronunciation of the peasantry — e.g., iruk- Mvdrgal, they are, is vulgarly pronounced irukkirdha. (2.) Neuter Plural Suffix in a. — In addition to the iieuter plural in gal, with its varieties, we find in nearly all the Dravidian languages a neuter plural in short a, 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 a 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 suffix which are contained in Tamil, gal is invariably used in Tamil as the plural suffix of uncompounded neuter nouns; but a is pre- ferred 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 adjectives, and participial nouns. Even in the ordinary dialect, a is generally used as the suffix of the neuter plural in the conjugation of verbs. The second line in one of the distichs of Tiruvalluvar's " Kural " contains two instances of the use of a as a neuter plural of appellative nouns — e.g., dgula nira pira, vain shows (are all) other (things). The first of these three words is used adjectivally ; and in that case the final a is merely that which remains of the neuter termination am, after the regular rejection of m; but the next two words, nira and pira, are undoubted instances of the use of a as a suffix of the neuter plural of appellatives. The much-used Tamil words pala, several, or many (things), and Sila, some, or some (things), (from pal and sil), though commonly considered as adjectives, are in reality neuter plurals — e.g., pinipala, diseases (are) many ; pala-(v)-in-pdl, the neuter plural gender, literally the gender of the many (things). This is the case also in poetry in MalayMam. The use of these words adjectivally, and with the signification, not of the collective, but of the distributive plural, has led some persons to overlook their origin and real meaning, but I have no doubt that they are plurals. So also alia, not, is properly a plural appellative. It is formed from the root al, not, by the addition of a, the plural suffix, and literally means things that are not, and the singular that corresponds to alia is al-du, not, euphonically andru, liter- ally a thing that is not. In the higher dialect of Tamil, all nouns NUMBER — THE NEUTER PLURAL. 145 of quality and relation may be, and very frequently are, converted into appellatives and pluralised by the addition of a — e.g., ariya (Kural), thinc's that are difficult, difficilia. We have some instances in High Tamil of the use of a as the plural suffix even of substantive nouns — e.g., porula, substances, things that are real, realities (from the singular porul, a thing, a substance) ; also porulana and porulavei, — with the addition of ana and avei (for ava), the plural neuters of the demonstra- tive pronouns. The neuter plural of the third person of the Tamil verb, a form which is used occasionally in ordinary prose as well as in the classical dialect, ends in ana — e.g., iruhhindrana, they (neut.) are. ana is undoubtedly identical with ava (now avei), the neuter plural of the demonstrative pronoun, and is possibly an older form than ava. It is derived from the demonstrative base a, with the addition of a, the neuter plural suffix, and an euphonic consonant {n or v) to prevent hiatus — e.g., a-{n)-a or a-{v)-a. Sometimes in classical Tamil this a, the sign of the neuter plural, is added directly to the temporal suffix of the verb, without the addition of the demonstrative base of the pro- noun — e.g., minda, they (neut.) returned, instead of mtndana. This final, a is evidently a sign of the neuter plural, and of that alone. Possibly we should also regard as a sign of the neuter plural the final a of the High Tamil possessive adjectives ena, my (things), mea; nama, our (things), nostra. The final a of ena would, on this supposi- tion, be not only equivalent to the final a of the Latin mea, but really identical with it. These possessive adjectives are regarded by Tamil grammarians as genitives ; and it will be shown hereafter that a is undoubtedly the most essential sign of the genitive in the Dravidian languages. The real nature of ena and nama will be discussed when the genitive case-terminations are inquired into. It should be stated, however, under this head, that Tamil grammarians admit that ena and Tiama, though, as they say, genitives, must be followed by nouns in the neuter plural — e.g., ena keigal, my hands ; and this, so far as it goes, constitutes the principal argument in favour of regarding the final a of these words, not as a genitive, but as the ordinary neuter plural suffix of the high dialect. In Malayalam, the oldest daughter of Tamil, and a faithful preserver of many old forms, the neuter plurals of the demonstrative pronouns are ava, those (things), and iva, these (things). The existence, there- fore, in Tamil and Malay Mam of a neuter plural in short a, answering to a neuter singular in d, is clearly established. In addition to ava and iva, avattrugal and ival^ugal are regularly used in Malayalam, like the double plural aveigal, iveigal, in Tamil. 146 THE NOUK. Canarese appears to have originally agreed with Tamil in all the particulars and instances mentioned above ; but the neuter plural in a is now generally hidden in that dialect by the addition of euphonic u, or the addition of avu, they, neuter (corresponding to the Tamil avei) to the base. Thus pira. Tarn, other (things), is in Canar- ese heravu. The neuter plural of the demonstrative pronoun is not ava, as it is in Malay ^lam, and as it must have been in primitive Tamil, but avu. Though, however, the nominative is avu, all the oblique cases in the ancient Canarese reject the final u before receiving the case-suffixes, and must have been formed from the base of an older ava — e.g., avara (ava-ra), of those things. The Telugu plural neuters of the demonstratives are avi, those, ivi, these, answering to the singular neuters adi and idi. 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 VI proximate (vdti, vtte), which are evidently formed (by that process of displacement peculiar to Telugu) from the primitive bases ava and iva, like vdru, from avaru, and vtru, from ivaru. The neutef plural of the Telugu verb is formed by suffixing avi or vi. Dr Gundert calls my attention here to the natural and easy transi- tion from one vowel to another apparent on comparing the MalayMam and old Tamil ava with the modern Tamil avei, and finally with the Telugu avi. So also Malayalam and old Tamil ilia, none, is illei in modern Tamil. Final a constantly lapses in the Dravidian languages into a weaker sound. In Gond the singular demonstratives are ad and id; the correspond- ing plurals av and iv. If Telugu and Gond were the only extant 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 plural. When the other extant dialects, however (Tamil, Malaydlam, 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 it is merely an euphonic link between the preceding and succeeding vowels. Telugu and Gond must therefore yield to the overpowering weight of evidence which is adducible in proof of this point from their sister dialects. Nor is there anything opposed to analogy in the sup- position that Telugu has changed the a, which was the sign of the neuter plural of its pronouns and verbs, into ^, and then, to represent the idea of plurality, adopted a consonant which was used originally merely to prevent hiatus. In the case of avaru, they, illi, converted into vdru, and ivaru, they, hi, converted into viru, v, though only euphonic in its origin, has become an initial and apparently a radical ; NUMBER THE NEUTER PLURAL. 147 and the old initial and essentially demonstrative vowels a and i have been thrust into a secondary place. The conversion, therefore, of ava into t;<2, and of iva into v% {vdti, viti), the oblique forms of the Telugu plural demonstratives, is directly in accordance with this analogy ; and thus Telugu cannot be considered as opposed to the concurrent testimony of the other dialects, which is to the effect that v is merely euphonic, and that a is the sign of the neuter plural of the demonstra- tive pronouns. I remarked it as a curious irregularity, that in Tulu v had become the sign of the neuter singular instead of d — e.g., avu, it. Dr Gundert says that the v is not written. The word is written au-u, and he considers it merely a softened pronunciation of adu, so that there is no irregularity here after all. It is written avu, however, in Brigel's Grammar. If short a be, as it has been shown to be, a sign of the neuter plural inherent in the Dravidian languages, and most used by the oldest dialects, we have now to inquire into the relationship which it appar- 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 to it, as well as to d, the suffix of the neuter singular, an origin which is allied to that of the corresponding Indo-European forms. In the use of a as a neuter plural suffix, it is evident that the Dravidian family has not imitated, or been influenced by, the Sanskrit, and that it was not through the medium of Sanskrit that Indo-European influences made their way into this department of the Dravidian languages ; for the Dravidian neuter plural a differs widely from the Sanskrit neuter plural dni, and it is as certainly unconnected with the masculine- feminine plural as (softened in modern Sanskrit into ah). It is with the short a, which constitutes the neuter plural of Zend, Latin, and Gothic, that the Dravidian neuter plural a appears to be allied. Com- pare also the Old Persian neuter plural d. It will be evident on recapitulating the various particulars that have been mentioned in this section, that grammatical gender has been more fully and systematically developed in the Dravidian languages than in perhaps any other language, or family of languages, in the world. Properly speaking, there is no such thing as gender in the Scythian languages. Gender appears in the Indo-European languages in the pronouns and pronominals, but not in the verb. In the Semitic lan- guages the verb distinguishes between the masculine and feminine in the singular j but in the pUiral, as in the verb of the Indo-European languages, gender is ignored. In the Dravidian languages, on the 148 . THE NOUN. 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 he is, she is, it is, they {persons) are, they {things) are. This is a refinement of expressiveness in which the Dra vidian languages appear to stand alone. Sanskrit is 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 and Appendix. SECTION 11. —FORMATION OF CASES. Prindples 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 postpositions 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, postpositions, that is, appended auxiliary words, have generally held fast their individuality and separate exist- ence. In the Indo-European tongues, on the contrary, the old post- positions or suffixes hav« been welded into combination wdth 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 postpositional words, which were added to the root to express relation, and at length blended into an inseparable union with it, through that love of composition by which every member of the family was characterised. In most instances the root and the original signification of those postpositions 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 postpositions still used in a manner which illustrates the conversion of a portion of this class of words into case-endings — e.g., in Latin nohiscum, and in Greek such words as oLy^&i, in the country ; aXa^g, to the sea ; and hu^avokv, from heaven. The postpositional auxiliary words used in these instances CASE-FORMATION. 149 are appended to their bases in a truly primitive manner. If there is any difference between them and the usage of the Scythian post- positions, it consists in this — that in most of the Scythian tongues ^/, 3s, &fv, would be written as separate words. One of the Greek postpositions quoted above, ds, signifying direction to a place, has been supposed to be allied to de, the dative of the Manchu ; and the Greek dsv has been conjectured to be allied to the Tartar ablative din or den. One may well be doubtful whether any such connection can be established ; but in the manner in which the particles are appended to their bases a distinct analogy may be observed. On turning our attention to the Dravidian languages, we find that the principle on which they have proceeded in the formation of cases is distinctively Scythian. All case-relations are expressed by means of postpositions, or postpositional suffixes. Most of the postpositions are, in reality, separate words ; and in all the Dravidian dialects the postpositions retain traces of their original character as auxiliary nouns. Several case-signs, especially in the more cultivated dialects, have lost the faculty of separate existence, and can only be treated now as case- terminations ; but there is no reason to doubt that they were all post- positional nouns originally. The dialect of the Tudas shows its want of literary cultivation in the paucity of its case-signs. There is no difference in it between the nominative, genitive, and accusative. There is another point in which the Scythian principles of case- formation differ materially from the Indo-European. In the Indo- European family the case-endings of the plural differ from those of the singular. It is true, that on comparing the case-terminations of all the members of the family, some traces have been discovered of the exist- ence of an original connection between the singular and the plural terminations of some of the cases; but in several instances — e.g., in the instrumental case — ^no such connection between the singular and the plural has been brought to light by any amount of investigation ; and it may be stated as a general rule that the languages of this family appear to have acted from the beginning upon the principle of expressing the case-relations of the singular by one set of forms, and the case-relations of the plural by another set. On the other hand, in all the languages of the Scythian group, the same case-signs are employed both in the singular and in the plural, without alteration, or with only such alterations as euphony is supposed to require. In the singular, the case-postpositions are appended directly to the nomina- tive, which is identical wiUi the base ; in the plural they are appended, not to the nominative or base, but to the particle of pluralisation which 150 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 a in the singular and e in the plural — a change which arises from the ** law of harmonic sequences " by which those tongues are characterised, and which re- appears, but little modified, in Telugu and Tulu. It has already been remarked that in Twlu the a 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 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 Telugu, in which the dative case-sign is either Tci or leu, according to the nature of the vowel by which it is preceded or influenced ; in consequence of which it is generally Izi in the singular and leu in the plural. This identity of the singular and plural case-endings in the languages of the Scythian group, as well as in those of the Dravidian family, will' be found greatly to facilitate the comparison of the case-signs of one language of either of those families with those of the other. Number of Declensions. — There is only one declension, 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 European, especially with reference to Canarese, Tulu, and Telugu, a,ppear to me to con- stitute but one declension ; for there is no difference between one so-called declension and another with respect to the signs of case. Those signs are precisely the same in all : the difference which exists relates solely to suffixes of gender, or to the euphonic and inflexional increments which are added to the bases before the addition of the case-signs. On proceeding to analyse the case-formation of the Dravidian languages, we shall follow the order in which they have been arranged by Dravidian grammarians, which is the same as that of the Sanskrit. The imitation of Sanskrit in this particular was certainly an error; for whilst in Sanskrit there are eight cases only, the number of cases in Tamil, Telugu, &c., is almost indefinite. Every postposition annexed THE NOMINATIVE. 151 to a noun constitutes, properly speaking, a new case ; and therefore the number of such cases depends upon the requirements of the speaker and the different shades of meaning he wishes to express. In particu- lar, the " inflexion " or inflected form of the base, or oblique case, as it is sometimes called, which has sometimes a possessive, sometimes a locative, and sometimes an adjectival signification, ought to have had a place of its own. So also the social and conjunctive case. (See the Inflexion and the Instrumental Case.) Notwithstanding this, the usage of Dravidian grammarians has restricted the number of cases to eight ; and though there are not a few disadvantages in this arrangement, 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- lowing the order of the Sanskrit cases, have also adopted or imitated the Sanskrit mode of denominating them — not by descriptive appella- tions, as dative or ablative, but by numbers. They have affixed a number to each case in the same order as in Sanskrit — e.g., first case, second case, &c., to eighth case. Though a nominative, or first case, stands at the head of the Dravidian list of cases, the only cases, pro- perly so called, which are used by these languages, are the oblique cases. 21ie Nominative — Absence of Nominative Case-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-e, the noun 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 exceptions to this rule, or instances in which the nominative might appear to have terminations peculiar to itself, which it is desirable here to inquire into. (1.) The neuter termination am might at first sight be 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, are neuter abstracts. In Sanskrit the accusative of the neuter is iden- 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 exception : every case retains it in the plural, but in the singular it is used by the nominative alone. This comprises the sum total of the reasons for regarding am as a termination of the nominative. On the 152 THE NOUN. other hand, though am disappears in Tamil from the oblique cases in the singular, it retains its place in every one of the cases in the plural. The particle of plurality is regularly suffixed to am, and the signs of case are then suffixed to the particle of plurality ; which is a clear proof that, whatever am may be, it is not a mere termination or case-sign of the nominative. The Telugu regards am or am-u as part of the inflexional base, retains it in each case of hoth numbers alike, and suffixes to it in the singular the case-signs, in the plural the par- ticle of plurality. Ancient Canarese uses am in the nominative and accusative singular of nouns ending in a, and discards it in the plural. In that dialect a tree is maram, as in Tamil ; but the plural nominative, trees, is not marahgal (maram-gal), but maragal. Modern Canarese appears to make no use of am whatever, either in the singular or the plural, but it is evident that the final vu of many Canarese nouns is a softened form of m. Compare Tarn, maram, a tree ; Can. maravu. Neuter nouns borrowed from Sanskrit by 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 plural ; so that even in Sanskrit derivatives am is regarded in Tamil, not as a case-sign, but as a portion of the inflexional base. Whatever be the origin of the Tamil am, considered (as I think we must consider it) as a formative, not as a nominative case-sign, it does not appear to have been borrowed from Sanskrit, in which it is used for so different a purpose ; and I believe it springs from a source altogether independent of Sanskrit. We find it added to many of the purest Dravidian roots, and by the addition of it many verbs of that class are converted into nouns. Thus nil-am, Tam. the ground, is from nil, to stand, dr-am, Tam. depth, is from dr, to be deep. See " Derivative Nouns," in the section on " The Verb." The best ex- 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, . 5- c ^ 5^. ?■. e g S S . ' . s ^ ~v s s "~>'^ »-' s c -^ s •i^ . 1 o 4 i :3 CD a' o « 5 ^^ p 5^ s lll ni 1 i 1 o 1 1 i 1 S s s g § Is 1 s s .— ^— N ^ V ^ ^ .^ •^*- .-^-^ 03 < 1 g 1 •i 1 ^ f" s o 5- 1 ^ ii g ^ il ' • 1 f 1^ Ii g S .—-— s g s s ~J i . ^ ^ .—^-s jL z^:^ p 1 !1 ?3 'Si ?2 1 Si e S ^-2 1 ?s §1 ; § t-4 ^ 1 S ?^ -^-^ s s • ?3 ?g 2? ^ ^ ^ H s 1 i is g g 11 i 1 g ^ ?s s « « s ?3 ?s ^ K ^ 1:^ 5^ ^ ?: 1: g ^ « j:: $^ ^ ^ C 5- J» is. ^ S J-. ^ ^ s •- s S ;^ s ^ ^ tJi <3i ?5i 5^ ^ ^ C)i i — v— ^-v- ^* ^-v— •1^ 1* t 1 : 1 i g < « P 53 e ?3 « « ? e 1^ i- ^ ^ ?; « ?3 « « § 5j s § § § s g g g S ^-. — ■ -~^-^ j^ \'"'~^^'~~\ ^ S^ so a cs •N ' 1-S g - ^*^ s 5^ 1 1 III 1 « e ^ f* tt « « 5* s S § g s S g g s S ~T . ^— V— . ,- ^ _^ , c3 • • • s • pfl. • • • cd . . s ■4.J ? -u , ^ 3 tS Q> C ^' > •'-' O u, C3 — 1 0) -2 Si g^ cS . g s-S^ * Jz; § ^. D9 o o ^ G fl +3 . '^ • ^-^ e '^ "I. 'I! ^^ i 1 o T3 «5 -^'. :^'. 1 ill d 1 s 1 o 3-- 5S 1 S 1 ■N ^^ V ^ .—^-^ 1 •i e « tj l- ^ 1 i •i > • « « o ^i. ^i. ^^. f^. ^»^. "^o. 1-^ e c e* « e e « ^. '=^-^ is, ^ s> ^ ^- II ^■^g i 1 1 1 s S s s §• s S i s . — ^-> ,— -— . — -v— ' V— ^— •^ ^ ^S ^■ S i^ li 1 -1 31 |4 , J . 1 1 s 5^ :S s 11 it • ■g • 55 » i^ il § s g g e « ^ « ^. e ?3 e ^^ 2. s J^ ?: ?^ 1- ?s V. 5^ 5^ ?> 5^ t ^ j^ ?^ s S • $3 S ^ 5J S ^55 §i ^ fes ^ 'S^ ^ '^ fS $s S' jg •<^ 'J »«<» 1^ s '^. ,• '-^. ^ a S. 5^. •Is. |. 5^. ^' « 5S 55 ?s e ?S •5» "8 •a •a *S * •s *s •s •a •5» •g» •8 •s '8 • •s •s •a •s Q >» « ?3 « w ^ c 53 5^ j;» ?- ^ J,. g ?: ^ e Q ^ 55 ^ S § § s § s s S g ,— ^— X .~^-> -~^— s /^ ^^— ^ t 1 •s •Si 03 2 1 8 ti • ^^3^ ^•^ . r^ . 3 •*«i« J ^.I- 1 • I^. •j. ;^. e « tl al 'e' « e 2 ft o ^ ?S ?2 ^ ^.-^• ^ 'Si ^ ?>. 5^ •s •8 g •S r^. •5S -2. •a •K •s •a •s e « « c e e « ?s e « ^ 'c- ^ ^ 5^ ^ ^ ^ ce ^ J^ ^ e 5S ^ 5J S § ^ § ^ S § S § s . ^-v— ' V— ^-^ w^— ' . 02 • ^^ ^v-^^ . . »4 * CD 02 03 2 •5 s Q • ^. h. •*J -M -^ ■? g +3 ■4-3 c3 .kS ^S ^ 'S s o o ^ .2 o ^ s' ^ is '^ =! ^ 1 1 1 to s 216 THE NUMERALS. PART IV, 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 used 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 irandu peyar, two persons, though iru peyar, or the still more classical appellative noun iruvar, might have been expected to be used. This use of the numeral substantive instead of the numeral adjective is not ungrammatical, but is in accordance with the characteristic Dravidian rule that every noun of quality or relation, though in itself neuter and abstract, becomes an adjective by being prefixed to a substantive noun in direct apposition. The numeral noun ondru, Tam., okati, Tel., one, is the only numeral which is never used in this manner, even in the colloquial dialects, except in Canarese; the adjectival numerals, om, oka, &c., being invariably prefixed to substantive nouns as numeral adjectives : the same forms are employed also as indefinite articles. In Canarese alone the abstract neuters are used freely as numeral adjec- tives^e.^., ondu hei, one hand. The abstract or neuter nouns of number are sometimes elegantly postfixed, instead of being prefixed, to the substantive nouns which they are intended to qualify — e.g., instead of ndV erudu, Tam. four oxen, we may say not only ndng'' erudu (using the noun of number ndngu, instead of the numeral adjective ndlu), 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 ii^uvar {iru-{y)-a7^), Tam. two persons. The basis of this word is not irandu, the noun of number two, but the numeral adjective iru^ 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 (masc), unus ; orutti, one person (fern.), una; iruvar, two persons ; mHvar, three persons (both epicene) j but in the higher or poetical dialects, almost all the numeral adjectives are con- verted in this manner into appellative nouns. From these circum- stances it is evident that the Dravidian numeral adjectives are to be regarded as the only essential portion of the roots of the numeral substantives, and probably as the very roots themselves. One. — Two forms of the numeral substantive one are found in the 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 ; the latter, oka, is used as a numeral in the Telugu alone. 1. The basis of the first and most commonly used form of this numeral is or, to which u is added for euphonisation ; and this con- stitutes the numeral adjective one, in all the dialects which make use of this base, or-u, in colloquial Tamil, becomes or in the poetical dialect ; the essential vowel o being lengthened to 6 to compensate for the rejection of the euphonic addition u. or is also known. The adjectival form used in Tulu is or {ori, one person, ora, once), in Ku, ra; with which the Behistun numeral adjective irra or ra maybe compared. The Canarese •numeral adjective is identical with the Tamil, though its true character is somewhat concealed. Instead of 218 4» THE NUMERALS. oruvan, Tarn., tmus, Canarese has ohban-u, and instead of oruval, una, ohhal-u. Ancient Canarese, however, uses also orbam for the former, and orbal for the latter ; the base of which, or, is the numeral root, and is identical with the Tamil or-u or dr. The abstract neuter noun ' one,' meaning literally, one thing, or unity, is in Canarese and Coorg 07idu; in grammatical Tamil, onru (pronounced ondru or ondu, and in vulgar Tamil, onnu) ; in Telugu (one of its two words), ondu ; in Malay^lam, onn ; in Tulu, onji ; in Gond, undi ; in Tuda, odd ; in Ur^on, Untd^ or being the adjectival form of this numeral, it claims by rule to be the representative 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 Malayalam onn\ appear to resemble the most common form of the Indo-European numeral 'one,' which is in Latin un-us (in an older form, oin-os) ; in Greek, 'iv ; in Gothic, ain'-s. In the Koibal, a Samoiede dialect, there is a similar word for one — viz., unem; and we find in the Tungusian um, in Manchu emu. Even in Sanskrit, though eka is invariably used for one, a form has been noticed which appears to be allied to the first numeral of the Western languages — viz., una-s, less, which is prefixed to some of the higher numerals to express diminution by one {e.g., Unavinshati, nineteen), like the corresponding prefix un in the Latin undeviginti. 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 vanishes on the derivation of onn^ from or being ascertained. It is reasonable to suppose that the numeral adjective of the Tamil, oru, and its numeral noun outu, must be closely related. Now, whilst it is impossible, I think, on Dravidian principles to derive oru from onvu, it will be shown that the derivation of onTu from oru 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 consonants by prefixing nasals to them. If the r of oru is found to have been converted in this manner into nr, the point under discussion will be settled. What analogy, then, is there for this conversion? mUru, Can. three, has through this very process become in Tamil mUnvu (pronounced milndru, mundu, or milnu) ; in Malay^am, m4n7i\ Again, kiru, the verbal sufiix de- ONE. 219 noting present time in Tamil, has become in the poetical dialect kintUy pronounced hindru ; and this, in the Malay 41am present tense is found to be still further softened into kunnu, and even unnu. In these in- stances we perceive that very euphonic alteration by which oru has become progressively onTu, ondruy ondu, omiu, and onrC ; and thus the derivation of onn' from oru is found to be strictly in accordance with analogy. It may be objected that the illustrations which have been given above exhibit a change of the hard r into ndr, whereas the r of oru is the soft medial; and that, therefore, the analogy, though very remarkable, is not complete. I answer that, though the r of our present Tamil oru is certainly the medial semi-vowel, not the hard r, yet originally the hard r must have been the very r employed. This appears from the Tamil adjective, odd, single. That adjective is oTTei (pronounced ottrei) ; and it is derived from the numeral adjec- tive, one. It has been derived, however, by the usual process of doubling the final consonant, not from or-u, but from or-u — evidently a more ancient form of the word, in which the r was the hard rough r — that very r which is usually euphonised into ndr. It is not an un- common thing for r and r to be thus interchanged — e.^., there are two words for black, karu and karu. They dififer slightly in some of their meanings, but there can be no doubt that they are identical in origin. It appears, therefore, that the origin which I have ascribed to onru is in complete accordance with analogy. Moreover, if the n of ondru, ondu, or onn', were part of the root of this numeral, the du which is suffixed to it could only be a neuter formative ; and in that event on should be found to be used as the numeral adjective, on, however, is nowhere so used ; and therefore both the use of or-u, instead of on, as the numeral adjective, and the "existence of the derivative 0T{T)ei (ottr-ei), single, seem to me to prove that the root of this numeral must have been or, not on. It may be said that the instances I adduced of the euphonisation of r into ndr are capable of two explanations. I shall, therefore, adduce some examples to which this objection cannot be made. Oan. karu, a calf, becomes in Tamil kanvu, pronounced kandru. This is vulgarised in colloquial Tamil to kannu, and in Malay^lam becomes kann\ Yet it is certain that the root was kar and that there was no nasal in it originally, because the Tamil adjectival form, which is always the oldest, rejects the nasal and goes back to the original r, which it doubles by rule. Thus kandru becomes adjectivally kattr-u — e.g., kattr-d, a cow which has a calf. Compare this with dttei, annual, from dndu {ydndei, when), a^ear, from which it is clear that dndu was originally d-du, (See " Euphonic Nunnation.") Tamil itself also fur- 220 THE NUMERALS. 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 kuTu-gu^ to become small, and hundru^ the same, also a small hill. It is evident that huTU was the older form, from the circumstance that it is from it that all the verbal nouns are derived — e.g., Jcurei, deficiency ; huvTam (Jcuttram), a fault ; Tcuvil, a short letter ; kuri, 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 or-u, but oru 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 n sometimes changes into or alternates with r or r — e.g., Mai. ulan = ular, being, birth ; also Tam. pin, after, another shape of which is piv, in pivagu, after. I think it also quite possible that the reason why oru was nasalised into ondru, and milTu, three, into mundru, was that du, the formative ' neuter particle, had been affixed to them, in consequence of which ov-du became ondru, and mUT-du, mundru, just as we see that ir, two, by the addition of the neuter formative du, became iradu and then irandu. 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 ottu (ottru). ondri is an adjectival form meaning single. After the above was written I found tbe same view of the origin of ondu stated in a paper by Mr Kittel in the Indian Antiquary for January 1873. Mr Kittel says, " When the affix du is joined to a short monosyllabic root with final r, the root in this case being or, this liquid is sometimes changed into the hindu (m or %) ; n or du thus becomes on-du, or in Tamil on-dru, in the manner I have stated." Though or, 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 Kajmahal ; in which the numeral noun one is ort, which is evidently formed directly from or. If it be true, as has been asserted, that the Eajmahal ort is appropriated to human ONE. 221 beino'S, it must be identical with the Tamil orutt-an, one man, orutt-i, one woman ; the tt of which is a formative, and is derived from the pronoun of the third person, ondong (answering to the Dravidian neuter noun ondru) is said to be another Rajmahal word for one. Compare also the Brahui asit, one, of which as, the crude root, seems 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 mur-u. If in the latter case the s and r are mutually convertible, it cannot be consi- dered improbable that asit and art, and consequently as and or, bear a similar relation one to the other. 2. Telugu makes use of two numerals signifying 'one.' One of these, ondu, is identical with the ondru, ondu, onn\ &c., of the other dialects. From ondu is formed also an adjectival numeral, onti, iden- tical with the Tamil ondri (vulgarly ondi), single. Compare Tel. ontigddu, a single man, with the corresponding Tam. ondrikMran. The other numeral, which is much more largely used in Telugu, is ohati (oha-ti). The basis of this numeral seems at first sight to be essentially different from that which is used in the other Dravidian dialects. There would be nothing extraordinary in the discovery in any language or family of languages of two roots for one. This would naturally arise from the very concrete character of this numeral, and the variety of uses to which it is put. Even in Sanskrit we find both eka and prathama. Two is also represented in Latin by duo, amho, and the participial secundus. The Telugu neuter noun of number for one, okati, means literally one thing, of which the adjectival form is oka, sometimes okka. okati is formed from oka by the addition of the neuter and inflexional formative, ti; and by annexing the usual mas- culine and feminine suffixes, the Telugu forms okandu or okadu, one man, and okate, one woman, oka being found to be the crude root of this numeral, we have now to inquire into its affinities. Is the Telugu oka derived, as has sometimes been supposed, from the Sanskrit eka, 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- blance ; but it is impossible to suppose it to have been directly derived from the Sanskrit, like the Bengali ok, or even the Persian yak ; for the Telugu has borrowed, and occasionally uses, the Sanskrit numeral eka, in addition to its own oka ; and it never confounds oka with eka, which Telugu grammarians regard as altogether independent one of another. It will be seen also that the root of oka is probably Dra- vidian, and that words closely analogous to it are used in the Finnish languages, by which they cannot be supposed to have been borrowed from the Sanskrit. Thus, tne numeral one is in Votiak og, odyg ; in 222 THE NUMERALS. Samoiede, olcuVy ockur, ookur ; in Vogul, ok, ahv ; in Magyar, egy ; in Lappish, akt; in Finnish, yht and also yxi (yh-si) ; in Cheremiss, ik, ikta. 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 kir, and the numeral adjective derived from it irra or ra. These analogies to the Telugu oka, combined with an- alogies to the ordinary Dra vidian or, show that oka has not necessarily, or even probably, been derived from the Sanskrit eka ; and if the two roots oka and eka are allied, as they appear to be, it must be in conse- quence of the relation of the Sanskrit, the Dra vidian, and the Scythian families to an earlier form of speech. It deserves notice that ra, the Be- histun numeral adjective, seems identical with ra, the numeral adjective of the Ku, a Dravidian dialect. In the Turkish, ' one ' is represented by hir, which, seems to be allied rather to the Persian hdr in hdri, once (and ulteriorly to the Sanskrit vdr, time), than to the Tamil or. The Caucasian numerals for ' one ' exhibit a closer resemblance to the Dra- vidian — viz., Lazian ar, Mingrelian arti, Georgian erthi; and it may be noticed that as in the Dravidian or, one, ir, two, so in those Cau- casian dialects, r forms an essential part of both those numerals. , Are the Tamil or and the Telugu oka related 1 I think there can be little doubt of their relationship, though there are several links in the chain which cannot be made out to my satisfaction. There is a verbal root in Tamil, o, which has been supposed to mean, to be one. on and or {ondru and oru) are supposed by Dr Gundert to be verbal nouns from this o. An undoubted derivative of o in Tamil and Malay- &lam is okka, which in Malayalam and the Tamil of the extreme south means 'altogether,' *all' (compare Mordvin wok, all) ; and this is sup- posed by Dr Gundert to be identical with the Telugu oka, one. Every step in this process, with one exception, is encumbered with difficulties. It is not clear to me that o, the Tamil verbal root, ever means to be one ; its ordinary meaning is to be like or suitable — e.g., okkum, it will be 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 tbe 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.' My chief difficulty, however, is that the kka of okka is the formative of the Tamil infinitive, the root being o, not ok; so that it is very difficult to see how this Tamil infinitive got turned into an adjectival noun in Telugu without losing or changing its formative. Notwithstanding these difficulties, we can scarcely avoid con- TWO. 223 eluding that the Tamil oJclca and the Telugu oTca must somehow be allied. If we suppose okha to have been taken to mean ' all in one,' which no doubt is a meaning it sometimes has, we may see how the Telugu may have selected its root for use as a numeral. It would then con- - vert the verbal root o into a noun by the addition of ka, an ordinary adjectival formative, o-ka, the Telugu adjectival noun, would then resemble o-kka, the Tamil infinitive, in sound, though it would be differ- ently derived. It is especially noticeable that Telugu had already at its disposal the ordinary numeral ondu; it is probable, therefore, that oka was used at first with a slightly different meaning. The root o seems sometimes to be used instead of ondu or oru in Canarese, in such a manner as seems at first sight to confirm the supposition that o meant originally to be one — e.g., okkannanUy a one-eyed man. On the other hand, when we compare this with Can. ohhanu, one person, which is clearly a softened form of orhanu (Tam. oruvan), it appears that we have here to deal merely with the ordinary numeral or-u. It is notice- able here, too, that this o doubles the following consonant, from which it appears that it was originally followed by a consonant, evidently r. Dravidian Indefinite Article. — The Dra vidian numeral adjectives oru and oka are used, like similar numerals in most languages, as a sort of indefinite article. The Turkish uses hir, one, in a similar manner ; and a corresponding usage prevails in the modern European 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 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 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. Europeans, in speaking the native languages, make in general too large and indiscriminate a use of this prefixed numeral, forgetting that the Dravidian neuter noun, without prefix or addition, becomes singular or plural, definite or indefinite, according as the connection requires. Two. — The abstract or neuter noun of number signifying two or duality is in Canarese eradu, in Tamil ira.ndu, in Telugu rendu, in Tulu radd\ in Malay^lam rend-u, in old Malayalam, as in Tamil, irandu, commonly pronounced rendu, in Coorg dandu, in Gond rend or ranu, in Seoni Gond rund, in Tuda edd. The Singhalese word for double is iruntata. The change of the irandu of the Tamil and the eradu of the Canarese into rendu in Telugu is analogous to the change of the Tam. ird, night, into Tel. re. In all the Dravidian dialects the corresponding numeral adjective is ir, with such minor modifications 224 * THE NUMERALS. as euphony dictates. This numeral adjective is in Tamil iru; in the higher dialect tr, the increase in the quantity of the radical i compen- sating perhaps for the rejection of the final euphonic u. ir is also found. The r which constitutes the radical consonant of ir 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 iruvar, Tam. two persons (Tulu, irvar), the modern Canarese uses ibbar-u (ancient dialect, irvar), and the Telugu iddar-u. Instead, also, of the correct irunuTu, two hundred, of the Tamil, both the Telugu and the Canarese have innilrii; and the Canarese word for twenty is ippattu, instead of irupattu, which would be in correspon- dence with the Tamil iruhadu and the Telugu iruvei. 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 i reap- pears. Were it not for the existence of the numeral adjective ir-u or ir, we might naturally suppose the i of the Tamil irandu and of the obsolete Canarese iradu to be, not a component element of the root,v, but an euphonic prefix, intended to facilitate pronunciation, t is very commonly so prefixed in Tamil — e.g., the Sanskrit rdjd becomes in Tamil irdsd. This supposition with respect to the euphonic character of the i of irandu 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 iru or ir, in every one of the Dra vidian dialects, and its use in all the compound numbers (such as twenty and two hundred), suffice to prove that the i of the Tamil-Canarese numeral noun iradu is not merely euphonic, but is a part of the root itself, and that iradu, the neuter noun of number, has been formed from ir by the addition of a formative suffix. A comparison of the various forms shows clearly that ir, 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 iradu, as it must have been origin- ally) appears to be the earliest extant form of the noun of number. The Tamil is irandu, d having been euphonically changed to nd. 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 iratt-u, double, is formed directly from irad-u, by the doubling of the d, as is usually done when a noun is converted into an adjective ; and the euphonic change of dd TWO. 225 into tt is according to rule, du or du is a very common termination of neuter nouns, especially of appellative neuters, in all the Dravidian languages. Thus, from the root kira, Tam. old, is formed kiradu, that which is old. The n which is inserted before d in the Tamil irandu 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 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, indu, here, and ydndu, where, are euphonised forms of ddu, tdu, and 7/ddu. Compare also karandi, a spoon, Tarn., with the more primitive Telugu garite. The Tamil noun of number signifying two must, therefore, have been iradii, originally. In the Gond ra?ii^, the d of irandu has disappeared altogether, a change which is in accordance with the Malay^lam corruption of ondu, one, into onn\ The UrUon word for two, enotan, is probably Dravidian. In Ur^on, otan (from the Hindi gotan) is a suffix of eatih of the first three numerals ; conse- quently en is to be regarded as the UrUon root ; and this seems to be analogous to the Dravidian er. 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 irul, darkness, ird, night, a root which also, he thinks, appears in ^r, to saw. If we consider the latter verb, however, with its derivatives, apart from its supposed connection with irul, darkness, it may be found to supply us with the true root, tr means not merely to saw, but still more fre- quently to pull asunder, to split ; and from division into two by the act of pulling asunder, ir, ^r, the word for two, may have been derived. The radical form of ir, two, was doubtless short, ir; but the earliest shape of tr, to pull asunder, may also have been short, as monosylla- bles ending in consonants seem generally to have been. There is another root common to all the Dravidian languages, ir, to be ; but this seems to be quite independent both of ir, dark, and of ir, two. I find that Mr Kittel, also, in the Indian Antiqiiary for January 1873, derives the Dravidian word for two from ir, to split, especially to split off a branch; whilst or, one, he considers to mean a unit without a branch. It seems to me, as I have already mentioned, pro- bable that the word for one was originally a noun, and that the verbal meaning to coalesce, to resemWe, was a secondary development. The < case, however, does not seem to me quite so clear with respect to the p 226 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 earlier than the verb to separate into two, to split. There are no analogies to ir, two, in any of the Indo-European lan- guages, and I am doubtful whether any real analogies to it are dis- coverable even in the Scythian group, 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 aflSnity of its second and third numerals to those of the Dravidian tongues. In Brahui, two is irat ; 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 it or at is a formative suffix which has been appended to the root. Consequently ir, the root of ir-at, seems abso- lutely identical with the Dravidian w*. Even the Brahui formative evinces Dravidian affinities — e.g., compare irat with the Canarese noun of number eradu, and especially with the Tamil derivative iratt-u, double. The nearest analogies to the Dravidian ir 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 Georgian) eru or ieru; in the Lazian zur ; and in the Mingrelian shiri : compare also the Armenian ergov; the Chinese arh or dr. In the Samoi'ede family of tongues, several words are found which bear at first sight some resem- blance to the Dravidian ir. These are sit, side, and especially sire or siri. It seems improbable, however, that the Dravidian ir 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 hit; in Magyar Tcet, hetto; and in Lappish queht. 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 hur-in (for kuyar-in), twenty, becomes in Manchu or-in, in Turkish igir-mi, we cannot venture to compare this Manchu or with the Dravidian ir or er ; for it is certain that the latter was never preceded by Jc, 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 mdru; in Telugu mUdu; in Tamil munxu (pronounced mUndru, mUndu, and mitnu) ; in Coorg mUndu; in Malayalam mUnin! ; in Tulu m'llji (j in Tulu regularly represents r; com. dji, six, with dtu in the other dialects); in Gond it is mund; in Tuda mild; in Urfton man-otaTi. THREE. 227 The numeral adjective three, which is employed in three persons, thirty, three hundred, and similar compounds, is either mil or mil. The long mil is found in the Tamil, Tulu, and Canarese epicene nouns mHvar, mHvar-u, three persons, and in the Canarese miXvattu, thirty. The shorter form, mu, is used in three hundred, which in every one of the Dravidian dialects is munnHru (Tulu munnildu) ; and we see it also in the Tamil muppattu, and the Telugu mupphei, thirty, and in the Telugu muggur-u^ three persons. The primitive and most char- acteristic form of the neuter noun of number is evidently that of the Canarese mUr-u, from which it seems clear to me that the Tamil mUriT-u {mundr-u) has been derived, by the same nasalising process as that by which ovu, one, was converted into onru. I do not think it probable, with Dr Gundert, that muru was altered from mundru. It was shown in the section on " Sounds," that the Tamil r is often changed into d in Telugu : hence mUr-u and miid-u are identical ; and it is more probable that mUd-u has been altered from miXr-u, than that mUr-u was altered from mUd-u. s and r evince in many languages a tendency to interchange, generally by the hardening of s into r ; consequently the Brahui mus (mus-it), three, seems closely allied to the Canarese milr, and still more closely to the Tulu mHji. The vowel of mdr-u was, I have no doubt, originally short, but it is doubtful whether the r of milr-u should be considered as a formative or as a part of the ancient root. On the whole, it seems probable that the r is radical. The final consonants of dvu, Tam. six, and of ^ru, seven, belong unquestionably to the roots of those numerals. Moreover, when we compare mun-nHvu, three hundred (the same in all the dialects), with in-nHvu, two hundred, in Telugu and Canarese, and when it is remembered that the latter has certainly been softened from ir-nHru (in Tamil iru-nilru), it seems to be probable that mun- nHvu has been formed in a similar manner from mur-nutu, and consequently that mur^ not mu, was the original root of this numeral. The same conclusion is indicated by a comparison of the Telugu iddaru^ two persons, and mugguru, three persons. It seems probable, therefore, that mu originally was followed by a consonant; and the softening off of this consonant would naturally account for the occa- sional lengthening of mu into mH. I have not been able to discover any analogy to this numeral either in the Scythian or in the Indo-European tongues. The only extra- Indian resemblance to it is that which is found in the Brahui ; and this circumstance is a striking illustration of the existence in the Brahui of a Dravidian element. The total absence of analogy to the Dravidian mur in other families of languages leads me to conclude 228 THE NUMERALS. that it must have been derived directly from some Dra vidian verbal root. The Latin sexundus is undoubtedly derived from sequor ; and Bopp connects the Indo-European tri, three, with the Sanskrit root tr, to pass over, to go beyond, signifying that which goes beyond two. If this derivation of tri be not regarded as too fanciful, a some- what similar derivation of mur from a Dra vidian verbal root may easily be discovered. There are two verbal roots which present some points of resemblance — viz., mtru, to go beyond, to pass, and mdru, to change. The nearest root, however, is muTu. {muvugu^ Tam.), to turn, from which comes the verbal noun murei, a turn, a succession, repetition. Dr Gundert derives milndru from mu, the radical portion of mun^ before. The root mu appears in various compounds with the meaning of before, ancient ; as also mH^ a lengthened form of the same root. Both mu and mH mean before, and both mu and mH mean three. The identity of the two words seems therefore very probable. It 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-dalu 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 mUndru from mw, but interprets mu as meaning to advance, grow, a further advance. This is ingenious, but I cannot find any authority for this meaning, mudu means not growth, as he represents, but priority, age, ripeness. A secondary word, muttru, means completeness. He considers mUru, Can., a secondary form of the root mu or mH; ru, he says, being frequently used to produce such forms. On the contrary, a final tu, which is not radical, seems to me very rare. The neuter formative du seems to be contained in various shapes in the first three numbers, ondru, irandu, mUndru^ and also, as will be seen, in eindu, five, du is equivalent to du, and with the addition of the nasal becomes ndu. ondru points to an older or-du; irandu to ir(a)-du; and mitndru to murdu, or, as the scholars whose opinions are mentioned above think, to mtt-du. Four. — The Dravidian noun of number signifying four, or a quater- nion, is in Canarese ndlku; in Coorg ndlu; in Telugu ndlugu; in Tulu ndV ; in Malay ^lam ndl, ndngu; in Tamil ndlu, ndnku; in Tuda ndnh'; in Gond ndlu; in Uraon ndkh-otan. The adjectival or crude form of this numeral is ndl or nal. In Tamil it is Qidl-u, in some Telugu compounds nal ; and this adjectival form is often used as a noun of number, instead of ndlhi, &c. In 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 ndlvattu, and the Malay^lam ndlpadu, forty, with the Telugu ndluhhei; and the Tamil ndn-nilTu and the Canarese ndl-nilru, four hundred, with the Telugu ndn-nHru. The final I also is subject to change. In Tamil it is changed into r before p, as in ndrpadu, forty; and before n it is assimilated and becomes n, in both Tamil and Telugu — e.g., ndnnilTu (in the one), and nanwdru (in the other), four hundred ; in Coorg, nd. These changes of ly however, are purely euphonic. It is evident from a comparison of the above forms, that ndl" (or, as the Telugu seems to prefer it, ndl) was the primitive shape of this numeral ; to which hu 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., nan-gu, Tam. goodness, from nal ( = nan) good. The only numeral to which hu 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 gu. In such connections Tamil uses v euphonic instead of g {e.g., aru-{v)-ar), which proves that g does not add to the grammatical expression, but is merely euphonic. Even in Telugu druvur-u may be used instead. of drugur-u. The change of ^, in Tamil, into n, before the h of this appended formative, ku, is an euphonic peculiarity which requires to be noticed. In modern Tamil, I in this conjunction would be changed into r ; but the change of I into n, before k or g, which we find in the Tamil noun of number ndn-gu, is one which, though now uncommon, appears to have been usual at an earlier period of the history of the language — e.g., compare Pan-guni, 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. This change of I into n, in ^idn-gu, must have been made at a very early period, seeing that we find it also in the Tuda ndnk\ nangu in Tam. (from nxiT) means goodness, beauty ; nangu, in Mai. beauty. In Can. nal is good ; nali, pleasure, as a verb, is to love. This is the meaning of nal in Tam., doubtless another form of nal — e.g.^ nanhu, love; Tel. naluvu, beauty. 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., may we venture to assume that we have here the origin of the^iame of this numeral ? Mr Kittel says that " the idea of evenness seems to have guided the Dravidians in the 230 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 language 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 four to ten inclusive, are of Sanskritic origin. Though other analogies fail us, in this instance Ugrian aflSnities 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 Cheremiss nil; the Mordvin, nile, nilen ; the Vogul nile ; the Ostiak nel, nil, njedla, nieda, njeda; the Finnish proper neljd; the Lappish nielj, nelje, 7ielld; the Magyar neffi/ (pro- nounced neidj). The root of all these numerals is evidently nil or nel, the resemblance of which to the Dravidian ndl or nal is very remarkabh. The Magyar negy seems to have lost the original Z, through the tendency, inherent in the Finnish idioms, to regard I and d as interchangeable. The Ostiak njedla or nedla, in which d and I form but one letter, a cerebral, constitutes apparently the middle point of agreement. Five. — The Dravidian numeral noun five is in Canarese eid-u or ayd-u; in Telugu eid-u; in Tamil. ordinarily emc?-M, occasionally, espe- cially in the colloquial dialect, anj-u ; in Coorg anji;m Malay Mam anju; in Tulu em'; in Tuda iitsh or Hj. The Gond has seighan or seiyan, a word which is derived like sdriln, six, from the use of s as an euphonic prefix ; eiyan is to be regarded as the correct form of the Gond numeral. The Ur^on, 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 en-u — e.g., padihen-u, fifteen. In this case the medial h is purely euphonic, and used for the prevention of hiatus, as in the parallel instances of pada(h)dru, sixteen, and padi{1i)edu, seventeen. The Telugu possesses, therefore, two forms of five, eid-u and en-u; and the Tamil eindu shows how eidu may have been converted into enu, viz., by the insertion of an euphonic nasal and the subsequent assimilation to it of the dental. The numeral adjective five is in most of the Dravidian dialects ei, in Telugu and Tuda e. In Tamil, and also occasionally in Canarese, ei is in combination converted into ein or eim (in Coorg im) by the addition of an euphonic nasal. Thus fifty (five tens) is in Canarese FIVE. 231 eivatt-u, in Tamil eimhad-ti (eim-pad-u), in Telugu ehhei (e-hhei), in Tulu eiva. Five hundred is in Canarese ein-nHr-u, in Tamil ein- h'dvu, in Telugu e-n4r-u, in Tulu etwddu. We see the numeral adjective five, and the noun of number five, in juxtaposition in the Tamil ei-{y)-eind-u, five times five, ei remains also in its pure, un- nasalised form in the Tamil eivar (ei-(y)-ar), five persons. The nasal n or m, which follows ei in the compounds eimhad-u, fifty, and einnjdT-u, five hundred, is not, I believe, to be confounded with the n of the Tamil eind-Uy or the Telugu en-u^ but proceeds from a different source. It is an adjectival increment ; and is added by rule, not only to this numeral adjective ei, 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 eindinei (ei-n-tinei), the five conditions, and eimhulari (ei-m-pulan), the five senses; but also keinnodi {kei-n-nodi)y a snap of the finger, and keimben {kei-in-pen)^ a widow. This adjec- tival euphonic addition seems to be an abbreviation of am or an, and is probably identical with the inflexional increment. See the section on " Nouns : Inflexion." What appears to me to prove that eim is not the root of eindu, but only an euphonic form of €^, is the circumstance that it is found only before w^ords beginning with hard consonants and nasals. Before vowels and semi-vowels it is invariably ei. It may be doubted whether the Tamil-Canarese ei or the Telugu ^ i8 the better representative of the original numeral; but the evidence of the various dialects preponderates in favour of ei. A remarkable resemblance must have been noticed between the Sanskrit paipchan, five (in Tamil pafija) and the Tamil and Malayalam anju. It has already been mentioned that ei 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 anju, 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 " NannAl," the classical Tamil grammar, or in any of the classical Tamil diction- aries. It is found, however, in the " Kural," which is a clear proof of its right to a place in the language. The ordinary use of anju or anchu in Malayalam and colloquial Tamil, and its occasional use iti poetical Tamil, have naturally led some to suppose that anju, not eindu, eidti, ei, was the original form of this numeral, and that it was derived from the Sanskrit panchan by the easy process of the soften- ing away of the first consonant. Instead, however, of this supposition being confirmed by a comparison of the various Dravidian idioms, and of the various forms under which this numeral appears, as would be 232 THE NUMERALS. the case if tlie analogy were real, it appears to me to be dissipated by comparison, like the apparent analogy which has already been observed between the Malay^lam onn\ one, and the English one. The primitive radical form of the Dravidian numeral five is, as we have seen, ei or e, as appears from its use as a numeral adjective. 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 ir-u, two, is du; and by the addition of d-u, a still more common shape of the formative, ei 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-u is an exceedingly common formative of neuter appel- lative nouns in the Dravidian languages, particularly in Tamil; and is doubtless borrowed from, or allied to, the final d-u of ad-u^ it, the neuter singular of the demonstrative pronoun, eid-u, the numeral noun of both the Canarese and the Telugu, is evidently the original and most regular form of this word, eid-u could not, I believe, have been corrupted from anj-u, or even from eind-u, but the corruption of^ eind-u and anj-u from an original eid-u will be shown to be in perfect accordance with usage. The first change was from eid-u to eind-u^ by the insertion of an euphonic nasal, as in the former instances of irad-Uy two, changed into irand-u. This euphonic insertion of n 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-Uy 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 eind-u, Tamil usages of pronunciation facilitated a further optional change into einj-u, or anJ-u. It is a rule of colloquial Tamil that when nd is preceded by ei or i, it is changed in pronunciation into nj. This change is systematically and uniformly practised in the colloquial dialect, and it has occasionally found its way into the classical and poetical dialect also. Moreover, in changing ei^id into einj, there is a further change of the vowel from ei to a, in consequence of which einj becomes anj. This change almost always takes place in Malay^lam, and also in the pronunciation of the mass of the people in Tamil. Thus, pareindu, Tam. having spoken, becomes in MalayMam pavannu; and in this instance we see illustrated the change both of ei into a, and of nd into n; consequently the perfect regularity of the change of eind-21, five, into anj-u, is established. Where the Malayalam does not change nd into nj, it changes it into nn — e.g., nadandu, Tam. having walked, FIVE. 233 is in Malayalam nadannu. This illustrates the process by which eind-u became ein-u in Tulu, and en-u in the Telugu compound padi{h)en-u, fifteen. It is thus evident that the apparent resemblance of the Dravidian afiju 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 ei or e must be regarded as the sole representative of the Dravidian numeral, and with this it is evident that neither pan- chan, nor any other Indo-European form has any analogy whatever. The Sanskrit pancha is used in the Dravidian languages in Sanskrit compounds, but it is never confounded with eindu or anju by native scholars. In some of the Finnish tongues the word for five has some slight resemblance to the neuter Dravidian numeral eid-ii. The Vogul is cU ; the Ostiak vet or vuet; the Magyar ot (pronounced somewhat like et). This resemblance, however, seems purely accidental, for the final t of the Ugrian word for five appears to be radical, whereas the final d of the Dravidian noun of number eid-u is simply a neuter formative. The Chinese u may perhaps be compared with the Dravidian numeral adjective ei. Dr Gundert, in his private communication to me, and more fully in the Journal of the German Oriental Society for 1869, advocates the derivation of the Dravidian word for five from the Sanskrit pancha. After arguing that the Dravidian padi, ten, is derived from the Sanskrit pankti, a row, a row of fives, ten, he proceeds to say — '' If now the Sanskrit root panch serves, by means of the word pankti derived from 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 A, which the other dialects readily reject. The Canarese hanchu, to divide, seems thus to show that the Tam. and Mai. anju (five) is only a far-advanced tadbhava oi pancha. One feels further inclined to derive the Sanskrit amsa, a portion, from the aforesaid panchu, anju, as a Sanskritising of 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 evidence from which I conclude that ei is the oldest form of the Dra- 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 should start. What appears to be the radical meaning of ei ? In some languages the word used to signify five properly means a hand, or is derived from a word which has that mea^jing, — the number of fingers in each hand being five. In Lepsius's opinion, the word for ten, which is used in all 234 THE NUMERALS. the Indo-European dialects, had its origin in the Maeso-Gothic tai-hun, two hands. Applying this principle to the Dravidian languages, ei, five, might be presumed to be derived from Jcei, Tam. a hand, by the process of the softening away of the initial consonant. On the other hand, there is no evidence of this process having taken place in this instance, or of ei having ever been preceded by k 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 few numerals have been left in the mystery in which they were found, that each higher numeral in succession has been derived from a Dravidian root. It is admitted that the roots of six, seven, eight, and nine are Dravidian ; why should we have to look to Sanskrit for the root of five alone ? The Tamil root ei, 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 from this root is eimei, another form of which is eidu, the meaning of which is, close juxtaposition without contact, separation by slight intervening spaces, like growing stalks of corn or the laths on a roof, or like the fingers of the hand held up and expanded for the purpose of denoting the number five by signs. This word eidu is formed from ei by the addition of the neuter formative du, precisely as the Tel.- Can. eidu, five, appears to me to have been formed ; and the identity of the two words in composition and shape, and their close resemblance in meaning, are certainly remarkable. I find that Mr Kittel (Indian Antiquary for January 1873) agrees with me in considering the Dravidian word for five independent of the Sanskrit panchan. He says — " aydu is ay + du, ayndu is ay + hindu + du. anju too ai + hindu + du, the du having become ju. Conf. * One.'" Mr Kittel writes the word as ay, this being one of the ways in which the word is written in Canarese. ei is more common even in Canarese, and the only form used in the other dialects. He goes on to say — " The rule is, that when to certain long roots, for instance miy (rnt) and hey (he), du is joined, the root is shortened and the hindtc put between (mindu, hendu). This rule may also explain the short u in this case before the hindu in anju. Wherever the du is again dropped, and at the same time the hindu is retained, the theme is optionally aii or ayn, ayn, aym.^' Mr Kittel's illustrations are from Canarese, but the same tendency has been shown to exist in Tamil also, in connection with the formation of the preterites of verbs. (See Roots, p. 112.) In Tam. v^, to be burned, becomes by this rule vendu, having been burnt, mi, to bathe, Can., is not in Tamil, except perhaps under the shape of ntndu, to swim. The derivation of eidu^ five, from aydu, Can. to obtain, SIX. 235 given by Mr Kittel, does not appear to me satisfactory. This word aydu is in classical Tamil eydu^ with the same meaning, to arrive at, to obtain, eym Tam., like im 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 Kittel's explanation, viz., " the counting of the fingers of one hand, forming a going or one turn, a turn." Six. — In all the Dravidian dialects, the difference found to exist between the neuter noun of number six and the numeral adjective is extremely small. The numeral noun is dtv^ in Tamil, Telugu, Canarese, and MalayMam, and dr in Tuda ; in Gond s-drHn. In Tulu it is dji, a form which bears the same relation to dTU that mHjif Tulu, three, does to the Canarese mUru. The numeral 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 dv-u is used adjectivally, it is shortened to dv-u — e.g., arubadu, sixty. The vowel is short in the Canarese aravattu, the Tulu ajipa, and the Telugu aruvei, sixty ; whilst it is long in the higher compound drunuru, Can., djin'ddu, Tulu, and drwdru, Tel., six hundred. In Tamil it is short in six hundred, but long, 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. avuy therefore, not dvu, seems to be 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 hu. Six and seven, on the other hand, form 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- ings of d^u in old Canarese is to be strong, or to strengthen, and infers that " the numeral seems, therefore, to convey the idea of addition ; a further addition." This is one of the meanings given to dTu in the "Sabdamanidarpana" (Kittel's edition), the other being the common Dravidian one of drying up. This dvu, however, like the numeral dTU, seems to point back to an older arw, and avu gives no meaning like this in any of the Dravidian dialects. Its root-meaning seems to be to break off as a string. Hence as a verbal noun it would most naturally mean severance, a section. The connection between this meaning and that of six is not very clear, but still a connection must exist somehow, for it seems to me nearly certain that this atu is the root. The idea of the old Dravi^ians may perhaps have been, that with the 236 THE NUMERALS. 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 hat; in the Turkish languages dlty, dlte, &c. It may be sup- posed to be possible that the first syllable of the latter word, dl, is allied to the Dravidian dr, in virtue of that interchange of I and r which is so common in the Scythian tongues. It may be conceived, also, that the Turkish alt and the Magyar hat are allied. I have no faith, however, in these indistinct resemblances of sound ; for the Magyar hat seems originally to have had a hard initial consonant, hot is the corresponding numeral in Lappish, and kuut^ kuusi in Finnish, in Chere- miss kut; whereas there is no reason to suppose that the Dravidian dv 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 difi'er from one another so wddely, any real analogy with the Dravidian numerals above four would be discoverable. As I have already remarked in the introduction, " Aflaliation of Dravidian Lan- guages," the numerals of every family of languages in the Scythian group differ so widely from every other as to present few points of resemblance. Seven. — The Dravidian noun of number seven is er-u in Tamil and Malay^lam, el-u in Canarese, eV in Tulu, ed-u in Telugu. These differ- ences are in accordance with the rule that the Tamil deep, liquid, semi- vowel r becomes d in Telugu, and I in Canarese. In the Tuda this numeral is elzh; in Mahadeo G6nd, y-^nu or y-et'd; in Seoni G6nd, ero. A Tamil poetical form is erumei. 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, er-u is shortened to er-u when used adjectivally, like dr-u, six, which is similarly shortened to ar-u. In Tulu, seventy is dpa, seven hundred eVnildu. In Canarese, seventy is eppattu, in which not only is e shortened to e, but the radical consonant I, answering to the Tamil r, has been assimilated to the initial consonant of the succeeding word. In ebiiHru, Can. seven hundred, this assimila- tion has not taken place. In Telugu, the d of ed-u does not appear to be very persistent. In elnilru, seven hundred, d becomes I as in the Canarese ; and in dehhei, seventy (for eduhhei), the initial vowel e has been displaced, as that of rendu, two, according to a peculiar usage of the Telugu, which was explained in the section on " Sounds." This displacement of the initial vowel shows that the e of the supposititious SEVEN — EIGHT. 237 eduhhei was short, as in the corresponding Tamil and Canarese com- pounds. As in the case of the other numerals, the short form eru is to be regarded as the original : this in Tamil means, to rise. erUy its verbal noun, would mean a rising or increase — an appropriate meaning for the second numeral in the new section of five fingers. It cannot be determined with perfect certainty which of the three consonants r, d, or I was the primitive one in this numeral ; but as the Tamil r changes more easily into I or d than either of those con- sonants into r, and could also be changed more easily than they into the n of the Gond, possibly r, as in Tamil, is to be regarded as the primitive form of this consonant, from which d and I were derived. It is more probable, however, that I, d, and r are to be regarded merely as different modes of representing in writing one and the same primitive sound. No resemblance to this Dravidian numeral is to be found in any of the Indo-European languages ; and the slight apparent resemblances which may perhaps be traced in some of the Scythian tongues are not trustworthy. Compare with the Telugu ed-u, the Turkish yedi; the Turkish of Yarkand yettah (the root of which appears in the Ottoman Turkish yet-mish, seventy) ; and the Magyar het In Armenian, seven is yotn, in Tahitian hetu. The h of the Magyar numeral and the y of the Turkish may be identical; but both have been derived from a harder sound, as will appear on comparing the Magyar het with the Lappish hietya, and with the corresponding Finnish seit in seitsemdn. Eight. — The Tamil numeral noun ettu, eight, bears a remarkable resemblance to the corresponding numeral of the Indo-European family, which is in Latin octo, in Gothic ahtau. It especially resembles atta, the manner in which ashtan, Sans, eight, is written and pronounced in classical Tamil, in which it is occasionally used in compounds ; hence it has naturally been supposed by some that the Tamil ettic has been derived from, or is identical with, this Sanskrit derivative atta. It will be found, however, that this resemblance, though so close as to amount almost to identity of sound, is accidental, and that it disap- pears on investigation and comparison, even more completely than the resemblance between onn' and one, anju and pancha. The Dravidian noun of number eight is in Tamil ettu, in Malay^lam ett-u, in Canarese ent-u, in Telugu enimidi or enmidi, in Tulu enma, in G6nd anumdr or armur, in Tuda ett, in MMi ermadi. The corre- sponding numeral adjective, which should by rule exhibit the primitive form of the word, is en. In Tamil en is used adjectivally for eight in all compound numerals — %g., en-badu, eighty, en-nHTu, eight hundred, as also in miscellaneous compounds, such as en-hanan^ he who has eight 238 THE NUMERALS. eyes, Braliral The same form is used adverbially in eiyeru^ eight times seven. In Canarese, in which the numeral noun is entu, en is used as the numeral adjective in envar-u^ eight persons (Tam. enmar) ; whilst in embattu, eighty, n is changed into m through the influence of the labial initial of the second member of the compound. In entu- niXru, eight hundred, the numeral noun is used adjectivally instead of the numeral adjective. The Tulu numeral substantive is enma. The adjectival form of this numeral, as apparent in enpa, eighty, is simply euj as in Tam., Can., Mai., from which it is evident that ma is not a part of the root, but an addition to it, which from its resemblance to me, the formative of abstract nouns in Tulu and Canarese [mei in Tam.), and especially to ma, the same formative in Mai., may be concluded to be identical with it. enma would thus mean eight-ness. erimei is found in Tamil, but only with the meaning of poverty, from el, poor. I am indebted for this Tulu derivation to Mr Kittel. I had previously been inclined to connect ma with pa, ha, &c., contractions of patta, ten, in consequence of the resemblance of the Tulu enma to the Telugu enimidi, the midi of which must be from padi, ten. The Telugu noun of number enimidi, though it closely resembles the Tulu enma, appears to differ considerably from the Tamil ettu, and the Canarese entu; but the difference diminishes when the numeral adjectives are compared. The Telugu numeral adjective used in enabadi or enahhei, eighty, is ena, which is almost identical with the Tamil- Canarese en. 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. n is dental, whilst that of the Tamil-Canarese is lingual, for this is of very common occurrence ; comp. Tel. eniiu, to count, with the Tam. ennu or en. In enamandru or enamandugur-u, eight persons, and enamannHru, eight hundred, the m of enimidi, eight, evinces a ten- dency to assume the place of an essential part of the root. It will be shown, however, that midi is not a part of the root of this numeral, but an addition to it ; and consequently en or en, without the addition of m, may be concluded to be the true numeral adjective, and also the root itself. Thus, the apparent resemblance of the Tamil ettu to the Sanskrit derivative atta (euphonised from ashta) disappears as soon as the various forms under which it is found are compared. The primitive form of the neuter noun of number derived from en is evidently that which the Canarese has retained, viz., entu, which is directly formed from en by the addition of tu, the phonetic equivalent of du or du — a common formative of neuter nouns, and one of which we have already seen a specimen in eradu, two, and eindu, five. The Tamil ettu has been derived from enttt by a process which is in accord- EIGHT. 239 ance with many precedents. It is true that in general Tamil refrains from assimilating the nasal of such words as entu, and often- times it inserts a nasal where there is none in Canarese — e.g., irandu, Tam. two, compared with the Canarese eradu ; still this rule, though general, is not universal, and is sometimes reversed. Thus, pente^ Can. a hen (in modern Canarese henteyu), has in Tatnil become pettei — a change exactly parallel to that of entu into ettu. Much difficulty is involved in the explanation of enimidi, the Telugu noun of number which corresponds to ettu and entu, eni, enu, ena or en {enahadi, enuhadi, enbadi, eighty) is evidently identical with the Tamil-Canarese en : but what is the origin of the suffix midi ? This midi becomes ma in some instances — e.g., enama-ndru, eight persons ; enamannHru, eight hundred ; and the Tulu noun of number eight is enma. Shall we consider midi to be synonymous with padi, ten, and enimidi, eight, to be a compound word, which was meant to signify two from ten 1 It w411 be shown under the next head that in the Telugu tommidi, nine, midi is without doubt identical with padi, ten. If so, there would seem to be a valid reason for supposing that the midi of enimidi, eight, is also derived from the same source, and ap- pended to en with the same intent. It will be shown in our examina- tion of the Dravidian numeral ten that padi has become greatly cor- rupted in compounds, especially in Telugu ; in which the second syllable has disappeared in compounds above twenty. If midi, iden- tical with padi, were liable to a similar corruption, as is probable enough, we may see how enimidi would be softened into enama (in enamandru, enamanniXru), and also into enma in Tulu. It is a charac- teristic of the Scythian languages that they use for eight and nine compounds which signify ten minus two and ten minus one. In some instances an original uncom pounded word is used for eight ; but nine is always a compound. The Dravidian word for nine is, I have no doubt, formed in this very manner; and this seems to be also a rational explanation of the origin of the Telugu word for eight. On the other hand, in the Tamil-Canarese idioms, en by itself is used to signify eight, without any trace of the use in conjunction with it of the word pattu or padi, ten. It is also deserving of notice that in the Telugu enahhei, eighty, the second member of enimidi has disappeared. enahhei is of course for enahadi, but if enimidi is eight, eighty ought to be enimidibadi. The use of ena or en alone in the numeral eighty shows that ena or «?i alone, without midi, means eight. It is difficult to determine whether the disuse of ten as a component element in the numeral eieht of the Tamil and Canarese is to be regarded as a corruption, or whether the use of ten by the Telugu in 240 THE NUMERALS. 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 en (in Telugu en or ena) as the primitive shape of this Dravidian numeral. Max Miiller supposed en must be identical with er, properly ^V, two. Mr Clay's theory respecting the origin of the Telugu enimidi is almost identical with this. He supposes the eni 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 two. elli is evidently identical with the Tuju elle, to-morrow, and apparently identical also with el, 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 ndlei in Tamil, which is used to mean to-morrow, but of which the real meaning is simply a'" day. Compare the formation of ell~undi, Tel. the day after to-morrow, with that of the Tamil ndlei-nindru, the same, literally, waiting over to-morrow. I have already shown that the midi of enimidi disappears altogether in ena-badi, eighty, and that the en or ena, which in that word represents eight, is probably identical with the Tam.»Can. en. I 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 is 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 en (vulgarly ennu), in Telugu enn-u, in Canarese en-usu. We have an instance of its use as a noun in en-suvadi, Tam. a book of arithmetic, literally a number book. After the Dravidians of- the first age had learned to count seven, they found they required a higher numeral, which they placed immediately above seven and called en, the number — an appropriate enough term for perhaps the highest number which they were then accustomed 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 loJcket, to count. NINE. 241 Compare the origin of the Aryan word for nine, 7iavan, literally the new (number). J^ine. — In all the Dravidian idioms the numeral nine is a compound word, which is used indififerently 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 Malay alam ombadu, in Canarese ombhattu, in Coorg oyimbadu, in Telugu tommidi, in Tulu ormba, in Tuda oiipath\ in Kota ormpatu ; 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 tondu; this means also old. It is a curious circumstance that, whilst the Sanskrit word for nine means the new (number), one of the Dravidian words for nine means the old (number). Another word for nine in poetical Tamil is onhdn, in which pdn represents ten. In ordinary Tamil, ten is patt-u; nine is onbad-u {pn-pad-u, eupho- nically on-badu) ; and not only is it evident that patt-ii and pad-u are allied, but the resemblance becomes identity when pad-u, the second member of onbad-u, is compared with the representative of ten in irubad-u, twenty — literally twice ten — and similar compound nume- rals. Moreover, onbad-u itself becomes onbatt-u when used adverbially — e.g., onbatt'-fir-u, nine times seven. In ancient Canarese, ten was patt-u, as in Tamil. In modern Canarese it changes by rule into hatt'U; nevertheless the original labial retains its place in the com- pounds ombhatt-u, nine, and embatt-u, eighty ; from which it is evident that in Canarese nine is formed from ten, by means of an auxiliary prefix, as in Tamil. In Telugu alone there is some difference between the word which separately signifies ten and the second member of tommidi, the compound numeral nine. Ten is in Telugu padi, whilst nine is not tompadi or tombadi, but tommidi ; and nine persons ,is tommandugur-u. It can scarcely be doubted, however, that tommidi has been euphonised from tombadi. In the other compound numerals of the Telugu (twenty, thirty, &c.), in which padi forms of necessity the second member, the corruption of padi into bhei ok vei is still greater than in the instances now before us. It may be regarded, consequently, as certain that the second member of the Dravidian word for nine is identical with the word for ten.^ We have, therefore, now to inquire only into the origin and signification of the first member of the compound. 242 THE NUMERALS. In tlie Tamil onhadtt, on is the auxiliary prefix by which padu is specialised, and we have the same prefix in the poetical form, onhdn. on is in Malayalam and Canarese om, in Coorg oyim. This on has been supposed to be identical with the first portion of the Tamil ondru, one (in Canarese and Coorg ondu, in Telugu oiidu, in Malayalam onn\ in Tulu onji) ; and Dr Gundert (in his private communication to me) expresses himself in favour of this supposition. In Tulu, nine is ormha, in the Kota dialect ormpatu, 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 Tarn. -Can. words for nine has the same origin as the Tulu, &c., 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 on-hadu, 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 distinct trace of the syllable on, standing alone, having ever stood for one. The form we always find, or to which we are always obliged to come back, is or or or. But another and greater difficulty comes to view when we compare the Tamil on-hadu with the Telugu tom-midi. We have here a prefix beginning with t, which points to the possibility of the Tamil on having origi- nally been ton, and the Canarese om having been torn. What is still 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 tol) — e.g., tonnuTu, ninety, tolldyiram, nine hundred. In Telugu we find tom not only in tom-midi, nine, but in tom-bhei or tom-hadi, ninety, and tomma-nnuru, nine hundred. In Canarese we find the same prefix in tom-hhattu, ninety, though nine is omhhattu, and nine hundred is ombhaiyi-nHru: In Coorg, nine is oijim-hadu, whilst ninety, ttoniXru, follows the Tamil, and nine hundred, ombei-nuru, the Canarese. The Tulu word for ninety is sonpa, in which sort evidently stands for the tom or tol of the other dialects : nine hundred is ormha nUdu. The Tuda word is enpath. Even in Tamil a poetical form for nine has an initial t. This is tondu, of which we cannot doubt that the first portion, ton, is allied to the tom of the other dialects. The original shape of this prefix must have been tol. The final I is changed into a nasal, according to a well-recognised Dravidian law of sounds, not only when followed by a nasal, but even when followed by certain hard consonants, el + ney, sesame oil, becomes enney ; Tcal + malei, stony hill, hanmalei. So also sel + du, having gone, becomes kendru; and Icol + du, having taken, Icondn (the latter becomes more completely NINE. 243 nasalised in the Tula equivalent Icon and the Telugu honu). Hence from tol^ old, before, with the neuter formative du^ comes tondru, antiquity ; and from tol, an alternative form of the same root, comes tondu, the word under consideration, meaning also antiquity, priority, but contain- ing amongst its many meanings that of nine. The Telugu torn appears to have been derived from tol, not tol, though both forms were doubt- less identical originally ; and in Telugu the meaning, first, before, is more distinctly developed than in Tamil — e.g., toli-vdramu, the first day of the week; tol-nddu, the day before. This gives us a satis- factory explanation of the prefix by which in Telugu nine, in Tamil and Malay^lam ninety and nine hundred, in Canarese ninety, are formed. 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 before a thousand. The word for nine sometimes found (as has been mentioned) in poetical Tamil, tondu, means properly before ; but, as used, it signifies, like the Teluga word for nine, the number before ten. When the Telugu, Tulu, and Canarese numbers for ninety are compared with the Tamil, Malayalam, and Coorg, we are struck with the greater regularity of the latter com- pounds. The Telugu tom-bhei and the Canarese tom-hhattu are meant to denote nine tens ; but torn, the prefix used to denote nine, does not properly mean nine at all, but is only the first part of the numeral nine, which is itself a compound. The Telugu and Canarese compounds for nine hundred, tommannHru and ornhhayi-wdru, are formed on the same plan, but with a fuller representation of both parts of the number nine, which they adopt as their first member. The Tulu word for ninety, sonpa, is very curiously constructed. Comparing it with elpa, seventy, and enpa, eighty, it seems evident that pa means ten ; but son, the first part of the word, finds no place, as the corre- sponding Telugu and Canarese particles do, in the Tulu word for nine. It appears to be the equivalent of the tol, ton, and torn of the other dialects, the meaning of which is, before ; but in order to bring out the meaning of ninety, this particle should have been prefixed to a hundred, like the Tam.-Mal., not to ten. In Tamil and Malayalam, on the other hand, the composite numeral nine is altogether lost sight of in the construction of the compounds ninety and nine hundred, and these compounds are formed in perfect accordance with rule by prefixing tol, before, to the word a hundred, to form ninety, and the same tol to a thousand, in order to form nine hundred. In ^ these instances tol is used in its proper original signification of before, 244 THE NUMERALS. 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 Malayalam 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 torn, from tol or tol, before, with the initial t softened away, seem to me still weightier. The native Tamil grammarians derive the prefix tol, in the words for ninety and nine hundred, directly from onhadu, the word for nine. First, they say, the hadu of onhadu is lost ; then on is changed into ton; then this is changed into tol. (See "Nannul.") 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 aflS.nity whatever, as some have surmised, between the initial portion of the Tamil onhadu and the Greek Ivvsa, the Sanskrit form of which is navan. The Manchu onyayi, 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 — emu, 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 patt\ in Telugu padi, in Tuda pattu, in Gond pudth. In those Tamil compound numerals in which ten is the second member — e.g., iruhadu, twenty, pattu becomes padu (euphonically ppadu or hadu), which is in close agreement with the Telugu padi. In Tamil poetry we sometimes find pdn (euphonically hdn), instead oi pattu, as the second member of such compounds — e.g., onhdn, nine, iruhdn, 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-hadu, 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 is certainly adjectival. Twelve • is pannirandu, the first portion of TEN. 245 which, pan, is either an abbreviation of padin, the adjectival form of ten in general use, or is identical with pan, the supposititious 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-u,t\iQ radical form, and in, 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, padinmadangii, 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 padu (the root form of pattu), just as adi, Tel. it, is evi- dently identical with adu, Tam. In the compounds under twenty, padi undergoes more changes than the corresponding Tamil word. In eight and nine it becomes midi; in the numbers above ten, padi, pada, pad, or padd, with the exception of twelve, which is pannendu {pan- nendtt) ; compare panniddara, twelve persons, and nineteen, which is pandommidi (pan^tommidi). The pan of the Tamil compound here appears twice. In the compounds from twenty upwards, in which ten is the second member of the compound, and is a numeral noun, padi is materially changed. In twenty and sixty it is altered to vei, in thirty to phei, in seventy to bhhei, and in the other numbers to hhei. This change is effected by the softening of the d of padi, after which pa-i or ba-i would naturally become hei, and then vei. In Canarese, ten is hattu, by the change of p into h, 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 which ten is used adjectivally, and is the first portion of the word, pattu is generally represented by padin, as in Tamil. The exceptions are eleven and twelve, in which pad is replaced by pan — e.g., pan- nondu, panneradu. Before one thousand in old Canarese we find payin instead of pan or padin. In the compounds above twenty, in which ten holds the second place, pattu (hattu) becomes bhattu or vattu, 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 thirteei» to eighteen inclusive, pattu is represented in Coorg, not by padin, but by padun, which is evidently an equiva- 246 THE NUMERALS. lent form. The Tula uses patt^ for the noun of number, and patV, pad, pacCri, and pdcCn, as the numeral adjective. In twenty and up- wards, patt' becomes pa, va. In compounds like irvatonji, twenty-one, the tt^ of patV is represented by t. In pdd'nel', seventeen, we find an euphonic lengthening of the vowel of patf, the only thing resembling which, in any of the dialects, is the poetical Tamil pdn. Dr Gundert (in the private communication already referred to) 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 Caldwell derives from a Dravidian root, pad, is nothing but a tadhhava from pankti (Sans.), a row of fives, ten. From this first we have the tadhhava pandi (Tam.), a row of guests, then pandu, ten (still retained in the Mai. pand-iru, twelve). It bears also further abbreviation in padu, padi, pei (in Tamil also pani, properly panni)^ whilst it is found lengthened again by the sufiix of the neuter termina- tion tu (Tam. pattu, from pad-tuy 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 boi-rowed 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 lahh and a crore, 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 dasan, the word which they found in con- stant use, instead of pankti, a derivative from pancha, five, denoting ten in certain compounds only {e.g., pankti griva, one who has ten necks, Edvana), but generally meaning merely a row. pankti is some- times used in Telugu without alteration in tatsama compounds with the meaning of ten ; but the tadhhava panti, which is somewhat nearer the Dravidian word for ten in appearance, has never this meaning, but only means a row. In Tamil, the tatsama pankti is unknown ; but there are two tadhhavas, pandi and patti, both signifying a row, of which TEN. 247 the former generally means a row of guests. No trace of tlie meaning of ten adheres to either of these words, nor are jpadu or 'padi ever supposed by native scholars to be derived from pankti, or connected with its tadhhavas, 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 Dra vidians 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, pandirendu^ Mai., with pannirandu^ Tam., pannendu^ Tel., panneradu, Can., and especially with the Tulu pad'rdd^ (ior pad'radd'), in which latter word the n of the other dialects has altogether disap- peared. Compare also the Canarese pannondu, eleven, with the padin- ondru or padinown! of the Tamil and Malayalam, and especially with the pattonji 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 pad^o and in), and in one coming back bodily to ;:)a^^', 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 pan, 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-u (surviving in Tam. iru-hdn, 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 padu or padi that am or an, the obsolete demonstrative pronoun, has to adu or adi, the forms now in use in Tamil and Telugu respectively. I prefer, notwithstanding this, deriving the pan of the various words for eleven and twelve from padin, and would give the same explanation to the pand of the Malayalam word. Though I am not prepared to accept the derivation of the Dravidian padu or padi from pankti, yet I 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, difiacult to determine the root * Native Tamil grammarians consider the final an of the poetical irupdn (pro- nounced iruhdn), 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, sha^s that the supposition that pdn sometimes stood for padu or pattu at an ancient period, must be advocated with caution. 248 THE NUMERALS. of the Sanskrit dasan. 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 look for a verbal root like pa, from which j^adu or padi 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, pa?/, par, pal, with lengthened, specialised forms of the same), the generic meaning of which is extension, increase, multiplication ; 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 pattii may, in certain connections, be written joaMw — e.g., oru paJidu, one ten, iru paTidu, two tens.* The use of this h, which is the peculiar Tamil letter called dydam, 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 k or g. This would give us pag-u, to divide, as the root of pahdu, and pahdu would then correspond to the ordinary derivative frpm this root pagudi, a portion (classical Tam. pdl, pdttru, pdnmei), a division. The meaning the word would then convey would suit the purpose to which the numeral ten is put exceedingly well. Another and very common cor- ruption of pagudi, a division, is pddi, half. Since the above was written I have seen Mr Kittel's paper on the Dra vidian numerals, in the Indian Antiquary for January 1873. His remarks are as follows : — "10. pattu, pandu, pannu, padin, padu, padi, pay in, pay, pa [root], pattu [Can.], parru,, pronounce joa^^t^ [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 — i.e., par-^tu {tu = du, conf. ottu under No. 1), par-\-du { = pandu, see No. 1). The single d in the three subsequent forms at first sight looks strange ; but all difficulty is removed when considering the form pa in the end [begin- ning]. This pa is unchangeable, whereas the liquid r falls under the rule of S'ithilatva (cf No. 4) — i.e., the rule that in many cases a liquid before k, g, d, is so slightly sounded that no double consonant is formed, and accordingly has simply been dropped, so that pa + du {di) * 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 onhakadu, nine, and irupakuda, twenty), the meaning of which, when the words are separated, is oru pahdu, one ten. A HUNDRED. 249 has remained : ede, erde, breast ; haduku, harduku, life [class, coll. Can.] d appears twice in the form of y ; see under No. 3, and compare the / (a known cognate of y) under Nos. 1 and 5 [Tulu]. We add that j)ankti [Sans.], when meaning the number 10, is a tad- hhava of the Dravidian pattu, just as muktd [Sans.], pearl, is a tadbhava of muttu, and sukti [Sans.], a curl, a tadhhava of suttu." Doubtless pattu could have been regularly derived in the way Mr Kittel describes, yet I am unable to accept this derivation ; for, as a matter of fact, I can find no trace of r in the words for ten in any of the Dravidian dialects, pattu, in Canarese, is parru (pronounced pattru) in Tamil, and pat tu in Telugu. parru, Tam., means, it is true, to unite, to solder, to adhere, &c., but its radical meaning is to grasp. Metaphy- sically it means attachment. I consider it a secondary theme, of which the primitive form is paT\ which, from a comparison of the related secondary themes in Tamil — pari, intrans. to escape, pari, trans, to pluck, para, to fly, parei, to utter a sound — must have meant to move rapidly. It is noteworthy that Mr Kittel, so far from considering pattu, Drav. to be a tadhhava of pankti, Sans., turns the tables on Sanskrit by representing pawM itself to be a tadhhava oi pattu. A Hundred. — In all the Dravidian dialects this word is nUr-u. Telugu, in addition to nUr-u, has vanda. In Tulu, nur-u becomes niidic, which is an illustration of the tendency of that dialect to soften down the hard r of the other dialects into d or / I have not been able to discover any resemblance to niXr-u 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 w^e expect to find it otherwise. One and the same word for hundred, slightly modified, is used in every language of the Indo-European family, a remarkable proof of the unity and ancient intellectual culture of the race ; and the Finnish word for a hundred, sata, has evidently, like some other Finnish words, been borrowed from that family of tongues. In Telugu and Malayalam, nUru, nitrii, ashes, powder, is identical with ntl7u, nUru, a hundred. In Tamil, ashes, to reduce to ashes, is niru, pronounced nearly like nilru. The word is written both with t and with 4 in Tel. and Mai. ; so that the difi'erence in Tamil between n^u, ashes, and nilru, 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 ttem innumerable. A Thousand. — The Dravidian words for thousand are dyiram, Tam. 1 250 ' THE NUMERALS. and Mai. ; sdvira, and also savara, Can. ; velu, Tel. ; sdra, Tulu. sdvira or savara, and sdra, are evidently identical ; and we may safely derive both from the Sanskrit sahasra. The Tamil dyiram also is an old corruption of the Sanskrit. Dr Gundert derives it thus : sahasram, sahasiram, a-a-yiram, dyiram. A priori we might have expected to find the Dravidian languages borrowing from the Sanskrit a word for expressing this very high numeral. The Telugu word for thousand, vel-u, is a purely Dravidian word, and is the plural of veyi or veyyi {veyu-lu); ve is also used. I am inclined to connect this word with the root ve, to be excessive, to be hot, harsh, &c. Ordinal Numbers. — It is unnecessary in this work to devote much attention to the ordinal numbers of the Dravidian languages, seeing 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, buf 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 modati. The verbal noun mtidal 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, '^r^urog, &c., first. Though the Tamil mun, before, is allied to mudal, first, yet neither of those words exhibits the ultimate root. The n of mun appears in the verb mundu, Tam. to get before ; but it does not appear to have had any place in 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 havte no doubt that all. these words and forms spring from mu as their ORDINALS AFFILIATION. 251 ultimate base, mu is evidently a word of relation, signifying, like the Sanskrit pra, priority ; and with it I connect mH, 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 suffixes. 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. J m'ddava, third: Canarese adds ane to the cardinal numbers — e.g., mvtrane, third : the ordinal of the Tamil is formed by adding dm to the cardinal — e.g., milndrdm, 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 of another class of suffixes from the same auxiliary verb dgu, to become. In this instance the suffixes which are used by Tamil, dvadu, &c., are neuter participial nouns used adverbially. Oftentimes, however, adverbial numerals are formed by the addition of nouns signifying succession, &c., to the cardinal or ordinal numbers — e.g., iru-murei, Tam. twice, literally two times. The multiplicative numbers, as has already been stated, are the same as the numeral adjectives. Affiliation. — It only remains to inquire what evidence respecting the affiliation of the Dravidian family of tongues is furnished by the preceding investigation of the numerals of that family. The evidence is not only decidedly opposed to the supposition that the Dravidian languages are derived from the Sanskrit, but also, so far as it goes, seems inconsistent with the supposition of the descent of those languages from the Aryan family. Even if we accepted Dr Gundert's theory that the words for five and ten are Sanskrit tadhhavas, that would only prove that the less cultured people had borrowed certain words from the more cultured. Borrowing something from a friend is one thing, being related to him is another. An ultimate relation- 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 resemblance I can 252 THE NUMERALS. find between the Dravidian numerals and those of any Indo-European language (excluding for the present the debated five and ten), is the resemblance of the Telugu oha, one, to the Sanskrit eka, as well as to the Ugrian og^ ah^ 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 eka, we seem to be compelled to conclude that the Dravidian languages cannot be Indo-European. 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, especially the latter, and the correspond- ing numerals in the Finno-Ugrian languages, is so remarkable, that we may almost regard those numerals as identical. The same statement applies to the word for ' one ' which is found in the Scythian version of Darius's cuneiform inscriptions at Behistun. The numeral four, and the other numerals above one, are not contained in that unique relic of the ancient Scythian speech of Central Asia ; and in this case the negative argument proves nothing. Professor Hunfalvy doubts the relationship of the Dravidian word for * one ' to that in the Finno-Ugrian languages. He shows that the resemblance of the Votiak og, one, to the Telugu oka^ diminishes considerably when it is compared with the Finnish yht (yksi) ; but he refrains from showing that there is any similar diminution of resemblance in the case of the Dravidian numeral four, the identity of which with the Finno-Ugrian word he must, I think, have admitted. The fact that the Dravidian word for four, which seems not only to resemble, but to be identical with, the Finno- Ugrian word, cannot be explained, as most of the Dravidian numerals can, by derivation from a Dravidian root, seems to me to add weight to the supposition that this resemblance can scarcely be regarded as fortuitous. It may perhaps be thought that the resemblance of only two numerals at most (one and four), out of ten, cannot be considered to prove much ; but it is to be borne in mind that this resemblance is all, or nearly all, that is generally observed in the Scythian languages themselves between the numerals of one family of languages and those of other families belonging to the same group. Where the arithmetical faculty is not strongly developed, words of number are formed slowly and irregularly, and are easily changed or forgotten. ^ •J" '^^ -s. •S, ^. ^5^ o 5^ § P3 <4 % ^ •is u ••^ S S£ V ^ -4 ^ ^ 5^ s * _3 ^^. ?>• ^ ^ ^ •§ i. ?i '^ ^0 a s ^ !3 ^ « ^. '4i fv^ "r^ 5S «g 1^ 11^ .Is- •^• i ^ ^ « 5iH a. 11 2 •2. "^ 5^ -5 OOP. bo CD^ « 254 THE PRONOUN. PAET V. THE PRONOUN. 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 connections 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 relationship between lan- guages which appear to have belonged originally to one and the same family, but which, in the lapse of time and through the progress of mutation, have become generically different. This remark especially applies to the pronouns of the first person, which of all parts of speech appears to be the most persistent. A remarkable peculiarity of the Japanese is the absence of personal pronouns, properly so called. Usage alone determines which of the three persons is denoted ; as in English, it is usage that determines that 'your servant' means I, and 'your honour,' you. SECTION L— PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 1. Pkonoun 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 1 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. 255 I must here remind the reader of what I have said in the 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 is 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 may be regarded merely as a result of emphasis. On the whole, the 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- 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 they may be expected to throw on the initial consonant and included vowel of the singular. In all cases it will be found that the ultimate base of the singular and tha^ of the plural are identical. Unlike the Indo-European tongues, as best represented by the Yedic 256 THE PROKOUN. 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 seem to be 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 y has come to be pronounced before initial e — e.g., in Tamil, en, my, is pronounced yen. This y (and the corresponding V OT w before o) has frequently made its appearance in the translitera- tion into the Roman character of words commencing with e, and some- times even in cases where a comparison of dialects was the object in view. No notice will be taken of this euphonic y of pronunciation in the following analysis. I cite each word as it is written by the best classical writers, believing that the written form 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 colloquial Tamil the nominative of the pronoun of the first ^ person singular is ndn : in classical Tamil it is ydn or ndin, more commonly the former. The "Nannul," the most authoritative grammar "of this dialect (the date of which cannot, I think, be later than the eleventh century), gives both forms, ydn or ndn, but always places ydn first. This proves nothing, I think, respecting the relative an- tiquity of the two forms; it only proves that yd^n was regarded by the author of the " Nanntil," as it is still regarded, as more elegant than n^in. The inflexion of this pronoun in both dialects is en. It is here apparent, and will be seen in all the other dialects also, that the included vowel vibrates between a and e. The personal terminations of the verbs are en in the colloquial ; and en and en, 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 — nom. colloquial, ndm, ndngal; classical, ydm or ndm: inflexion, coll. nam, engal; class, em, nam. The nom. ydm is more common in the classics than ndm; but in the inflected forms nam 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 elir, all you, the plural nom. is dm. Personal terminations of the verb — coll. 6m; class. em, em, am, dm, dm. At first sight we might suppose nam and nem to be the pronominal terminations of the class. Tam. nadandanam^ nadandanem, we walked, FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 257 and of many similar verbs and conjugated nouns — nouns with which a pronoun is combined (see " Classification of Dravidian Verbs," "Appellative Verbs or Conjugated Nouns"); but the 7^ of these ter- minations is merely euphonic, and is used to prevent hiatus. When it is omitted, the vowels which it had kept separate coalesce — e.g.^ nadanda-am becomes nadanddm; nadanda-em, nadandem. The termination 6m is the only one now used in the colloquial dialect. This could not well have been derived from em, but would spring naturally enough from dm. Of this we have an illustration in the fact that dm, contracted from dgum, or d-um., it is so, yes, is some- times written, as well as pronounced, 6m. Moreover, whilst many instances of the change of a into e or ei, and also o, can be adduced, I do not know any of the converse of this. In Malayalam the nominative is ndn (the initial n of which is the nasal of the palatals, pronounced like ni in onion). The inflexion is ordinarily en, as in Tamil ; but in the dative inihT(^ is often used, as well as the more regular enaJck^ and enikk\ en is here altered to in, 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 en, as in Tamil, In conjugated nouns the personal termination, as an or en — e.g., adiyan or adiyen, I (thy) servant; plural nom. oidm, n6m, nam- mal, nannal, nummal ; inflex. nannal, ennal, em, and also n6, ndm, nom, num. Personal terminations of verb (in the poets), 6m. The shortness of the included vowel of nannal, and the ordinary use of this form, rather than of ennal, as the inflexion, are noticeable peculiarities in the Malayalam plural. Another peculiarity is the occasional use of n6m instead of ndm, answering to the 6m which forms the per- sonal termination of the verb in poetical Malayalam and colloquial Tamil. In colloquial Canarese the nominative of this pronoun is ndmi, nearly as in Tamil, the inflected form of which, as seen in all the oblique cases, is nan\ The crude form of this pronoun nd is also used as a nominative. This is a peculiarity of Canarese and Telugu ; but the use of ni, the crude form of the pronoun of the second person, instead of ntnu, has its counterpart in Tamil, in which ni is the only form of the nominative known. In the classical dialect, or what is commonly called "Old Canarese," the nominative is dn, ydn, or dm; the inflexion, en, is identical with that of the Tamil in both its dialects. The pronominal teriainations of the first person singular of the verb are enu, emc, and hie in the colloquial dialect, and en in the 258 THE PRONOUN. classical. It is deserving of notice tliat the final u or nu of tlie personal terminations, as of the isolated pronouns, is frequently- dropped in the colloquial dialect. The personal termination of this person of the verb, when nu is dropped, becomes e, with which the Tulu termination may be compared. Plurals : nominative, coll. dial. ndvu; class, dial. d7n, dmc ; inflexion, coll. nam; class, em. Personal terminations of verb : coll. evu, evu, and eve ; class, evu. evu is as clearly a softened form of em as dvu of dm. In colloquial Telugu the nominative of this pronoun is nenu : the crude ne may also be used, like nd in Canarese. In the classical dialect, enu is preferred, and this is sometimes represented by e alone. nenu takes nd for its inflexion in all cases except the accusative {nanu or nannu), in which it is nan\ 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 retain only the final syllable of the nominative of each of the pronouns — viz., nu or ni after * (frofti nenUf I) ; vu or vi after i (from nivu, thou) ; and ndu (from vdndu, he). Plurals : nominative, coll. memu, manamu; class, emu; in- flexions, md, mam, mana; personal termination of verbs, mu, or 7ni after i. 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 ru, or ri after i, which forms the personal termination of the second person plural and the third person epicene plural. It represents merely the ar by which epicene nouns are pluralised. The Tulu nominative is 7/dn\' inflexion, pen'. This is the only instance in any of these dialects in which y, the initial letter of the nominative, appears in the inflexion in writing. In classical Canarese and Tamil the inflexion is written €7i, though pronounced i/e7i. The personal termination of the verb is e (compare the colloquial Canarese verbal termination e, and the classical Telugu nominative e). This e, Mr Brigel informs us, is pronounced nearly like a in man ; whilst the e which forms the termination of the third person masculine of the verb is pronounced pure. Plurals: nominative, 7iama, yenkalu; inflexion, 7iam\ yenkuV. 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 nammal, one of the Malayalam nominatives, and its related nannal. Personal termination of the verb, a. The personal terminations of the first person plural and the third person riRST PERSON SINGULAR. ^ 259 neuter plural (both a) are alike, which is a remarkable peculiarity of this dialect. The Tuda nominative is dn (d is pronounced in Tuda like the Eng- lish aw); inflexion, en; personal termination of verb, en, eni, ini; plural nom. dm or 6m, also em; 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, emi, imi. In the dialect of the Kotas, according to Mr Metz, the nominative singular is dne; inflexion, en; plural nom. dme, eme, and also ndme; inflex. em, nam; personal terminations, singular, e, as in Tulu ; plural, eme and eme. In Gond the nominative is annd; inflexion, nd ; plural, ammdt ; inflexion, md. Personal terminations of the verb : singular, dn or na; plural, dm, am, or 6m. In the Ku or Khond the nominative singular is dnu, as in classical Canarese ; inflexion, nd, as in Telugu and Gond (Dr Hunter's lists, dnu; inflex. ndnde); plural nom. dmu; inflex. md; also dju ; inflex. ammd. Personal terminations of verb : singular, in or in {mdin, I am), or e (mdsse, 1 was) ; plural, dmu. In the Brahui the nominative is i; but in the oblique cases (e.g., Tcand, of me ; hane, me, to me) the pronominal base is lea or kan, a root which seems to be totally unconnected with the Dravidian ndn or ydn, and which is to be compared rather with the Cuneiform-Scythian, Babylonian, and Gujar^thi 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 is en — e.g., aren, we are. In the Rajmahal dialect, I is en; mine, ongki ; we, nam, om ; our, emki, ndm-ki. Ur£ion, I, enan; mine, enghi; we, em (Dr Hunter, en) ; our, emiii. "We have now to determine, if possible, from a consideration of the 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 Dravidian nominative of this pronoun, and nd, the crude form of the Canarese, as the primitive unmodified root." In coming to this con- clusion, I was much influenced by the extra-Dravidian relationships of this pronoun, which, as will be seen hereafter, are strongly in favour of ndn, as against ydn. Viewing the question, however, from a purely Dravidian point of view, the conclusion I arrived at did not seem to me quite satisfactory ; and the passage cited above had hardly been printed ere I wished I had deRded in favour of ydn. I did not sup- pose, however, that when we arrived at ndn (or ydn), the earliest 260 ^ THE PRONOUN. organic development of this pronoun, we had reached a point in its history beyond which we could not go ; for it seemed to me, and still seems, probable that the final n is only a formative, denoting the sin- gular number, and that the initial n (corresponding as it does with the initial n of the pronoun of the second person) is another formative, denoting in some way personality ; whilst it is by means of the in- cluded vowels {a and i) alone that the pronoun of the first person is to be differentiated from that of the second. In consequence of this, I thought I could recognise in those included vowels {a and i) the very earliest shape of the Dravidian pronoun. Dr Gundert considers ydn as probably older than ndn. This is also Dr Pope's view, though in his *' Outlines of Tuda Grammar," p. 5, he says, very truly, I think, " The original form of the Dravidian pronoun of the first person is uncertain," The late Mr Gover, in a paper on the " 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 the y also, as probably not primitive, and adopted dn or en as the real 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 Aryan ma (changed first, he thought, to na, and then to an). Dr Pope seems to concur in Mr Gover's view of both of the initial letters and of the final n (though for a different reason), when he says in his " Outlines," p. 6, " I would compare dn with the very ancient Sanskrit aliamr I 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. This latter point -may be considered first. Which is to be regarded as the older form, ydn or dn? A change of ydn into dn seems to me much easier and more natural than a change of dn into ydn. But in this instance we are not left to mere abstract probabilities ; parallel 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 dndn, Tarn, a year, which is properly ydndu, when 1 a year, from the same interrogative base ya. ydndu is the form of this word invariably used in inscriptions of any antiquity. The ease with which ya would change into a may be con- cluded also from the ease with which it has changed into e, 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 FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 261 from these facts that ^z 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 7 I refer here to the initial consonant alone, not to the differ- ence between the Tamil ndn, ydn, and the Telugu nenu, enu. That difference consists in the included vowel, and will be considered after- wards. As I have already said, it appears to me now that ydn 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 MalayMam, to convert y into n. Several words which begin with n oi nm Tamil begin with a vowel in other dialects. Comp. Tam. nindu, to swim, with Tel. tdu; Tam. and Mai. nandu or nandu, a crab, with the Tel., Can., and Tulu endi, entri, yandri. In these cases, however, it cannot be determined with certainty whether the initial n of the Tamil may not have been radical. Clearer evidence might perhaps appear to be furnished by the relative participles of the preterite Tamil verb, which may take either y or n — e.g., solliya or ionna (for iollina), that said ; with respect to which it might be con- cluded that y, being considered more elegant, is also more ancient. This, however, seems to me doubtful, seeing that the use of n, as in 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 change of y into n that are quite reliable are those that are seen in Sanskrit tadhhavas. The Sanskrit yuga, a yoke, is ordinarily in Tamil nugam, sometimes ugam. The Sanskrit Yama, the god of death, though ordinarily yaman^ is also found, especially in the poetry, as naman, naman, and eman.^ Here we have indubitable instances of the change- ableness of y. It is evidently liable both to be hardened into n, and also to be softened away into a vowel. We see therefore the possibil- ity of a primitive Dravidian ydn changing on the one hand into ndn, and also on the other into dn or en. What seems to raise the possibil- ity 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 Canarese, could much more easily be weakened from ydn than from ndn. This is partly in consequence of y being more easily softened away than n ; partly in consequence of the peculiar tendency in the Dravidian languages to pronounce y before e, so that en 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 * Dr Pope points out that the ^nglish 'anchor ' has become in Tamil nangkuram or nangJcuram. 262 THE PRONOUN. its own to change into e, as we have seen in the case of the interroga- tives — ydvavy Tarn, who? which becomes evar ; ydngu, where? which becomes engu. The change of ya (short) into e in Tamil may also be illustrated from Sanskrit tadhhavas. yantra, a machine, becomes en- diram ; yajamdna, a sacrificer, a master, esamdn. 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 MalayMam ndn, as I think we fairly may, as the middle point. If y were usually pronounced with a slightly nasal sound, it would naturally become n; and this would naturally harden in some instances into the n of the dental series, possibly even into n and m. We have seen in the course of our comparison of the different Dra- vidian dialects that the initial n ov n oi ndn, nenii, ndn^ has entirely disappeared in the verbal inflexions. The final n, 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 n or n, or any relic of it, been retained in the personal terminations of the verbt I think it unsafe, however, to conclude from this, or from any of the facts mentioned, that the initial n of ifidn is of modern origin, ndn may have been altered from yan, 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 correct to say that the initial n 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 ; and whilst the singular inflexion is always en^ the plural may be either em or nam. nam is found in Tamil compounds of high antiquity, like namhi (comp. emhi), lord, literally, our lord, nd or nan is the inflexion of the singular in Telugu, colloquial Canarese, Ku, and G6nd. In Malayalam ndn is the most common form of the nominative, though ydn also is known, and the n of nan is lost in the inflexion. In Tulu the plural is nama. The Telugu plural memu has plainly been derived from nemu. 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 yiRST PERSON SINGULAR. 263 lis back not much more than a thousand years ; but we must go back perhaps three times that period before we reach 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 G6nds. At that time, whenever it was, 7idn may be concluded to have been in use as well as 7/dn; but even then ndn appears to have been a secondary form ; 2/<^n, 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 va^/am, the correspond- ing word in use in the later literature. The use of asme in the Yedas is one argument for its antiquity ; another and still better is its appear- ance in Greek in the shape of aij,/xsg. But we must not too hastily assume that, because vayam appears in the later Sanskrit literature, whilst asme is found in the earliest, vayam is therefore a modern cor- ruption ; for we find {ya or ve) the base of this form not only in the Zend vaem, but also in the Gothic veis (English, ive) ; and this carries us back to the period — a period of unknown antiquity — when the Teutonic tribes had not yet left their early seats in the East. The reappearance in the plural, in the Pali-Prakrit tumM, you, of the tu out of which the yu of yuslime and ydyam 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 may be retained in existence, and, to a certain extent, in use, long after another form has 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 Dravidian dialects are evidently formed on the same plan. They have been exposed to 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 n of nin (or ni), thou, un- doubtedly radical. If, then, n is to be regarded as undoubtedly radical in n%, 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 %vu in poetical Telugu, may we not con- clude that the initial n 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 ? We have only to choose, I tlink, between a and e. 6 is found in the 264 THE PRONOUN. plural in some connections in Tamil and Malayalam, but it is derived, as I think I have shown, from the d of dm. The i which makes its appearance in a solitary instance in Malayalam 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 en, the best representative of which is the classical Telugu enu. On the other 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 a into e, whilst I cannot discover any distinct trace of the existence of the contrary tendency. The tendency of the Tamil to weaken a 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. keham ; hala, Sans, strength, Tam. helam. This tendency shows itself in the pronunciation of many Sanskrit words used in Tamil in which the vowel remains unaltered in writing. I should add that Dr Gun- dert appears to consider not ya, but ye, euphonised to ye, the primi- tive form of this pronoun. He admits, however, that e is only another form of a. What is the origin of the final n of ydn, ndn, &c. 1 Whatever be 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 m (probably from the copulative um), the sign of plurality dis- tinctive of the personal pronouns, used instead. This sign of plurality is not added to n, as it would have been if n 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 nim, you, tdn, self, with tdm, selves, it is evident that the final ?i 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 7jd7i 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 {nd + w = I alone ; FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 265 nd-\-m = I's (egoque) we) ; and that the final n of ndn, no less than the final m of ndm, is a sign, not of personality, but merely of number. Is the final n of nd7i a sign of gender as well as of number ? Is it a sign of the masculine singular, and connected with an or n, the ordinary masculine singular suffix of the Tamil 1 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 n is merely euphonic, like the final nasal of the Tatar man, I. The explanation which appears to me to suit the facts of the case best is, that this n is identical with the an, alternat- ing with am, which is so largely used, especially in Tamil and Malay- ^lam, as a formative of neuter singular nouns — e.g., ur-an, Tam. strength = ur-am. It would thus accord in use (possibly in part even in origin) with the final am of the nominative of the Sanskrit personal pronouns, ah-am, I, tv-am, thou, svay-am {sva-m), self (compare Greek iym), which is evidently a formative, and identical with one of the most common nominative and accusative singular neuter case-signs. (See " The Noun : the Nominative.") Compare the optional use of m instead of n, as the final consonant of the pronoun of the first person in classical Canarese — e.g., dm, I, instead of dn. So also the same dialect has avam for he, instead of avan. am, the formative of the nominative of the Sanskrit pronouns, is used not only by the singulars, but, in later Sanskrit at least, by the plurals — e.g., vayam, we, yilyam, you ; but properly these plurals are 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 n 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 tdn), and in the Ostiak nyn, thou (compare Dravidian ntn). This throws light on the probability of the supposition I advanced with regard to the initial n of ndn — viz., 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 (^ yd\& to be regarded as the primitive form "of the Dravidian pronoun of the first person, and the final oi as merely 266 THE PRONOUN. a sign of number, it miglit appear extraordinary that in the pronominal terminations of the verb the initial n (or y) should have invariably and altogether disappeared, whilst the first person singular should be repre- sented, either by the final n alone, or by the fragmentary vowel e alone. Similar anomalies, however, are discoverable in otlier languages. In Hebrew, anachnu^ we, from anach (in actual use andki), 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 Dra vidian 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 nivu^ thou, from ni, the radical base, and vu^ an euphonic addition. This vu is of so little importance to the e;xpression 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 has acquired this use precisely like the n 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 n of the first person, much less of personality, but is merely an euphonisation. Supposing Tid, yd, or d, to be the primitive form of the Dravidian pronoun of the first person, and ni, yi, or ^ (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 two vowels a and 1 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, seems to be the common property of both pronouns and the means by which their personality is expressed, whilst the annexed a restricts the signification to the first person, or that of the speaker ; i, to the second person, or that of the person addressed. Some resemblance to this arrangement may be noticed in the personal pronouns of the Heb- rew, in which I is an-oM; thou, an-td (corrupted into at-td). The method adopted by the Dravidian languages of expressing the differ- ence between the first person and the second by means of the vowels a and i, 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, a and i, be considered as identical with a and i, the demonstrative bases, an idea which would suit the signification, and which is corro- FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 267 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 also, a is not the proximate, but the remote, demonstrative ; and i is not the remote, but the proximate ; whilst u is used in Tamil as an intermediate between these two. If this supposition had been well grounded, we should have expected to find i mean I, and d, thou. But what we actually find is that d means I, and ^, thou. In Tamil, avvidam, literally that place, is occasionally used as a polite peri- phrasis for you, and ivvidam, literally this place, as a courtly peri- phrasis for we. So in Malay alam, addeham, literally that body, is sometimes used for thou, and iddeham, literally this body, for I. angu, thither, means also, in Malay^lam, to thee, to you ; ingu, hither, to me, to us. This use of the demonstrative vowels is exactly the reverse of the use to which we find a and i 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 d of nd^ I, and the i of ni, thou. Is any weight to be attributed to the circumstance that a, 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 1 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 probably the oldest stage of human speech of which any written records survive. According to Mr Edkins, the oldest forms of the first two pronouns in Chinese were a and i, I may add, that the most peculiar and distinctive, possibly the most ancient, of the Dravidian demonstratives — the demonstrative which denotes in Tamil, Malayalam, Canarese, something intermediate between a and i — was u. We thus find the whole of the first three simple vowels utilised, a = I ; i = thou ; u = he, she, 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 iidm, we, as well as in ndn, I (and it is the same with ya and a, tne verbal forms), it is evident that our com- 268 THE PRONOUN. 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 a priori that some analogies may have disappeared from the singular which have been retained in the plural. It is also to be remembered that we are not obliged to restrict ourselves to comparing the pronouns of other families of languages with the Dravidian ya alone. ya may be older than Ha, na, or a; yet each of these is old enough for any comparison that can 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 {ah) 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 andhi, of the Egyptian anuk, and of the Babylonian anaku^ dnaka^ or anku, and especially with the Jewish-Syriac and, the Christian -Syriac eno, and the iEthiopic and Arabic and. The plural of the Aramaic and is formed by suffixing n (the final consonant of in 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 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 anah, and that again from anah), I, but also in the Arabic and Old Hebrew antd and the Aramaic ant, thou (Egyptian, en-telc, 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 enhu, he. Moreover, the alliance of the Semitic pronouns of the first and second persons with the Indo-European comes out into more distinct relief FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 269 when this prefix is laid aside. When the initial an is removed from the pronoun of the first person, we cannot doubt the connection of the remaining syllable {ohi, ah, ah, iilc, aku, or ah) with the Sanskrit ahj the Gothic ih, 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, enteh, enta), the ta, ti, te, or t, which remains, is allied to the Sanskrit and Latin tu. 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 inhil, he, when compared with the ordinary and undoubtedly more ancient Hebrew hH. On this supposition, it is allied, in nature and origin, to the euphonic suffixes or nunnations which may be observed in the Greek I/w-vtj, in the Finnish mi-nd, I, and in the final nasal of the North Indian main, I, and tain, or tun, thou. If this be the origin of the Semitic prefix an, it must cer- tainly be unconnected with the Dra vidian nd or and. 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, thou, va-y-am, we, yd-y-am, you. The only difference, he says, is that 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 already stated that I regard the Sanskrit termination am as the ordi- nary termination of the nominative of the neuter singular, and as used instead of the masculine and feminine, simply because of the intense personality which is inherent in the first and second personal pronouns, especially in their nominatives, and which renders the terminations distinctive of those genders unnecessary. I have also stated that I regard it as probable that the terminal n of the Dravidian 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 case-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 n 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-European Anmlogies. — It has already been remarked that there appear to be but two pronouns of the first person singular known 270 THE PRONOUN. to the Indo-European family of tongues, as to the Semitic and Scythian, 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 all-am in Sanskrit, ad-am in Old Persian, az-em in Zend, eg-o in Latin and Greek (\ym = aham), ik in Gothic, ih in the Old German, az in the Old Slavonic, asz in Lithuanian, and gd in Bohemian. We find substantially the same root in the Semitic dh, ah, uk, aku, 6ki, &c., and in several languages of the Malay o-Polynesian group — e.g., Malay dkil, Tagala aco, Tahitian au. Dr Pope, in his " Outlines of Tuda Grammar," p. 5, says, " This is not the place for a full discus- sion of the subject, but I would compare dii with the very ancient Sanskrit aham." I regret that I am not acquainted with Dr Pope's reasons for supposing dn connected in some way with aham. If he bad restricted the connection to the final 71 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 d also, and therefore 7/d and 7id with ah (the earliest shape of which — probably agh — seems to have been a decided guttural), in that case I must dissent. The 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, stated 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 = ana = dn) seems to me needlessly roundabout, besides being vitiated, as I think, by beginning at the wrong end. It is not the final n of dn {ydn or ndn), which is only a sign of the singular number, not an expression of personality, but the initial n, 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 pronoun of the first person singular Jn the Indo-European family are formed from a totally diff'erent base from that of the nominative, and of this oblique base perhaps the best representative is the Sanskrit ma. m forms the most prominent and esential portion of ma; and this m is followed either by a or by some vowel which appears to have been derived from it. In the oblique cases of Sanskrit, this pronoun has the form of ma, whenever the nature of the succeeding syllable allows a to remain unchanged — e.g.. FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 271 ma-yi, in me, ma-ma, of me. In the secondary forms of tlie 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 we, moi; and a pronominal base in ama is found in some of the Old Persian prepositional compounds. In the Greek /AS, l/As, (Moi, fji^ov, &c., the vowel which is employed librates between e and 0, each of which is naturally derived from a; whilst the initial e of ifi's is in accordance with the tendency of Greek to prefix a vowel to certain words beginning with a consonant — e.g., oi/o,aa for vuficc. Latin has me, except in the dative, which is miki. Gothic has mi and mei (gen. meina). Lithuanian uses man as the basis of its oblique cases j though possibly the final n of this form belongs properly, like the n of 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 the first person singular is mi or m in Sanskrit and Zend, in all primary and secondary verbs. We have the same ending in Greek verbs in /a/, and in the fioti of the middle voice ; in the m of the Latin sum and inquam, in the Lithuanian mi, in the Polish am, in the Armenian em, in the New Persian am. It becomes m in the old High German gdm, I go ; tuom, I do ; and him or j?9m (Sans, hhavdmi), I am, converted in modern German to hin. On comparing the pronominal terminations of the Indo-European verb, it is evident that the preponderance of use and authority is in favour of mi, and that m has been derived from mi by abbreviation. It seems equally clear, however, that mi itself has been derived from ma, the normal base of the oblique cases ; for in all languages a evinces a tendency to be converted into some weaker vowel, i, 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 mi 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, 1 ; sa ov 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- 272 THE PRONOUN. bably claim to be one of the oldest shapes 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. I 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 oia and va, and probable that it changes also into a. (1.) The m of ma often changes in the Indo-European languages into n. The final m of the first person of Sanskrit and Latin verbs (the abbreviation and representative of mi or ma) has in some instances degenerated into n in Greek — e.g., compare the Sanskrit dsam, I was, and the corresponding Latin eram, with the Greek r,y ; and adada-m with Ibi-bM-v. We see a similar change of m into w, on comparing the modern German hin, I am, with the old High German him or pirn ; and the Persian hastam, I am, with the Beluchi hastjan. Compare"' also the Laghmani pdhan, I go. The n 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 n of the singular terminations referred to above, derived from an older m. One of the oldest 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 masi), in Latin mus, in Greek (Miv (for the more ancient and more correct ^olic fj^a) : the most natural explanation of which pronominal ending is to consider it as derived from ma, the old first person singular, by the addition of s, the sign of plurality. The m of this primeval mas often becomes n — e.g., in the Latin nos, the Celtic ni, the Greek vCj/ ; and also in the Sanskrit secondary forms nas and nau, the Zend no, and the Old Slavonic na. This n 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 * It has been suggested by Sir H. Eawlinson that the Sanskrit nas, the Latin nos, and the Greek vQl (like the nu of the Hebrew anachnu), were originally signs of plurality, which have made themselves independent of the bases to which they were attached. I am unable, however, to adopt this view ; for the n of these forms naturally interchanges with m, and evidently eonveys the idea of person- ality ; and the s of the Latin nos (as of the corresponding vos) seems more likely to be a sign of plurality than an abbreviation (as Bopp conjectures it to be) of the syllable sma. FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 273 remarkable that in Welsh, whilst the absolute forms of the personal pronouns I and we, are mi and ni respectively, in the personal ter- minations of the verb m and n are often found to change places, so that the first person singular comes to be represented by n, and the corresponding plural by m — e.g., gwelwn, I saw ; gwelem, we saw. Some- thing similar has been observed in the Greek sdidow, compared with the plural of the same, Ididofisv ; but the use of n in the singular and m in the plural, in verbal terminations, is much more systematic in the Welsh and its related dialects than in Greek. The Irish generally differs from those dialects in this particular — e.g., compare Irish cairim, I love, with the Welsh carwn. Welsh verbs of the first person, ending in n in the singular and m in the plural, bear a remarkable resemblance to the Tamil singular en, plural em or dm. Mr Gover too hastily, as I think, concluded these forms to be identical ; but in Welsh the pro- noun is represented by the final consonant, m or n, both derived from the m of the primeval ma; whilst in Tamil the final n and m are merely signs of number, and the personality of the pronoun is represented by the preceding vowel alone. However this may be, it is perfectly clear that m evinces, in the Indo-European languages, a tendency to change into n, and that this tendency is specially apparent in the changes the pronoun of the first person has undergone. In Old Slavonic, the nomi- native plural retains the probably primitive m, whilst n replaces m in all the oblique cases of the plural — e.g., nom. my, ace. ny, dat. na-mu, instr. na-mi. The dual 'we,' too, has ve for its nominative, na-mAx for its accusative, dative, and instrumental. The genitive and locative plural is na-sxi, dual na-ju. Sometimes the m changes into n in the singular, whilst it remains unchanged in the plural ; sometimes it changes in the plural and remains unchanged in the singular. No principle seems to 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 ni, we, whilst in the verbal terminations, I love is carwn, we love, cavern. Compare also the change from m in the nominative to n in the oblique cases in the Old Slavonian — e.g., my, we, ny, us. The chief point to which I call atten- tion is the fact that the change from m into n is one which readily takes place in this family of languages. (2.) This m changes also into v. v alternates with n as the initial 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. It was shown in the part on " Sounds " that, in the Dra vidian languages, wherever n and v swe found to alternate, we have reason to conclude that both are derived from, or represent, an older m ; and the s 274 THE PRONOUN. rule appears to hold equally good in regard to the Indo-European lan- guages. When we find in Sanskrit the nominative plural vayam (from va 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 a more primitive ma. This idea is confirmed by finding n 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 the accusative of the same, na, us two. In the Lithuanian dual, v alternates, not with 7^, but with m — that is, with what appears to be the more primitive consonant. The nominative-accusative masculine may be either ve-du or mu-du. In the personal endings of the Old Slavonic verb, ve represents the first person dual ; in Lithuanian, va ; whilst the plural proper ends in mu in the former language, and me in the latter. (3.) The m of the pronoun of the first person disappears sometimes altogether, so that ma changes into a. This is the only reasonable explanation that has been given of the origin of the Vedic asme, we — afif/^ig. When this is compared with yushm^, you = vfj^fiig, it is evident that sme, 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 asme must represent the singular I. This being the case, a-sme must be equivalent to ma-sme. This seems to be the best explanation also of the d of the Sanskrit dual dvdm, we two, probably derived, some think, from ma, I, and dva, two. We find the a of the plural as7ne itself similarly lengthened in the Bengali ndmi, modern Bengali ami. (See " Pluralisation of Pronouns,") The same pronominal root m changes also in the Scythian tongues, as will be seen, to n and 7ig, 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 1 Is the Dravidian ya, varying to n or n, on the one hand, and a on the other, connected in any way with the Indo-European ma, varying to na on the one hand, and on the other to va, and possibly also to a ^ I think we are warranted in inferring the existence of some connection. It is more difficult, as it appears to me, 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- pendent of one another, than that an ultimate relationship of some FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 275 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 credentials 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 a must be almost as ancient as ma. ya, it is true, is not one of the shapes the primeval ma is found to have assumed within the circle of the Indo-European tongues ; but as ma is not confined to that family, but is the common property also of the languages of the Scythi^ group, in which it will be found to have sustained a set of changes peculiar to them, it does not seem unreason- able to suppose that ya, varying to na, may have been the shape it first assumed amongst the early Dravidians. 3. Scythian Analogies. — When we examine the personal pronouns of the Scythian group of tongues, some independent and very interest- ing analogies to the Dravidian pronoun are brought to light. The pronominal root which constitutes the basis of the oblique cases in the Indo-European languages, is adopted in the languages of the Scythian family, not only in the oblique cases, but also in the nominative itself. Whilst in both families the oblique cases are sub- stantially the same, the Indo-European uses as its nominative the base in ah, the Scythian the base in ma. There are a few languages even in the Indo-European family in which ma has found its way into the nominative — e.g., the Celtic has mi, the New Persian man, the North Indian vernaculars main. In some cases, also, especially in the 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 mam, are probably accusatives in their origin, like the Italian mi and the French moi. 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 hu as its nominative ; but in mi, 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 changing into nga and na. In those languages ma is very generally 276 THE PRONOUN. euphonised or nasalised by the addition of a final n, or of an obscure nasal resembling the Sanskrit anusvdra; in consequence of which, not ma, but man, may be stated to be the normal form of the Scythian pronoun, and this bears a closer resemblance than ma to the Dravidian ndn. The addition of this euphonic nasal is not unknown even to the Indo-European languages. It may be seen in the Persian ma7i, the Sindhian mdn, and the Beluchi menih; and a similar inorganic addition is apparent in the old Greek syuvri, as also in ruvri. This 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 ; hen (m degraded to h) in Ottoman Turkish. In the Finnish family, the Finnish proper has mind; the Lappish wo?zy the Esthonian ma or minna; the Mordvin and Votiak mon; the Ostiak ma (dual mm, plural men) ; the Magyar en. The Samoiede dialects have man, mani. In both Mongolian and Manchu the nominative of this pronoun is hi; but this is evidently corrupted from mi (like the Ottoman hen, from the Oriental or Uigur men); and it is mi, with a final nasal, which forms the basis of the oblique cases. In both languages the genitive is mi-nu or mi-ni ; and the dative is men-dou 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 mi, 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 isolated pronoun that m 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 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 m. In a similar manner, in the Turkish family of languages, m is used in composition as the equivalent of man or men. Thus, in Oriental Turkish, whilst men is retained in the present tense — e.g., hold-men, I am — the preterite is contented with m alone — e.g., hdldi-m, 1 was. The same suflSx is used to denote the first person singular in most of the Scythian possessive compounds, a class of words which is peculiar to the Scythian family — e.g., Turkish hdhd-m, my father, from FIRST PERSON SINGULAR. 277 bdhd, father, and m, the representative of the first person singular. In the Magyar also, though the isolated pronoun of the first person sinc'ular is eii, yet m is used instead of n in the possessive compounds and "objective" inflexional terminations — e.g., from atya, father, is formed the possessive compound atya-m, my father; and the first person singular of *' objective" verbs ends in m — e.g., szeretem, I love (some one). It is also to be noticed, that whilst the Magyar has hi as the singular of the isolated pronoun, its plural is mi or mink; the former of which is evidently pluralised from ma or me, the latter from min. (2.) It was shown that the initial and radical m of the Indo-European pronoun was occasionally converted into n : we have now to show that a similar change from m to % is apparent in the Scythian languages also, and that in some of those languages n has become as distinctive of the first person as in the Dravidian family itself. In Finnish, though the isolated form of this pronoun is ma or mirwL, yet in all inflexional additions and compounds m is represented by n — e.g., from isd, father, is formed isd-ni, my father, and from 61, to be, is formed 6l-en, I am. This final n is not derived from the euphonic n of mind; but from a direct conversion of m into n ; for though we see the same euphonic addition of n in sind (from se or sia), thou, yet we have t alone (the equivalent of s) in 6l-et, thou art. n has, therefore, become in Finnish, as in Dravidian, the ordinary sign of the first person singular of the verb ; though there is this difference, that in Dravidian the n is the final n, which is distinctive only of numbers, whereas the Finnish n seems to be derived by conversion from an older m, the initial m of ma. The Magyar en, I, appears to be still more nearly allied to the Dravidian pronoun ; and in this case n is certainly derived from m, for whilst n is found in the nominative, m is used instead in all pos- sessive compounds and verbal inflexions. With the Magyar nominative en, compare the Tamil-Canarese en or en. May we also compare dn, I, in the Lar, a Sindhian dialect 1 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, an is used instead in verbal inflexions — e.g., paz-an, I (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 7^ appears, not as the final, but as the initial, and is therefore in more perfect accordance with the n of the Dravidian pronominal base. The nominative of this j^onoun in Calmuck is hi (from mi), and the same base appears in the genitive mini; but the rest of the oblique 278 THE PEONOUN. cases are formed, not from hi or mi, but from nad or na — e.g., na-da, to me, Qia-da-edze, from me, and also na-mdi, me. We here discover the existence of a pronominal base in na (probably derived from wa), which is in remarkable agreement with one of the forms of the Dravi- dian base. In a few of the Scythian languages, the isolated pronoun, including 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 ; ne or ni in Basque. In the East Asian languages, gn or ng (which are pronounced alike) are often found to take the place of n. Sometimes n and gn alternate in the same language, like n and n in Tamil-Malayalam. The Canton Chinese is ngo ; the Mandarin, wo. Old Chinese forms, according to Mr Edkins, are nga, ga, go, Jean, a. The analogy of the pronoun of the second person would seem to show that a was the oldest form of all. Compare Burman, Tid or ngd; Tibetan, written nd, colloquial gni/d ('mine,' written naJci, nayi, colloquial gnay); Tetenge, an Assam dialect, ne; Mikir, ne; Khari Naga, ni. The. Burman ngd prevails in the languages of the sub-Himalayan tribes. A very common form among those tribes, and those of the north- eastern frontier, including also the K61s of Central India, ends in ng — e.g., ang, ung, ing, aing. I am not clear, however, as to the nature of the relationship of the latter forms to ma, nga, and oia, the High Asian group, with which the Dravidian (and also the Indo- European) pronoun seems to stand in closer connection. I feel, however, on tolerably firm ground in comparing the Tibetan nd, I, colloquial Tiga, with the Malayalam nd; and if so, the Chinese ngo, especially when examined in the light of the Chinese ni, thou, may also be allowed to claim kindred. We may here, too, compare the Australian pronouns of the first person — viz., nga, nganya, I; its dual, njgalee, we two j and the plurals ngadlu and nadju, we. (3.) A few traces of the softening of na or nga to ya and a, or at least of the use of ya and a instead of nga and na, may also perhaps be discovered in the East Asian languages. Thus the Sgau-Karen is yd, ydh ; the Pwo-Karen yei^; the Manyak d. The Pekin Chinese ivo may also be compared. On the whole, we seem to have reason to conclude that the various forms which the pronoun of the first person singular assumes in the Scythian group of languages, and which we have now compared, are identical. Possibly, also, we may see reason to conclude that the Scythian forms {ma, na, ha, nga, ya) have had a common origin with the Indo-European {ma, va, na, and a). The Dravidian ya, na, a, bear SECOND PERSON SINGULAR. 279 SO close a resemblance to the pronouns of both groups (especially, as we have seen, to the Scythian), that we seem to be justified in regard- ing them as related to both in common. If this be admitted, we seem to be justified in arriving at the conclusion that one and the same pronoun of the fiirst person, probably ma, was the common pro- perty of the whole Japhetic family prior to the separation of the Indo-European tribes from the Scythian. The conclusion arrived at by Professor Hunfalvy (in his paper on the study of the Turanian languages, read at the International Congress of Orientalists, 1874) is substantially similar. He notices the resemblances between the Aryan and Turanian languages with regard to the personal pronouns, and then says that, " considering this fact, he is inclined to suppose that a stage of language anterior to both classes must have existed." He thinks he sees also in certain single words, SiS papa, mama, &e., visible remains of that ancient form of speech. 2. Peonoun of the Second Person Singular. Comparison of Dialects. — Our first inquiry, as with respect to the pronoun of the first person singular, must be what appears to have been the primitive form of this pronoun. In Tamil, nt, which is properly the crude base, is invariably used as the isolated nominative, instead of nin — the form which would corre- spond by rule to ndn, the nominative of the first person singular. That nin originally constituted the nominative even in Tamil, appears from this, that the oblique cases in the higher dialect agree in using nin as the base to which the case-suffixes are attached, un is occa- sionally used as the inflexion in the classics, always in the colloquial dialect. Another form which is occasionally used in the classics is nti/, in which the final y appears to bear the same relation to n as the initial n of ydn or ndn of the first person — that is, it has either been softened from n, or is the primitive letter from which ?i was hardened. This final y appears also in di/ and oy, two of the personal terminations of verbs and conjugated nouns. The final n of this pronoun, though it is generally lost altogether in the nominative, and is only represented occasionally by i/, is invariably retained in the inflexional base, in which it. is the initial n that becomes liable to alteration. When the initial vowel is retained, the included vowel is either i ov u (nin or nun), generally the former, but when it is discarded, u {un) is the only vowel in use. The inflexions now described are nin, nun, un. In the personal terminations of the Tamil verb, this pronoun is repre- sented by the suffixes dff, oy, ei, or i; from each of which suffixes the 280 THE PRONOUN. final n, as well as the initial, has disappeared. In the poetical dialect of the language, the initial n at first sight appears to have retained its place in such forms as nadandanei, thou didst walk, and in the corre- sponding plural nadandanir, ye walked ; but the n of these pronominal terminations {nei and nir) 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-ei and nadanda-tr. 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 um, which is probably identical with the um or m which constitutes the normal sign of plurality in Dravidian pronouns, and is probably in itself the copulative 'and' or 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 um, as a plural in original signification. In the higher dialect of Tamil, dy and ir, 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., keldy, hear thou, kelir, hear ye. These forms appear at first sight to be identical with keldy, thou hearest not, and helir, 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 di as being used occasionally by the Tamil poets as a suffix of the second person singular of the imperative ; and if this representation were correct, it would be necessary to regard di as a pronoun, or as the fragment of a pronoun, of the second person singular. It is founded, however, on an error; for the word which Beschi cites in proof {ddi, become thou, from dgu, abbreviated into d, to become) is not really an imperative, but is the second person singular of the preterite ; and di is com- pounded of d, the sign of the preterite tense, and ^, the usual fragment of n% 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-di (for vanddy), thou earnest, and hedu-di (for kettdy), thou art ruined. The plural forms of this pronoun in Tamil are as follows : — nom. SECOND PERSON SINGULAR. 281 nir, niyir, fiivir, ningal; inflexion, num, um, ungal. nin, the singular poetical inflexion, does not become nim in the plural, as might be expected, and as we find it in Canarese, but only num. Personal ter- minations of the verb, ir, tr. Tamil grammarians give min {e.g., kenmin., hear ye) as one of the signs of the second person plural in the imperative. The nature of this form will be considered in the section on the " Pluralisation of the Personal Pronouns." In MalayMam the nominative is n%, as in Tamil in both dialects ; the inflexion nin, as in classical Tamil — e.g., n{naTck\ to thee ; plurals, nom. ntnnal, ninnal; inflexion ninnal, also in the poets nim (e.g., nim- mddu, with you), from the obsolete nom; ntm. The Tulu nominative singular is t (comp. Tel. ivu, from an obsolete i); inflexion nin^ — e.g., nina, thy. In nikk\ to thee, the inflexion is ni. Verbal termination a ; plurals, nom. ir (chiefly used as an honorific singular, like nir in colloquial Tamil), also nikulu ; inflexions ^r' and nikuV; verbal ending ar. In Canarese, the nominative of this pronoun in the colloquial dialect is nin-u, classical nin; but the crude form ni is often used instead of nin-u, as is always the case in Tamil. In both dialects the inflexion in nin — e.g., ninna, thy. In the personal terminations of the verb this pronoun is much changed in all the Dravidian dialects. It not only loses its initial n, like the pronoun of the first person, but its final n also disappears. Generally nothing remains in the verbal inflexions but the included vowel (probably the primitive pronominal base), .and that also is more or less modified by use. In the colloquial Canarese verb it appears as i, i, %ye, and e; in classical Canarese ay only, closely resem- bling the Tamil Ay. Plurals, nom. coll. nivu; class. n%m ; inflexion in both nim — e.g., nimma, your. Verbal terminations, coll. iri, iri, ari; class, ir. This ir is identical with one of the classical Tamil terminations. The Telugu nominative is nivu, expanded from nt 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 — viz., nivu, you. nt, the crude form, is also used, as in the other dialects. In the oblique cases, Telugu rejects the euphonic addition of vu, and uses ni 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 case is nin-u or nin-nu, and is evidently formed from a nominative nin-u. In the higher dialect of Telugu, ivu, from an obsolete nominative i, identical with the Tulu, is occasionally used instead of ntvu. The Telugu plural of this pronoun has miru as the nominative, mt as the 282 THE PROKOUN. inflexion, and mimu as the accusative. Both miru and mimu 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 nt of the other dialects that md, the Telugu plural of the first person, does to the ordinary Dravidian nd. How this change from n to m has taken place will be inquired into under the head of " The Plurals." The plural in the higher dialect is iru. In the personal terminations of the verb, Telugu rejects every portion of the pronominal root, and employs only the euphonic addition vu or vi. The Tuda nominative is ni, inflexion oiin, personal termination of verb i or e. Plural nominative nima, inflexion nim, personal termina- tion of verb i or c, as in singular. In the dialect of the Kotas, the nominative is ni, inflexion nin, personal termination of verb i. Plural nominative nime (also ntve), inflexion nim, personal termination of verb iri, tri. In G6nd, the nominative singular is immd, which is evidently an older form of the plural used as the honorific singular. The inflexion is ni {niwa, thy), personal termination of verb ni or i. Plural nomina- tive immdt, inflexion mi, as in Telugu ; personal termination of verb it. The personal terminations of the first and second person singular in G6nd require a little consideration. In both persons the initial n 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, dydtont, thou art becoming. In some other tenses {e.g., imperfect dnddn, I became, perfect ditdn, I have become), the termination of the first person resembles that in use in most of the other dialects. In the second person {dndt, dttt), the n, whatever its origin, disappears altogether, and is replaced by the ordinary Dravidian i. I prefer, therefore, to regard the n of the first and second persons, in these tenses, as the n of the pronoun of the third person singular, 6n, he, forming, when added to the root, a participial noun, dydt-on-d would then mean, I am one who becomes ; dydt-tn-i, thou art one who becomes. If this view is correct, nothing can be observed in these forms differing in reality from those in tbe other dialects. The Ku pronoun corresponds on the whole to the Telugu. Nomi- native singular %nu, inflexion n%, personal termination of verb i ; plural nominative ^r-■M, inflexion mz, personal termination of verb eru, dru. The Hajmahal nominative singular is nin, inflexion nin; plural nina, inflexion nim. Uraon nominative singular nien, inflexion nien ; plural nominative dsu, inflexion dss\ The Brahui nominative is nt, as in most of the Dravidian dialects, inflexion nd; plural nominative num, one of the inflexions of the SECOND PERSON SINGULAR. 283 plural in classical Tamil ; inflexion num {nuTnd, your) ; verbal termina- tion n, as in many of the Dravidian dialects (compare aren, we are, arcri, you are). See the " Table of Pronouns " of the second person for the forms found in the 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 lirst person singular, Tidn, ydn, dn, each of which claimed to be the best representative of the original form ; and of these, ydn seemed to carry with it most authority, and to be probably the source from which Tidn on the one hand, and dn on the other, were derived. With regard to the pronoun of the second person singular, there are only two forms (?^^7^, in) whose relative antiquity we are called upon to decide. No claim can be set up in behalf of yin as a pronoun of the 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 n of ntn or in (as of ndn^ ydn, dn) has already been ascertained to be merely a sign of the singular number. In the plural it is replaced by m, the sign of plurality, or r, ^V, a relic of ivar, they (prox.) This final n of the singular may, therefore, be dismissed from our considera- tion at once. On comparing nt and ^, with nd and d, it seems evident that if the initial n of ndn did not belong to the root, but was a pro- duct of nasalisation, the initial n of nin cannot safely be regarded as radical, li nd was derived from a more primitive yd or d, it seems evident that ni must have been derived from a more primitive i. The initial n of ni must be identical with the initial n of n^. Whatever the origin of the one may be, the origin of the other must be the same. Just as the initial n of nd disappears from all the verbal terminations of the first person, so the initial n of nt disappears from all the verbal terminations of the second. If this initial n 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 n 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 not radical, and that we are to consider t more primitive than m. Still the antiquity of the initial n of ni must be enormously great — almost equal to that of i itself, seeing that we find it, as we shall pre- sently see, in the Scythian of Behistun, and even in Chinese, in both of which the pronoun of the second person is ni. It is ni also in Bornu, a language of Central Africa. Even when looking at tlie Dravidian dialects alone, we cannot sup- 284 THE PRONOUN. pose nt much later in origin than 1 Whatever be the relative an- tiquity of Qii and ^, I consider the vowel, not the consonant, as the real pronominal base. The only question that remains, therefore, is, what is to be regarded as the oldest shape of this vowel 1 We find i, u, and alsOj but more rarely, a and e. The last two may be left out of account. The vowels most generally used are i and u. In the verbal terminations i has driven u out of the field altogether. On the whole, there seems to be more in favour of the antiquity of i than of that of «, though it must be admitted that u changes more readily in Dravi- dian speech to i than i to u — e.g., puli, Tam. a tiger, becomes in the pronunciation of the vulgar pili ; mun, before, becomes mm, (fee. It will be seen that generally in the Indo-European languages the vowel of the pronoun of the first person is u^ whilst in the Scythian languages it is i. 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 i and u 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 nin and nun as' the singular inflexion of the pronoun ; in the plural we find num and ungalj but not nim, though the nominative ntngal must be considered as the representative of an older nim. Extra-Dravidian RelatioTiship. — It has been shown that the Dravi- dian pronoun of the first person has affinities with each of the great Japhetic groups, with some special Scythian affinities. It will be found that the relationship of the pronoun of the second person is less extensive, but more 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 t (e.g., tu)^ or its euphonised equivalent s {e.g., cv) ; and the only other form found in any family of either of those groups is that which is built upon the consonant n, and of which the Cuneiform Scythian, the Chinese, and the Dravidian 7ii 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 tic. It has been conjectured that this pronoun had its origin in the demonstrative base t; but the investigation of this point is beyond SECOND PERSON SINGULAR. 285 our purpose, which is merely that of tracing its relationship. In San- skrit the pronoun of the second person singular is tva-m; in Zend til-m, and also thw\ as included in the accusative thwd, thee. Con- nected with the Sanskrit tva, there is a simpler form, ta, which is apparent in tava, thy; and we have analogies to this in the Kavi ta and the Semitic ta (included in antd, thou). The Semitic td is changed in the inflexions to M, a change which resembles that of the Kavi, which has ta as its nominative and ko as its possessive. Bopp sup- poses that yu, the base of the most common form of the plural of this pronoun, is derived from tu, and that va, the base of the Sanskrit secondary plural vas and of the Latin vos, is derived from tva. v, how- ever, is more frequently derived from m than from any other letter, of which we have seen an instance in the change of the ma of the first person into va in vayam. It is not very easy to explain how t became V and y. tva-m becomes tuva-m in Old Persian ; and from tu (itself derived from tv) proceeds the Sanskrit dative tu-hhayam, the base of which is allied to, or identical with, the Latin, Armenian, and Pehlvi tu; the ^olic and Doric rh ; the Persian, Afghan, and Singhalese tu ; and the Gothic thu. The th of the Gothic and Zend seems to point out the path by which the Old Greek ru was converted into oh. Mr Edkins, in his " China's Place in Philology," has suggested another origin for yu. He supposes it may be connected with ni or nu^ the Chinese pronoun of the second person, of which i or u was, he thinks, the primitive form. If this supposition should be correct, yu will then be the Indo-European equivalent, not only of the Chinese ne or nu, but of the Dravidian, which also is ni or nu — ni in the nominative, nu (nu-n) in the oblique. In the personal terminations of the verbs, in Sanskrit and most other languages of the same family, the earlier t 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, t, 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 si in the verbal terminations ; and si in like manner afterwards becomes s. 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 t; and the vowel by which s is enunciated is more frequently i or 2m THE PRONOUN. e, than ic or a. The Magyar has te in the singular, ti or tik in the phiral, with which we may compare the Armenian tu, thou, and tuk, you. The Mongolian tchi or dzi, thou, exhibits the progress of ti towards softening into si. In Finnish proper, the isolated pronoun of the second person singular is se or sina; but i retains its place in the plural, and the personal termination of the verb even in the singular is t. The chief peculiarity apparent in the Scythian form of this pronoun is, that it has generally been euphonised by the addition of a final nasal, the consonant n, precisely in the same manner as the pronoun of the first person singular. In the older Greek, Tvurj and touv corre- spond to iydjvri and syoov • and in like manner, in the languages which belong to the Scythian group, 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 tun, and in the Marathi and Gujarathi t4n. In some of those idioms, especially in the Gujarathi and Panjabi, the euphonic nasal appears in the oblique cases as well as in the nominative, but more commonly it is found in the nominative alone. In the Turkish family of tongues, sin or sen is the usual form of the pr9noun of the second person singular. The n retains its place in the oblique cases, but is lost in siz, the plural. Compare also the Georgian she7i, the Samoiede tail, tani, the Lappish don, the Yotiak and Mordvin ton (plural ti?!), and the Finnish sind, which alternates with se, sia, and sie. The euphonic origin of this n is most evident in the Esthonian dialect of the Finnish, which uses indifferently sa or siima for the second person, and ma or minna for the first. In the Mongolian and Manchu, )i appears in the oblique cases only. In Mongol the nomina- tive is tchi, in Manchu si; but the genitive in the former is tchini, in the latter sijii, and the corresponding datives are tchim-dou and sin-de. In Calmuck the nominative is dzi or dzima, genitive dzini, dative dzimddou, 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 pronouns compared above and the Dravidian nt. The final nd of the Finnish sind, and its equivalent, the final vti of the Greek rvvyj, are separable, euphonic, inorganic additions, and can have no real con- nection with nt, which is an ultimate root. It will be necessary for us therefore to go further in search of a really trustworthy analogy. SECOND PEKSON SINGULAR. 287 We have seen that the Indo-European and Scythian m — the initial of the pronoun of the first person — was probably the origin of the n of the Dravidian nd. Is it possible that the radical t of the pronoun of the second person in both those families of tongues was changed in like manner into n^ so as that tu or ti was the origin of the Dravidian ni? I think not. This is supposed by Gastrin, a very high authority, to be the history of the n by which the second person singular is often represented in the personal affixes of the Finnish and Turkish families. It may also be mentioned here, that a change of t into n is not quite unknown even in the Indo-European languages. It is somewhat fre- quently found to take place in Pali — e.g., te, they, masculine, becomes optionally ne ; td, they, feminine, becomes nd; and tdni, they, neuter, becomes ndni. In Sanskrit also, etam, him, is sometimes changed into enam. There is no evidence, it is true, that the n now under considera- tion — the initial n of the Dravidian ni — arose from any such process of change. That it proceeded from an older t would be a wholly gratuitous assumption, in so far as the internal history of the Dravidian languages is concerned. It would be more in accordance with precedent, indeed, to regard it as a mere nasalisation. Yet when we carry our inquiries a step further, and bring to view a pronoun with n, not t, in some of the oldest languages of the Scythian group, whilst on the one hand we shall find that the resemblance of this Scythian pronoun to the Dravidian amounts to identity, on the other hand we shall possibly find it allied, by a deep-seated, underground relationship, to the ordinary pronoun with t, so that it must always remain doubtful whether these are not two Japhetic bases of the pronoun of the second person, tu and ni, ori- ginally independent, like ah and ma of the first, or whether tu did not change into nu, and that to ni, at 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 ni. I begin with the most ancient analogy which is capable of direct proof, viz., the pronoun of the second person in Chinese. This is ni, precisely as in the Dravidian idioms. The plural is ni-men (compare wo-men, we, Ha-men, they) ; Old Chinese n^i, nu, yu, u. Mr Edkins thinks the oldest form of all was i, to which n was prefixed. The same ni appears in some of the dialects of the nomad tribes of the western frontier of China, tqjvards Tibet — e.g., Gy^mi and Horpa. The plurals in Gyami are ni-me; in Horpa, ni-ni. The Tibetan itself, 288 THE PRONOUN. though agreeing so closely as regards the first person, seems to present no analogy in the second. In the dialects of Barma, the prevailing form of the word is nang ; in the Karen dialects nah, 7ier, nd. The Manyak, a dialect of the same stock, which has d for the first person, has no for the second. All the analogous forms of Eastern Asia rest upon the Chinese ; and the antiquity of the Chinese language and lit- erature 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 nt, precisely as in the Dravidian idioms ; and the possessive which is used in compounds is m, which is identical with the similarly abbreviated basis of the Dravidian oblique cases of this pronoun. The plural of this pronoun is, unfortunately, unknown. The personal termination of the verb is not ni, but nti, which I suspect to be a compound of oii and ti, like the a7itdj anti, 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 ni (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 difiicult to explain, that in the Kanuri, a language of Bornu, in Central Africa, together with several other Scythian peculiarities, the pronoun of the second person is ni. The antiquity of the Dravidian pronoun of the second person is thus clearly proved, and this proof of its antiquity entitles us to regard as real certain resemblances to it which otherwise might be thought to be accidental. In the Ostiak, the most Dravidian of the Finnish dialects, in that compound of nouns with possessive suffixes which is so charac- teristic of the Scythian group, the first personal pronoun is represented by m, the second by n — e.g., ime-m, my wife ; ime-n, thy wife. In the Syrianian, another Finnish idiom, the second person of the verb, both singular and plural, is formed by annexing a pronoun of which n is the initial and radical — e.g., kery-n, thou hast done (from hery, to do), kery{ii)nyd, you have done. In nyd, you, we see indications of a sin- gular ny, thou, which has been pluralised, as is usual in these languages, by suffixing to it d or t. In addition to the allied forms discoverable in these compounds, we find in the Ugrian tongues several instances in which the isolated pronoun of the second person, which is used as a nominative, is plainly allied to the Dravidian. In the Ugro-Ostiak, or that dialect of the SECOND PERSON SINGULAR. 289 Ostiak wliicli is treated of in Castren's Grammar, thou is nen; you two, nin ; you (indefinitely plural), nen. Here ne or ni constitutes the pronominal base, and the final ?* of the singular nen is a formative or euphonic addition like that which has converted the Dravidian n% into ntn. The strong pronunciation of this Ostiak final n reappears, as we shall see, in Turkish. In other Ostiak dialects we find num and wa, and also (which is more deserving of notice) nyn, with a plural nynt. In Vogul we find analogies which are no less remarkable than the above — e.g., nei, ny, nan, nyngi, and nanh. Compare also the Vogul plurals nen and non. In the Finnish proper, the only trace of this pronoun which we observe is one which, but for the existence of such express analogies in other members of the family, we should probably have overlooked. In the plural of the second person of the Finnish verb {e.g., olette, ye are, pluralised from olet, thou art), the suffixed pronoun corresponds to that of which if or s is the initial ; but in the possessive compounds, in which we should expect to find precisely the same form, we find instead of it a plural possessive of which the initial and radical is n. Thus, the expression thy hand, being Mtes, we should expect to find your hand, Mtesse, or, more primitively, kdtette, like the corresponding Magyar Tcezeteh (from teh, you, another form of te), whereas the form actually used in Finnish is kdtenne. It thus appears that two pronouns of the second person retain their place in the Finnish ; one, the singu- lar of which is si, or more properly ti, the plural te; and another, hidden in the ancient compounds, the plural of which is ne, and of which, by dialectic rules, the singular must have been ni. Even in Turkish, we shall find traces of the existence of a similar pronoun. In the possessive compounds, the second person singular is not represented, as we should have expected it to be, by sen, as the first person singular is by m ; but n or ng is used instead (a nasal which corresponds to that of the Ostiak nen) — e.g., hdba-n, thy father; and as the final m of bdbd-m is derived from mi or me, I, we seem to be obliged to deduce also the final n of bdbd-n from an obsolete ni or ne, thou, which is allied to the corresponding forms that have been pointed out in other Scythian tongues. We find this possessive n or ng not only in the Osmanli Turkish, but. even in the Yakute, the Turkish of Siberia. The same n makes its appearance in the personal terminations of the Turkish verb, sen is more commonly used than n ; but n is found as the representative of the second person in those verbal forms which must be considered as of greatest antiquity — e.g., in the preterite of the auxiliary substantive ver^s, tdum, I was, iduii, thou wast, idt, he T 290 THE PRONOUN. was. In the Oriental Turkish the forms corresponding to these are hdldtm, bdldun, holdt ; 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 n into 2, or rather by adding z to the crude base. Thus, we is hiz (for miz), and you is siz. In possessive compounds i changes into u; and hence our father is hdhd-muz. In the same manner, your father is hdhd-nuz, indicating a supposititious, isolated pronoun, niz, you, corresponding to miz, we. Whilst u is used instead of * in Osmanli Turkish, the older and more regular i retains its place in the Oriental Turkish — e.g., uzil-niz, you yourselves ; in which you is niz or ngiz, and from which, when z, the sign of plurality, is rejected, we deduce the singular nt or ngi. The same mode of forming the plural termination of the second person appears in all regular Turkish verbs — e.^., compare hdrMu-nuz, ye feared, with hdrhdu-n, thou feardest. We see it also in the imperative Tcorkdu-nuz, fear ye. In all these instances, I consider the Turkish n -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 looks as if it might be regarded as identical with the Dravidian, Chinese, and Behistun-Scythian pro- noun. Even the libration between i and u, which we noticed in con- sidering the Dravidian forms of this pronoun, meets us again in Turkish. In the Himalayan dialects, we can scarcely fail to see Dravidian analogies in the Dhimal nd, in the Miri no, in the Garo ndd; and in the n 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 nt are almost wholly Scythian ; and this important circumstance, 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 class of tongues than to the Indo-European. 3. The Keplexive Pkonoun ' Self.' The Dravidian pronouns of the third person are, properly speaking, demonstratives, not personal pronouns ; and they will, therefore, be THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. 291 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 declined precisely in the same manner. It corresponds in meaning to the Sanskrit svayarn, to the defective Greek % and the Latin sui, sibi, se; with a range of application which is more extensive than 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. In Tamil the nominative singular of this pronoun is tdn : the plural of which (by the usual pronominal change of n into m) is tdm {tdiigal); and the inflexion, or basis of the oblique cases (which, taken by itself, has the force of a possessive), is formed, as in the case of the other personal pronouns, by simply shortening the included vowel — e.g., tan, of self, su% or (adjectivally) suus, sua, suum. In all its cases and con- nections tdn is found to be more regular and persistent than any other pronoun. The Canarese nominative is tdn in the ancient, tdn-u in the modern dialect : the inflexion is formed, as usual, by the shortening of the included vowel ; and the crude root td (without the formative n) is sometimes used instead of tdn-u, just as nd, of the first person, and nt, of the second, are occasionally used instead of ndn-u and nin-u. 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 tdnru, the inflexion and possessive tdn^a, the plural nominative tdm-u. tdr-u may be used instead of tdm-u. This appears to be a contracted form of tamar-u, a form also used in poetical Tamil, and meaning they who belong to one's-self. td may be used at pleasure, as in Canarese, for tdn-u. A similar regular- ity of formation and of declension is apparent in all the Dravidian dialects, so that further comparison of the forms of this pronoun seems to be unnecessary. The root or base is evidently td or ta, self. The final n of the singular, though only a sign of the singular number (like the final n of nd-n, I, and nt-n, thou), is one of great antiquity, for we find it even in the Brahui — e.g., the nominative singular is tenat (compare with this the inorganic t, which is suffixed to the personal pronouns in G6nd) ; geni- tive term, dative tene. tdn, self (like ndn, 1, and nin, thou), is of no gender. The use of this pronoun agrees, on the whole, with the use of the corresponding Indo-European reflexive. When not itself used as the nominative of a sentence, it always agrees with the principal nominative and with the governing verb, that is, with that verb which is in agree- ment with the principal nojainative. It is also used as an emphatic addition to each of the personal and demonstrative pronouns, like the 292 THE PRONOUN. Latin ipse, the Sanskrit svayam, or the English self, in the compounds myself, yourself, &c. — e.g., we say in Tamil ndn-tdn, I myself ; ni-idn, thou thyself ; avan-tdn, he himself ; aval-tdn, she herself ; adu-tdn, itself or that itself ; and tdm, the plural of td7i, is in like manner appended to the plurals of each of those pronouns and demonstratives. The reduplicated form of the inflexion, tat~tam, for tam-tam, is used to mean ' theirs respectively.' The Sanskrit svayam is indeclinable ; the Dra- vidian tan 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-dgi), 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, &c. — e.g., mey tdn, Tam., it is really true, sari tdn, quite right. In most of the above instances Hs a sonant, and is pronounced like soft th or d. One use to which the reflexive is put is peculiar to these languages — viz., as an honorific substitute for the pronoun of the second person ; and in this connection 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 tdn as an honorific pronoun of the second person, illustrates the possibility, if not the probability, of the ultimate origin of the Indo-European pro- noun tu, 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 base ta has been used as the first member of the compound instead of the regularly organised tam. This class of compounds especially abounds in Tamil, in which also em and nam, our, and um, your, are optionally used in poetry instead of tam or ta, with the same honorific significa- tion. The following illustrations are from Tamil alone. In the other dialects (except Malayalam, which here is in agreement with Tamil), some of the most interesting of these compounds are unknown, or the THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN". 293 different members of the compound have become so corrupted that it is more difficult to identify them than in Tamil. tamhirdn (Mai. tamhurdn), God, lord, the abbot of a Saiva monastery : the nearest English is his lordship ; from tarn, used honorifi- cally, and pirdn, lord (probably a derivative from the Sans, pra, before). embirdn, our lord, and umhirdn, your lord, are also used, pirdtti, tambirdtti, lady. Comp. emherumdn {em, our, perumdn, great person), our lord, literally our great one, a title common in poetry and in inscriptions ; (fem. perumdtti, lady.) tagappan, father; from tarn, used honorifically, and appan, father. This word is sometimes pronounced by Brahmans in the ancient manner, tamappan; in Malay alam it is both tagap- pan and tammappan : nearest English, his fatherhood. tandei, father, his fatherhood ; a more classical word than tagappan, yet almost as common (Can. tande, Tel. tandri, Mai. tanda). There can be no doubt that the first portion of this word is the honorific reflexive tarn, seeing that we find also in the Tamil poets endei {em), nandei {nam), our father ; and undei (um), nundei {num), your father. Comp. also mundei, ancestor, first father, from mun, before. It is difficult to explain tei {dei), the second member of the compound. It is 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. attei, dttdl, mother). If the tei of tandei, &c., is connected with this word, it must have come from an older abstract form, attei, meaning either father or mother, according to the connection (as tannei, mother, elder sister, is also used in the poets for elder brother) ; and this word attei we might possibly derive from the verbal root attu, to join, to lean upon. (See " Glossarial Affinities, Sanskrit and Scythian.") tdy, mother, her maternity ; from ta, the base of tarn, used honorifi- cally, and dyi, mother {ta-dyi) ; Can. tdyi. dyi, mother, matron, lady, is a more classical word than tdy, though retained in many compounds in daily use. Another form is dy (Tam.) This is identical in sound with a verbal root signifying to select ; but it is difficult to suppose that select, pretty, can have been the original meaning of one of the most ancient patriarchal Dravidian words for matron, mother. Another and periiaps more probable derivation is from d, ancient Tam., cow, from which dyi, fem., would naturally be 294 THE PRONOUN. formed, with the meaning of mistress of the cows. Comp . duhitri, Sans., a daughter, literally a milkmaid. dchchi, matron, is a South Malayalam form for dyi. dyar, Tam.- Mal. the epicene plural of this word, is a common poetical epithet for cowherds. iammei, mother; from ta, honorific for tarn, and ammei, an honorific word for mother, matron (also amman^ ammd, ammdl). tannei, mother; from ta, honorific, and annei, an honorific word for mother, probably identical in origin with ammei. This word means not only mother, but also both elder sister and elder brother. tameiyan^ elder brother, his eldership ; from tarn, used honorifically, and eiyan (sometimes ay an), a senior or elder, and therefore meaning also father, elder brother, or guru. Another very common word for elder brother is annan, annal, from annu, to resort to, to lean upon (Tel. auTia, Can. anna). Comp. tammun (poetical), an elder brother, from tarn and mun, before, his precedence-ship. taTnaJckei, elder sister, her eldership ; from tarn and akkei, elder sister (also mother). The ordinary Tamil forms are aJcM and aTckdl. iambi, younger brother ; from tarn, honorific, and pi, 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 pi (Mai. both tambi and tamhdri). Comp. with jo^, peidal, Tarn, and Mai., a boy, literally that which is fresh and green. The most probable explanation, though one which is not free from difiiculty, is that pi is for pin, after. Comp. tammun, Tam., from tarn and mun before, a poetical word for elder brother, tambi is explained by the native lexicographers as meaning phi-pivanddn, he who has been born afterwards. They also give pinntn, he who is after, as a synonym for tambi, and pinnei, the corresponding feminine or neuter abstract, as a synonym for tangei, younger sister. Probably pi was the primitive shape of pin, as mu was certainly the primitive form of mun; still it is difficult to see how the formative n (changing to r in pivagu, after), which was retained in mun when used as the final member of a compound, happened to be omitted altogether from pin. Equivalent forms of this word in poetical Tamil are embi, our younger brother, umbi and numbi, your younger brother ; probably also nambi (which see) is to be regarded as another form of the same word. THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN. 295 tangei, younger sister; from tam, used honorifically, and kei, a word of doubtful origin (Mai. tanga, Can. tangi, Coorg tange). It would seem from the Tamil poetical word na7igei, a lady, that kei does not mean one that is young, or one that comes afterwards, as I have supposed the pi of tambi to mean, but must have had a meaning in some way suitable to be applied ■ to women in general {mangel, a girl, looks as if it included the same kei); yet, on the other hand, we find in the Tamil poets this very word kei, in the shape of keiyei, an abstract noun, used as a synonym for tangei, a younger sister. This appears to settle the question as regards the meaning of kei; but the origin of the word continues doubtful. It cannot be connected with keimmei, keimben, Tam., a widow, that word being most naturally derived from kei (another shape of which is kasu), to be bitter; hence also the noun kei, adversity. We seem, therefore, to be obliged to fall back on kei, a hand, in the sense of a help, a handmaid, and to explain tangei as meaning her handmaidenship * — a meaning which suits well the position a younger sister would natu- rally have assigned to her. The corresponding Telugu word chellelu, younger sister, includes the meaning of playful, petted. namhi, a title of inferior priests, meaning probably, like tambi, younger brother (which see). Comp. nambiXri, properly nambutiri, the title of a class of Malay^lam Brahmans. Comp. also Telugu tammali, a petty priest. I notice in Coorg two instances of tam used honorifically, which are not in Tamil — viz., tammAvu father-in-law, from tam and mdvu (Tam. mAman), the same, and tammdvi, mother-in- law, from tam and m/ivi (Tam. mdmi), the same. Another remarkable use of the reflexive pronoun is the adoption of its possessive, or inflexional base, tan, of self, or self's, as the base of the abstract noun tan-mei or tanam, quality or nature, literally self n ess. tanam is the form of this word used in Telugu. Tamil uses both tanam and tanmei; but the latter can stand alone, whilst tanam is used only in compounds, mei is the regular formative of Tamil abstracts ; like our English nes, the Latin tass, or the Sanskrit twam. tanmei is identical in meaning with the Sanskrit tatvam, nature, property, which is derived from tad or tat, that, and is possibly allied to it in origin, though indirectly. * Compare with this meanine: of a younger sister the name of spinster, which is applied by ourselves to unmarried females ; and also the derivation attributed to duhitri [duhitar), Sans, daughter, viz., a milkmaid, the milkmaid of the family. J^yt) IHE PRONOUN. td or ta, tlie base of the Dravidian reflexive pronoun, has no connec- tion with, or resemblance to, any other pronoun of this family of languages, though it is unquestionably a pure Dravidian root. If we look at its 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-European or in the Scythian family, of demonstratives closely resembling ta or ta-n. We see examples of this resemblance in the Sanskrit tat, that (from ta, the demonstrative base, and t, the sign of the neuter singular) ; in tadd, then, at that time ; and also (with the t 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. Compare also the old Greek article, which is properly a demonstrative pronoun, rog, rrj, ro, 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 rriv-og, he, that, which is the form from which the -^olian xrjv-og, and the later Greek h-Kfiv-og, is supposed to have been derived (by a change similar to that by which the Hebrew pronominal sufiix M was derived from td). The resemblance between rriv and tdn 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., rav or w rav, Sir, My good friend, &c., and which has been derived by some etymologists from r^c-og, by others from an obsolete vocative of rO or Tvvril The same demonstrative base, with a similar final n, appears also in the Old Persian tail's (for tana-s), he ; and in the Scythian tongues we find it, either nasalised or pure, in the Finnish remote demonstrative tuo, and the proximate tama; in the Lappish tat, he, tan, of him (root ta); and in the Ostiak remote demonstrative toma, and proximate tema. The reflexive pronoun is used by the Seoni Gond both as a reflexive and as a demonstrative. Thus, in the " Song of Sandsumjee," in Dr Manger's paper (Journal of the Bengal A sialic Society), ten means him (not se, but ilium); tunna, his; and tdne, her and it. The reflexive signification also appears in the same song in tunwa (Tam. tan), suus-a-um. This seems to indicate that td was originally a de- monstrative. Even in Tamil we find, I think, a distinct trace of the demonstrative signification of the reflexive ta 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 adUf it, with its cases — e.y., marandanei {tanei, the accusative of tdn) THE EEFLEXIVE PRONOUN. 297 (k)kanden, I saw the tree, instead of maramadei, the other poetical form, or the colloquial marattei. (See the Noun — inflexional forma- tive am.) The strongest argument, perhaps, for considering the Dravidian ta or tdn, self, to be allied to the Sanskrit-Scythian demonstrative ta, is the circumstance that tan, the inflexional base of tdn, is used, 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 directly 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 t, the corresponding reflexive in every one of the Indo-European tongues {sva, se, &c.) had already allowed t to be weakened into s, before those tongues separated from the parent stem. 4. Plukalisation of the Personal and Reflexive Pronouns. I class the plurals of these pronouns together because they are formed from the same pronominal bases as their singulars (which have already been investigated), and because they are all formed on one and the same plan, viz., either by the addition of a pluralising particle (generally m) to the pronominal base, or by the substitution of that particle for the singular formative. Exceptions exist, but they are few and unimportant. Comparison of Dialects. — In the classical dialect of Tamil, the plurals of the personal and reflexive pronouns (?^4?^, I ; nt, thou ; tdn, self) are ydm or n^m, we ; 7iir, niyir, or nivir (instead of the more regular mm), you ; and tdm, selves. In the colloquial dialect a double plural has got into extensive use, which is formed by the addition to the classical plurals of gal, the sign of plurality which especially be- longs to the class of irrationals. In consequence of the existence of these two sets of plurals, a diff'erence in their use and application has gradually established itself. The classical or pure and simple plurals are now used in the colloquial dialect as honorific singulars ; whilst the double plurals — ndngal {ndm-gal), we ; ntngal (nim-gal), you; RTid tdngal (tdm-gal), selves — are used as the ordinary plurals. A double plural has crept "into Telugu also — e.g., mtralu (for miru), you, vdraiu (for vdru), they. Another point of difference between 298 THE PRONOUK. n(im and ndngal, the two Tamil plurals of the first personal pronoun, will be inquired into under a subsequent head. The formation of these secondary double plurals of the Tamil and Telugu is in harmony with a usage which is observed in some of the Gaurian languages. Of the Oriya, Mr Beames writes {Indian Antiquary for October 1872) : — " The plural of mu, I, is amhe (pronounced ambhe), and that of tu, thou, is tumhe {tu7nbhe); but as the learned have taken ambhe and tumbhe into use as equivalents for I and thou, they have had to make fresh plurals, ambhemdne, 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 is observed in the Turkish. In that language ben, I, is regularly plural- ised into biz, we ; and sen, thou, into &iz, you ; but those plurals are sometimes pluralised over again by the addition of ler, the ordinary suffix of plurality — e.g., biz-ler, we, siz-ler, you. In the verbal inflexions the initial consonant of each of the pro- nominal 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 colloquial dialect is 6m; in the classical dialect am, dm, em, em. The termination of the second person plural is ir or ir, the representative of nir. The reflexive pronoun td7n, selves, has no place in the verbal inflexions. Of the three High Tamil or classical plurals which have been mentioned — tidm, nir, and tdm — two form their plurals by sub- stituting m for the. final n of the singular, or by adding m to the crude root. This I consider to be the regular method of pluralising the per- sonal pronouns ; and the use of nir, you, instead of nim, is an abnormal exception. This appears on comparing it with nik-gal, the correspond- ing plural in the colloquial dialect, which is formed from nim — the plural that is required by rule, and which is found in classical Canarese. It also appears from the circumstance that nir is not the base of the oblique cases of the plural of this pronoun in any dialect of the Tamil. m constitutes the sign of plurality instead of r in the oblique cases of nir, precisely as in those of ndm, we. ndm is represented in the oblique cases in the classical dialect by nam and em; and by nam and engal {em-gal) in the colloquial dialect. In like manner, the oblique cases of the plural of the second personal pronoun are um and num in the higher dialect; and iiiigal (um-gal) in the colloquial, nin, the abbreviation of nin, being used in the classics as the inflexion of the old singular, we should have expected to find the corresponding nim (from nim) in the plural : but in the oblique cases i has given place to u. The final n of 7idn, nin, tdn, may be omitted in the nominative in PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 299 several of the Dravidian dialects, but the final m of the plurals (though softened in colloquial Canarese to vu) is never omitted. The reason is that the singular might often be taken for granted, or would appear sufficiently from the context, whilst, if the plural were meant, it was more necessary that it should be distinctly expressed. In Canarese the plurals of all the personal pronouns are formed in the classical dialect with perfect and beautiful regularity — e.g., dn, I, dm, we ; nin, thou, nim, you j tdn, self, tdm, selves. In the oblique cases the included vowel is shortened as usual ; and the only other change which takes place is in the weakening (as in Tamil) of the radical a of the nominative of the first person into e in the oblique cases — e.g., emma, our. In this particular, namma, the form which has survived in the colloquial dialect is more regular, and probably more ancient. The colloquial dialect substantially agrees with the classical, the chief difference consisting in the softening, in the nominatives alone, of the final m into vu — e.g., navu, nrvu, and tdvu, instead of ndm, nim, and tdm. In the personal terminations of the verb, the modern dialect uses eve, evu, and evu, as representatives of ndvu, we j the e of which forms corresponds to en, the termination of the Tamil singular. This final vu of the modern Canarese is not euphonic, like the vu of the Telugu singular, 7ii-vu, thou ; but is soft- ened from, and is the representative of, an older m. Though m is the true sign of the plural of the second person, as of the other personal pronouns, r is used instead in all the Canarese verbal terminations, as in those of all the other dialects. The ancient Canarese uses ir, the modern iri and tri. In Telugu the second personal pronoun is pluralised in the nomina- tive by r instead of m — e.g., mir-u, higher dialect iru, you; and in Telugu, as in all the other Dravidian dialects, r invariably forms the plural of the terminations of the second person of the indicative mood of the verb. It will be seen, however, in the sequel that there are indications in Telugu that the use of r in the nominative plural of the pronoun is abnormal. The m which constitutes the pronominal sign of plurality in Telugu is not softened into vu in the termination of the first person plural of the verb, as in Canarese. That termination is amu, dmu, emu, emu; and in the preterite it takes the shape of imi, through the influence of ti, the preterite formative. The plural of the second person is repre- sented by dru, iri, evu, eru, uru, and ru; of which r, the pluralising suffix of mtru, you, is the only essential element. Telugu differs from Tamil-Canarese in occasionally using tdr-u, softened from tamar-u, instead of tdm^-u, as the nominative plural of the reflexive pronoun. 300 THE PRONOUN. This irregularity, however, like that of the pluralisation of the second personal pronoun by means of r 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 is properly a possessive noun. The Telugu plurals mem-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 memu is mA, and that of mtru, mi — corresponding to the singular inflexion nd and ni. The objective case, however, follows the rule of the Tamil and Canarese — e.g.^ mamu or mammu, us, mimu or mimmu, you. It may, therefore, be concluded that the mode in which the inflexions mt and md are formed is irregular and of com- paratively late origin ; and that in Telugu, as in the other dialects, m is to be regarded as the ancient and regular sign of the plural of the personal pronouns. The chief peculiarity of these pronouns {mem-u and mir-u) in Telugu, is the change of the initial n into m. How is it to be accounted for that the Telugu plurals have m as their initial, instead of ?^ f — mem-u and mtr-ic, instead of nem-u and nim-u or nir-u — the sign of plurality prefixed, instead of being suflSxed ? I believe that this m is not to be considered as the representative of an older pronominal root ; but that it is merely the result of the euphonic attraction of the final m, which constitutes the regular sign of plurality. If the plural of the Telugu first person alone had m for its basis, we might possibly suppose that m to be radical and primitive, on account of m being, as we have seen, the basis of the corresponding Scytho-Sanskrit pronoun ; but we find the same initial m in the plural of the Telugu second person also. Now, as it can scarcely be doubted that n% the singular of that pronoun (agreeing as it does with the Behistun-Scythian and the Chinese, as well as with many of the Finnish forms) faithfully represents the earliest organised form of the Dravidian pronoun of the second person, it seems evident that mtm (the supposititious nominative from which the objective mim-mu has been derived) must have been altered from nim. We may, therefore, conclude that the same process must have taken place in the pronoun of the first person also. Telugu is more addicted to harmonic changes than any other Dravidian dialect. It alters both vowels and consonants for harmonic reasons so fre- quently, that the change from nem-u to mem-u, and from nim-u to mtm-u, would be thought by Telugu people a very natural and easy one. It occasionally drops also the initial ti or m of these words. PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 301 We have seen that the first person forms its plural in all the Dravi- dian idioms, properly so called, by changing the final formative of the singular n into m; and that the second person originally formed its plural in the same manner — viz., by substituting m for 7i, though the verbal endin^^s and the nominative of the isolated pronoun in some of the dialects are now found to prefer r. We have seen that the reflexive pronoun also forms its plural by discarding n and annexing m. Con- sequently we are now entitled to regard m as the most regular and ancient sign of plurality used by the Dra vidian personal pronouns. Origin of Pluralising Particles. (1.) Origin of ' r.' — We have already seen, under the head of the " Pluralisation of Nouns," that the epicene plural of the Dra vidian languages is ar or ir ; and that the a and i of ar and ir are probably the remote and proximate demonstra- tive bases, a and i, to which r, a sign of plurality, has been appended. ar and ^V, we have seen, may be regarded as equivalent to the more fully developed a{v)ar, i(v)ar, those people, these people. But how has a termination which is naturally appropriate to the third person only found its way into the second 1 In this manner, I apprehend. . ntr, Tam. you, takes also, as we have seen, in the Tamil classics, the form of nivir, and nhjiry and in this instance I have no doubt that the more classical form is also the more ancient. ni-{y)-ir or nt-{v)-ir will thus mean thou + they, and this compound will naturally acquire the signi- fication of you. The Sanskrit yushme, yo\x. (yz^ + 6'me = thou + they), is supposed to have a similar origin. The Tamil word, however, is still more suitable than the Sanskrit one to express the meaning required. ir in Tamil means not, as the Sanskrit sme is supposed to do, they, indiscriminately, without reference to the distance or proximity of the persons referred to, but, they who are standing nearer than certain other people. 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 used for ' you ' than is to be found in Sanskrit, or, I believe, any other language. An alternative explanation is that the ir of the plural pronouns is identical in origin with *r, two. On this supposition ntyir, nivir, nir, would mean ' two thous,' and would have been used first as a dual, then as a plural. (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 302 THE PRONOUK. been derived from iim, tlie 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 is um in Tamil and Malay alam, um or am, more commonly iim, in classical Canarese, H in colloquial Canarese, u 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, and identical with the Tamil-Malayalam-Canarese um, the m of which appears to be the ordinary formative m of neuter nouns, u is best explained as the intermediate demonstrative base ^i, correlative to the remote demonstrative base a and the proximate i. Tulu stands alone in using Id as its copulative particle. Whatever be the origin of um, its use as a copulative particle is of very great antiquity. Like the Latin que, it is incapable of being used separately, and is agglutinated to the word it qualifies. On the supposition of the final m, which constitutes the sign of plurality in Dravidian pronouns, personal and reflexive, being a relic of the copulative um, nam, we, and ntm, you, resolve themselves into nd-um, I-and, egoque, and nt-um, thou-and, tuque. This view is corroborated by the extensive use which is avow- edly made of this very um in the formation of Tamil distributive and universal nouns and pronouns. Thus^ evanum, every one, quisque ; engum, everywhere, uhique ; and epporudum, always, every time ; are unquestionably derived from evan, who, engu, where, and epporudu, what time, with the addition in each instance of the conjunctive par- ticle um, and ; so that the compound pronoun * every one ' is regularly expressed in Tamil, like quisque in Latin, by ^ who, and — '; everywhere, like uhique, by * where, and — ' ; always, by ' what time, and — .' In the same manner um is annexed as an auxiliary to some aflirmative uni- versal for the purpose of widening their application — e.g., elld-{v)-um, Malayalam, all, literally ' all and — ,* from ellvd, all, and um, and. This form is abbreviated in Tamil into elldm; which is regarded and treated by grammarians as a neuter plural. The corresponding epi- cene plural is elldr-um, all persons. In Tamil poetry eldm is regarded as a plural of the first person, meaning all we, in which dm probably represents dm, we. If then the addition of um, abbreviated to m, undoubtedly constitutes pronominal distributives and universals, may not the sign of plurality which is employed by the personal pronouns be an abbreviation of the same um, ? In poetical Tamil, personal verbs are sometimes pluralised by the addition of um — e.g., seygu, I will do ; seygum {seyg'-um), we, ye, they will do. So also seygum vandem, we have done (so and so) and come. Here seygu is an old future or aoristic verbal participle, capable of being used also as a finite verb, PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 303 and we find that by the addition of um it is pluralised, so as to corre- spond with the more fully expressed plural vandem, we came. In the same dialect of Tamil seydu (which in the modern colloquial dialect means having done) is sometimes used in the sense of I did, and seyd- um in the sense of we did. We have here distinct and evidently very ancient traces of the use of um as a sign of personal plurality. This use of um appears still more distinctly in the second person plural of the imperative of Tamil verbs in the colloquial dialect, which is much used as an honorific singular — e.g., Jcel (the root used as the first person singular imperative), hear thou ; helum, hear ye. This form has been still further vulgarised by the addition of gal, the sign of plurality belonging to irrational nouns — e.g., Tcelungal, hear ye. Compare the Telugu honorific singular (properly a plural) rammu, come ye, the regular singular of which is rd, come thou. Neither the Tamil um of the second person imperative, nor the corresponding Telugu mu or urnu, can be satisfactorily explained by identifying it with the Tamil um, the inflexion of the pronoun of the second person plural. It is best ex- plained by identifying it with the um by which that inflexion um itself (from nim), together with the other plurals of the personal and re- flexive pronouns, was originally pluralised. A parallel instance of the use of a copulative conjunction as a sign of plurality appears in Ostiak, in which the sign of the dual (ga, ha, gai, tkc.) is derived by Gastrin from ha or hi, also. Eoctra-Dravidian Relationship. — We now proceed to inquire whether final m, the distinctive Dravidian plural of the personal pronouns, forms the plural of this class of words in any other family of languages. m having a tendency to be weakened into n (of which there are many examples in the terminations of Tamil nouns), and m and n being generally equivalent nasals, the use of a final ti as a sign of the plural of pronouns may possibly be equivalent to that of m. If so, we may adduce as examples of plurals resembling the Dravidian the Brahui nan, the Chaldee andn, and the Ostiak men, we ; as also the Persian tan, you. A slight trace of the use of m as a sign of the plural may be noticed in the Beluchi mimihen, we, when compared with menik, I. In the Ostiak, a Finno-Ugrian dialect, the first person plural of the verb terminates in m, 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, is the plural of ma, the old Finnish I ; of w^hich na (from which the n of olen arises) is, as I have shown, an euphonic modification. We can 304 THE PRONOUN. 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 hi, I, he, we ; Magyar te, thou, ti, you ; Ostiak and Finnish ma, I, me (or men), we. I 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 n or n which is used by the corresponding singulars. In the vernaculars of Northern India we find the following instances of the use of n or n in the singular and m in the plural. Hindi main, I ; ham, we ; M, t4h, or taiii, thou ; tum, you. Gujarathi IiutI, I ; hame, we ; tUn, thou ; tame, you. Marathi, Mn thou ; tumhi, you. In Bengali and Oriya n disappears from the terminations of the singulars, but in the plural m retains its place as in the other dialects — e.g., Bengali toma or tumi, the inflexional base of the plural of the second person ; and Oriya tumbha, the base of the double plural, tumh- hamAne. The same distinctive m appears in the Pali-Pr4krit, the stock from which the Gaurian vernaculars radiated, in tumhe, you, amhe, we. Compare also the New Persian shumd, you, and the final m of hastem, we are. I quote the following from an article by Mr Beames in the Indian Antiquary for November 1872: — ^' hdm, plural of personal pronoun, first person; Hindi, Iiam. This is a peculiarly instructive form. The origin of this word in all the seven languages (of Northern India) is the Prakrit amhe. The Oriya, with its usual fondness for archaisms, still retains this form almost unchanged in dmbhe, where the b is merely the natural thickening of the pronunciation after m. Hindi has thrown the h backwards to the beginning of the word, making hame. In Mm we have the tendency, natural to Bengali, towards lengthening the short vowel, so that this form may be regarded as transitional between middle Hindi and the modern Bengali dmiJ' Similar and very striking analogies meet us in Greek. Compare the singulars lyuiv and rovv, lyuivr, and rovvr), with the plurals ri,as7g and vfJ^iTg. This resemblance, too, is strengthened when the vowels of the Greek plurals are compared with some of the corresponding Dravidian ones — e.g., compare tif^-iTg with the Telugu em-u, we ; and u/A-gTg with um, which is the base of the oblique cases of the Tamil PLURALISATION OF PERSONAL PRONOUNS. 305 plural of the second person. It also deserves to be noticed, that in the Greek, Persian, Gaurian, &c., m is not used indiscriminately by all nouns, or even by all pronouns, as a sign of plurality in general, but is invariably restricted to the pronouns of the first and second person — a usage which precisely accords with that of the Dravidian languages. A strong case for regarding the m of the above-mentioned Aryan idioms as closely allied to the m which constitutes the most distinctive sign of the plural of the three personal pronouns in the Dravidian family (in Canarese, dm, we 5 nim, you ; tdm, selves) has now been established. I do not wonder, therefore, that the late Mr Gover (in a privately-printed paper on the Dravidian personal pronouns) con- sidered that there was "no possible doubt as to their real and intimate connection ; " or that Dr Pope, in his " Outlines of the Tuda Grammar " (p. 5), should have said, though with hesitancy, " Nor can I think it clear that 6m (Tuda, we) is not related to the Sanskrit 'vayam, or to the Greek ^jz-c^s/s or (ififug, and Vedic asme" The evidence of relation- ship appears to me to be weakened by this reference to vayam. We have already seen that the am of vayam is properly a sign of the neuter singular, constituting vayam, we, like yHyam, you, an abstract noun — plural, indeed, in signification, but singular in form. It has been seen, also, that the same am appears in aham, I; tvam, thou; and svayam, self. When vayam and ydyam are set aside as not really related to the Dravidian forms, the probability of the existence of a real relationship between the Dravidian dm, ydm, we, and the Graeco- Vedic a(x(i-tg, asm-e, and still more between the Dravidian dm and the Bengali Mm, dmi, becomes, I admit, very great ; so also the probability of a relationship between um, the Dravidian oblique form of you, and the Grseco- Vedic ufiii-ig, yushm-e, and the um of the Hindi tum. I feel still, however, obliged to say, as I said in the first edition, that, on a more extended comparison and on closer consideration, this resemblance appears to me first to diminish and then to disappear. The more it is examined, the more the difficulties in the way of its re- ception appear to increase. Perhaps, indeed, no 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 to their earliest shapes before concluding that resemblances imply relationship. We have seen that the plural m of the Dravidian personal pronoun resolves itself most naturally into um, the Dravidian conjunctive particle, and, also. What is the history of the plural m of the Graeco-Gaurian personal pronouns? How far soever we trace back the Dravidian m, it is founcf to sustain no change, and to exhibit no signs of being descended from anything extrinsic to itself. On the IT 306 THE PRONOUN. 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. rHJ^iTi; and u/z-e/g, as is well known, are not the oldest forms of the Greek plurals. For 37/xs'c, the Doric and ^olic dialects have a/Agg, afMiMig, and a/^/z-s ; for h(LiTg they have 'o^Lzg, vfji./xsg, and v/d/xs ; of which forms the oldest and most reliable appear to be a/xfisg, or its unin- flected type a/A^as and vfjLfjt^sg or vfLfis. In 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 ham, the Gujarathi hame, the old Bengali hdm, the modern Bengali dmi, the Oriya dmbhe, are all derived from the Prakrit amhe. The Greek oifji^fis and the Prakrit amhe are evidently identical ; but what is the origin of both 1 In Zend the m and h of the Prakrit amhe change places, so that ahme may have been an older form. The plural nominative in Zend is vaem, answering to the later Sanskrit vayam; but all the oblique cases are built upon ahma (pointing to a nominative ahme) — e.g., ablat. 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 asme (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, ui^ixi, d/j,fMi-ig = TifLiTg ; dmbhe, hame, ham, hdm, dmi. 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 Prakrits into the modern Gaurian vernaculars — we still find an unvarying m (irresoluble except into um) used for the pluralisation of the personal pronouns. In like manner, on comparing i/^// a> 0) o w 0.2 ^ s § g s O "iJ ?>i >s Si . ^u ?s ?e g S2 c "^ ^ '^S • a ^ . 5zi O Q "^ O o m W H O 5^ O O Ah j.-^ 'B fe S3!> "d +^ 0) c^ § '^:5 .?^ •S'S ^ "if ?^ a ° ^ ?:. ii •Iff ^. :s C '^ ^5* e.riL^-l-:^:f -d fil •?r <«-l o f«^ ^S I4 1 ^ rQ ^ s 2^ >« ^ s ..i rO a s fe^ <» -^^ o ^ It a ° .^ s ^^•^ 0.2 .1^ ^i 5^ a ^ -S'^ . g P5 fl§l^ S .?i ^ ?: g S . . si S 8 sT-^ -sj- i •5>» 5;'«o -Si 'ei -ea ^<:*> '> 'S* "cO ^ S ss ss ss s ss Si Si ss Si si se 3 o M H ? s ^^j ?5>' a '§ j^ si -^ . - s^ . 5> si*^ Ig § 7 . . si si" . o ^^ ^s> 'iS ^5 '5 g i r?i <(>» '5 -5 •cc^ g S si <^* ss .§ t§ S si si Si Si iz; g . i • o ••'••• -s • • -H w o !z; P o § p^ Ph s ^ i 1 1-^ ^^ 1^ ^sS h§ § g si ^ 5S S^ >i g ?S e e g y rO ^ "^r vs • ^ ^ . s , J^J « !o '> g -^s « •? s^ s C^ <>< ^s" ^ r4 ?^ ■ij^ S , •<^ ?s . CO g s , , ff ^ s? ^^^ .4> s ^ <5J a» « si « 1 ^ c « ?i C •y g ^g ^< .a rS3, ' r^ > EH (4 < O O h4 < p appea. tahen ; tdpe {appe ?) ((^ppe, tdpe ?) dpid-tana. ida-wonan. miwa. imed. yeinnaton. miwa, aduniwand. caret. caret. miwa. ammanate, caret. ningalide, nine-hududu. thor. P o .3 umma. ummd. tdm ; dm-rea {dmi ?) ummd. dmd-tana. niwd. niwd. inet. ineten. niwa. caret. dma. nimtu. ammanate. nenne. ningadeo, ninadidi. thor. i i iilllllllliiliil-l ' .^ y^ ^fo : ' 314 THE PRONOUN. SECTION 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 separately as far as possible, but it will often be necessary to treat them together. 1. Demonstrative AND Inteeeogative Bases. 1. 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 an interrogative base signifying * what.' The words which signify man and woman have gradually lost the definiteness of their original signification, and shrunk into the position of masculine and feminine terminations. They are no longer substan- tives, but mere suffixes or signs of gender ; and are so closely incor- porated with the demonstrative bases that it requires some knowledge of the principles of the language to enable us to separate them. In comparison, therefore, with the Turkish and Ugrian languages, in which there is but one pronoun of the third person, the Dravidian languages, which possess a great variety, appear to considerable advantage. Nevertheless, the speech of the Dravidians appears to have been originally no richer than the other Scythian idioms ; and to have at length surpassed them only by the Aryanistic device of fusing that- man, that-woman, that-thing, into single euphonious words. The signification of man and woman still shines through in the masculine and feminine terminations; but no trace remains of the words by which a thing and things were originally expressed, and which are 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 DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES. 315 t, the proximate, and w, the medial demonstrative ; together with e, which is the suffix of emphasis in most of the dialects, but is a demon- strative in Ku. The first two — viz., a, the remote, and ^, the proxi- mate demonstrative — are the most widely and frequently used. The medial u is occasionally used by the Tamil poets, more frequently in classical Canarese and in Tulu, to denote a person or object which is intermediate between the remote and the proximate ; and it wdll be found that it has ulterior affinities of its own. e, the ordinary Dravi- dian suffix of emphasis, is used as a demonstrative in Ku alone — in addition however to a and i — e.g., evdru, they. It appears also in the Ur^on edah, this, the correlative of hildak, that. The use of e 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, i, and u; and it will be found that every other form which they assume is derived from this by some euphonic process. 2. Interrogative Bases. — There are two classes of interrogatives in the Dravidian languages — viz., interrogative pronouns or adjectives, such as, who % which 1 what ? and syntactic interrogatives, such as, is it? is there? Interrogative pronouns and adjectives resolve themselves in the Dravidian tongues into interrogative prefixes, resembling the de- monstrative prefixes already considered, by suffixing to which the for- matives of number and gender we form interrogative pronouns. The interrogative particle itself, when simply prefixed to a substantive, constitutes the interrogative adjective what ? (a.) The most common interrogative prefix is the vowel e. In all the Dravidian dialects this prefix is used in the formation of pronomi- nals, in precisely the same manner as the demonstrative bases a and i. It forms one of a set of vocalic prefixes {a, i, u, and e), which occupy one and the same position, obey one and the same law, and difi'er only in the particular signification which is expressed by each. The unity of principle pervading these prefixes will be clearly apparent from the subjoined comparative view. The forms which are here exhibited are those of the Tamil alone ; but in this particular all the dialects agree on the whole so perfectly with the Tamil, and with one another, that it is unnecessary to multiply examples. I exhibit here an alternative (probably an older) interrogative base in yd, which will be inquired into further on. 316 THE PRONOUN. Proximate Demonstrative i. Remote Demonstrative a. Intermediate Demonstrative u. Interrogative e or ya. Mas. sing. Fern. do. Neut. do. Epic. plu. Neut. do. ivan, hie. ival, hsec. idu, hoc. ivar, hi, hae. ivei, haec. avan, ille. aval, ilia. adu, illud. avar, illi, illae. at;e*, ilia. uvan. < uval. < udu. < uvar. \ uvei. \ evan or ydvan, quis'? eval or ydval, quae? edu or 2/<^c?w, quid 1 evar or ydvar, qui ? quae ? eva or ydvei, quae] I need not call attention to the beautiful and philosophical regular- ity of this quadruple set of remote, proximate, and intermediate de- monstratives and interrogatives. In no other language or family of languages in the world shall we find its equal, or even its second. In addition to which, the 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 (with the solitary and partial exception of the New Persian), but are also associated with a corresponding interrogative vowel of which the Indo-European tongues are totally ignorant, tends to confirm the sup- position which I have already expressed, that the Dravidian family has retained some Prae-Sanskrit elements of immense antiquity ; and, in particular, that its demonstratives, instead of being borrowed from Sanskrit, represent those old Japhetic bases from which the demon- stratives of Sanskrit itself, as well as of various other members of the Indo-European family, were derived. (6.) 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 one interrogative base, and if so, it must have been yd, and e must have been corrupted from it. The process by which yd became e is tolerably clear, a evinces a tendency to be weakened into e. (See " Part I., Sounds.") We have seen an illustration of this in the cir- cumstance that the Sanskrit yama, the name of the god of death, becomes in Tamil ema{n), pronounced yema{n). In Tulu, ydr, who, becomes yer. This is a considerable step towards e. Then, also, e is commonly pronounced as ye, and e as ye ; and in Telugu this y is frequently written, as well as heard. This would facilitate the omission of the y in writing, when yd came generally to be weakened into ye. DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTEREOGATIVES. 317 e alone would in time have tlie same force as ye, and would come to be regarded as its equivalent. The long form e still survives in the Malaydlam evan, eval, he, she, for evan, eval; and in the Tamil and Malaydlam edu, and the Telugu edi. In Telngu e sometimes directly corresponds to the Tamil yd — e.g., compare ydndu, Tam. where, when, a year (nasalised from yddu), with the Telugu edu, where, edi, a year. We see also this long interrogative e in the Telugu ela, how, in what manner, compared with dla, ila, in that manner, in this manner. There is a remarkable change in Canarese of the interrogative yd into dd. We may say either ydvan-u or ddvan-u, what man % ydval-u or ddval-u, what woman ? ydvadu or ddvadu, what thing 1 So also the crude interrogative is ydva or ddva, who, which, what ? In Tulu we find the same dd, which ? alternating with vd and vova ; also ddne, what 1 ddye, why 1 In these instances the analogy of the other dialects leads me to conclude yd to be the older and more correct form of the interrogative base. In yer, who 1 yd appears as ye, which is a very trifling change. The Gond interrogative hd and ho appear to be hardened from yd, like the Tulu vd. In High Tamil, yd is not only prefixed adjectivally to substantives (like a, e, and e) — e.g., yd-{h)Mlam, what time 1 but it is even used by itself as a pronoun — e.g., yd-{s)seyddy, what hast thou done ? It forms the basis of only one adverbial noun — viz., ydndu, Tam. when 1 a year, a correlative of dndu, then, and zndu, now. The only use to which yd is put in the colloquial dialect of Tamil, is that of forming the basis of interrogative pronouns j a complete set of which, in Tamil as well as in Canarese, are formed from yd — e.g., ydvan, quis? ydval, quae ? yddu, quid ? ydvar, qui^ quoe ? ydvei, quce ? The Canarese inter- rogative pronouns accord with these, with a single unimportant excep- tion. The neuters, singular and plural, of the Canarese are formed from ydva, instead of yd — e.g., ydvadu, quid? (for yddic,) and ydvavu, quae ? (for ydva.) This additional va is evidently derived by imitation from the euphonic v of ydvanu, he, and its related forms ; but it is out of place in connection with the neuter, and is to be regarded as a cor- ruption. In Tamil, a peculiar usage with respect to the application of the epicene plural ydvar, qui, quce, has obtained ground. It is largely 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 when thus used, ydvar is abbreviated into ydr — e.g., avan ydr, who is he % (literally he who ;) aval ydr, who is she 1 ydr has also been still further corrupted into dr, especially in compounds. 1. Demonstrative and iMerrogative Pi^onouns. — The original char- acter of the demonstrative bases, like that of the interrogative, is 318 THE PRONOUN. best exhibited by the neuter singular, the formative of which does not commence with a vowel, like an and al (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 i in Telugu, a very short u in the other languages. The remote and proximate neuter singulars are in Telugu adi, idi, that (thing), this (thing); the interrogative edi, what (thing) ; in Tamil, Malayalam, and Canarese they are adu, idu (with the in- termediate udtc), and edu. In Gond the demonstratives are ad, id. The anomalous forms of the Tulu and the Tuda will be considered 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 a, i, or u and d, and therefore no necessity for euphonic insertions, it is evident that the a, i, and u of the neuter singulars cited above constitute the purest form of the demonstrative bases. The suffixes which are annexed to the demonstrative bases a, i, 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 an for the masculine, al for the feminine, ar for the epicene plural, and ei or a for the neuter plural ; and v is the consonant which is most commonly used to prevent hiatus. The following, therefore, are the demonstrative pronouns of Tamil — viz., avail, ille ; ivan, hie ; aval, ilia ; ival, hsec ; ava7% illi ; ivar, hie ; avei, ilia ; ivei, hsec. To these must be added the intermediates uvaii, uval, icdu, uvar, uvei, which do not admit of being translated by a single word. I quote examples from Tamil alone, because, though different formatives of number and gender are sometimes annexed in the other dialects, those differences do not affect the demonstrative bases. The anomaly which will be noticed in the case of Tulu 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- strative bases is the only point which requires to be examined here. The demonstrative bases being vocalic, aiid all the suffixes, with the exception of the neuter singular, commencing with a vowel, some euphonic consonants had to be used to keep the concurrent vowels separate and pure, v, though most frequently used to prevent hiatus, is not the only consonant employed for this purpose. The Ku being but little attentive to euphony, it sometimes dispenses altogether with the euphonic v, and leaves the contiguous vowels uncombined — e.g., ddnju, he ; ddlu, she. Even Tamil sometimes combines those vowels DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERHOGATIVES. 319 instead of euphonically separating them — e.g., ydvar, who? is com- monly abbreviated into ydr ; and this is still further softened to dr in the colloquial dialect. In the higher dialect of Tamil, n is often used euphonically in- stead of V, especially in the personal terminations of the verbs. Thus, instead of irunddn (for irundavan), he was, the poets sometimes say irundanan ; and for irundava^ they (neuter) were, the form which we should expect to find used, irundana is universally used instead. This euphonic v has in some instances come to be regarded as an integral part of the demonstrative itself. In the nominative plural of the Gond neuter demonstrative, the final and characteristic vowel a has disappeared altogether, without leaving any representative — e.g.^ av, those (things) ; iv, these (things). . In the oblique cases a is repre- sented by e. In Telugu, though the nominatives of the neuter plural demonstratives avi and ivi use v merely as an euphonic^ yet in the oblique cases, the bases of which are vd and vi, the demonstrative vowels have got displaced, and v stands at the beginning of the word, as if it were a demonstrative, and had a right per se to be represented. In the masculine singulars vddu, ille ; vidu, hie ; and in the epicene plurals vdi'u, illi ; viru, 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 v, however, is not a demonstrative, and that the use to which it is put in Telugu is abnormal, is shown by the fact that in dd and di, the inflexions of adi and idi, illud and hoc, the neuter singular demonstratives of the Telugu d, though certainly not a demonstrative, nor even euphonic, but simply a sign or suffix of neuter singularity, has been advanced to as prominent a position (by a similar euphonic displacement) as if it belonged to the root. Compare especially the corresponding Telugu interrogative. In Tulu the proximate neuter singular demonstrative is indu or undu, the remote avu. indu and undu correspond to the Tamil proxi- mate idu and intermediate udu: the only difference consists in the nasalisation of the d. avu, the remote demonstrative, though a neuter singular, is identical in form with the Canarese avu, they (neuter). The V of avu seems to be merely euphonic, as it disappears altogether in the plural, which is not avukulu, but eikulu (avu = ayu = ei). The corresponding masculine pronoun is dye, he, in w^hich y is used euphonically where v would have been used in Tamil. In the feminine dl\ 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, imhe, he ijiic)., corresponds to the Tamil ivan, the Old Canarese ivam. The 320 THE PRONOUN. euphonic v of those languages seems to have been hardened into w, and this m to have become mh. The plural of the same is mer' (the remote is t^r, for avar). The feminine proximate she (hsec) is moV, the plural of which is mdhulu. mer stands for ivar = imar, and mdV for ival = imal. Compare the apparent disappearance of the demonstrative bases i and a in the Telugu vtru and vdru, they, proximate and remote, for ivar and avar. See also "The Noun," epicene plural, in mxlr. The same peculiarity appears in the Tulu demonstrative adverbs. avulu, there, corresponds with similar words in the other dialects (Can. alii); but mUlu, here, presents the same peculiarity as mol, haec. In the Tuda dialect the pronoun of the third person is the same for both numbers and for all three persons, like the Sanskrit reflexive pronoun svayam. atham represents everything of which * that ' can be predicated ; itham is the equivalent for this. With atham, itham^ compare the Telugu atadu, atanu, dtahdu, dtadu, itadu, itanu, UadUj ttanu ; the Old Canarese singular masculines dtam, itam, Utam. The final am of the Tuda is occasionally dropped. Tamil possesses a complete set of abstract demonstrative and inter- 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, i, ic, e), with the addition of mei, the ordinary formative of abstract nouns, which we have already noticed in tan-mei, nature, literally self-ness, in the section on the reflexive pronoun tdn. The initial con- sonant of mei is doubled by rule after the demonstrative and inter- rogative vowels. The words referred to are immei, this-ness ; ammei, that-ness; ummei, an intermediate position between that-ness and this-ness j emmei, what-ness. In use, the words chiefly denote the different states of being or births, immei, the present state or birth, is the only word of the set in common use ; the rest are found only in the poets, ammei (common equivalent mavumei, other-ness) denotes the future birth ; ummei, the birth before the present ; emmei, what birth ? generally found with the addition of um, and so as to give the meaning ' 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, i, u; e or 7/d. There are traces also of the existence of two classes of pronouns formed by means of the addition to the same vowel bases of 7n, the DEMONSTRATiyES AND INTERROGATIVES. 321 equivalent of whicli is u, or of I. Pronominals ending in I are used chiefly as adverbs of place and mode. There are exceptions, however — e.g., alia, Tel., that, has the force of an adjective {alladi, that thing). See Adverbs : formative I, V. The demonstrative pronouns and pro- nominals ending in m or n are not free from doubt: I shall, therefore, adduce first the interrogatives belonging to this class, about which no doubt can be entertained. Each of the dialects possesses a neuter interrogative pronoun, formed from the interrogative base e or e, and the neuter formative n or m. This formative is more abstract than d, but less so than mei. ed-u means which ? en, what 1 In Tamil we find en, what ? from which is formed the singular appellative ennadu, what thing? and the plural enna, what things ? en is also lengthened into en, the ordinary mean- ing of which is why % Though enna is properly a plural neuter, it has come to be used also as a singular, and is even turned colloquially into a singular neuter noun, ennam — e.g., ennamdij, howl Malayalam uses en, like Tamil, meaning what 1 rather than why? but does not use en; instead of this we have endu, what ? which, however, is probably the Malayalam shape of the Tamil ennadu = en-du. In Canarese enu is not a mere interrogative particle, but a regularly declined interrogative pronoun, like the vulgar Tamil ennam. We have substantially the same word in the Telugu emi, what? why? emi bears the same relation to edi, Tel. what (thing) ? that en in Tamil bears to edu. The only difference is in the use of the more abstract n or m as a neuter formative, instead of d, which gives more distinctly the sense of the neuter singular. In the compound word emo, Tel., I know not what (Tam. Mai. Can. end), from em and 6, the particle of doubt, we see that emi is a secondary form of em; and by the help of Tamil we are able to trace this em back to the shorter form em. eni, which I consider the equivalent of emi, is used in the conjugation of Telugu verbs as a conditional particle ; properly it implies a question. We now return to the demonstratives which appear to be formed from the demonstrative vowels a, iy 2c, with the addition of m or 7i. am, that, appears to survive in the am which is used so largely as a formative by neuter nouns in Tamil and Malayalam ; and possibly also in am, which seems to be the oldest sign of the Dra vidian accusative case. In each of these instances an is often used instead of am. See the sections treating on these formatives and case-signs in Part III., " The Noun." im shows itself in the Canarese sign of the ablative case, originally a locative, and in the corresponding Tamil in, with which il corresponds. The primitive ^neaning seems to be this place, here, and hence, a place, a house. Both al and il appear also in verbal deriva- 322 THE PRONOUN. tives, especially in Tamil, in which, e.g.^ tlie number of nouns derived from verbal roots which take al or il as their formative, is almost as large as those which take am or an. Dr Gundert derives from am or im the Tamil demonstrative adjectives anda, that, inda^ this; and I presume would attribute the same origin to the Telugu and Canarese adjectives anta, inta, &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 had an instance of this nasalisation before us just now in the Tulu pronoun indu, imdu, 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 inda, the Canarese sign of the ablative, from im; and the Tamil adverbial nouns andru^ indmc, endru, that day, to-day, what day, seem to be formed either from am, im, em, or from al, il, el. See the Demon- strative and Interrogative Adverbs. A very interesting inquiry remains. Is um, the Tamil-MalayMam particle of conjunction, and, even (Tel. u, classical Can. um, am; coll. Can. il), to be regarded as a demonstrative pronoun, formed from u, the intermediate demonstrative base, and the formative m, corresponding in origin to the demonstrative am and im, and also to the interrogative em, considered above ? That this is the origin of um is one of the most ingenious of the many ingenious suggestions' con- tained in Dr Gundert's communication. In his Malayalam. dictionary he prefers to derive um from u, the supposed root of the verbal noun uyar, height, with the meaning of above. In classical Canarese am is sometimes used as the equivalent of um ; and this seems to connect the particle at once with the demonstratives. In Tamil poetry we find an adverbial demonstrative of place, umhar, with the meaning of the intermediate demonstrative u, the correlatives of which are amhar, that place, imbar, this place, and emhar, which place 1 Umhar 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 um, the conjunctive particle, the meaning above, which is one that suits it exceedingly well, without any inconsistency with its ultimately demonstrative origin, um at the end of verbs changes occasionally in the Tamil poets to undu, which reminds one of the undu, this (thing), and also yes, of the Tulu. 2. Demonstrative and Interrogative Adjectives. — When the demon- strative bases a and i 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- DEMONSTKATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES. 323 tives, either the initial consonant of the substantive is euphonically doubled — e.g., anndl {a-{n)-ndl), Tam. that day; or if this euphonic doubling is not resorted to, the demonstrative vowels are lengthened. Tamil invariably adopts the former plan : the latter is more common in MalayMam and Canarese. When the substantive commences with a vowel, and v is inserted as usual to prevent hiatus, Tamil, by a dialectic rule of sound, doubles this v, as if it were regarded as an initial con- sonant — e.g., when Hr, Tam. a village, receives this prefix, it becomes not avdr {a-{v)-ii7-), but avvilr. The origin of this doubling of the initial consonant of the word to which the demonstrative vowel is pre- fixed, is to be ascribed to the emphasis which is necessarily included in the signification of the demonstrative. Through this emphasis a and i assume the character, not of ordinary formatives, but of qualifying words ; and the energy which they acquire influences the initial con- sonant of the following substantive, which is no longer an isolated word, but the second member of a compound. In the same manner and from a similar cause, when Sanskrit words which commence with a privative are borrowed by Tamil, the consonant to which a is pre- fixed is often doubled, at least in the colloquial dialect — e.g.^ anndnam (a'{n)-ndnam), ignorance. The occasional lengthening of the demonstrative vowels, when used adjectivally, in Malay ^lam, Canarese, and the other dialects (without the doubling of the succeeding consonant), is merely another method of effecting the same result. The emphasis which is imparted in this manner to the demonstrative, is equivalent to that which the doubled consonant gives ; and hence when the demonstrative vowels are length- ened, from d and I to d and i, the succeeding consonant always remains 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 not originally have been long, and that the use of long d and i as adjectival prefixes, instead of a and i, is owing to emphasis. Some curious illustrations of the lengthening of a vowel through emphasis alone, are furnished by the common speech of the Tamil people — e.g., adigam, much, large — a word which is borrowed by Tamil from Sanskrit — when it is intended to signify very much, is colloquially pronounced adtgam. Similar instances might be adduced from each of the colloquial dialects. The only peculiarity which requires notice in the use of the interro- gative prefix e, is the circumstance that it is occasionally lengthened to e, precisely as a and i are lengthened to d and 1 In Tamil this emphatic lengthening is vary rare. It is found only in the neuter singular interrogative pronoun edu, what or which (thing ?) quid 1 324 THE PRONOUN. ■whicli sometimes, especially in composition, becomes edu ; and in the interrogative en, what, why'? which is ordinarily lengthened to en. In Malayalam edu and en have entirely displaced edu and en. In Telugu also this increase of quantity is common. It appears not only in emi and ela, why? but is often used as the interrogative prefix, where Tamil invariably has short e. Thus, whilst Tamil has evvidam, what manner? how? Telugu says either evvidhamu or evidhamu. So also, whilst Tamil occasionally only uses edu^ quid, instead of the more classical edu, the corresponding interrogative of Telugu is invariably edi, and its plural evi. On the other hand, the Telugu masculine interrogative pronoun evvadu, quis? preserves the same quantity as the Tamil evan; and even when the prefix is used adjec- tivally, it is sometimes e (not e) as in Tamil — e.g., eppudu, what time? when? and epudu, epdu, in poetry, but not epudu. In the Tulu interrogatives of time, e is the interrogative base ; in those of place — e.g., 6lu, where (pronounced wdlu), e is replaced by 6. In addition to the use of the simple vowels a, i, and e, and their equivalents d, i, and e, 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 prefixes. The adjectives referred to may be called by right demonstra- tive adjectives. They are anda, that, inda, this, enda, which ? or what? — e.g., anda maram, that tree, inda nilam, this land, enda dl, which person ? These demonstrative and interrogative adjectives are unknown to the other dialects of the family. They are unknown even in Ma- layalam, and in the higher dialect of Tamil itself they are unused. They appear to have been developed in Tamil subsequently to the separation from it of 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 difi"ering 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 arc used more like adverbs than like adjectives. They are in both languages anta, inta, enta, with a few dialectic diff"erences of no importance. Connected with these is the Tam.-Mal. adjective inna, such and such — e.g., inna Hr, 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 a which is one of the most common formatives of the relative par- ticiple, and the most common case-sign of the possessive, by means 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 head of " Demonstrative Pronouns." I should here add the Telugu triplet of adjectives itti, atti, etti, this like, that like, what like 1 Also the Canarese triplet, with a signification partly adjectival, partly adverbial, initu, anitu, enitu, this much, that much, how much % With this is connected the Telugu set of secondary pronouns, indaru, so many people, inni, so many things, with their corresponding remote and interrogative forms, andaru, anni; endarUj enni. The demonstrative and interrogative bases zY, al, el are used, as has been mentioned, almost exclusively as adverbs. One of them makes its appearance in Telugu as an adjective, viz., alia, that {e.g., alladi, that thing). Both in Tamil and Malay^lam the demonstrative pro- nouns adu, idu are often used instead of the demonstrative adjectives a, i, anda, inda, in Tamil, and d, i in Malay^lam — e.g., adu Mriyam, Tam. that matter, adu porudu, Mai. that time. This usage illus- trates the manner in which I suppose anda, &c., to have been derived from adu, &c. 3. Demonstrative and Interrogative Adverbs. — All Dravidian adverbs, properly speaking, 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 capable of being declined are rarely declined. Whether declined or not declined, they have generally the signification either of the dative or of the locative case. The latter is the more usual, so that words literally signifying that time, what time 1 really signify at or in that time, at or in what time ^ Any noun whatever, conveying the idea of relation, may be converted into a demonstrative or interrogative adverb by simply prefixing to it the demonstrative or interrogative vowels. There is a class of words, however, more nearly resembling our adverbs, formed by annexing to the demonstrative and interrogative vowels certain formative suffixes. The suffix is not of itself a noun, like the second member of the class of words mentioned above. It is merely a formative particle. But the compound formed from the union of the vowel base with the suffixed particle is regarded as having 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 the demonstrative and interrogative adverbs of the various dialects shows that the same, or substantially the same, word is an adverb of place in one dialect, an adverb of time in another, ah adverb either of 326 THE PRONOUN. place or of time, as occasion may require, in a tliird, 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.) Formative Tc, g,. n.- — Tam. ingu^ tngu ; angu^ dngu ; engUy ydngu^ here, there, where ? Can. tga, dga^ ydrdga, now, theii, when ? hige, hdge, hydge, in this manner, in that manner, in what manner^ ydJce, why ? Gond, hoke, thither, hike, thither, haga^ aga, there, iga, here, haga, where 1 inga, now. I consider the Tamil angu, &c., nasalised from agu. The primitive 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 iga, here, and the Sanskrit ilia, here, is remarkably close ; yet there is no appearance of the G6nd word having been borrowed from the Sanskrit one. The demonstrative base i is, as we have seen, the common property of the Indo-European and the Dravidian languages ; but though iga seems to bear the same relation to iha that eg-o bears to ah-am, yet the Dravidian formative h 9y ^^9} 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 h of iha. Comp. Mongolian yago, what 1 (2.) Formative ch,j, n. The only instances of this are in Tulu. inchi, anchi, oncki, hither, thither, whither 1 ificha, ancha, encka, in this, that, what manner l In Tinnerelly, in the southern Tamil country, inge, here, is vulgarly pro- nounced inje. (3.) Formative t, d, n. Tamil (classical dial.) indu^ here, in this present life, in this manner ; dnduy there (vulgarly, but erroneously used for ydndu, a year) ; ydndu, where % when ? a time, a year, dttei^ annual, should be ydttei. ivan, avan, evan^ here, there, where ? Telugu, ita, ata, eta, here, there, where ? itu^ atu, etu, in this, that, what manner % Ma, dda, eda, here, there, where ? From eda, with the secondary meaning ' when,' comes edu, a year. Tulu, ide, ade, ode, hither, thither, whither ? We see now that the primitive, unnasalised form of the Tamil ydndu must have been yddu, formed regularly from yd + du, like edu, which ? from e + du. (4.) Formative t, d, n, also ndr. Tamil, indru, andru, endru (secondary forms, ittrei, attrei, ettrei); Canarese, indu^ andu, endu; Malayalam, inn\ a7in\ enrC ; Tulu, ini^ dniy eni. In each case the meaning is the same — viz., this day, that DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES. 327 day, wliat day 1 or now, then, when ? In the Telugu, indu, andu, endri, 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 — i.e., here, there, where 1 indu and a7idu have acquired the special meaning of, this life and the next, here and hereafter, like the Tamil, immei, ammei ; and andu, there, is commonly used as the sign of the locative case, like the Canarese alii. In all the dialects these adverbs are declinable. In form they are simply nouns. It appears on the whole most probable that these words have been nasalised from the pronouns idu, adu, edu. There is a peculiarity in the Tamil form of these words, consisting in this, that ndr suggests the idea that andru is formed from al, that, like the corresponding andru, not, it is not (from al, not + du), or endru, classical Tam. the sun (from el, the sun, time + du); but the testimony of the other dialects does not confirm this idea. As, however, in Tamil endru (the sun) is formed from el, so another endru is formed from en — viz., endru, having said, which is from en + du. (5.) Formative mh. Tamil-Malay^lam, imhar, ambar, embar, here, there, where ? The formative mb is as commonly used in the formation of 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, y ambar, what % This might be supposed to be a mere accident were it not that the Mongo- lian y ambar is formed from the interrogative base ya, which is also the true, primitive Dravidian base. This base appears also in the Mongolian yage, what ? (6.) Formative I, I. Canarese, illi, alii, elli, here, there, where ? In Telugu il, the proxi- mate, is not used as a demonstrative, but survives in ilu, illu, a house, the root-meaning of which appears to be this place, here. The longer form of this word, however, is used demonstratively — e.g., ild, in this manner ; ala, there, did, in that manner ; elli, where 1 elli is used also to mean to-morrow (in Tulu elle is to-morrow) ; Ua, eld, in what way ? These words show that I holds an important place amongst the demonstrative and interrogative formatives. In some Tula adverbs I is replaced by the lingual / — e.g., mUlu, avalu, olu, here, there, where ? The existence in Tamil of demonstratives and interrogatives formed from I, like those we find in Telugu and Canarese, is by no means certain, but traces of them, particularly of the interrogative el, may, I 328 THE PRONOUN. tliink, be discovered, el is not now used directly as an interrogative, but there are many words formed from el, the meanings of which seem to me to pre-suppose the existence of a primary interrogative sense. Compare ydiidu^ Tam. a year, primarily where 1 when 1 also Tel. edu, a year, primarily where (eda) f I shall here set down the various meanings of the Tamil el 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 (supposititious 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 elvei, elvei, time, a day ; elli, ellavan, endru (el + du), endravan, the sun. The meaning of the sun appears in erpddu, properly el-pddu, sun-set. elli means night, as well as the sun. (3.) A boundary. This in Tamil is ellei, old Tamil el^ei [gei, a formative of verbal nouns). This word means in Tamil, not only a boundary, but also a term, time, the sun, end, the 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-{t)4i, the last fire, the fire by which the world is to be consumed. (•i.) All. This stage of development is more doubtful, but I find that Dr Gundert agrees with me here, at least as to el, the first part and base of the word meaning a boundary. I explain el to mean * what- ever is included within the boundary,' everything up to the last. Dr Gundert thinks ell-d a negative, meaning boundless. This would be a very natural derivation for a word signifying all, but I am obliged to dissent, as I find no trace of this d of negation in any of the older poetical forms of this word in Tamil — e.g., el-dm, all we, el-tr, all ye. The colloquial word elldm (properly elldvum) is not to be confounded with the classical word eldm, all we. It does not contain the meaning of 'we.' The c^ of el{l)-d-{y)um \^ 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 tcm confirms me in the idea that el, all, is identical not only with el, a boundary, but with el, what ? The latter and primitive meaning seems to me to shine through that of a boundary, and to throw light on that of all. Just as evan-um, who — and, means whosoever, so if el were originally an interrogative, DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES. 329 eliiyd-iyYim vfovld. naturally be used to mean whatsoever, all. The Tamil ellavan, the sun, from el, when ] time, is a singular noun. Plu- ral ise it, and we get ellavar, which is a classical Tamil form of the word all. We may safely, therefore, I think, conclude that these words are identical. The traces we find in Tamil of the existence of demonstratives in il and al are more indistinct than those of the interrogative el; but if an interrogative en, en, pointed to the existence of the corresponding demonstratives in, im, an, am, we may reasonably regard the existence of il and al as testified to by the existence of el. We find il in the locative case-sign alternating with in, and meaning also ' house ; ' also, I think, in verbal nouns ending in il, such as hatt-il, a cot, vand-il, a wheel, a cart, al we find in a still larger class of verbal nouns, such as kad-al, the sea, in which al seems to be equivalent to am and an {e.g., dr-am, depth, kad-an, debt). The most conclusive illustrations of the use in Tamil of il and al as demonstra- tives, and of el as an interrogative, would be furnished by indru, andrn, endru, this day, that day, what day ? if we could be sure that they are formed from a base in /, and not from one in n or m. The peculiar combination ndr could be derived from either. Thus, en + du, having said, becomes endru, and equally also el + du, the sun, becomes endru. Considering the identity of endru, the sun, with el, the sun, time, a day, to-morrow, it seems to me probable that endru, what day ? must be the same word, and if so, indru and andru, this day, and that day, will become representatives, not of in and an, but of il and al, and the original existence of demonstratives in il and al will then be placed beyond the reach of doubt, andru in Tamil, though derived from al, might possibly become andu, annu, in the other dialects. On the whole, however, the evidence of those dialects is unfavourable to this supposition. The Dravidian negatives il and al bear a strong apparent resem- blance to demonstratives, il negatives existence (there is not such a thing) ; al negatives attributes (it is not so and so), al, Tarn, as a verbal root, means to diminish, and as a noun, means night [alii, night, a night flower). No similar extension of the idea of negation seems to proceed from il. il and al resemble demonstratives not only in sound, but in the structure of the derivatives formed from them. Compare andru, it is not, with andru, that day; indru, VaeTO, is not, with indru, this day. I am unable, however, in this matter, to go beyond resemblance and conjecture. No connection between the demonstrative and negati\^ meanings of il and al seems capable of being historically traced. 330 ' THE PllONOUN. Affiliation of Demonstrative Bases: Extra-Dravidian Afinities. — There is only a partial and indistinct resemblance between the remote a, proximate t, and medial u, which constitute the bases of the Dravidian demonstratives, and the demonstratives which are used by the languages of Northern India. In Bengali and Singhalese, e is used as a demon- strative ; in Mar^thi hd, hi, hen : in Hindustani we find vuh, that, t/ih, this; but in the oblique cases the resemblance increases — e.g., is-koy to this, i is used as the proximate demonstrative in the North Indian languages more systematically than a or any corresponding vowel is used as the remote — e.g., Marathi ikade, here ; Hindi idhar, hither; Mar. itaJce, so much. The Sindhi proximate is M or he. In the Lar dialect, h is commonly dropped, and the base is seen to be ^, as in the Dravidian tongues. The remote in Sindhi is hH or ho ; in Lar 4 or 6. A general resemblance to the Dravidian demonstrative bases is apparent in several of the Himalayan languages — e.g., Bodo imbe, this, hole, that; Dhimal ^, il; Urdon edah, hddah. The Rajmahal eh 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 u and the iX of the Ur^on and Dhimal is deserving of notice. Perhaps the Dravidian medial u (Dhimal ?2, Ur^on hudah) may be compared with the Old Hebrew masculine-feminine pronoun of the third person, My and thus with the Old Persian remote demon- strative hauva, of which the first portion appears to be hu, and the second ava, — which ava forms the base of the oblique cases. It may also be compared with the u ov o which forms the remote demonstrative in some of the Scythian languages — e.g., Finnish tuo, that, tdma, this ; Ostiak toraa, that, tema, this. Compare also the Hind, vuh, that ; Bodo hole. The Magyar demonstratives are more in accordance with the Dravidian a and i — e.g., az, that, ez, this. The demonstratives of the other languages of the Scythian family {e.g., the Turkish bou, that, ol, this) are altogether destitute of resemblance. When we turn to the languages of the Indo-European family, they appear in this particular to be closely allied to the Dravidian. Through- out that family both a and i are used as demonstratives ; though not to so large an extent, nor with so perfect and constant a discrimination between the remote and the proximate, as in the Dravidian family. In Sanskrit a is used instead of the more regular i in most of the oblique cases of idam, this; and the correlative of this word, adas, means not only that, but also this. Nevertheless, a is more generally a remote than a proximate demonstrative, and i more generally a DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES. 331 proximate than a remote. In derived adverbial words i has always a proximate force; but ta, the consonantal demonstrative, is more generally used than a. The following are examples of each vowel : — i-ha, here ; i-ddnim, now ; ta-ddnim, then : also i-ti, so, this much ; a-tha, so, thus, in that manner, i, the proximate demonstrative root, is in all probability identical with ^, the sign of the locative in such words as hrid-i, heart. Probably, also, we see the same root in the preposition in. We may compare the Old Persian avadd, thither, in that direction ; and the corresponding proximate i-dd, hither, in this direction. The resemblance between the bases of these forms, not- withstanding the irregularity of their application, and the Dravidian remote and proximate demonstrative bases, seems to amount to identity. All irregularity disappears in the New Persian, which in this point accords as perfectly with the Dravidian languages as if it were itself a Dravidian idiom. Its demonstratives are d7i, that, in, this. These demonstratives are adjectival prefixes, and naturally destitute. of number; but when plural terminations are suffixed, they acquire a plural signification — e.g., dndn, those (persons), %ndn, these (persons). The same demon- stratives are largely used in modern Turkish, by which they have been borrowed from Persian, dn and m are undoubtedly Aryan de- monstratives. This is apparent when we compare dn with the Zend aem^ that, and that again with the Sanskrit ayam ; but in is still more clearly identical with the Zend ^m, this. The same %m constitutes the accusative in Vedic Sanskrit (and is also identical with iyam, the masculine-feminine singular of the Old Persian, and the feminine of Sanskrit); but in Zend ^m is the nominative, not the accusative, and it is to this form that the New Persian is most closely allied. The demonstrative base * (without being restricted, however, to a proximate signification) appears in the Latin is and id, and in the Gothic is; and the Dravidian and New Persian distinction between the signification of a and that of i, has been re- developed in our English that and this. Whilst the New Persian dn and in are closely connecteci with Sanskrit and Zend demonstratives, it does not follow that they are directly derived from either the one tongue or the other. On the contrary, the exactness with which the Persian discriminates between the remote and the proximate, leads me to conclude that it has retained more faithfully than either of those languages the primitive characteristics of the Prse-Sanskritic speech. If so, instead of supposing the Dravidian dialects to have borrowed their demonstratives, which are still purer than the Persian, from Sanskrit (which are irregular and greatly corrupted), it« is more reasonable to suppose that the Dravidian demonstrative vowels retain and exhibit the primaeval bases 332 THE PRONOUN. from which the demonstratives of the Sanskrit and of all other Indo- European tongues have been derived. Affiliation of Interrogative Bases: Bxtra-Dravidian Relationship. — There seems to be no analogy between either e 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 k — e.g., Sanskrit, kirn, whati The same base appears in the Sanskrit interrogative initial syllables Jca-, ki-^ ku-, which correspond to the Latin qii-, the Gothic hva-, and the English wh-. We find the same base again in the Turkish kim or Mm, whol what? in the Magyar ki, who] plural kik ; and in the Finnish kuka (root ku). I am unable to suppose the Dravidian yd derived from the Sanskrit and Indo-European ka. I see nowhere else any trace of a Sanskrit k changing into a Dravidian y. It would be tempting, but unsafe, to connect ka-t (Sans.) with yd-du (Tarn.) which 1 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 (j/as, yd, yat), bears a close apparent resemblance to the Dravidian interrogative yd. The Sanskrit ya, how- ever, like the derived North Indian jo, 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 e and a were originally demonstratives, it may be supposed that yd was also a demonstrative, though of this no direct evidence whatever now remains. If yd were originally a demonstrative, the connection which would then appear to exist between it and the Sanskrit relative would require to 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 Lithuanian yis, he; and in the Slavonian yam, and the Zend yim, him. Emphatic e. — It has been seen that in Ku e is used as a demon- strative — e.g., evdru {e-{y)-dr), they; and this may be compared with the demonstrative e of the Sanskrit etat, this (neuter), and the corre- sponding Zend aetat. In the other Dravidian dialects, however, e is not used as a demonstrative, but is postfixed to words for the purpose of rendering them emphatic. The manner in which e 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 e is postfixed to the subject of a DEMONSTRATIVES AND INTERROGATIVES. 333 proposition, it sets it forth as the sole depositary of the quality pre- dicated — e.g.^ Tcalvi-{y)-e selvam, learning (alone is) wealth; when post- fixed to the predicate, it intensifies its signification — e.g., kalvi klvam-e, learning is wealth (indeed). When postfixed to a verb or verbal deriva- tive, it is equivalent to the addition of the adverb truly, certainly — e.g., aUa-{v)-e (certainly) not. In the colloquial dialect, it has often been annexed to the case-terminations of nouns without necessity, so that it has sometimes become in that connection a mere euphonic expletive ; in consequence of which, in such instances, when em.phasis is really required by a sign of case, the e has to be doubled — e.g., enndleye {enndl-e-{y)-e), through me (alone). In Tulu, emphatic e becomes euphonically, not only y{e) and v{e), as in Tamil, after certain vowels, but also nie). e, however, is always to be regarded as the sign of emphasis. The same sign of emphasis forms the most common vocative case-sign in the various Dravidian dialects, the vocative being nothing more than an emphatic enunciation of the nominative. Compare with this the use of the nominative, with the addition of the definite article, as the vocative in Hebrew and in Attic Greek. The Persian e of supplication may also be compared with it. Some resemblance to the use of e as a particle of emphasis may be discovered in the Hebrew ' he paragogic,' which is supposed to intensify the signification of the words to which it is annexed. The ' he direc- 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 e of the Dravidian languages is apparent in Chaldee, in which d suffixed to nouns constitutes their emphatic state, and is equivalent to the definite article of many other languages. The Persian e of particu- larity, the e of ascription of greatness, &c., in addition to the e of sup- plication, which has already been referred to, probably spring from a Chaldaic and Cuthite origin, though each of them bears a remarkable resemblance to the Dravidian emphatic e. Honorific Demonstrative Pronouns. — I have deferred till now the consideration of a peculiar class of honorific demonstratives, which are found only in Telugu and Canarese, and in which, I think, Aryan influences or affinities may be detected. In all the Dravidian dialects the plural is used as an honorific singular when the highest degree of respect is meant to be expressed j but when a somewhat inferior degree of respect is intended, the pronouns which are used by the Telugu are dyana, he, ille, and dme, she, ilia ; with their corresponding proxi- mates iyana, hie, and tme, haec. These pronouns are destitute of plurals. When a little le^ respect is meant to be shown than is implied in the use of dyana and lyana, and of dme and ime, Telugu 334 THE PRONOUN. makes use of atadti, ille, dse, ilia, with their corresponding proximates itadu and ise ; atanu and itanu are also used, also the longer forms dtanu, dtadu, affirmative one — e.g., compare the affirmative avan tanddn, Tam. he gave, with avan tanddn-d? did he give? and avan d tanddn? was it he that gave ? compare also adu Hr, that is a village, with adu Hr-d ? is that a village ? This interrogative is never prefixed to nouns or pronominals, or used adjectivally; but is invariably postfixed, like an enunciated or audible note of interrogation. 6 is used instead of d in Malayalam, in which the interrogative use of d is almost unknown, d seems to survive only in idd (Tam. ido) lo, literally what is this ? 6 is used occasionally in Tamil also as a simple interrogative; but its special and distinctive use is as a particle expressive of doubt. Thus, whilst avan-d means is it he ? avan-d means can it be he ? or, I am doubtful whether it is he or not. 6 is postfixed to words in precisely the same manner as d, and is probably only a weakened form of it, in which, by usage, the interrogation has been softened into the expression of doubt. It has acquired, however, as a suffix of doubt a position and force of its own, quite independent of d ; in consequence of which it is often annexed even to interrogative pronouns — e.g., evan-6, Tam. I wonder who he can be ; enna{v)-d, what it may be I know not — compound forms which are not double interro- gatives, but which consist of a question evan, who? or eniia, what? and an answer 6, I am doubtful, I know not, there is room for further inquiry. In Tulu, in addition to the use of d and 6, as in the other dialects, e (euphonically (v)e or {n)e) is used syntactically as an interro- 336 THE PEONOUN. gative. This e is doubtless identical with the e of emphasis in origin. The use of d ov 6 as an interrogative suffix does not seem to have any counterpart in any language either of the Scythian or of the Indo- European family. It is altogether unknown to Sanskrit ; and Cash- mirian is the only non-Dravidian tongue in which it is found. I am inclined to consider d, the ordinary Dravidian interrogative, as derived from, or at least as allied to, a 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 d 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, a interrogative at the end of it. If the interrogative a were really connected with a the demonstrative, we should expect to find a similar connection subsisting" between e or e, the adjectival interrogative, and some demonstrative particle, with a similar interchange of places ; accordingly this is found to be the case, for e is not only the ordinary sign of emphasis in all the Dravidian tongues, but it is used in Ku as an adjectival demonstrative; and it is curious that in this instance also there is a change of loca- tion, ^ emphatic being placed at the end of a word, e interrogative at the beginning. 6 would naturally be derived from d, as in the change of ydm, we, Tam. into dm, in the pronominal terminations of the Tamil verb. A similar change in the position of particles, to denote or correspond with some change in signification, is not unknown in other tongues. Thus in Danish, the article en has a definite sense in one position, and an indefinite in another — e.g., en konge, a king, Icongen, the king. But it is still more remarkable, and more corroborative of the suppo- sition now advanced, that in Hebrew, one and the same particle, he (for it must be regarded as one and the same, and any difi"erence 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 with 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 EELATIVES. 337 addition of iim^ and, the conjunctive or copulative particle of the Tamil 13 formed, viz., evanum, every one, whosoever (literally who ?-and) ; and from epporudu, when 1 is formed in the same manner epporudum, always (literally when?-and). In Canarese similar forms are found, though not so largely used as in Tamil — e.g., ydvdgalu (yd-dgal-H)^ always ; and in Telugu u (the copulative particle which answers to the Tamil um and the Canarese u) is used in the same manner in the for- mation of distributives — e.g., evvadunu (ewadu-(nn)-u), every one, eppu- dunnu {eppudu-{nn)-u), always. SECTION III.— RELATIVE PRONOUNS. I give this heading a place in the book solely for the purpose of drawing attention to the remarkable fact that the Dravidian languages have no relative pronoun, a participial form of the verb being used instead. Instead of relative pronouns, they use verbal forms which are called by English grammarians relative participles j which see in the part on " The Verb." All other words which correspond either in meaning or in use to the pronouns of other languages will be found on examination to be nouns, regularly formed and declined. 338 THE VERB. PAET VI. THE VERB. The object in view in this part of the work is to investigate the nature, affections, and relations of the Dravidian verb. It seems desirable to commence with some general preliminary remarks upon its structure. 1. A large proportion of Dravidian roots are used indiscriminately, 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 nominal 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 usus loquendi of the various dialects is found to differ ; and not un frequently a root which is used solely as a verbal theme in one dialect, is used solely as a noun in another. 2. 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, Jcu, gu or ngu, du or ndu, hu or mbu) are annexed to the root, — not added on like isolated post- positions, but so annexed as to be incorporated with it. (See Part II., *' 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 til at 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 agglutinative. 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 being 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 adi virundadu, the stroke fell ; ennei adi-ttdn, he struck me ; and idei adi, 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 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 the pronouns, are suffixed, remain invariably the same, with such changes only as euphony appears to have dictated. Consequently, though class dififerences exist, they are hardly of sufficient importance to constitute different conjugations. When I speak of the normal Dravidian nouns ^nd verbs I mean those of the more highly cultivated dialects, Tamil, Malayalam, Canarese, and Telugu. The Tulu and Gond verbs will be found exceptionally rich in moods and tenses. 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- tive, and the negative, and that it has ordy three tenses, the past, the present, and the aorist or indefinite future. There is reason to suspect, also, that originally it had no present tense, but only a future and a past. The ideas which ar% expressed in other families of languages by 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 language the use of auxiliary verbs and of compound tenses. " From 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 Malay^lam, 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^ 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. Gond 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 G6nd 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 G5nd 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 G6nds, 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 mev-kol, to overcome, and Mr-{p)padi, to obey. Dravidian prepositions, however (or rather, postpositions), are properly nouns — e.g., mel (from mi-{y)-al), over, literally means over-ness, supe- riority; and mel-hol (euphonically mer-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 crs^/, xara, ava, &c., but such compounds as -s-oX/opxsw, to besiege a city, literally to city-besiege ; vavTriysu, to build a ship literally to ship-build. In such cases, whether in Greek or in Tamil, 342 THE VERB. the first member of tlie compound (the^ noun) does not modify the signification 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 prefixing 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)p6ndn, Tarn, he went before, literally having-got-before he went ; suwi [suttri) {p)p6ndn, 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, as the Greek and Sanskrit compounds of prepositions with verbs. See especially Dr Gundert's " Malayalam Grammar." SECTION I. —CLASSIFICATION. 1. Teansitives and Intransitives. Dravidian grammarians divide all verbs into two classes, which are called in Tamil pira vinei and tan vinei, transitives and intransitives, literally outward-action words and self-action words. These classes correspond rather to the parasmai-padam and dtmane-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 jo^m vinei and tan vinei, or transitive and intransitive verbs, diff'er ivom.t\iQ parasmai-padam and dtmane-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 vinei, 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 vinei, or intransitive verbs, are all necessarily, as well as formally, intransitives. 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., szeretem, I love (some person or thing) ; whilst the TRANSITIVES AND INTRANSITIVES. 343 Hungarian subjective verbs, like the Dravidian intransitives, neither express nor imply an object — e.g.^ szereteTc, I love — ^.e., I am in love. In a large 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 i as the sign of the past participle are conjugated alike, whether they are transitives or intransitives — e.g., from "parmrU, trans, to make, are formed the three tenses (first person singular) pannu-gir-en, I make, pann-i-{ii)-en, I made, and pannu-v-en, I will make ; and in like man- ner from pes-u, intrans, to talk, are formed, precisely in the same manner, the corresponding tenses pesu-gir-en, I talk, pes-i-{n)-en, I talked, and pesu-v-en, 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 j 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 hardening and doubling of the consonant of the appended formative — e.g., perti-gu, to abound, by this process becomes peru-Mcu, 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-i), Tam. to cause to make, from pannu, 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 specialisation, 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 iigu, becomes TcTcu — e.g., from po-gu, to go (in the imperative softened into p6), comes p6-kku, to drive away ; from ada-ngu, to be restrained, comes ada-hku, to restrain. (2.) h(, becomes chchu — e.g., from adei-su, to be stuffed in, comes adei-chchuj to stuff in, to stick on. (3.) du, euphonised into 7idu, becomes ttu — e.g., from tiru-ndu, to become correct, comes tiru-ttu, to correct. (4.) hu, euphonised into mhu, becomes ppu — e.g., from nira-mhu, to be full, comes nira-ppu, to fill. When intransitives are converted into transitives in this manner in Telugu, gu or ngu becomes, not kku as in Tamil, but chu — a difference which is in accordance with dialectic rules of sound. Thus from tH-gu, or euphonically tvi-ngu, to hang, to sleep, comes til-chu, or euphonically tu-hcliu, to weigh, to cause to hang (Tam. tll-kku). Telugu also occasionally changes the intransitive formative g^i, not into chu, the equivalent of kku, but into pu — e.g., from mey, to graze, comes me-pu, to feed ; and as ppu in Tamil is invariably hardened from hu or mhu, the corresponding Telugu pu indicates that hu originally alternated with gu ; for the direct hardening of gu 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 chu (and of mpu instead of nchu) 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-ppu, Tam. to fill, me-pu, Tel. to feed, were not known to be derived from the hardening of an intransitive formative, we might be inclined to afiiliate it with the p, which is characteristic of a certain class of causal verbs in San- skrit — e.g. , jivd-p-aydmi, I cause to live, jM-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 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 sucli nouns are used adjectivally, the consonant of the for- mative is doubled and hardened, precisely as in the transitives of verbs — e.g.y maruttu, medicinal, from maruiidu, medicine ; pdpjm, 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 Idmad, he learned, with limmed, 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 nd ; and that of the future, h or v. 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 hhiv, d or nd into «, and h ox v into pp. Thus, the root ser, to join, is capable both of an intransitive sense — e.g., to 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., ser-giT-en, I join, ser-nd-en, I joined, ser-v-hi, I will join ; but when the signification is active or transitive — e.g., to join (planks), the corresponding parts of the verb are ser- Jckir-en, I join, ier-tt-en, I joined, ser-pp-en, I will join. The rationale 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- sitive or natural form of the verb ; and the forcible enunciation thus produced is symbolical of the force of transition by which the meaning of the transitive theme overflows and passes on to the object indicated by the accusative. In verbs of this class the imperative remains always unchanged ; and it is the connection alone that determines it to a transitive rather than an intransitive signification. It should here be ment^ned, that a few intransitive verbs double the initial consonant of the tense-sign, and that a few transitive veibs 346 THE VERB. leave the tense-sign in its original, unemphasised condition. Thus, irii, to sit, to be, is necessarily an intransitive verb ; nevertheless, in the present tense iru-kkir-en, I am, and in the future iru-pp-en, 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., padu-Tckit-en, I lie, padu-tt-m, I lay, padu-pp-en, I shall lie. On the other hand, t, to give, to bestow, though necessarily transitive, uses the simple, unhardened, unemphatic tense-signs which are ordinarily characteristic of the intransitive — e.g., t-giv-en, I give, i-nd-en, I gave, i-v-en, I will give. These instances 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 consonant 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 ttu (in composition tu or du) in Tamil, and may be regarded as a real transitive suffix, or sign of activity. We have an instance of the use of this particle in the Canarese tdl-du, to lower, from tdl-u, to be low, and the corresponding Tamil tdr-ttu, to lower, from tdr or tdr-u, to be low. When the intransitive Tamil theme ends in a vowel which is radical and cannot be elided, the transitive particle is invariably ttu — e.g., padu-ttu, to lay down, from padu, to lie. It might, therefore, be supposed that ttu 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 I or /, d ox t; and in such cases the d of du 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. Thus I and du become tt-u (pronounced ttr-u) — e.g., from sural, intrans., to be whirled, comes suraTT-u {surattr-u), trans., to whirl. / and du become ttu — e.g., from mil, to return, comes mttt-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 ti or ti. CAUSALS. 347 There is a transition of meaning when a noun is used adjectivally (i.e., to qualify another noun), as well as when a verb is used transitively (i.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 formatives double and harden the initial consonant when they are used to qualify other nouns. Another illustration of this principle follows. 4. The fourth (a distinctively Tamil) mode of converting intransitive 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 7id-u (euphonised from d-u), as well as to d-u itself. The operation of this rule will appear on comparing vdd-u, to wither, with vdtt-u, to cause to wither ; 6d-ic, to run, with 6tt-u, to drive ; tind-u, to touch, with titt-u, to whet ; mdr-u, to become changed, with mdrr-u (pro- nounced mdttr-u), to change. The corresponding transitives in Telugu are formed in the more usual way by adding chu to the intransitive theme — e.g., mdru-chu, to cause £o change, vddu-chu, to cause to wither. Tamil nouns which end in d-u, nd-u, or t-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 kdtt-ti vari, a jungle-path ; irand-u, two, with irattu nul, double thread ; dv-u, a river, with dtru (pronounced dttru) manal, river sand. Thus we are furnished by words of this class with another and remarkable illustration of the analogy which subsists in the Dravidian languages between transitive verbs and nouns used adjectivally. 2. Causal Veebs. There is a class of verbs in the Dravidian languages which, though generally included under the head of transitives, claims to be regarded distinctively as causals. These verbs have been classed with transitives both by native grammarians and by Europeans. Beschi alone places them in a class by themselves, and calls them eval vinei, verbs of com- mand— ^.«., verbs which i«iply that a thing is commanded by one person to be done by another. Causals difi"er 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., po-gir-en, I go. The signification of transitive or active verbs, or, as they are called in Tamil, outivard action-words, passes outward, to some object exterior to the nominative, and which is generally put in the accusative — e.g., unnei anuppu-giv-en, I send thee : and as to send is to cause to go, verbs of this class, when formed from intransitives, are in some lan- guages, appropriately enough, termed causals. Hitherto the Indo- European languages proceed pari passu 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, i.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. Tarn, to cause to send, which is formed from anuppu, to send, by the addition of the particle vi 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 dtch-ll, 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 (ace.) to build the house (ace); whereas Dravidian causals generally govern the object alone, and either leave the person to be understood (e.g., vtttei {k)]cattuvitten, 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, avanei {k)hondu, 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 Malay^lam. Dr Gundert quotes the MalayMam phrase avane Yama- lokam pugichchu, he caused him to enter the world of Yama — to die ; 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 sey and pann-u in Tamil, mdd-u in Canarese, and chey-u in Telugu. These auxiliaries, however, are chiefly used in connection with Sanskrit derivatives. The auxiliary is 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, vi^ 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 cases a true transitive, derived from the intransitive in the ordinary manner, is in existence, and ought to be used instead. Thus, varu-vi, Tam., to cause to come, is less elegant than varu-tlu ; and nada-ppi, to cause to walk, to guide, than nada-ttu. The use of the causal, instead of the active, where both forms exist, is not so much opposed to the genius of the other dialects as to that of Tamil. The use of one form rather than another is optional in Telugu and Canarese ; and in some instances the active has disappeared, and the causal alone is used. Thus 7'a-{p)-'pinclm, or rd-vinchu, to cause to come, the equivalent of the Tamil varu-vi, is preferred by Telugu to a form which would correspond to varii-tiu; and instead of dkk-u, Tam., to cause to become, to make, w^hich is the active of dg-u, and is formed by the process of doubling and hardening which has already been described, Telugu uses the causal kdv-inchic, and the Canarese the corresponding causal dg-isu. One and the same causal particle seems to me to be used in all the Dravidian dialects, with the exception of Tulu and Gond. It assumes in Tamil the shapes of vi, hi, and ppi; in Telugu, inchu and pinchu; in classical Canarese, ichu; in the colloquial dialect, isu. It seems diflScult at first sight to suppose these forms identical; but it will be found, I think, in every case that the real form of the causal particle is i alone, and that whatever precedes or follows it pertains to the formatives of the verb. 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 either in inchu or pinchu — e.g., chey-inchu, to cause to do, from chey-u, to do ; pili-pinchu, to cause to call, to invite, from pilu-chu, to call. fichu, the final portion of iiichu or pinchu, has first to be explained. fichu (pronounced ntsu) is a nasalised form of chu, which is a very common formative of Telugu verbs. When chu follows i — i.e., when the base to which it is attached ends in ^, it is invariably euphonised 350 THE VERB. or nasalised into nchu — e.g.y jayi^ a Sanskrit derivative, though hot a causal, ends in i ; hence the Telugu verb formed from it is jayi-nchuy to conquer ; and hence also, as the causal verb in Telugu is formed by- affixing the particle i to an ordinary verbal root, all such causal verbs end in iiichu. ichu is to be regarded as the original form, and ichu is compounded of the causal particle and the affix chu. What is this chu 'i We have already shown, in the section on "Formative Additions to Boots," that the Telugu chu is a verbal formative, identical in origin with the Tamil Icku. The formative hku 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 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 yku with the Telugu nchu will appear as soon as the Tamil infinitive is compared with the Telugu — e.g.^ comp. seyvi-kka, Tam. infinitive, to cause to do, with the Telugu cheyi-ncha; areippi-kka, Tam. in- finitive, to cause to call, with the Telugu pilipi-ncha. 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 nch of the Telugu is as certainly a formative as the kk of the Tamil. Even in the vulgar colloquial Tamil of the extreme southern portion of the Tamil country kk systematically becomes ch. Thus marakka, the word just mentioned, is maracha 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 inchu? The causal formed from viduchu, Tel. to quit, is not vidinchu, but vidipinchu, to release. This p shows itself, not in all causals, but only in those of verbs ending in the formative chu, and it is a peculiarity of that class of verbs that ch changes optionally into p. Their infinitives may be formed by adding either pa or cha to the base. On the causal particle i being affixed to such verbs, ch changes by rule into p : thus, not pili-ch-inchu, to cause to call, but 2'>ili-p-i^~^(^hu. This preference for p to ch before another ch looks as if it had arisen from considerations of euphony. But however this may be, p is frequently used in Telugu in the formation of verbal nouns, where such considerations could hardly exist — e.g., mavap-u, forgetfulness, from mava-chu, to forget (Tam, maTappu); tera-pa, an opening, from tera-chu, to open (Tam. tivappu). This formative is sometimes doubled CAUSALS. 351 in Telugu — e.g.^ tepp-inchu, to cause to bring, from techch-u, to bring. In Tamil p is always doubled, except after nasals or r. Though the use of this hardened form of p is rare in Telugu, yet its existence tends still further to identify the Telugu causal with the Tamil. Certain verbs in Telugu, ordinarily called causals (ending in chu, nchu, puj mpu, &c., without a preceding i), are to be regarded not as causals, but simply as transitives — e.g., viduchu, vidupu, to cause to quit; vancliu, to bend; lepu, to rouse. They are formed, not by annexing vi or i, but by the doubling and hardening of the final con- sonant of the formative (e.g., compare lepu, to rouse, with the corre- sponding Tamil eruppu, the transitive of erumbu); and the verbs from which they are so formed are not actives, but neuters. Instead, there- fore, of saying that tir-u, to end, forms its causal either in tir-chu or ttr-pinchu, it would be more in accordance with Tamil analogies to represent tir-u as the neuter, tir-chu as the transitive, and ttr-pinchu 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., katt-inchu, to cause to build, from katt-u, to build. In Canarese, causal verbs are formed by suffixing isu, or rather i-su, to the transitive theme — e.g., from mddu, to do, is formed mdd-i-su, to cause to do. This causal particle i-su (in the classical dialect i-chtc) is annexed to the theme itself before the addition of the signs of tense, so that it is found in every part of the causal verb, like the corre- sponding Telugu particle i-nchu, with which it is evidently identical. It has been shown that the Telugu i-nchu has been nasalised from i-chu (the phonetic equivalent of the Tamil i-kku); and now we find this very i-chu in classical Canarese. The change in colloquial Canar- ese from i-chu to i-su is easy and natural, s being phonetically equi- valent to ch, and chu being pronounced like tsu in Telugu. An additional proof, if proof were wanting, of the identity of the Canarese i-su with the Telugu i-nchu, is furnished by the class of derivative verbs, or verbs borrowed from Sanskrit. Sanskrit deriva- tive verbs are made to end in i in all the Dravidian dialects {e.g., jay-i, to conquer) ; and those verbs invariably take in Telugu, as has been said, the formative termination nchu — e.g., jay i-nchu. The same verbs invariably take i-su, or yi-su, in Canarese. Thus from the Sanskrit derivative theme, dhari, to assume, Telugu forms the verb dhari-nchu, the Canarese equivalent of which is dhari-su, Tamil infinitive tariMca. These verbs are not causals ; but the use which they make of the formative nchu or su, preceded by i, illustrates the original identity of the Canarese causal particle i-su with the Telugu i-nchu, and of both with the Tamil i-kku. uenerally the older and harsher sounds of 352 THE VERB. Canarese have been softened by Tamil ; and in particular, the Canarese h has often been softened by Tamil into s or ch ; but in the instance of the formative annexed to the causative particle, exactly the reverse of this has happened ; the Tamil Tck having been softened by the Canarese into s. 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.^., compare nera-hu, to fill, with neri, to be full, and tiru-pu, to turn (actively), with tiru-gu, to turn (of itself), often annexes the causal particle i-su to intransitive themes — e.g., 6d-i4u, to cause to run (Tarn. 6tt-u), from 6d-u, to run. In Japanese, causative verbs are formed by affixing si to the root, si means to do. We now return to consider the causal particle of Tamil, instead of beginning with it. vi is generally supposed to be the causal particle of Tamil, hardening in certain connections into hi or j'^pi- In the first edition I adopted this view in substance, though regarding i alone as the causal particle in Telugu and Canarese, but preferred to consider hi, rather than vi, the primitive form, seeing that v does not readily change into h in Tamil (though v in Tamil often becomes h in Canar- ese — e.g., vd, Tam. to come = Can. hd), whilst h 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 i alone as the causal particle of Tamil, as of Telugu and Canarese, provided only the V, h, 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 ch in Telugu. kk in Tamil answers to ch in Telugu, and we find the Tamil kh 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 Telugu nadipincha, we find them substantially identical. No difi"erence exists but such as can be perfectly explained either by the change of kk into ch, nasalised into nch after i as already mentioned, or by the " har- monic sequence of vowels " explained in " Sounds." The p preceding i 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. CAUSALS. 353 or its formative. This circumstance might exphiin the pp of the Tamil causals ; but it is necessary to go a little further in order to be able to explain the v oxh which alternates with pp. The most common for- mative of Tamil causals is vi — e.g., varu-vi, to cause to come ; the next is ppi — e.g., padi-ppi, to cause to learn. The remaining form is hi, used only after nasals — e.g., en-hi, to cause to say, to prove, from en, to say, hdn-hi, to show, from M>n, to see. There is no doubt that neither the h of hi nor the fp oi ppi can have been inserted merely for euphony, v before i (as in vi) might be merely euphonic ; but this is rendered improbable by the circumstance that vi 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 sey, to do. Telugu and Canarese add i nakedly to the base {e.g., chey-inchu, from chey-u,gey-isu, from gey-u). We have an instance of the use of vi after the soft, deep r in Tamil, as well as after y, in vdr-vi, to cause to flourish, from vdr, to flourish, vi is almost always used after u (e.g., kattu-vi, to cause to build), but in some instances ppi is used by rule after u — viz., where u is preceded by a short vowel and a single consonant — e.g., edu-ppi, to cause to take up, to erect, from edii, to take up. The Tamil future tense-signs seem to throw light on the formatives to which the causal particle i are affixed. It is remarkable, at all events, that those three signs, v, h, 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-en, I will come, with varu-v-i, to cause to come ; edu-pp-en, I will take up, with edu-pp-i, to cause to take up, to erect ; padi-pp-en, I will learn, with padi- pp-i, to cause to learn, to teach. This rule applies also to verbal roots ending in consonants — e.g., compare vdr-pp-en, I will pour, with vdr-pp-i, to cause to pour, to cast ; vdr-v-en, I will flourish, with vdr-v-i, to cause to flourish ; Jcdn-h-en, I will see, with Tcdri-h-i, to cause to see, to show. Tamil admits of the use of a double causal — that is, of a verb denoting that one person is to cause another to cause a third person to do a thing. In this case also the new causal agrees with the future of the first causal, on which it seems to be built. Compare varu-vi-pp-en, I will cause to cause to come, with varu-vi-pp-i, to cause to cause to come. The explanation of this curious coincidence seems to be that the Tamil future was originally a sort of abstract verbal noun, which came to be used as a future by the addition of pronominal signs, whilst the same abstract neuter noun was converted into a causal (as we have seen was probably the case also with Telugu causals in p-i-nchu) by the addition 354 THE VERB. to it of tlie causal particle. The addition of tlie 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 dififerent manner from the other Dravidian dialects — viz., by suffixing d instead of i to the verbal theme, or sometimes du, and then adding the signs of tense — e.ff., from malp-ii, to make, is formed malp-d-vu, to cause to make, from nadapu, to walk, nadapudit, to cause to walk. This d 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 d might possibly be supposed to proceed from the same or a similar source. In Gond ha or h is the causal particle, and is added to the present participle of transitive verbs, not to the theme. Origin of the Dravidian Causal Particle ^i.' — 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 i in old Slavonic, and the apparent identity between this i and the' Dravidian i 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 themselves provide us with a tolerably satisfactory explanation. The Dravidian causative particle * may be supposed to have been derived from t, to give. This i is short in various portions of the Telugu verb. The crude base is i-chch-u, the infinitive t-va or i-vva. The Canarese isu also, the causal of t, seems to be formed, not from i, but from i {i-isu = isu). 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., p6{n)4, let it go, from 2:>o, to go, literally give it to go. In Canarese also i-su, the causal of i, is used in the same sense of to let, permit, &c., as the original verb itself in Telugu — e.g., p6gal4sn, i:)ennit to go. It is remarkable also that in Canarese the corresponding and more common word kodu, give, is used in the same manner as a permissive or causal — e.g., 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 THE PASSIVE VOICE. 355 Tamil examples : minumimu-Jcku, to glitter, from min, to shine ; velu- velu-kku, to whiten, from velu-TcJcu, to be white, root vel, white ; mura- mura-kku, to murmur, munamuna-Mu, to mutter, kiruMru-kIca, 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, tintinno, &c. In Tulu, however, there is a form of the verb rightly called frequentative. It is formed by inserting e (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., malpeve (malpu + e + {v)e), I make again and again. 4. Intensive Verb. This form of verb is also found only in Tulu. Compare malpuve, I make, with maltruve, I make energetically ; Mnuve, I hear, with Jcendruve, 1 hear intensely ; hUruve, I fall, with hUrduve, I fall heavily. 5. Inceptive Verb. • We find a fully developed inceptive or inchoative form of the verb in G6nd 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. 6. The Passive Yoice. Each of the primitive Indo-European languages has a regular passive voice, regularly conjugated. The Sanskrit passive is formed by an- nexing the particle ya (supposed to be derived from yd, to go), to the verbal theme, and adding the personal terminations peculiar to the middle voice. Most of the languages of the Scythian family also form their passives by means of annexed particles. In order to form the passive, the Turkish suffixes to the verbal theme il or il ; the Finnish et ; the Hungarian at, et, let ; 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- vidian dialects possesses anf passive particle or sufifix, or any means of expressing passivity by direct inflectional changes ; the signification of 356 THE VERB. the passive voice is, nevertheless, 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 Gaurian 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 udei, 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 — f.g., enndl udeindadu, 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- daduj 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 Jcovil katti dyittru, 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, poyittru, it has gone, may generally be used in such 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 constructive passive — e.g., instead of seyd' dyittru, it is done, literally, having done it has become, we may say ieydal dyittru, which, though THE PASSIVE VOICE. 357 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 action-less neuter gender, and therefore the expression of the signification 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., jdnd ydy, Beng. it is known, literally, it goes to be known, jdnd is represented by some to be a verbal noun, by others to be a passive participle ; but, whatever it be, there is some diflference 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, and the phrase literally means ' having known it is become.' terindu pdyittru, 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 suvadi undu; achclC aditta pustagam vendum, Tam. I have a written book ; I want a printed one. In this phrase both erudina, written, and achcK-aditta, printed, are the preterite relative participles of transitive themes. The former means literally Hhat wrote,' yet it is used passively to signify ' written ;' and the latter means literally ' that printed or struck off,' but is used passively as equivalent to ' that is printed.' The relative participial noun, especially the preterite neuter, is often- times used in the same manner — e.g., in sonnadu pddum, Tam. what was said is sufficient, sonnadu, literally means ' that which said ; ' but the connection and the usage of the language determine it to signify passively that which was said ; and so distinctively in this case is the passive sense expressed hj the connection alone, that the use of the more formal modern passive, solla-(p)pattadu, would sound awkward 358 THE VERB. and foreign, endra, Tam., anede^ Tel., that is called, literally that spoke, is another very common instance of the same rule. lyUu enhavar, Tam., signifies literally, Jesus who speaks ; but usage deter- mines it to mean he who is called Jesus. The mode of expressing the passive 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 G6nd 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 aditf iruTckiven, I am having beaten, means I have beaten. The corresponding G6nd expression ana jisi 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 New Persian, in which the same form of the verb has an active meaning when it stands alone, and a passive meaning when followed by the substantive verb. (4.) The verb tm, to eat, is occasionally used in the Dravidian lan- 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., adi unddn, he was beaten, or got a beating, literally he ate a beating ; padeipp' undm, 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 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)pdttdn, he was ashamed, literally, he suffered or experienced shame. The ultimate base of a verb is sometimes used THE MIDDLE VOICE. 359 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 adikka-{p)pattdn, we may say adi pattdn, he was beaten, or literally he suffered a beating; 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)padnm ; or in Telugu between telusunu and teliya badunu, the corresponding forms. In ordinary use, pad-u conveys the meaning of continuous action or being, rather than that of passivity — e.g., irukka-{p)patta (Tam.) is vulgarly used for irukkiva, that is; and I have heard a Tamilian say, ndn nandrdy sdppida-(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. The Middle 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-u ; Tulu, konu and onu) — e.g., panni-{k)konde7i, 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., pesi-(k) konddrgal, Tam. they talked together ; aditUi-{k)konddrgal, they beat one another. The same usage appears in the other dialects also. 8. The Negative Voice. Properly speaking, the Dravidian negative is rather a mood or voice 360 THE VEKB. than a conjugation. All verbal themes are naturally affirmative, and the negative signification is expressed by means of additions or changes. Nevertheless, it will conduce to perspicuity to inquire now into the negative mood or voice, before entering upon the consideration of the pronominal terminations and tenses. The regular combination of a negative particle with a verbal theme is a peculiarity of the Scythian family of tongues. Negation is gene- rally expressed in the Indo-European family by means of a separate particle used adverbially; and instances of combination like the Sanskrit ndsti, it is not, the negative of asti, it is, are very rare ; whereas, in the Scythian languages, every verb has a negative voice or mood as well as an affirmative. This is the case also in Japanese. The Scythian negative voice is generally formed by the insertion of a particle of negation between the theme and the pronominal suffixes ; and this is as distinctive of the Dravidian as of the Turkish and Finnish languages. Different particles are, it is true, used in the difierent languages to express negation ; but the mode in which such particles are used is substantially the same in all. In general, the Dravidian negative verb has but one tense, which is an aorist, or is indeterminate in point of time — e.g., pogen, Tam. (pdvanu, Tel., pdgenu, Can.), I go not, means either I did not, I do not, or I will not go. The time is generally determined by the context. Ku, Gond, and Tulu use the negative more freely. In Ku there is a negative preterite as well as a negative aorist ; and in Tulu and Gond every tense of every mood has its appropriate negative verb. Malayalam has three negative tenses — the present, the past, and the future — e.g., 2ydgd-{y)-u7inu, I go not ; pogd-nnu, went not ; p6gd-{y)-um, will not go. In the other dialects there is only one mood of the negative in ordinary use, viz., the indicative. If an infinitive and imperative exist, it is only in classical compositions that they appear; and they are ordinarily formed by the help of the infinitive and imperative of the substantive verb, which are suffixed as auxiliaries to the negative verbal participle — e.g., seyyM-iru, Tam. do not thou, literally, be thou not doing. In Telugu a prohibitive or negative imperative is in ordi- nary use even in the colloquial dijilect. In the Dravidian negative voice, as in the affirmative, the verbal theme remains unchanged ; and in both voices the pronominal termi- nations are precisely the same. The only point, therefore, which it is necessary to investigate here is the means whereby the idea of negation is expressed. The Tamil-Telugu-Canarese negative is altogether destitute of signs of tense : it is destitute, not only of the signs of present, past, and THE NEGATIVE VOICE. 361 future time, but even of the sign of the aorist ; and in Tamil and Canarese the pronominal suffixes are annexed directly to the verbal theme. Thus, whilst the present, past, and future tenses (first person singular) of the affirmative voice of the Tamil verb vdr, to flourish, are i'dr-gir-en, vdr-nd-en, vdr-v-en; the corresponding negative is simply vdr-en, I flourish not — literally, as appears, flourish-I, — without the insertion of any sign of time between the theme and the pronoun. What is the rationale of this negative 1 The absence of signs of tense appears to contribute to the expression of the idea of negation : it may at least be said that it precludes the signification of the affir- mative. In consequence of the absence of tense-signs the idea expressed by the verb is abstracted from the realities of the past, the present, and the future : it leaves the region of actual events, and passes into that of abstractions. Hence, this abstract form of the verb may be supposed to have become a negative mood, not by a positive, but by a negative process, — by the absence of a predicate of time, not by the aid of a negative particle. Is this to be accepted as the rationale 1 If we examined only Tamil and Canarese, we might be satisfied with this explanation ; for in the various persons of the negative voice in both languages there is no trace of the insertion of any negative particle ; and though the vowel a has acquired a predominant and permanent place in the verbal and relative participles, we should not feel ourselves warranted in considering that vowel as a particle of negation, without distinct, trustworthy evidence from some other source. The only peculiarity in the personal forms of the Tamil negative is the invariable length of the initial vowel of the pronominal termina- tions. Thus the initial a of the neuter singular demonstrative being short, we should expect the Tamil of 'it flourishes not' to htvdr-adu; whereas it is vdr-ddu or vdrd. This increase of quantity might arise from the incorporation and assimilation of some inserted vowel ; but we might also naturally suppose it to be merely lengthened euphoni- cally for the sake of emphasis. The corresponding vowel is short in Telugu. In the Canarese negative we miss even this lengthening of the initial vowel of the pronominal terminations — e.g., we find in- variably hdl-adii, instead of the Tamil vdr-ddu. In the verbal and relative participles in both languages the vowel a is inserted between the theme and the formative, and this a is invariably short in Canarese and long in Tamil — e.g., bdl-a-de, Can. not having lived, or without living ; Tarn, vdr-ddu or vdr-d-mal, without living. The verbal noun in Tamil is vdr-d-mei, the not living. The relative participle that lived or lives not, is in Canarese bdl-a-da, in Tamil vdr-d-da. In these 362 THE VERB. instances, if enpbony alone had been considered, u, the ordinary enunciative vowel, would have appeared where we find a: it may, therefore, be concluded that a (euphonically d in Tamil and Malay ^- 1am) 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 pronominal 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 enunciative tt, that u 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 u of the theme has been elided to make way for this a, it is evident that a is not an euphonic insertion, but is a particle of negation. Compare chey-a-nu, Tel. I do not, with Tamil iey[y)^n; chey-a-vu, thou dost not, with Tamil ^ey{y)-dy ; chey- a-mu, we do not, with Tamil sey{jj)-6in; chey-a-ru, you do not, with Tamil sey{y)h'. From this comparison it cannot be doubted that a 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 participle — e.g., chey-a-lca, without doing ; in the relative participle — e.g., chey-a-ni, that does not; and in the verbal noun — e.g., chey-a-mi, the not doing. In each of these participials a is used in the same manner by the Canarese, and d by the Tamil : and that those vowels are not euphonies or conjunctives, but signs of negation, even in Tamil- Canarese, is now proved by the evidence of Telugu, in which a similar a is 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., ponu, I go not, povu, thou goest not. This, however, is only an apparent irregularity, for the classical forms are pov-a-nu and p6v-a-vu. The lengthening of the included a of Mnii, I become not, is in accordance with the Telugu law of displacement, kdmi being instead of ah-a-nu or ag-a-nu, the equivalent of the Tamil dgen. We have thus arrived at the conclusion that a is the sign of negation which is most systematically used by the THE NEGATIVE VOICE. 363 Dravidian languages in the formation of the negative voice of the verb. It has, it is true, disappeared from the conjugated forms of Tamil and Canarese ; but the analogy, not only of the Telugu personal forms, but also of the Tamil and Canarese participles and participial nouns, shows that it must originally have been the common property of all the dialects. The negative a, being succeeded in Tamil and Canarese 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. The negative particle of the Tulu is ^}}V, answering to Tam. illei, Mai. and Can. ilia. Most of the tenses of the Tulu negative verb are formed by annexing to the temporal particles of the verb j, the abbreviation of this ijji, with such enunciative vowels as euphony is supposed to require. The negative of the future tense appears to be formed from a, the particle used in the other dialects. Comp. mal- puji, I do not make, maWdiji, I have not made, with malpaye, I shall not make, and the conditional form maWdvaye, I should not make. Gond inserts the negative particles hille or halle (Drav. ille 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 al is sometimes used in a somewhat similar manner by the Tamil poets. It is desirable now to inquire into the participial and imperative formatives of the negative verb. The negative verbal participle of Tamil is formed by suffixing d-du or d-mal — e.g., ky{y)-d-du or sey{y)- d-mal, not doing, or without doing. In the highest and lowest Tamil mei is used as the formative of this participle instead of mal — e.g., varuv-d-mei, without slipping, mei constitutes the ordinary termina- tion of abstract nouns, and is added both to crude roots and to the relative participles of verbs — e.g., tdr-mei, lowness, humility; iru- Tckindr-a-mei, a being or the being. The formative termination of negative verbal nouns is identical with this abstract mei; and mal, the participial formative, is evidently equivalent to it. Probably also it is the original form ; for, on the whole, it is more likely that a final I should have been softened away than added. The verbal noun of the Telugu negative verb ends in mi, which is virtually the same as mei. The other Tamil termination of negative verbal participles, dut is an ordinary formative of neuter nouns of quality. The correspond- ing Canarese termination is de ; and in Tamil du, with a subsequent emphatic e, is commonly used as a negative imperative or prohibitive — e.g., iey{y)-d-d-e, do not thou, — a proof that the negative verbal par- ticiple in du or de is properly a verbal noun. The relative participle 364 THE VERB. of tlie negative verb in each of the dialects, except Telugu, is formed by suffixing a, the sign of the relative, to the verbal participle in d-Uy eliding as usual the enunciative u — e.g., sey{y)-d-da, Tarn., gey- 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 Telugu is formed by adding ni, instead of the usual relative a, to the negative particle — e.g., chey-a-ni, that does or did not. This ni is one of the 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 ha to the infinitive of the affirmative voice ; and that the prohibitive is formed in like manner by suffixing \u or lea to the infinitive \ka is not so used], with the ordinary addition of mu or mo. In consequence of this representation, Dr Stevenson was led to consider hu as a Telugif sign of negation, and to search for allied or equivalent particles 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 a to which the ha and hu aforesaid are suffixed is not the a which forms the sign of the infinitive, but the negative particle a. The suffixes of the forms in question, therefore, are not hu or ha, but a-hu and a-ha; and thus chey-a-ha, without doing, or not having done, and chey-a-hu, do not, come into harmony with the other Telugu forms, viz., chey-a-ni, that does not, chey-a-mi, the not doing ; and also with the negative parti- ciples and verbals of the other dialects. The a of the Telugu imperative and negative verbal participle being undoubtedly the sign of negation, it only remains to inquire into the origin of the ha or hu which is suffixed to it. The participial suffix ha is evidently used in Telugu for the same purposes as the Tamil suffixes du, mal, and mei, and the Canarese de. Those suffixes, though used by verbal participles, are undoubtedly to be regarded as formatives of verbal nouns. I consider ha also as proceeding from a similar origin ; for in Telugu many verbal nouns are formed in this very manner by adding ha to the root — e.g., nammi-ha, confidence, from nammu, to confide; and hori-ha, hope, from hbru, to hope. This ha is hhei, in Tamil {e.g., namhi-hhei, confidence), and ge or he in Canarese : it is a very common formative of verbal nouns, and is equivalent in use to the formatives of which d or t, h or p, is the initial. When we THE NEGATIVE VOICE. 365 compcare Telugu derivative nouns ending in ha {e.g., teliyi-Tca, sem- blance, from teliyu, to appear) with the negative verbal participles of the same language, which invariably end in ka {e.g., teliy-a-ka, not seeming), it is evident that the particle ka is not that by which the difference in meaning is expressed. The a which precedes ka is evi- dently the seat of the difference. In those cases in which the deriva- tive noun and the negative participle are absolutely identical in sound and appearance, the negative a has been absorbed by the preceding long d of the root. This is the cause of the similarity between raka, a coming, and rdka, not or without coming, the latter of which is for ra-a-ka. 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 the Telugu k and the Tamil- Canarese d — e.g., hdgd-pe, without going, corresponding to the Canarese hdgade, and the Telugu pdvaka. This is in accordance with a rule often already noticed, viz., the interchange- ableness of k and p in the formatives of verbs and nouns. The Telugu prohibitive suffix ku is, I conceive, substantially identical with ka, the suffix of the verbal participle, just as de, the colloquial Tamil prohibi- tive, is identical with du, the negative verbal participle in the same dialect. Dravidian imperatives are in general nothing but verbal nouns pronounced emphatically. Hence, the Tamil sey{y)-d-de, do not thou, is simply sey{y)-d-du, doing not, with the addition of the empha- tic e; and the Telugu cMy-a-ku, do not thou, is in like manner, I con- ceive, identical with the verbal participle chey-a-ka, doing not, or without doing, with an emphasis understood. There is in classical Tamil a prohibitive particle which nearly cor- responds to this Telugu prohibitive, viz., arka — e.g., ky{y)-aTka, do not. It is used in connection with both numbers and every gender ; and I believe that it is by usage only that the corresponding Telugu form is restricted to the second person singular ; for when we compare the Tamil sey{y)-aTka and the Telugu chey-a-ku, we can scarcely doubt that they are substantially identical. What is the origin of this Tamil prohibitive suffix arka ? It is derived from al (pronounced ar before k), the particle of negation, the origin of which from the negative base a will presently be shown, and ka, which is identical with ka or ga, a sign of the Tamil infinitive, optative, or polite imperative, apparent in such words as vdr-ga, may (he, thou, you, they, &c.) flourish. This infinitival, participial, or imperative form appears to have been origin- ally a verbal noun. We should here notice ^he prohibitive particle of G6nd, viz., manni or minni. This is not suffixed to the verb, but prefixed, like the Latin 366 THE VERB. noli, manni closely resembles the Tamil suffix mm, in such words as sey[y)an-7nin, do not ye ; but the resemblance is purely accidental, for the prohibitive particle of sei/{y)an-min is an euphonised from al, and min is not, as Beschi supposed, a prohibitive particle at all, but is a sign of the second person plliral of the imperative, and as such is systematically used in the higher dialect by the imperative of the affirmative voice, as well as by the prohibitive — e.g.,poTu-min, bear ye. This in Malayalam is vin, lyin (see the imper. of the affirmative). In poetical Tamil also arpin {al-piii) is occasionally used instead of an-min. There is also a plural form of this, curpir. 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 a in the for- mation of the negative voice of the verb, manni resembles inni, 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. Has this a any connection 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 augment in Sanskrit and Greek, according to Bopp's theory. There is no trace of alpha privative or any equivalent privative pre-^-s. in the Dravidian languages ; and its place is supplied by some po5^fixed relative participle or verbal noun formed from il or al — e.g., from ner, Tam. straight or straightness, is formed ner-inmei {il-mei euphonised), crookedness, want of straightness. The negative a of the Dravidian negative verb is, I have no doubt, equivalent to al or il, the ordinary isolated particle of negation. This very sign of negation is sometimes used by the Tamil classics instead of a in verbal combinations — e.g., ari(g)-il-ir, you know not, takes the place of the more common ari-{y)-ir: compare also ninei-(y)-al-d, not considering ; ky{g)-al-dddr, they will not do, or they who will not do. In all these examples the al is evidently the isolated negative particle. There cannot be any doubt whatever of the negative force of al in the negative appellatives, which are formed from al-an or il-an, he is not, combined with verbal roots — e.g., pes-al-em, we speak not, und-il-ei, thou eatest not or hast not eaten. Compare also mdttralan (mdrralan), Tam. and Mai. an enemy, from mdttru •\-al + an, he who cannot be changed. Dr Gundert derives this from mattrd + ul + ari, he who is 4- unchangeable. In . the ordinary negative form, mdttrdn, Tam. and Mai. an enemy, the idea of negation is expressed by d; but in mdttra- THE NEGATIVE VOICE. 367 alan I have no doubt we have the negative particle al. Gond regu- larly forms its negative voice by suffixing halle or hille, a barbarous euphonisation of the more correct alle or ille; and the dialect of the Kotas makes a similar use of the particle ilia. This particle is also systematically used in forming the prohibitive, or negative imperative, of poetical Tamil, in which connection al is ordinarily lengthened to dl or el — e.g., sel-U, go not, muni-[y)-el, be not angry. But it is also, as we have seen, often retained unchanged — e.g., sey(y)-aT-Jca (ar for al), do not, and sey{'i/)-an-min (an for al), do not ye. In modern colloquial Tamil, illet (for ilia) is commonly subjoined to the infinitive of the affirmative verb to form an aoristic negative — e.g., vara-{v)-illei (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 compounds evince to break up in process of time into their component elements. It is evident that a, the sign of negation in the Dravidian negative verb, and al, the isolated negative particle, are substantially identical. The use of al instead of a in various verbal combinations in classical Tamil seems to me to prove this point. It remains, however, to endeavour to ascertain which is the older form. Has a been softened from al ? or is al a secondary form of a f There are several parallel instances of the apparent disappearance of a final I — e.g., dal, the formative of many verbal nouns in Tamil, is represented by ta in Canarese and Telugu. Thus muri-dal, Tam. a breaking, is in Can. mura-ta; sey-dal, Tam. a doing, is in Tel. che-ta. The infinitive is al or a in Canarese, a alone in Tamil. We have seen also that the Tamil suffix of the negative verbal noun may be either mat or mei. None of these instances, however, is decisive j as it may be supposed, and is I think probable, that a final I, answering to a final m, n, or r, was annexed to many verbal nouns in process of time for the purpose of making them more distinctive. In those instances, therefore, a may be the primitive shape, al the secondary. The same explanation seems to be the most satisfactory mode of accounting for the double form of 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 al as the more fully developed form of the negative — a negative noun — answering to the demonstrative nouns am, ad, al, &c. I refer in this only to the resemblance in form between the demonstrative and the negative bases and nouns ; but perhaps we may now venture to go a step further, with Dr Gundert, and derive the negative meaning itself from the interrogative, and ultimately from the demonstrative. He says (in his private communication to me), " I 368 THE VERB. believe the [remote demonstrative] pronoun a forms the [particle of negation in the] negative verb; just as this a in its interjectional [syntactic] form has the signification of a question. From the meaning of a question comes the meaning of negation, adu varum-d f 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 depressed by putting a question. It is at once a poetical and a vulgar usage. I am unable, however, to agree with Dr Gundert when he proceeds to say that he does not consider al a negative in itself, but only a negative when followed by the negative particle a, as in the words alia, (fee. Whether al 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 il. The following words in Tamil seem to me to prove that al and il have of themselves the full force of negatives. Al : — andru {al-du), it is not ; (class. Can. altu, Tulu, att'') ; anmei (al-mei), not-ness, negation ; al-gu, to become less, al, darkness, al-vari, a grammatical term, absence of inflexion. Il : — indru, it is not ; inmei (il-mei), not-ness, non-existence. Hi, one who has nothing ; il-porul {porul, thing), non- existence, (fee, the thing that is not. Whatever opinion we entertain respecting the derivation of al from a, the widely extended affinities of al, dl, or el, 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 al. The prohibitive particle of the S^ntal, a K61 dialect, is did ; the Finnish prohibitive also is did ; the Ostiak ild; and we find a similar prohibitive particle even in Hebrew — viz, al; Chaldee, Id. 9. Appellative Veebs, oe 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 paz-an-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, APPELLATIVES. 369 possibly through the influence of the conterminous Scythian lan- guages, there is a similar compound of a noun or an adjective with the verbal terminations — e.g., merd-em, I am a man, from merd, a man, and em, the contracted form of the substantive verb I am. This class of compounds resembles, but is not identical with, the class of posses- sive compounds described in p. 202 ; that class is not found in the Dravidian languages. The agreement between the Dravidian languages and those of the Ugrian family with respect to the formation of appellative verbs of the character referred to is very remarkable, and has been admitted to be very remarkable by Professor Hunfalvy, though in other particulars he fails to see much resemblance between the Finno-Ugrian and the Dravidian languages. Any Dravidian noun and any adjective may be converted into a verb in the more ancient dialects of each of the Dra- vidian languages, and in some connections even in the colloquial dialects, by simply suffixing to it the usual pronominal fragments ; and not only may nouns in the nominative case be thus conjugated as verbs, but even the oblique case-basis, or virtual genitive, may in classical Tamil, as in Mordvin, be adopted as a verbal theme. Tamil grammarians call the verbs here described vinei'{h)'kuTippu, literally verbal signs ; and they have, not inappropriately, been styled conju- gated nouns by an English writer on Tamil Grammar : but I think the best name is that which was given them by Beschi — viz., appella- tive verbs or conjugated appellatives. Appellative verbs are conjugated through every number and person, but they are restricted to the present tense ; or rather, they are of no tense, for the idea of time is excluded from them. Thus, from kon, Tam. a shepherd or king, may be formed Icon-en, I am a king, Mn-ei, thou art a king, kon-em, we are kings, kon-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 kon-in, of the king, or the king's, we may not only form the appellative nouns, kon-in-an, he who is the king's, kdn-in-ar, they who are the king's (each of which may be used also as an appellative verb, which signifies he is the king's, or they are the kin^^':;), but w^e may also form the more distinctively verbal appel- latives, kon-in-en, I am the king's, kdn-in-em, we are the king's, &c. This use of the oblique or inflexion as the basis of appellative verbs is a peculiarity of classical Tamil ; but the formation of appellative verbs 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 varits by rule in accordance with the preceding vowel), from sevakudu, a servant, or kavi, a poet, we form the appel- 2 A 370 THE VERB. lative verbs sevakuda-nUj I am a servant, havi-ni, I am a poet ; seva- huda-vu, thou art a servant, kavi-vi, thou art a poet. In the plural, Telugu has allowed the base of the noun (to which the pronominal terminations are affixed) to be pluralised, apparently from having for- gotten that the plural sign of the pronominal termination was sufficient of itself — e.ff., it says sevakula-mu, we are servants; whereas in Tamil the difference between adi-(j/)-en, I am (your) servant, and adi-{^)-em, 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 MalayS-lam singular adiyan or adiyen agrees with the Tamil, but the plural adiyannal bears marks of corruption. The classical Tamil words el-dm, all we, el4r, 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 havi, 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, 7ial(l)-al, she is good ; nal{l)-adu or imn-dru (for nal-du), it is good, nal{l)-ar, they (epicene) are good, nal{l)-ana, or nal{l)-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., iruJckiradu, 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 APPELLATIVES. 371 there are exceptions, and (e.g.) nalladu 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 is 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., oli-(y)-ei, Tam. thou art bright, is literally thou art brightness ; and ini-{i/)-ei, 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., 7iegg-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 iya intervening between the crude base and the pronominal termination or sign of gender — e.g., kod-iya-n (as a verb), he is cruel; (as a noun) one who is cruel, or a cruel man ; val-iya-n, a strong man, or he is strong, (kc. This is the same particle which we have already seen to be used as an adjectival formative — e.g., val-iya, strong, per- iya, great, sir-iya, little, &c., and I have stated that I conceive words like these to be relative participles, i is identical with the. i of the past verbal particle, which is often used in Telugu as an adjectival formative without any addition ; and the final a is the sign of the relative, which is kept separate from i by an euphonic y. iya is therefore the formative of the relative preterite participle, and val-i- {y)-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-iya, 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 a, the sign of the relative participle, is dispensed with, and the pronominal signs or signs of gender are elegantly suffixed to i, the sign of the verb^ participial — e.g., per^i-du, Tam. it is great, or that which is great, instead of 2^^ri-(y)-a-du. On the other hand. 372 THE VERB. in another class of instances, i 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 should term them relative participles of appellative verbs. In the words referred to, a, the sign of the relative participle, is directly annexed to crude substantive roots — e.g., udei-{y)-a, belonging to, more literally which is the property of. malei-{y)-a, hilly, literally which is a hill ; ti-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 II.— CONJUGATIONAL SYSTEM. Mode of Annexing Pkonominal Signs. — 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, ni-vu, the pronoun of the second person singular, has lost both its radical initial and its formative final j and in the personal termina- tions of the verb it is represented only by vu, 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, (pso-ovn^ hharanti, &c.), is found in Welsh alone, in which hwynt is a pronoun of the third person plural. The various changes which the Dravidian pronouns undergo on PKONOMINAL 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 Njertscbinsk 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- ance with the ancient am-o, we have learnt to say I love, — an alteration 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 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.e.^ 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 Malaylllam — a language which appears to have been originally identical with 6^4: THE VERB. Tamil, but which, in so far as its conjiigational 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 the primitive condition of both — a condition nearly resembling that of the Mongolian, the Manchu, and the other rude primitive tongues of High Asia. In ancient times, as may be gathered from Malay^lam poetry, and especially from the inscriptions preserved by the Syrian Christians and the Jews, the pronouns were suffixed to the Malayalam 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.(/., lovest, loveih) ; but in modern Malayalam every trace of those signs has disappeared. Thus, whilst we should say in Tamil aditten, I beat ; adittdy, thou didst beat ; adittdn, he beat ; Malayalam uses in these and all similar cases the verbal participle adichu (for adittu), having beaten, with the prefixed pronouns I, thou, he, &c. — e.g., ndn adichu, I beat; m 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 notwithstanding the comparative bar- barity of the Gonds 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 suffix 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 pagudi {prahriti, Sans.), or root; (2) the idei nilei, or medial particle, i.e., the sign of tense ; and (3) the vigudi {yikriti, Sans.), the variation or differentia, i.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. PRONOMINAL SIGNS. 375 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- nominal signs when they are annexed to the signs of tense have already been stated in the section on " The Pronoun." In the Indo-European languages we meet, I think, with no instance of the annexation of the pronominal signs to the participles, i.e., to the combination of the root with the signs of tense. I know of no instance of the use of any form like amant-o, instead of am-o, to signify I love. This, however, is the method which is invariably employed in the Dravidian languages, and which constitutes an essential element in the family likeness by which they are pervaded. It is also distinctive of Turkish. Thus, the Turkish dMrsen, thou art, is formed from ^Mr, being, the present participle of the verb 61, to be, with the addition of the pronoun sen, thou. So also the Oriental Turkish holdmen, I am, is formed from hdld, being (theme, hdl, to be), and the pronominal suffix men, I. An important difference generally found to exist between the Dravi- dian languages and the Gaurian vernaculars should here be stated. In the languages of Northern India the present tense of a verb is ordi- narily formed by annexing the substantive verb to its present parti- ciple — e.g., haritechi, Beng. {Icarite-dchi), I am doing, instead of I do. In Telugu, perhaps through the influence of the North Indian verna- culars, a similar usage prevails ; but it is found in the present tense only ; it may readily be dispensed with ; and the simpler usage, which accords with that of all the other Dravidian dialects, is undoubtedly the more ancient. In Tamil and Canarese this use of the substantive verb, as an auxiliary in the formation of the present tense, is unknown : it is used as an auxiliary only in the formation of the compound pre- terite and future tenses. MalayS;lam occasionally uses the substantive verb in a similar manner to Telugu, but with a somewhat different signification. In Telugu naduchutunndnu, I walk (from naduclm-tu, walking, and unndnu, I am), has simply the meaning of the present tense, and is equivalent to the simpler form naduchutdnu, answering to the Tamil nadakhiven, and the Canarese nadeyuttene ; but in Malay- ^lam, whilst ndn nadakkunnu means I walk, ndn nadakkunnunda has generally an emphatic sense — e.g., I am really walking. Tamil has a form precisely resembling this. 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, number, and gender ; aitd this peculiarity applies also to the third person of the aorist. Thus, whilst unditini, I was, and unditivij thou 376 THE VERB. wast, are supplied with tlie usual signs of tense and person, the third person of the same tense is simply unde-nu, he, she, or it was, or they were, without distinction of number or gender, and without even the particle ti^ which constitutes the usual ^ sign of the preterite. The aorist third person, with a similar absence of distinction, is undu-nu ; and in both cases the final nu is merely a conjunctive suffix, like the corresponding Tamil iim. 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 padu-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, especially in connection with the negative voice of the verb — e.g., sey{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, dlHrum, I am ; oMrsen, thou art ; dlilr, he is. Compare also the Armorican Icanann, I sing ; Jcanez, thou singest ; kan, he sings. Compare with these examples the Hungarian ismerek, I know; ismersz, thou knowest; and ismer, 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 from a period of great antiquity. In High Tamil, seydu {sey-du), which is now the preterite verbal participle, may be used for the preterite tense of the finite verb in all persons in the singular, and seydum {sey-d^-um) (the same form with the addition of the conjunctive um, used as a pluralising particle), for all persons in the plural. A somewhat similar form may be used for the future, by means of the addition of kit or gu to the root, instead of the sign of the preterite, du. sey-gu is used to mean I will do ; sty-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 poetical Tamil is found FORMATION OF TENSES. 377 also in classical Canarese in the form of gum or hum, in whicli 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 indiscri- minately for all persons — e.g., avar mddugum, they do. hu also survives in Canarese — e.g., Ice-ku (Tam. vend-um), must. It would appear, there- fore, that the Dravidian verb was originally uninflected ; and this may 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 varugivdn, he comes ; varugirdl, she comes ; varugiradu, it comes ; varugirdr, they (men and women) come, or honorifically he comes ; varugirdrgal, they (men and women) come ; varugindrana, they (things) come. Formation op 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. Verbal Participles, their Signification and Force. — In ordinary collo- quial Tamil there is but one verbal participle, that of the past tense. In Malayalam and in cla^ical Tamil there is a verbal participle of the future tense as well as of the past. In Canarese and Telugu there is 378 THE VEKB. 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- loquial 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 gerunds, — or more fully verbal participhs, to distinguish them from what are called relative participles. The following sentences will illustrate the force of the Dravidian verbal participles : — 1. Present Verbal Participle. — This verbal participle, though unknown in Tamil and Malay^lam, is commonly used both in Canarese and in Telugu. I quote the illustration which follows from Canarese. " Vikram^rka, 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 Participle. — " S^livahana, having killed Vikra- marka, assumed supreme power." Though the English participle * 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 past tense, and the Dravidian word which it represents (kondru, Tam., kondu, Can.) is also a preterite active verbal participle. In this instance, neither the English participle nor the Dravidian one is capable of being used as an adjective. In reality, they are both preterite gerunds or gerundials, though they retain the name of participles as a matter of convenience. ( In those Dravidian dialects in which there is a present, as well as a THE PRESENT TEKSE. 379 preterite, verbal participle (as in Canarese and Telngu), the present is 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 antecedent in point of time to the principal action. In Tamil, the preterite participle is used to express all subordinate actions, whether simultaneous with the 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 tense when the connection requires it. In each of the dialects and in every connection, the nominative of the final governing verb is the nominative of all the subordinate verbal participles. The Dravidian verbal participles may be compared with the Sanskrit indeterminate past participle in tvd — e.g., Icritvd, having done. Like that participle they are indeclinable and indeterminate. One of the chief peculiarities, however, of these verbal participles is, that they have a continuative force, dispensing altogether with the use of con- junctions. In the Dravidian languages, though nouns and pronouns 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 in the sentence, and the seat of government ; and all the verbs which express subordinate actions or circumstances, whether antecedent or contemporaneous, assume an indeterminate, continuative character, as verbal participles or gerundials, without the need of conjunctions or copulatives of any kind ; so that the sense (and more or less the time also) waits in suspense for the authoritative decision of the final governing verb. Hence those participles might properly be called con- tinuative gerundials. Tamilian grammarians class them, together with infinitives and subjunctives, as vinei echcham, verb defects, or verbal complements — i.e., words which require a verb to complete the sense. It is a peculiarity of these languages that when a series of verbal participles constitutes a relative clause in a sentence, antecedent to a noun to which the relative clause relates, the last of the verbal par- ticiples alone is converted into a relative participle. All the rest remain in form verbal participles or gerunds. So also in the Scythian languages. " The Turanian," says Mr Edkins, " in describing a suc- cession of events gives to his verbs the form of gerunds, and adds to them, when needed, the case sufiixes," — converting the gerund thereby into a relative participle, as in Tamil, &c. The rationale of the pro- cess seems to be that in both families of tongues the gerund is treated as a noun, and must have been a verbal noun in origin. 1. The Present Tense. — -it may be stated generally that the present tense of the Dravidian verb is formed by suflfixirig the pronominal 380 THE VERB. as signs to the present verbal participle, with such trivial changes only 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. A peculiarity of the poetical dialect is the extension of this usage to each person of the verb — e.g., 7bada7ida{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.) Tamil and Malayalam 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-MalayS,lam had a verbal participle of the present tense at a former period, which has now become obso- 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 Canarese there is another exception to the general rule. In the colloquial dialect the present tense is formed regularly from the present participle ', but the present tense in the classical dialect is altogether unconnected with that participle, or at least is only very distantly related to it. The sign of the present participle is ute, Mi, which means having sung in the other dialects, signifies in Malayalam (he, she, or it) sang ; i 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 i 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 band, cannot have been derived from ^, it appears probable that d and i are distinct and independent signs of past time. Of these two signs of past time d is to be considered, if not the older, yet at least the more prevalent and more characteristic. We have seen that in many instances in which the colloquial Canarese has i, the classical dialect and Tamil have d. Not in those instances only, but universally, Telugu uses i as the sign of the preterite ; but the great antiquity of the grammatical forms of Tamil and Old Canar- ese precludes the supposition that their most characteristic sign of past time has been borrowed from that of 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, therefore, appear that two modes of forming the preterite being in existence, one in d, another in i, the latter form has in many instances, particularly in Telugu, superseded the former ; and the prevalence of i 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- changes amongst the signs 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 wealc Germanic con- jugations cannot have been corrupted from the strong, or vice versd; 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 THE PRETERITE TENSE. 391 that the former mode has in very many instances been superseded by the latter. What is the origin of the d which is inserted in Canarese between i and the pronominal terminations, and also between i and the sign of the relative participle 1 It appears to be used (whatever be its origin) merely for the purpose of preventing hiatus between concurrent vowels — e.g.^ mddi-{d)-enu, I 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 3/ and v; and it seems extraordinary 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-a, of a tree, d might seem to be used euphonically ; but it has been shown in the section on " The Noun " that that d is the remnant of a neuter demonstrative, and is used as an inflexional increment ; it is not, therefore, a precedent for the use of d for the prevention of hiatus merely. Possibly the use of this d 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, 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 a new purpose, and placed in a position in which it would not have appeared but for the use to which it had already been put. (2.) The Tamil Preterite. — The preterite is ordinarily formed in Tamil, as in Canarese, in two ways — viz., by suffixing either d ov i 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 I as its final letter is followed by d as the sign of the preterite, the compound becomes ndr — e.g., the preterite verbal participle oi p6l, like, is not p6l-d-u, but pon-dr-u. Sometimes, however, when d follows Z, the compound becomes rr, pronounced ttr — e.g., from leal, to learn, comes, not kal-d-u, but karc-u (kattr-u), having learned (Can. kali-d-u). I followed by d becomes nd — e.g.y from mdl, to die, comes mdnd-u, 'having died. Sometimes, however, when d follows I, thfe compound becomes tt — e.g., from kel, to hear, comes kett-u, having heard. These and similar combinations are merely instances of euphonisation, in accordance with the fixed phonetic rules of the language ; and in each case it is in reality d alone which constitutes the sign of past time. In some verbs the primitive d still remains unchanged and pure — e.g., nru-d-u, having ploughed, from uru, to plough ; or with a conversion of the dental d into the^cerebral d — e.g., kan-d-u, having seen, from kdii, to see. 392 THE VERB. The euphonisation of d wliich 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 Tamil and Telugu, especially in Tamil, and by means of which the formatives gu^ duj and bu have so generally been changed to 7igu, ndu, and mbu. In the majority of cases in Tamil in which d (preceded by a vowel or semi- vowel) once formed the sign of the preterite, it has been nasalised into 7id; 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 iru-nd-en^ I was, the corresponding Canarese is iddenu (for iru-d-enu) ; and whilst the preterite of the Tamil verb vdr, to flourish, is vdr-nd-dn, he flourished, the equivalent in classical Canarese is hdl-d-am. The higher dialect of Tamil retains some traces of the primitive un-nasalised purity of this sign of the preterite — e.g., viru-nd-u, having fallen, from viru, to fall, is occasionally written by the poets vir-d-u. {vir is phonetically equivalent to viru.) It is curious to notice the progress of nasalisation which is apparent in this verb on comparing the Canarese hiddu (for hil-du), the High Tamil vtrdu, the modern Tamil virundu, and the Malayalam vmu. Another change which d undergoes in Tamil consists in its being hardened and doubled in certain cases, so as to become tt. This happens to nd as well as to d, — a clear proof of the development of the former from the latter ; and when the d of nd is doubled, the nasal entirely disappears. Just as the doubled form of ng is kk, and that of mb, pp, so the doubled form of nd is tt. In some instances this change is merely euphonic — e.g., padu, to lie, an intransitive verb, takes for its preterite, not padu-d-en or padu-nd-en, but padu-tt-en, I lay. Such cases, however, are rare, and in general the use of tt 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 tt of tdr-tt-en, I lowered, is formed by the doubling and hardening of the nd (the equivalent of d) of the corresponding intransitive tdr-nd-en, 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 i 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 THE PRETERITE TENSE. 393 take i for their preterite: — (long syllable) pddu, to sing; (long by position) pann-u, to make ; (two short syllables) erud-u, to write ; (one syllable short, and one long by position) tirupp-u, to turn. All verbs of which the final consonant is a liquid semi-vowel {I, I, r, r, not v 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 i as their preterite suffix, there are traces of the prevalence of ^ at a more ancient period. Thus, whilst 'thou didst go' is in the ordinary dialect p6-(n)-d;^ (properly p6g-i-{n)-dy, from po, or po-gic, to go), in the poets pd-d-i is sometimes used instead ; so instead of d-{n)-dy (for dy-i-{n)-dy, from d-gu, to become), thou becamest, the poets sometimes use d-d-i. In these instances Canarese also, even in the colloquial dialect, says pddi and ddi. Even nd is sometimes d only in Tamil poetry— e.^., 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-i, exactly corre- sponds to the forms quoted above, pd-d-i and d-d-i. Notwithstanding, therefore, the prevalence of i 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 i 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-i, having sung (the preterite verbal participle of pdd-u, to sing), is formed pdd-i-{n)- dn, I sang ; pdd-i-{n)-dy, thou didst sing ; ^:)(^^-'i-(7i)-(^?i, he sang : so also pdd-i-{n)-a, the relative participle, that sang. Whatever be the origin of this n, it cannot be doubted that its use in Tamil is at present wholly euphonic; and this statement applies also to the use of the same n in the preterite relative participle of Telugu. It in no respect contributes to the expression of grammatical relation; and 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 pddi{n)a, that sang, we may write with still more perfect propriety pddi{y)a. Probably y is in this connection older than n. (See " Sounds.") We see a parallel use of n in the Turkish verb, in the frequent insertion of an euphonic n between the theme and the infinitival particle, and ^o between the theme and the sign of the passive. The most weighty argument in confirmation of the euphonic 394 THE VERB. origin of the Tamilian n in question is derived from the use of 7i as an euphonic fulcrum, or means of preventing hiatus 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, 'variigindrana {varu-gindr-ana), they (things) come, the n of the pro- nominal termination ana is undoubtedly equivalent to the v of the isolated plural neuter avei (for ava); and is used merely for the euphonic prevention of hiatus between the first a, or the demonstrative vowel, and the final a, or the sign of the neuter plural, (a(n)a or a{v)a is equivalent to a-a.) Native Tamil grammarians consider w, not *, the sign of the preterite ; but as i, never in, 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 justified in considering the purely euphonic origin of the n in question to be a settled point j but a difficulty arises on comparing those lan- guages with Canarese. Wherever Tamil and Telugu use ?i in the formation of the preterite tense and the preterite relative participle, there Canarese, as has been observed, uses d — e.g., mddi-(d)-enu, I did, not mddi-{n)-enu ; and mddi-{d)-a, that did, not mddi-{n)-a. Now, though this d of the Canarese is certainly euphonic in its present use, it has been shown that there is reason for suspecting it to be derived from d, the old sign of the preterite ; and if this supposition be correct, it would follow that the Tamilian n, which corresponds so perfectly to the Canarese d, may be derived from the same source as d, and euphoni- cally altered from it. The n of the Tamil preterite, therefore, as well as the d of the Canarese, may testify to the primitive universality of the use of c^ as a sign of past time. Whether d (= n) was originally a sign of the preterite or not, the conversion of d into 7i in this connec- tion, viz., in the preterite tense, and especially in the preterite relative participle, is analogous to the change of ia or da to na in the past participle of the Indo-European tongues, especially in German, from which the final n of our own past participles (such as ' fallen ') has been derived. (3.) The Malay dlam Preterite. — The Malay^lam 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 language, with only such modifications of sound as are dialectic and regular. That which constitutes the preterite verbal participle in Tamil is in Malayalam the preterite tense of the verb — e.g., nadandu in Tamil signifies having THE PRETERITE TENSE. 395 walked ; the corresponding MalayMam word nadannu, means (he, she, it, or they) walked. Some confusion has been introduced in Malay^lam 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 a 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, nadanna, that walked, is therefore identical with the Tamil nadanda. On the other hand, the final a of the pre- terite verbal participle ought either to have been w, 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 u is denoted by Uy 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&lam orthography, as Dr Gandert terms it, will now disappear. (4.) The Telugu Freterite. — In Telugu all preterite verbal participles, without exception, are formed by adding i to the theme. Even those verbs which form their preterites by suffixing d or some modification of it in Tamil, Canarese, and Malayalam, form their preterites in Telugu by sufiixing i — -e.g., Icon-du, Tam. and Can., having bought, is in Telugu Tcon-i, and Tcan-du, Tam. and Can. having 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. Though the preterite verbal participle never takes any sufiix but that of ^, 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 ti between the i of the verbal participle and the pronominal terminations. It cannot be doubted, I think, that this ti, 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 tlie preterite verbal participle of dd-u, to play, is dd-i, having played, in both dialects ti or d is suffixed to i before adding the personal termi- nations — e.g., compare Can. dd-i-d-enu, I played, Tel. dd-i-ti-ni. It has already been shown to be probable that the d thus inserted by the Canarese, though now us<^ 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 Telugu, in whicli the corresponding ti 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 ddi and ni, the pronominal fragment, or in the second person between ddi and vi. It therefore follows that we must regard 'i{i as a sign of past time, subordinate indeed to i, and unused in the third person of the preterite, but immediately allied to d, the past tense-sign of Tamil and Canarese, and testifying to the existence of a time when d, or its equivalent t, was one of the signs of the preterite in Telugu as in the other dialects. In some Telugu verbs, ti 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., ches-ti-ni, Tel. I did (for chesi-ii-ni), is evidently equivalent to the Tamil sey-d-en; and Jcon-ti-ni, I bought (for koni- ti-ni), is equivalent to kon-d-en. So also when e, the Telugu conditional particle, answering to the Tamil dl, 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 i, but ti or t — e.g., compare the Telugu chest-e, if (I, thou, he, (fee.) did or do (abbreviated from chUi-t-e), with the Tamil seyd-dl. It may be mentioned as a singular coincidence that in Mon- golian the gerund du has been modernised into ju, and that again has been changed colloquially mio ji. 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-i-{n)-dnu, I played (answering to the Tamil dd-i-{7i)-en), instead of the more elegant and probably more ancient dd-i-ti-ni. Compare ay-i-{n)-dnu, Tel. I became, d-{n)-en, Tam. (for dg-i-in)-en), and d-{d)-enu, 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 c? or ^ as a sign of the preterite, notwithstanding the universal prevalence in Telugu at present of the use of i, 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 veiclii, having placed, and the corresponding Tamil participle veittu, which is vulgarly pronounced veichi. The tt of the Tamil vei-tt-u^ being simply the hardened and doubled form of d, is the ordinary sign of the preterite ; THE PRETERITE TENSE. 397 and if there were any real alliance between tt-u, through its provincial pronunciation, and the Telugu ch-i, we should undoubtedly have here an instance of the use of tt—i.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 ch of the Telugu veichi corresponds, not to the tt 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-ck-a. kk ia vulgarly pronounced ch 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 vei, as in Tamil, but veich-u (with the addition to vei of the formative ch-u, which is equivalent to the Tamil kk-u) ; and from this veich-u, the preterite verbal participle veich-i, is regularly formed, in this as in all other cases, by the addition of i. If the corresponding Tamil verb formed its preterite in the same manner, its verbal participle would be vei-kk-i, not vei-tt-u. A case in point in illustration of this is the Tamil tvi-kk-u, to lift,' to weigh (Tel. t4-ch-u), the preterite verbal participle of which is M-kk-i (Tel. tH-ch-i). (5.) The Tulu Preterite. — The Tulu preterite, like that of G6nd, divides itself into two tenses, an imperfect and a perfect, each regu- larly inflected. The imperfect 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 t OT d, or the ^, which is still more commonly used in several dialects. Compare Tulu itte, I was, with iddenu, Can. ; irunden, Tam. : Tulu kende (ken for Ml) with ketten (kel-ten), Tam. ; kelidenu, Can. i appears in hilriye, I fell, from hUru, to fall (Tam. viru, vir). The per- fect tense seems to be formed by suffixing an additional d, with such euphonic changes as the dialect requires. Compare itte, I was, with itf de, I have been. (6.) Preterites of Minor Dialects. — It is difficult to make out the Tuda preterite, th appears to be the sign of the past, corresponding to the Tamil and Canarese d — e.g., compare dd-k-en, I dance, with dd-th-h-ini, I danced. This th is written ch by Mr Metz — e.g., hindch- pini, I asked ; and, according to him, the same ch 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-chi, danced. In the Kota dialect the past seems to be represented by si — e.g., compare hogape, I go, with hdsipe, I went. In this it does not stand alone, as will be seen. In G6nd, si orji, apparently ft)ftened from ti, forms the verbal participle of the preterite ; but the perfect tense is formed by suffixing tt — e.g., 398 THE VERB. kei-U-dn, I have called ; kei-si, having called. In Seoni G6nd, also, the preterite or conjunctive participle suffixes si — e.g., wunh-si, having spoken ; but the past participle is formed by suffixing tHr — e.g., tvunJc- titr, spoken; and the past tense simply suffixes t — e.g., wunh-t-an, I spoke, wunkt-i, thou didst speak. An imperfect or progressive tense is formed by inserting und or nd, apparently the substantive verb, between the root and the pronominal terminations. These instances tend to confirm the supposition that d, or some modification of it, is, if not the only, yet at least the most ancient and characteristic sign of the Dravidian preterite. Origin of the Deavidian Signs of Past Time. 1. The most probable conjecture I can offer respecting the origin of i, is one which would confirm the supposition of its secondary char- acter. I conceive 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-u. Where the theme terminated . in a hard consonant, euphony would require some such vocalic bond of connection — e.g., the Old Canarese hdl-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 hdl-i-d-enu. We see a precisely similar euphonic insertion of i in the Latin dom-i-tus (instead of dom-tus), tamed, and the Sanskrit ptd-i-tah (instead of pM-tah), pressed. Subsequently we may suppose the true preterite c? to have gradually dropped off; whilst i remained, as being the easier sound, with the adventitious signification 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 nt, thou, though vu was originally only an euphonic addition to ni, by which it was con- verted into ntvu. It deserves notice that wherever i is used in Canarese 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 that on comparing the Tamil verbs which form their preterite in i with those that suffix d, no reason but euphony can be alleged why the one suffix should be employed rather than the other ; consequently euphonic causes must at least have helped the development of i. This supposition of the origin of i from the vocalic conjunction of d with the verbal theme, would also account for the circumstance that wherever i is followed by a vowel (whether the initial vowel of the pronominal terminations, or the a which consti- THE PRETERITE TENSE. 399 tiites 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 n, as in Tamil and Telugu. The manner in which ti is sepa- rated from the theme in some Telugu preterites — e.g., kon-i-ti-ni (hon- ti-ni), I bought, confirms this supposition of the euphonic origin of i. 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 ulterior, though remote, connection with t or ta (alternating with 7ia), the ordinary suffix of the Indo-European passive participle — e.g., jnd-ta-h, Sans, known; Greek yvu-ro-g ; Latin (g)n6-tu-s : hhug-na-s, Sans, bent ; Gothic hug-a-n{a)s. In Gothic this suffix is d or t; in New Persian invariably d. In Sanskrit the participle which is formed from ta is in general distinctively passive ; but a few traces exist of a preterite signification, only, however, in connection with neuter verbs- — e.g., ga-ta-s, one who went ; hhH-ta-s, one who has come into being. A preterite signification predominates also in the active participles formed by suffixing tavat (derived from the passive ta) — e.g., kri-favat, was making, and in the indeterminate past participle, or gerund, which is formed by suffixing tvd — 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) t of the Sanskrit, the use of this c? as a sign of the preterite is 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 I 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 t of the Sanskrit — e.g., karildm, I did, is derived by them from karita, Sans, done, followed by the personal termina- tion dm. This supposition is confirmed by the conformity of karildm to the New Persian kardem, I did, and by the use in Marathi of a similar preterite in I, which is supposed to be derived in like manner from the Sanskrit passive participial t — e.g., mi kelo-m, 1 did, mia gel6-n, I went. The interchange of d and I is of frequent occurrence ; and possibly the Sanskrit t may have become d oi d before it was corrupted into I. There is no proof of this, however, and the I which is used as the equivalent of t. or d in the formation of the Slavonian preterite byl (Pers. blld. Sans, bhdtam), he was, shows that t may have passed into I immediately, without the middle point of the cerebral d. 400 THE VERB. Whether the preterite I of the Bengali and Mar^thi is derived directly from the Sanskrit passive participial t, or whether it has descended from some 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 I, 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.j.bii-d-em, I was; bur-d-em, I bore. The participle which con- stitutes the verbal theme in Persian, and which has a formative that is passive in Sanskrit, has an active as well as a passive-preterite signification — e.g., hurdeh 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 have happened through the influence of the past time which is inherent in the perfect passive. In Gothic and in the modern Teutonic tongues, d is used in connection with a large class of verbs to denote the preterite ; but this d has been shown to be a relic of did, and this again to be reduplication of the root do. Consequently the d of loved cannot really be related to the t of the Sanskrit and Persian, still less with the d of the Dravidian preterite, 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, I 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 im, I am, with the preterite t-d-um, 1 was. Notice also dl-d-um, I was, and the equivalent form in Oriental Turkish, h6l-d-im. In Finnish, the preterite is regularly formed by suflSxing t. The preterite participle from which the perfect tense is formed terminates in ut, 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, I have become. It especially deserves notice, that these Turkish, Finnish, and Hungarian signs 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. 401 111 tliis particular, 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 ? I)r Granl (in his '' Outlines of Tamil Grammar," p. 42) says, " The verbal form in du {e.g., seydu^sey-adu, perhaps 'something endowed with what the root sey signifies, i.e., something doing') originally seems to have been used for all the forms of the finite verb in the sin- gular {ndii seydu, I doing, ni seydu, thou doing, &c.), and seydum (seydu-icm), in the plural (ndm seydum, ningal seydum, &c. seydu in the sense of I did, and seydum in the sense of we did, are still found in the ancient dialect). Probably the personal afiSxes were added later, seydu en = seyden, I did, &c. In ]\Ialayalam 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 Malayalam 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 seydic and seydum in the Tamil poets. seydi(> is used both for the preterite and the future, but at present only in the first person singular, and ieydum in the plural — e.g., seydu, I did, or will do, seydum, we did, or will do. Dr Granl's identification of the d, which is the sign of the preterite, with the d 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 th'e Tamil condi- tional seyd-dl, if (one) does, or did, seydu appears to express the meaning of 'doing' irrespective of time. In some connections, however, it will be seen that this conditional form connects itself distinctively with the past. (See " The Conditional") Every difficulty would be removed if we supposed the particle originally appended to the root to have been, not simply dii, but adu, th^remote demonstrative that. It has been seen that ute, the sign of the present in Canarese, is probably uizi, 2c 402 THE VERB. this. There is something very enticing in the suj)position 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, i, 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 i is used demonstratively, or is a relic of a vowel used demonstratively, the preterite must have been formed by the addi- tion to the root of 'this,' not 'that,' which is very unlikely. All that can 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 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, 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. In one it is used to denote the preterite, in the other to form a passive participle capable of being used as a preterite. What renders it more remarkable is that this demonstrative letter or particle is t or d in both. The di of the Turkish preterite {sever-di-m, I loved) is regarded by Max MUller (" Lectures," p. 324) as the relic of a possessive pronoun. " Paying belongs to me," he says, '■' equals I have paid" — i.e., I have or possess paying. Is the preterite d of Tamil also a possessive 1 It might take this force, seeing that whilst adu is a demonstrative, mean- ing that or it, it is also a possessive 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 Dravidian 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 di, if not also with the Dravidian d, the Sanskrit t, and the Persian d. The Mongolian has another gerund iiiji, which Mr Edkins thinks is derived from d, the Mongol y having d for its equivalent. So also as we have seen, the Tamil du becomes H in Telugu. The Japanese gerund in te nearly . 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 te) — e.g., mita, saw, from mi, 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, inclusive 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 ii^ all the Dravidian dialects. The future is the least distinctive of the Dravidian tenses. It is 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 ii — e.g., sey-gu, I will do. This is pluralised by the addition of um — e.g., sey-gum, we will do, also sey-gum vandem, we came in order to do, in which key-gum has the force of a plural 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., geyu-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. In the next stage of 404 THE VERB. the growth of this form of tlie future we find the personal terminations suffixed to gu, but still only in the poets— e.r/., seygen {seyg'-en), I will do. In certain connections this g is hardened to kh — e.g., adeikken, I 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 g or kk, 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., pd-ga, to go ; fd-gum, it will go ; iru-kka, to be ; iru-kkum, it will be. The future is ordinarily formed in Tamil, both in the poets and in the colloquial dialect, by adding v, h, or pp to the root, in accordance with the rule of euphony explained when treating of the causal verb. After y, I, r, r and I, v is generally used — e.g., sey-v-en, I will do ; ^oU v-en, I will say ; sdr-v-en, I will lean upon ; vdr-v-en, I will flourish ; mdl-v-en, 1 will perish. To this, however, there are exceptions in regard to roots ending in I and I — e.g., kal, to learn, becomes in the future karpen ( = kal-ppen), and kel, to hear, becomes ketpen{ = kelppen). V is used after roots ending in u preceded by a long vowel, whether long by nature or by position — e.g., pddu, to sing, becomes in the future i^ddu-v-en; anuppu, to send, anuppu-v-en. The nasals n and n form their futures by suffixing h — e.g., en, to say, becomes in the future en-b-en, I will say ; un, to eat, becomes un-b-en. This 6 changes some- times in the poets to m — e.g., instead of enhar, 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.) h also makes its appearance in those future participial nouns in which tw^o vs would otherwise appear — e.g., varuhavan, 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., iru, to be, becomes in the future iru- pp-en; nad(t, to walk, nada-pp-en; kadi, to bite, kadi-p)p-en. Of all these futuric particles or modifications of the same pai-ticle, 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 v. I am inclined to consider these signs of the future as originally nothing more than formatives of verbal nouns. According to this supposition, g, the oldest sign of the future in Tamil, would naturally ally itself to v, b, and p. The only dltference 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 u, whilst the future is recognised by its affixing to the same formative letters the pronominal terminations — e.g., compare kadu-gu, mustard, from kad2i. THE FUTURE TENSE. 405 to be sliarp ; TcuTU-Tcku, athwart, from kuTu, to be short ; ari-vu, know- ledge, from ari, to know ; sdr-bu, support, from Mr, to lean upon ; tira- ppu, an opening, from tira, to open. The formatives most largely used in the formation of these verbal nouns are v and pp, just as we have seen that V and 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 u. The Tamil future formed from v, h, or pp, is destitute of a relative participle, and uses instead the aorist future in um. Generally also, that aorist is used instead of the more distinctive future in the third person singular neuter. Thus, whilst *he will be' is iru-pp-dn, 'it will be' is ordinarily iru{k]c)-um, not iru-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 iru-v-adii. 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 um to the formed theme — e.g., pdg-um, it will go ; var-um, it will come ; irukk- um, it will be. The future in um is not considered by Tamil gram- marians as distinct 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 distinct future formation is confirmed by the Malay ^lam, in which it is the form of the future in ordinary use — e.g., nan erud-um, I will write, ni erud-um, thou wilt write ; the other form corresponding to the Tamil future in v, h, pp, is used in MalayMam as in Tamil, but not so commonly, except in conjunction with certain nouns — e.g., di/dlam, till (it) become, for dgu-(v)-6lam or dgum-olam ; maripp'olam, till (it die), for marikhiim-dlam. In the Tamil of prose and conversa- tion the future in um is used in connection with the neuter of the third person singular alone ; but in the poetry it occasionally takes a wider range of application, and is sometimes construed even with the masculine-feminine plural, as in Malayalam. The future in um, 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 singular neuter. The forms are identical — e.g., pdg-um, it will go, pog-um, which will go ; they may therefore be regarded as one. um is added, not to the^rude 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 forma 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 in a separate shape. The following instances will show the relation 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 p6g-a, to go, p6g-um, it will go ; inflexional theme, po-gu : pokh-a, to cause to go, to get rid of ; p6kk-um, it will get rid of ; inflexional theme, po-hhu : irulck-a, to be j irukk-um, it will be ; inflexional theme, iru-kku. In those cases in which intransitive verbs are converted into transitives by doubling the initial consonant of the tense-sign {e.g., valar-giv-en, I grow, hardened into valar-kkiv-en, 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 is 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 rear ; valar-kk-um, it will rear : theme valar-kku. It is evident from a comparison of these illustrations, that the above ^ 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 by all persons, numbers, and genders. The particle um, which con- stitutes the sign of future time, is identical in form, and is also, I believe, identical in origin and force, with um, the conjunctive or copulative particle of Tamil. It 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 u, the ultimate base of the Tamil um; 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 THE FUTUKE TENSE. 407 tense, it is true, frequently denotes the future ; but does this only in a vague manner, and it is much more frequently used to express con- tinuous action, or what is habitually done. Thus, mdbd-u put tin(n)- um (Tarn.) is to be translated, not the ox will eat grass, but the ox eats {i.e., 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.^ nan var-um porudu, porei {k)kanden, 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, Malay^lam, and Telugu occasionally form this aoristic future by suflfixing u instead of um — e.g., vai'-u, Tarn, it will come, instead of var-um; img-u, it will eat, instead of ung-um; parapp-u, it will spread, instead of parapp-um. It is apparent from these illustrations that u, like um, is suffixed, not to the root or ultimate base of the verb, but to the formed verbal theme, or primitive verbal noun, which forms the basis of all forms of the future. This future in u is considered by native grammarians as an al-vari, or uninflected form, and the circumstance that the u 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 regarded as an inflected form. The u is probably not the merely euphonic enunciative u, as appears from the position it holds in MalayMam, but the ic which constitutes the base of the conjunctive particle iim. The future in um and the future in ic 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 Malay ^lam, 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, and in it but rarely, is pdkku. This is a 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 Jcolvdn (fut. part.) erunddn, means also he rose up to slay. It might be rendered, he rose up being about to slay; but this would be simply an awkward way of saying the same thing. The initial letter of this particle is v, b, or pp, according to circumstances; and those circumstances are precisely the same as those under which the sign of the future tenge, already considered, becomes v, b, or pp. Whatever is the origin of the one sign must be the origin of the other. 408 THE VERB. The following are instances of all three initials : — varu-vdn, being about to come ; un-hdn, being about to eat ; oiada-pjodn, being about to walk. I have not met with any instance of the change of h into m after a nasal, in connection with this particle (though it was noticed that the h of the future tense often changes in the poets into m — e.g.y enhar = enmar, they will say) -, but this change, or the equivalent one of V into m, is common in MalayHlam, in which they would say, not un-hdn, being about to eat, as in Tamil ; but un-mdn. In MalayMam the V 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, adii, the ordinary formatives of Tamil neuter singular nouns. We have another instance of this change of adu to an, and then to dn, in 2^dn, ten, w^hich is a poetical form of padu or pattu. See ^' Numerals : " Ten. iruppdfi, Tam. being about to be, is therefore, I conceive, the equivalent of iruppadu, that which is about to be, it will be (Can. iruvadu). Canarese forms its ordinary future, and the Tulu its present (by analogy a future), by inserting v between the theme and the pronominal terminations, in accordance with the first Tamil future — viz., that in V. This Canarese future, like the Tamil, has often an indeterminate, aoristic sense ; but it is more regular than the Tamil, inasmuch as it never changes v into h 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., iru-v-adu, it will be ; and it has also a relative participle of its own — e.g., hdlu-v-a or hdl-v-a, that w^ill live. It is richer . in this respect than the other dialects. The Tulu future, properly so-called, must be considered as 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 tliey, 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 pron-ominal 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 um, is added to the theme. Compare the Tamil dg-um, it will become, it will be, with the Telugu aorist avu-mc (he, she, it, they, neut., &c.), will become. Possibly the THE FUTURE TENSE. 409 Telugu aoristic formative du is allied to tu^ tlie particle of present time. Gond makes use of Tc as tlie sign of tlie future, in connection with the first and second persons of the verb — e.g., wunJci-k-a, I will speak. Compare the g or kk which is sometimes used as the sign of the future by the High Tamil. 2. 2%e more Distinctive Future. — In modern Canarese this con- stitutes the second form of the future, in consequence of being less used than the other. It is formed by inserting iy, or %, 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-iy-enu, I will do, or nudi-d~enu, I will say. In Telugu also, this future assumes a twofold form, from the optional use of two inserted particles, corresponding to the ^y or i, and d of the Canarese. One form inserts e between the theme and the pronominal terminations— e.^., clies-e-nu, I will do — which e is optionally changed to I, in the third person neuter plural — e.g., ches-t-ni, they (neut.) will do. The other form of the future, which is still more rarely used, inserts eda — e.g., cMs-eda-nu, I will do — except in the third person singular, and the third person neuter plural, in which edi is used instead oi eda — e.g., clies-edi-ni, they (neut.) will do. Affinities 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 h—e.g., rdk'hiba, Beng. I will preserve ; in Oriya, rdhhihi ; in Bhojpuri Hindi, rdhhab — and this h has been connected by Max Miiller with the h or ho 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 v also should possess some ulterior affinities. The nearest resemblances are those of the Ugrian languages. In Finnish, wa or va is the sign oi 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 by suffixiilg vo — e.g., Ie-v6 (Finnish ole-va) being or about to be. If I am right, however, in considering the Dravidian future in v, h, p, as a verbal noun origin- ally, and the signs of the future as the ordinary formatives of verbal 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 Gond, 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.e., 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 dialects, 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 " Classification of Verbs.") The Kelative Participle. — It is a remarkable peculiarity of the Dravidian languages, that they have no 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 Prse-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 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 yesterday, he is come again to-day. The Dravidian languages some- 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 by, the relative THE RELATIVE PARTICIPLE. 411 participle of the verb. Thus they would say in Tamil, vanda-dl, the person who came, literally, the-who-came person. In like manner they might use the present relative participle — e.g., varugira dl, the-who-is- coniing person, or the future varum dl, the-who-will-come person. The name given to the relative participle by Tamil grammarians, is peyar eclicham, noun-defect, or noun-complement — i.e., a word which requires the complement of a noun to complete its signification. This name is given to it because it participates so largely in the nature of an adjective that it is invariably followed by a noun, to which it stands in the relation of a relative, and which it connects with the antecedent clauses. Like other Dra vidian 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., nillei erudina pidavan, Tam. the poet who wrote the book, literally, the-who-the-book-wrote poet; kdttil tirigira ydnei, Tam. the elephant that wanders in the jungle, literally, the-that-in-the-jungle- wanders elephant. The relative suffix most largely used in the Dravidian languages is 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 uru, to plough, is uru-giv, ploughing ; from which, by suffixing a, is formed the present relative participle urugiv-a, that ploughs. The preterite verbal participle of the same verb is uru-d-u, having ploughed (of which the final u is merely enunciative), from which by the addition of the same a, is formed the preterite relative participle nrud-a, that ploughed. When the preterite verbal participle ends, not in d-u, but in ^, n (or more elegantly y) is euphonically inserted between the concurrent vowels i and a — e.g., from erud-i, having written, is formed erud-i-{n)-a, or erud-i-{y)-a, that wrote. In all these particulars Malayalam perfectly agrees with Tamil. The future relative participle of Tamil is not formed from a, but terminates in 'um, 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., mddu-v-a, hdl-v-a, or hdlu-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 fiitare used as an auxiliary — e.g., hdl-utt-iriiva, 412 THE VERB. wliicli lives, literally, wliich will be living. The preterits relative par- ticiple is formed, like that of Tamil, by suffixing a ; the only difference is, that between the final i of the verbal participle and the relative a, d is inserted euphonically instead of y or qi — e.g., mdd-i-{d)-a, which did, from mdd-i, having done. Telugu agrees with Tamil in forming its present and preterite relative participles by suffixing a, and in inserting n between the i 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 a in Tamil, MalayMam, and Canarese, in Telugu it is ni. It is now evident that a may be regarded as the characteristic relative suffix of the Dravidian languages. The only exceptions are ni, the negative relative suffix of the Telugu ; the suffix of the aoristic future relative in several of the dialects — viz., ni in Ku, um in Tamil, and edu, edi, e, or eti in Telugu ; and ti 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 a, 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., sir-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., sir-i-(y)-a, small, 2^er-i-{y)-a, great. The preterite relative participles of regular verbs are also frequently used as adjectives — e.g., uyar-nd-a, high, literally, that was high, tdr-nd-a, low, literally, that was low. Tamil adjectives like per-i-[yya, agree so exactly with preterite relative participles like pa7pi-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— i.e., um, which is suffixed like i-{yya, to tbe crude noun of quality — e.g., per-um, great, pas-icm, green. There is no difference in meaning between these two classes of adjectival formatives, 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 i-{yya. (See "Adjectives," p. 208.) Origin of the Relative Suffixes. — The Tamil aorist or future suffix um, has already been shown to be identical with the conjunctive or THE RELATIVE PARTICIPLE. 413 copulative particle. I regard all the other relative suffixes as origi- nally signs of the injlexion, or possessive case-signs, expressing the signification of, endowed with, possessed of, having, which has, &c. In the older Scythian languages, a relative participle is used, as in the Dravidian languages, instead of a relative pronoun. Japanese also has no relative pronoun, but uses a relative participle instead in a truly Scythian manner. The existence of a family likeness in so remarkable a particular tends to show the existence of some family relationship between the Scythian group and the Dravidian. The 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. 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 hi omsihu-ne bichig, the book I 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, bi is I ; bichig, book. Hence the literal meaning, as in the Tamil ndn vdsikJcindr-a nill, is * the I read- ing-having book.' The Chinese construction is similar. Wo nien-ti shu means the book I am reading, ti is the sign of the possessive, and is added to nien, 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 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 could 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 th» 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 tlie words ' horned ' in the English * horned cattle.' In this case, however, the ed is not a sign of the possessive case. The language of the Scythian tablets of Behistun has a relative suffix, pi, answering to the Mongolian hi, 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 a, which forms the most common Dravidian relative suffix, is identical with a, the oldest and most characteristic sign of the possessive case. The other particles also which are used as suffixes 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 I still prefer the explanation I have given, unless, indeed, we feel warranted in going a step further, and regarding the use of a 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 ni, the sign of the aorist relative participle, is identical with the sign of the inflexion or posses- sive case, which is also ni. n^i, the sign of the negative relative participle in Telugu, appears to bear the same relation to ni, a sign of the Telugu inflexion, ti, 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 ti, 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 usage of languages of the Indo-European stock. It is certain that 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 now be considered as completed ; for in each dialect of the family the verb has, properly speaking, only one mood, the indicative ; and the forms THE CONDITIONAL OR SUBJUNCTIVE. 415 which correspond to the conditional, the imperative, and the infinitive moods of other languages._, are verbal nouns or compounds, rather than moods. Nevertheless, it is desirable at this point to inquire into the manner in which those moods are formed. (1.) The Conditional or Siihjimctive. — 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- minal terminations of its own. In the Dravidian languages the sub- junctive is generally formed by simply postfixing to different parts of the verb, either a particle corresponding in meaning to si, or ' if,' or the conditional forms of the substantive verb, which includes the same particle, and which signifies if it be. Different particles are used for "this purpose in the different dialects, and they are not in each dialect suffixed to the same part of the verb ; but the principle on which they are suffixed, and the use to which they are put, are the same in all. In Canarese the conditional particle is re. This is supposed by Dr Gundert to be abbreviated from are (Tam. and Mai. dvu, a way). He compares Canarese handa-re, when he has come, with Malayalam vanna-{v)-dre, commonly vann'dre, literally in the way of his having come, that is, in the event of his having come. Classical Tamil is vanda-{y)-dru. re is appended to the relative participle of the preterite, and that participle being impersonal, the condition applies, without change of form, to all persons, numbers, genders, and times — e.g., mddida, that did, on receiving this suffix becomes mddida-re, if (I, thou, he, she, they, &c.) do, did, or shall do. Person, number, and 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, whatever be its origin, is regarded as a noun, and that a closer render- ing of the construction would be in the event of (my, your, &c.) doing, more literally in the event that (I, you, &c.) have done (so and so). Canarese adds riZ or dgi/u to the relative participle, instead of re, when the sense required is that of although, ril is re with the copulative particle 4 annexed : dgyd is dgi, having been, with the addition of the same H. The use of these participles is in perfect agreement with dgilum, &c., in Tamil. In Tulu there are two forms of the conditional ; one called by Mr Brigel the conditional, the other the subjunctive. The conditional is a compound tense, formed by appending v, the sign of the futuric present, to the perfect participle. Compare malt'de, I have made, malfdve (malt'd-v-e), I should make. There is a negative conditional in Tulu, as there is a negative form of every part of the verb ; and this 416 THE VERB. negative conditional appears to be formed by inserting a as a particle of negation — e.g., malt'dvaye {malt\l-v-a-ye), I should not make. The sub- junctive is formed by adding the particle da, if (corresponding to the Tamil-Malayalam il, dl, and apparently, like them, a locative in origin), to every person in every tense — e.g., malpuve, I make ; malpuveda, if I make. The negative of this form of the verb inserts the usual j (from the negative ijji) 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 ina to the ultimate conjugational base — e.g., chuch- ina, if (I, thou, he, &c.) should see. This ina appears to be identical with the in which is used for the same purpose and in the same manner in Tamil; and as the Tamil in is a sign of the locative, signifying in or in the event of, so is the Telugu ina or ni appar- ently identical in origin with the na or ni 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 e-ni, the con- ditional form of the verb avu, 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, e-ni, is appended not to the verbal or relative participle, but to the personal termina- tions of the verb. It may be appended to any tense, 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 eni is postfixed in Telugu exactly corresponds to the use that is made of dyil, dgil, dyin, or dndl in Tamil — e.g., chesitin'-eni, if I did or do (literally if it be (that) I did), and chesitim-eni, if we did or do, are equivalent to the Tamil seyden-dyin, if I did, and seyddm-dyin, if we did. Some grammarians appear to consider this particle identical with emi, why, and to imply a question; but its resemblance in sound and use to the Tamil dyin, if it be, seems too complete to allow of this supposition. In the colloquial dialect of Telugu, the conditional particle commonly used is simply e, which is suffixed, not to any tense at pleasure like e-ni, but only to the preterite, and is not appended, as e-ni 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., chesi-t-e or chest-e, if (I, thou, he, &c.) did or do. This e is considered by Mr Clay identical with the interrogative e, interrogative forms being much used in Telugu to express the conditional. Did he do it? is equivalent to if he did it? THE CONDITIONAL AND SUBJUNCTIVE. 417 Another mode of expressing the conditional mood in tlie colloquial dialect of Telugu agrees with the Canarese in this, that the particles are suffixed to the relative participle. The particles thus suffixed are att- ayite and att-dyenCi; the first part of both which compounds, att-u, is a particle of relation meaning so as, as if. ayite (ayit-e) is the ordinary conditional of avii, to be, being an emphasised form of ayi-ti, the impersonal preterite, or old preterite verbal participle of avu. dyend is the interrogative form of dyenu, properly ayenu, it was, the third person of the preterite tense of avu, literally has it become 1 Telugu, like Tamil, expresses the meaning of although by adding the conjunc- tive particle u to the conditional particle ina — e.g., ches-ina, if (I) do ; ckes-ma-(n)-ic, although (I) do ( = Tam. seyd-iii, 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 il or in to the formed verbal theme — i.e, that assumed verbal noun which forms the basis of the infinitive and the aoristic defective future. Thus, from the formed theme p6g-ic, going, is formed the infinitive p6g-a, to go, and pog-um, it will go ; and from the same base by the addition of the locative il or iii, is formed the conditional p6g-il or p6g-in, if (I, thou, &c.) go. From var-u^ coming, is formed var-a, infinitive, to come, var-iLm, it will come, and also var-il 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-um, it will be, and also dg-il, if (I, &c.) be. %dg-in (the equivalent of dg-il) has been softened into dy-in; and this appears to be identical in origin and meaning with the Telugu e-ui referred to above, and is subjoined to the personal terminations of verbs in the same manner as e-ni. This conditional il or in is undoubt- edly identical with il or in, the Tamil sign of the ablative of motion, which is properly a sign of the locative, signifying in, at, or on ; and of this in, the Telugu equivalent, in accordance with dialectic laws, is ni, which is also occasionally used as a locative. This being the case, the signification of dg-il or dy-in is evidently in being, i.e., in the event of being ; and this is equivalent to the phrase if it be. Hence d^-il, dy-in, and e-ni are well suited to be used 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-iji (and also a commoner form, dn-dl) as auxi- liaries to other verbs ; and when thus used they are postfixed, like the corresponding Telugu e-ni, to any person of any tense — eg., seyden- dgil, if it be that I did, or«f I did, literally in the (event of its) being (that) I did ; seyven-dgil, if I 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 kdl to the past relative participle — e.g.^ seyda-{k)Ml, if (I, &c.) do or did; uvari oUtta-{h)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 kdl (for kdl- am)f 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 kdlf 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 kdl, a place, comes to mean when, and becomes a means of forming the conditional as readily as il, a place. The literal meaning, therefore, of seyda-{k)kdl 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 kdl in connection f 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 suflaxing dl to the abbreviated preterite relative participle — e.g.,seyd-dl, if (I, &c.) do. If we looked only at examples like seyd-dl, we might naturally suppose dl to be suffixed to the preterite verbal participle {seyd-u), the final u 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., chest-e. If we look, however, at the class of verbs which form their preterite in i, and their preterite relative participle in n~a, we shall find that dl is added to the relative, not to the verbal parti- ciple, and that the two vowels (a and d) are incorporated into one — e.g., the conditional of dg-u, to be, is not dg-i-dl, but dn-dl, evidently from dn-a {dg-i-{ii)-a), that was, and dl. Besides, the verbal participle must be followed by a verb or some verbal form ; but dl is a noun, and therefore the participle to which it is suffixed must be a relative . THE IMPERATIVE. 419 participle, not a verbal one. In colloquial Tamil, dl is suffixed to impersonal forms of the verb alone ; but in the higher dialect dl, or its equivalent el, maybe suffixed to any person of any tense — e.g., seydanei- {y)-el, if thou hast done ; seyguven-el, if I shall do. It is also suffixed to the relative participle, as I conceive dl is in the ordinary dialect — e.g., seygindra-{v)-dl, seyda-{v)-dl, if (I, thou, &c.) should do. This seyda-{v)-dl of the High Tamil illustrates the origin of the more com- mon colloquial form seyd-dl. This conditional particle dl, whatever its origin, seems to be iden- tical with dl, 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 dl in Tamil, the primitive base of dgu being d. dl is rarely used as a sign of the conditional in the higher dialect in Tamil, in which kdl 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 Dra vidian 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 hyd-dl-um signifies though (I, &c.) do. um, 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., seyd-um, though (I, &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 apparent excep- tion to the general rule, for the difference is caused not by the addition of any particle to the root, for the purpose of forming the imperative, but merely by the softening away of the formative suffix or the final consonant of the theme, for the sake of euphony — e.g., var-u, to come, takes for its imperative vd, Tel. rd ; the plural (or honorific singular) of which is in High Tamil vammin, in Telugu rammu. 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 tense. Such verbs also, however, use the simple unformed theme as their 420 THE VERB. imperative, and, in so far as that mood is 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 hed-a, that of the transitive kediikk-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.y whilst the intransitive be spoiled, is chedu, the transitive is not also chedu^ but cheruchu (for cheduchu), a form which would be kedukku 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 dm J 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., kedukk-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, mo 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 mu or mi, the only remaining relic of some lost root, is added as an intensitive or precative, like the Tamil en — e.g., kel-en, Oh do hear. a7idi, 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 (di, udi, and udu or du), are evidently abbreviations of andi. 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, mdduviri or mddiri, ye will do. The neuter participial noun of the future tense, it will do, or it is a thing to be done, is also optionally used for the imperative both in the singular and plural. In the classical dialect the most common plural imperative is formed by adding im, probably a fragment of ntm, the pronoun of the second person plural, to the root — e.g., hdl-im, live ye, ili-{y)-im, descend ye. THE IMPERATIVE. 421 Tulu forms its imperative from tlie future form of the verb in both numbers by appending la to the future in the singular and le in the plural — e.g., malpida, make thou, malpule, make ye. Dr Gundert identifies this I with Id (corresponding in meaning to the Tamil urn), 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 um — e.g., compare sey{y)-um, it will do, with key{y)-um, do ye ; vdr-iim, it will flourish, with vdr-um, flourish ye. This form is used ■ honorifically for the singular, and if this use of um 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 um. The futuric um is appended, as has been shown, not to the ultimate root of the verb, but to the inflexional base, originally, I con'ceive, an abstract verbal noun ; whereas the um 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 form.atives. Thus, destroy ye, is ked'-um ; but, it will destroy is not Tced^-um, but kedakk-um : be ye is ir-um, but it will be is not ir-um, but irukk-um. Though, therefore, um may be, and I have no doubt is, the same um 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, um always appears to retain its original force as a con- junctive 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 Malayalara. In Malay^lam the plural imperative is formed after the plan of the first future, both in Tamil and Malay- Mam, 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 Malaydlam future participle varu-vdn, about to come, with the Malay- Ulam imperative varu-vin, come ye ; Mn-indn, about to see, with hdn- min, see ye ; kel-pdn, about to hear, with kel-pin, hear ye. It is clear from this that the imperative is built upon the future, and indeed that it differs from it only by changing the final dn to in. The Tamil future participle uses h instead of m, after nasals ; on the other hand it uses m alone in other connections, whereas Malay Mam uses v, m, or jo — e.g., for the Malay alam kel-pin, classical Tamil uses ken-min. A form of the negative imperative occasionally found in the Tamil poets agrees with Malay^lam in using p ; it is arptr {al-pir), be not. We are therefore warranted in concluding that the Malayalam and classical Tamil plural imperative is formed by adding in to the future tense, or, perhaps it may be said, by changing dn to in. This in (^r, in arptr, as above) appears to be a relic of the plural pronoun of the second person, as I have supposed the corresponding classical Canarese im, to be. Whatever their origin, the Tamil and Malayalam in and' the classical Canarese im 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 uta, the infinitive in adam-u, and the infinitive in edi. This use of terms is not sufficiently discriminative ; for though each of those forms may be used wath the force of a quasi infinitive in certain connections, 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-dai, suffering ; 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, I think, be proved in the sequel ; but the urns loquendi 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, pidn, 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 THE INFINITIVE. 423 that of the Tamil, though in less common use. The Dravidian infini- tive, properly so called, is generally formed by suffixing a to the verbal theme. This is inyariably the mode in which the infinitive is formed in Telugu — e.j/., chey-a, to do. Ordinarily in Tamil and Canarese the infinitive is formed in the same manner ; but a verbal noun is also much used in Canarese as an infinitive, with the dative case-sign understood or expressed — e.g., instead of mdd-a, to do, they often say mdd-al-he (in the colloquial dialect mdd-aU-hke\ 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 true infinitive in a — e.g., sollarJcu (sollal-lm), for saying, and soZ^a^, saying, with the sign of the dative understood, instead of soll-a, to say. There is also another infinitive or honorific imperative in ga or ?/a 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, a 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, he-ille, to call. This form of the infinitive is evi- dently identical with the infinitive in al, which is used as an infinitive, but is properly a verbal noun, in Canarese and classical Tamil. In Tamil, verbal nouns occasionally end in il, though al is much more common — e.g. J 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 f ormatives it uses. It has a first infinitive, a present, an imperfect, and a perfect, all formed by appending ni to the participles, and a second infinitive, or supine, formed by appending ere — e.g., hilruni, to fall, hUrini, to have been falling, hdrudini, to have fallen ; supine hilriyere, 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 Mrande, perf. participle, having not fallen, is formed hdrande ittini, not to have fallen. Professor Max MUUer, noticing that the majority of Tamil infinitives terminate in Tea, supposed this ka to be identical in origin with Ted, the dative-accusative case-sign of the Hindi, and concluded that the Dravidian infi.nitive was the accusative of a verbal noun. It is true that the Sanskrit infinitive and Latin supine in turn is correctly regarded as an accusative, and that our English infinitive to do, is the dative of a verbal noun ; 4t is also true that the Dravidian infinitive is a verbal noun in origin, and never altogether loses that character ; 424 THE VERB. nevertlieless, the supposition that the final ka of most Tamil infinitives is in any manner connected with hii, the sign of the Dravidian dative, or of ho, the Hindi dative-accusative, is inadmissible. A comparison of various classes of verbs and of the various dialects shows that the lea 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-u); and in many instances in which g appears in the infinitive (as in the verbal theme) in the ordinary dialect, v replaces it in the poets — e.g., ndga, to be pained, is not so much used by the classics as ndva. , p2)a is also used in the higher dialect instead of Idea — e.g., nadappa, to walk, for nadalclca. These interchanges of the formative consonant, which is the termination of the verbal theme, and to which the infinitival a is added, are in perfect agreement with Telugu ; and from both it is apparent that a 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 denoting the increased intensity of signification. In such cases the formative g-^i is converted into Ichu; and, accordingly, the infinitive 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 po-gu ; from which is formed the aoristic future pog-um, it will go, the verbal noun pog-al, going, and the in- finitive pog-a, to go. The corresponding transitive verb is p6-kku, to drive away [gu being converted into khi) ; and from this is formed in like manner pokk-um, it will drive away, and also the infinitive pdkk-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 — i.e., gir becomes kkir, d or nd becomes tt, 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 valar-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 suflixing a to the root — e.g., vdr-a, to flourish, and kdn-a, to see. In the event of the root of a verb of this class ending in i or ei, y is inserted between the root and the sign of the infinitive — e.g., aTi-{y)-a, to know; adei-{y)-a, to obtain. This y, however, is clearly euphonic. When an intransitive root is con- verted into a transitive by annexing tt-u to the root — e.g., tdr-tt-u, THE INFINITIVE. 425 to lower, tlie infinitive simply elides the euphonic u, and suffixes a — e.ff., tdr-tt-a. From a comparison of these instances, it appears certain that a alone is the normal suffix of the Tamil infinitive, and that the g or kk 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 gay which is occasionally used in classical Tamil — e.g., avi-ga, to know, instead of the ordinary aTi-{y)-a ; and sey-ga, to do, instead of sey{i))-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 tliis, that it would be correct to regard it as a form of the imperative originally; for the ordinary infinitive in a is often used by the poets in the same manner, and not unfrequently even by the peasants. I am persuaded that the g of ga is simply the usual formative g or g-u of verbal nouns. The same formative g 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 ari-ga, to know, used instead of ari-{y)-a, but ari-g-il-ir, you know not, instead of ari-{y)-il-ir, or ari-{y)-ir; and just as sey-ga, to do, is used instead of sey{yya, so we find sey-gu-v-en, I will do, instead of sey-v-en. The g which makes its appearance in these instances, is in its origin the formative g-u, 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 fulcrum 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 i's 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., ni chey-ga (Tam. sey-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 Malayalam chey-ga, a doing, is seygei ; and sey-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 MalayMam chey-ga is regularly declined — e.g., chey-ga{y)-dl, through the doing. We thus come back to the conclusion that a, not ga, is the true infinitival suffix of the Tamil. On examining the Telijgu, 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 theme 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, therefore, the only difference between the imperative and the infinitive is, that the latter elides the enunciative u of the former, and substi- tutes for it its own distinctive suffix a. Thus, whilst the imperative of the verb to open, is in Tamil f^^a, and the infinitive tira-hk-a ; the formative Jch which appears in the Tamil infinitive, and which might be supposed to form part of the infinitival suffix, appears in Telugu (in its dialectically softened form of ch) not only in the infinitive, but also in the imperative and throughout the verb — e.g., tera-ch-a, infinitive, to open ; tera-ch-u, imperative, open thou. At the same time, the Telugu sign of the dative case ku or ki is never softened into ch in any connection ; consequently, there is no possibility of connecting the Telugu sign of the infinitive with that of the dative. Moreover, the formative c/i- is often replaced, especially in the imperative and infini- tive, by p — e.g.^ nadu-p-a, infinitive, to walk, instead of nadu-ch-a, corresponding to the colloquial Tam. nada-kk-a, and the classical Tam. nada-pp-a, of which the imperative and also the theme is nada. Hence, it cannot be doubted that the Tamil g and kk, and the corre- sponding Telugu ch and p, alternating (after i) with nch and mp, are merely formatives, without any special connection with the suffix of the infinitive, which is a alone. In most instances in Canarese the forma- tives referred to above are discarded altogether, and the a which con- stitutes the sign of the infinitive is suffixed to the crude verbal root. Thus, whilst the verb ir-u, to be, takes iru-kk-a for its infinitive in Tamil, the simpler and evidently more primitive Canarese infinitive is ir-a. Origin of the Infinitive Suffix *a.' — I conceive that we may safely identify this a with the demonstrative base. We have seen that most of the formatives of nouns were originally demonstratives, appended to nouns for the sake of emphasis. To this class belongs especially the formative am {a + m), which sometimes assumes the shape of an (a + n), and also that of al {a + I). We have seen that al, that, and al, not, appear to have been derived from a, al being the secondary form constituting the word a substantive, and a the primitive base. The same explanation seems perfectly to suit the infinitive in a or al; and whether the nega- tive a may safely be derived from the demonstrative a or not, I can see no reason for thinking it improbable that the a which forms the suffix of the infinitive, and which is consequently to be regarded as the formative of a verbal noun, was originally identical with the demonstrative. THE INFINITIVE. 427 There cannot be any doubt, I think, that al, 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 gottenu, in Tamil vira {t)talli- ndn; in which phrases down means to fall — i.e, so as to fall. Through the same idiom dg-a, the infinitive of the verb to become (in Tel. M or gd), is ordinarily added to nouns of quality to convert them into adverbs— e.^., 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 idiom), or rather as an opta- tive, seeing that it conveys a wish rather than a command — e.g., n% vdr-a (more frequently vdr-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' irukk-a, en tungugivay, Tam., the sun having arisen, why sleepest thou 1 In this instance, vidind' irukh-a (literally to be— having arisen) is in the perfect tense ; but iruhh-a is not a preterite infinitive, but is the ordinary or aorist infixuitive of the verb ir-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 erumha (whilst the clouds were rising), vdnam irula (whilst the sky was gathering blackness), marei porindu pey{y)a (whilst the rain was falling abundantly), Urdr tiru-vird nadatti- ndrgal (the villagers celebrated their sacred festival). (5.) The redu- plication of any infinitive expresses exactly the force of the Latin gerund in do — e.g., pbg-a p6g-a, halan kollum, vires acquirit eundo ; more closely, as it goes — as it goes (literally to go — to go) it gathers strength. These illustrations prove that the Dravidian infinitive has the force of a gerund or verbal participle, or of a verbal noun, as well as that of the infinitive properly so called. The examples adduced are all from Tamil, but parall^ examples could easily be adduced from each of the other dialects. 428 THE VERB. Much use is made in Tamil of a verbal or participial noun ending in dal — e.g., alei-dal, a wandering, from alei, to wander; miiri-dal, a breaking, from mziri, to break. In Canarese the final I of those and similar verbal nouns is unknown — e.g., ale-ta, a wandering; mura-ta, a breaking. In Telugu also such nouns end in a alone, without I — e.g., compare the Tamil mey-{t)tal, pasturage, with the corresponding Telugu met-a; chet-a, Tel. an act, with sey-dal, Tam. ; and nada-ta, Tel. walk, conduct, with nada-{t)tal, Tam. Even in Tamil also, nada-{t)tei (Mai. nada-tta) alternates with nada-{t)tal. It has already been stated that the verbal noun in al, with or with- out the dative case-sign, is used instead of the infinitive in a in both dialects of Canarese and in classical Tamil. In Gond also, it has been shown that one of the signs of the infinitive is dlle, amplified from al — e.g., aidlle, to be, whiqh is evidently identical with the Tamil verbal noun dgal, being — a form often used in the higher dialect as an infinitive. Now, as the Dravidian infinitive undoubtedly partakes of the character of a participial or verbal noun, and is considered by native gram- marians as a verbal participle or gerund of the three tenses, as it is certain that it is intimately associated with a verbal noun in al, one of the most characteristic in the language, and which denotes not the abstract idea of the verb, but the act ; and as al in other connections has been found to be amplified from a, we seem to be justified in com- ing to the conclusion that a, the infinitive sufiix, is the basis of the al in question, and, consequently, that dg-a, to be, is simply an older and purer form of dg-al, being. There is a remarkable, but probably accidental, resemblance to the Dravidian infinitive in al, in the Armenian, in which I is the infinitive suffix — e.g., her-e-l, to carry (compare Tam. 2^oT-al, bearing or to bear) ; ta-l, to give (compare Tam. ^a(r)-a^, giving or to give, imperative, td). FOKMATION OF VERBAL NOUNS. Dravidian verbal nouns divide themselves into two classes — viz., participial nouns, which are formed from the relative participle of each tense, and retain the time of the tense to which they belong, and verbal nouns, properly so called, which are always formed directly from the theme, and are indeterminate in point of time. 1. Participial Nouns. — The greater number of nouns of this class are formed by suffixing the demonstrative pronouns, or their termina- tions, to the present and preterite relative participles — e.g., from seygiTa, that does (the present relative participle of sey, to do), is formed seygira-{v)-an, he that does ; seyg{ra-{v)-al, she that does, &c. VERBAL NOUNS. 429 In like manner, from the past relative participle kyda, that did, is formed seyda-{v)-an, he that did ; s€yda-(v)-al, she that did, (fee. ; and by simply adding the appropriate terminations, participial nouns of 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., dduvdn, he who will read, or who is accustomed to read. The Tamil future mv ov p is destitute of a relative participle ; but its existence is implied in that of future parti- cipial nouns, like p6va-du, that which will go, and hdnha-{y)-an, he who will see, and must have ended like the future relative participle of the Canarese, in va or pa. The Tamil aoristic future in um, though a relative participle as well as a future tense, forms no participial nouns, probably in consequence of um being in reality a conjunctive particle, not a true suffix of relation. Negative participial nouns of each number and gender are formed exactly like the affirmative parti- cipial nouns, by suffixing the various demonstrative terminations to the negative, instead of the affirmative, relative participle. These partici- pial nouns are declined like other nouns ; nevertheless, being parts of the verbs, they have the same power of governing nouns as the verbs to which they belong — e.g., vtttei (k)hattinavanuhku, to him who built the house. In these respects all the Dravidian dialects are so perfectly agreed that it is needless to multiply quotations. There is a peculiarity about the words used as neuter participial nouns in Tamil which requires to be noticed. Each of them is used in three different significations, viz. — as the third person neuter of the verb, as a neuter relative-participial noun, and as a verbal-participial noun. Thus seygivadu in the first connection means it does ; in the second, that which does ; in the third, the doing or to do. I have termed it in the third connection '' a verbal-participial noun," to dis- tinguish it from the ordinary verbal nouns, which are formed from the theme, not from participles, and from which the idea of time is excluded. 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 seygv£a-{v)-adu, not seygiT-Cbdu ; and whilst it is certain that a participial or verbal noun might easily be used as the third person neuter of the verb, in accord- ance with the analogy of many other languages, it is difficult to see how the third person neuter of the verb could come to be used so regularly as it is as a verbal-participial noun. This species of parti- cipial noun, though neuter or without personality, includes the idea of time. It has three forms, in accordance with the present, the past, and 430 * THE VERB. the future tenses of tlie verb — e.g., seygiradu, the doing; seydadu the having done ; and seyvadu, the being about to do. Each of these forms may be pluralised, as far as usage permits, when it is used as the third person neuter of the verb, or as a relative-participial noun ; but when used abstractly as a verbal-participial noun it is not plural- ised. The participial noun formed from the future is one of the most commonly used forms of the verbal noun in Canarese — e.g., iliyu-v-adu, or ilivu-du, the act of descending, from ili, 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 seygivadu sari (y) alia, 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 more closely rendered, the doing thus (is) not right. Verbal nouns of this class become more allied to infinitives when they are put in the dative — e.g., seygiradii-lcku, for the doing — i.e., to do. As the pronoun adu becomes in construction adan, so seygiradan-ku, euphonically seygivadaT-ku, is more common in written compositions, and considered more elegant, than seygivadu-kkii. Tamil and Malayalam alone possess an abstract relative-participial noun, expressing in the form of a declinable participle the abstract idea denoted by the afiirmative verb. It is formed by appending mei (Mai. ma), the sufiix of abstracts, to the present or preterite relative participle of any verb — e.g., from iriikkindr-a, ' that is ' (the present relative participle of iru, to be), by the addition of mei, Tamilians form irukkindra-mei, being. Negative nouns of this description are also formed in Tamil by appending mei to the negative relative participle — e.g., ird-mei, the not being. These negative participial abstracts are in more common use in Tamil than the affirmatives, and are as largely used in M'alayMam and Telugu as in Tamil. The use of the Tamil affirmative mei is confined to classical compositions ; but the abstract appellative nouns which are formed by annexing mei to the crude verbal theme {e.g., poru-mei, patience, from poTu, to bear) are much used even in the colloquial dialect of Tamil, as well as in Malayalam and all the other dialects in a slightly altered shape. The relative- participial noun in mei, whilst it is declined like a noun, has the governing power of a verb ; but the corresponding appellative in mei has the force of a substantive only. The Tamil suffix mei is ma in Malayalam, me in Canarese, mi in Telugu. In several of the Scythian tongues we find a suffix used which bears a considerable resemblance to this. The suffix of the VERBAL NOUNS. 431 participial nooin in FinnisH is ma or md : in Esthonian ma is the suffix of the infinitive : supines are formed in Finnish by suffixing man : the Turkish infinitival suffix is mak or meh. We may also compare with this Dravidian me or mei, the old Greek infinitive in f^iv, and such nouns as rrolri-lJ'Oi, Ssc-z-to-j, and G-^ts-fir}, each of which exhibits an old participial suffix. 2. Verbal 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 idea, of the verb to which they belong, and. hence are called hy Tamil grammarians toril peyar, nouns of operation or employment. Verbal nouns are carefully to be distinguished from verbal derivatives, or sub- stantives derived from verbs. The latter, though derived from verbs, are used merely as nouns ; whereas the verbal noun, properly so called (like the participial noun), is construed as a verb. As Ji 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- tinction has not been attended to ; and Tamil derivative nouns like nadei or nadappu, walk, have been classed with verbal nouns like nadakkei, nadakkudal, and nadakkal, walking. Though, however, each of these words may be translated 'walking,' the first two are simply substantives; and adjectives, not adverbs, must be used to qualify them ; whereas nadakkiidal, the corresponding noun of opera- tion, is a true verbal noun, and is qualified by adverbs, precisely as the verb itself, nada, to walk, would be. Thus, we can say mdi{y)dy nadakkudal, acting or walking justly; but we could not use the adverb 7iidi{y)dy to qualify either nadappu or nadei. It would be necessary to qualify those words by the adjectival form nidi{y)dna, there being nearly the same difference between nadappu and nadakku- dal that there is in English between behaviour and behaving. A verbal noun in gei or kkei is often used in Tamil — e.g., irukkei, the being; seygei, the doing; but though this is used as a verbal noun — e.g., appadi irukkei-{y)-dl, seeing that it is so, more literally through its being so, yet the forms which are most commonly used as verbal nouns, and which- have the best claim to that character, are those which terminate in al — e.g., sey{y)-al, or sey-dal, doing ; nadakk- al, or nadakkudal, walking. Whether the suffix appended be al or dal, it is generally suffixed, not to the crude root, but to the formed verbal theme — i.e., to that which forms the basis of the infinitive and of the aoristic future — e.g., 4he verbal noun that is formed from ir-u, to be, is not ir-al, but iru-kk-al, being ; and from nad-a, to walk, is 432 THE VEKB. formed not na-d-al, but nada-kJc-al. Notwithstanding tliis, al or dal is sometimes added directly to the ultimate base — e.g., not only have we p6g-al or 2^ogu-dal, going, but also po-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 p6-gu and d-gu has been softened by use. The d of dal is clearly a formative of the same character and force as the g of gei or JcJcei; and this is proved by the circumstance that the d is doubled and converted into tt when the verb becomes a transitive instead of an intransitive, or when euphonic considerations require — e.g., comp. Jcurei-dal, intran- sitive, a being curtailed, with kuTei-ttal, transitive, a curtailing. It is evident that this d 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 al or that in gei, hhei; and the corresponding Telugu forms are ta and dam-u — e.g., cheyu-ta or chesu-ta, or more commonly clieya-dam-u, doing. The distinction which has been shown to exist between verbal nouns, properly so called, generally ending in al, and derivative nouns, furnishes, I conceive, some confirmation of the hypothesis that al, the Tamil suffix of verbal nouns, is a secondary form of a, the sign of the infinitive. It is remarkable that I or al is used also in Mongolian as a formative of verbal nouns — e.g., dhidal, ability, from ckidalm, to be able. 3. Derivative Nouns or Verbal Derivatives. — It seems scarcely necessary to enter into the investigation of the formatives of verbal 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 derivatives) consists in those that are identical with verbal themes — e.g., compare hatt-u, a tie, and katt-u, to tie. (ii.) Some verbal themes become nouns by the doubling and harden- ing of the final consonant— e.^., 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 2}dd-u, to sing. Telugu differs also from Tamil in changing the final or enunciative u of the verbal root into a. Compare dt-a, play (Tam. VERBAL NOTJNS. 433 dtt-u), from dd-u, to play. The Tamil mode of doubling, as well as hardening, the final consonant, seems most in accordance with Dra- vidian analogy ; for it is when a sonant is doubled that it is naturally converted into a surd, and when it is not doubled, it should be pro- nounced as a sonant. It is remarkable how many purposes are served by the doubling of Dravidian final consonants, (i.) It places substantives in an adjec- tival relation to succeeding substantives ; (ii.) it converts intransitive verbs into transitives j (iii.) it forms a sign of the preterite tense; and (iv. ) it forms derivative nouns from verbal themes. (iii.) A very interesting mode of forming derivatives is that of lengthening the included vowel of monosyllabic verbal roots — e.g., in Tamil, from pad-u, to suffer, comes pdd-u, suffering; from mm, to glitter, comes mtn, a star. Nor is this method found only in the classics : it appears in words of the most familiar class — e.g., ndhh-u, the tongue, from nahk-u, to lick. Tamil simply lengthens the root vowel in forming derivatives of this class, and leaves the final con- sonant unchanged ; but Telugu and Canarese harden the final conso- nant, in addition to lengthening the root vowel — e.g., from pad-ic, to suffer, they form not pdd-u, but pdt-u, suflfering. See the section on ''Boots." 4. Abstract nouns are formed from verbal themes by sufiixiiig mei — e.g., povu-mei, endurance, from povu, to bear. The same suffix forms abstracts also from nouns of quality or relation and pronominals — e.g., peru-mei, greatness, from per-u, great, and tan-mei, nature, quality, from tan, self, literally self-ness. This suffix is in Telugu mi — e.g., hali-mi, wealth, from kalu-gu, to accrue. 5. Many nouns are formed from verbs in Tamil by suffixing am, and at the same time doubling and hardening the final consonant of the verbal theme, ng being the equivalent of g, nd of d, nd of d, and mh of h, ng on being doubled becomes hh, nd becomes tt, nd becomes tt, and mb becomes pp — e.g., from titng-u, to sleep, is formed tiXkk-am, sleep ; from tirund-u, to become correct, comes tirutt-am, a correction ; from tond-u, to dig, comes (I think) tott-am, a garden ; and from virumb-u, to desire, comes virupp-am, a desire. In most instances the Telugu (and the Canarese always) rejects the final m of the nouns of this class — e.g., tUg-u, Tel. sleep, instead of the Tamil tdkk-am. Though the final consonant, if g, d, h (or their equivalents), is always doubled before this am in Tamil and Malay alam, verbal themes which end in other consonants often become nouns by simply annexing am — e.g., uyar-am, height, from uyar, to be high, dr-am, depth, from dr, to be deep. Mr Edkins connects this m with the m used in Hebrew 2 E 434 THE VERB. to form participial substantives from verbs — e.g.^ mishpaty judg- ment, from shdpkat, 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 g formative generally becomes in Tamil gei — e.g., iey-gei, an action, from sey, to do ; it is n^tsalised to ngei — e.g., kd-{n)gei, heat, from hdy, to burn ; or it is doubled and hardened into khei — e.g., padu-hhei, a bed, from pad-u, to lie. The corresponding Canarese formatives are he or ge, with not unfrequently the prefix of an euphonic i. The Telugu nouns which take this formative terminate in ha or hi — e.g., eli-ha, government, from el-u, to govern, and uni-hi, residence, from undu, to be, to dwell. ii. The d formative is in Tamil di — e.g., hedu-di, ruin, from hed-u, to spoil. Being doubled and hardened it becomes tti — e.g., unar-tti, sensibility, from unar, to feel, to be sensible. This tt is generally softened into chi — e.g., pugar-chi (instead of pugar-tti, in Malayalam pugar-cha), praise, from pugar, to praise. This formative is t instead of d in Canarese and Telugu. It appears in Canarese under the forms of ta and te — e.g., hogal-te, praise, from hogal (Tam. pugar), to praise ; hdy-ta, producing fruit, from hdy,. to fruit. In Teluga we find ta or ta and ti or p — e.g., alasa-ta, fatigue, from alay-u (alas-u), to be tired ; tind-i, food, eating, from tin, to eat ; mil-ta, a lid, from m^-yu, to shut ; and nadi-ti, conduct, from nadu-chu, to walk. iii. The h formative is in Tamil generally softened into v — i.e., vi or vu — e.g., hel-vi, hearing, from hel, to hear, and mavei-vu, concealment, from mavei, to conceal. In some instances, however, h is euphonised into mh {mbu) — e.g., ve-mhu, the Margosa tree, from ve-y, to be umbra- geous ; pd-mhu, a snake, from 2^^~I/j ^^ spring, b cannot retain its proper sound before a vowel, and when single either becomes v or mb; and that the vu 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, mH-ppu, old age. In Telugu this formative is vu, vi, or pu — e.g., chd-vu, death, from cha-chchu, to die (corresponding Tam. and Can. sd-vu, from Sd) ; digu-vu, the bottom, from dig-u, to descend ; teli-vi, understanding, from teli-yu, to know ; cheru-pu, nearness, from cher-u, to draw near ; edu-pu, a weeping, from edu-chu, to cry (corresponding Tam. ara-ppu, from ara). Canarese generally uses in this connection vu alone — e.g., ira-vu, a being, corresponding to the Tamil iru-ppu — VERBAL DERIVATIVES. 435 but sometimes it uses also _^w — e.g.^ hidu-vu, or hidu-pu, an open 7. A few derivative nouns are formed in Tamil and Malayalara by affixing certain particles, originally independent nouns with a meaning 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 or less in abeyance. Thus by suffixing Jean, the ordinary meaning of which is ' an eye,' but which in the classics means also ' place,' and is the ordinary classical sign of the locative case, Tamil forms idu-{h)kan, oppression, from id-u, to press, also uvu-han, poverty, from utu, to suffer. These words are used only in the classical dialect, but there are derivative nouns largely used in the colloquial dialect, which are formed by affixing pdd-u, a condition of being, from pad-u, to experi- ence, and mdnam, perhaps meaning originally likeness, from mdyi-u, to be like, but, as actually used, merely a formative suffix, without any very definite meaning of its own — e.g., kattu-{p)pddu, a compact, from kattu, to tie; ser-mdnam, junction, from ser, to join; also kattu-mdnam, building, from kattu, in the sense of ' build.' To these may be added words terminating in agam, house, place — e.g., vdnagam {ydn-agam) = vdn-am or vdn, the sky ; .veiyagam {\)ei-{y)agam) =■ vei-{y)am or vei, the earth (from vei, to place, vei-gu, to rest). I have a suspicion, however, that in these cases the words end simply in am, and that g is inserted euphonically, as is certainly the case in the colloquial pronunciation of some words — e.g., andrddam, daily, which is commonly mispronounced andrddagam; lanjam (a word borrowed from Telugu), a bribe, mis- pronounced lanjagam. Dr Gundert derives from this agam the Malayalam ndragam, an orange tree, literally, fragrance-holder, from ndr-u, Tam.-Mal. to be fragrant. Sans, ndranga. The following will be found, I think, a complete list of Tamil derivative nouns formed by suffixing formative particles. I do not include in this list any participial nouns, whether derived from verbs or from appellatives, or any verbal nouns, properly so called, or any nouns of agency, a class of nouns which will be considered further on. The nouns in the list are derivative substantives ; but there are three classes even of these which are not included — viz., nouns which are absolutely identical with verbal roots — e.g., nidu, length, from nidu, to be long ; nouns which are formed by doubling the final consonant of verbal roots — e.g., eruttu, a letter, from erudu, to write; and nouns which are formed by lengthening the included vowel of the verbal root, without any other change — e.g. min, a star, from min, to glitter. I include in this last only that 436 THE YERB. 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. I 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 nouns, properly so called. Formative. Noun. EOOT. a mag-a, a child. mag (pi. makkal). sey{y)-a, to do ; type of infi- sey, to do. nitive, probably an old verbal noun. d suT-d, the shark. probably siir-u^ quick. vir-d, a festival. vir-i, to keep awake. i Jcar-i, charcoal. kar-u, black. ser-i, a village. ser, to join. ei piT-ei, the waxing or waning pir, other, after; piva, moon. to be born. tol{l)-ei, trouble. iol, old. gu nan-gu, goodness. nal (nan), good. pira-gu, afterwards. pir-a {=pin), after. iigu kira-7igu, a root. kir-a ( = kir), below. ti-ngu, evil. tt, bad. TcTcu hiru-hku, craziness. kiru-kiru, giddy. hodu-kku^ a sting. probably kod-u, crooked, cruel. gei pandi-gei, a feast. pandu, Tam. ancient ; pa7idu, Tel. to be ripe, to be accomplished; ultimate rootpar-u, old. - tiri-gei, a mill. tiri, to turn. ngei kd-ngei, heat. kdy, to burn. kkei paru-kkeij a pebble, a grain of rice. pa?'-u, large (=per-u). vdr-kkei, felicity {il-vdr-Jckei, vdr, to flourish. domestic life ; il, house). VEKBAL DERIVATIVES. 437 Formative. Noun. Root. Si , pa-si, moss, sea-weed. pd-vu, to spread. nil horu-nji, a shrub. kor-u, tender {koru-ndu, a tender twig). chchi irei-ckchij flesh. irei, to flow, issue. iu tari-su, fallow land. tari, to remain. chchu amei-chchu, the office of a minister. amei, to settle. ki poli-sei, interest. poli, to increase. di pada-di, chaff. =padar, chaff, the same. ndi kara-ndi, a spoon, a trowel. = kata-nei, the same. du kuTa-du, pincers. kura-ndu, to be crooked, from kuT-u, short. kuru-du, blindness. kur-u, tender. di^ urit-di, strength. ur-u, to be strong. ndi dndi, a lizard. = 6di, the same. tti paru-tti, cotton. par-u, to expand. du paru-du, defect. par-u, old. ndu maru-Tidu, medicine. mar-u, sweet-smelling. ttu kuru-ttu, young shoot of palm. kuru, tender. dei iru-deij a lie. ir-u, to swerve. ndei kura-ndei, an infant. kur-a, young. [Euphonic changes of the formatives di, du, and dei, after consonants.] di kdt-cJd (kdn-di), a spectacle. kdn, to see. ter-chchi (ter-di), intelligence. ter^io ascertain. ural-chchi(ural-di),n>whiTling ural, to whirl. nan-dri (nal-di), a benefit. nal, good. ver-ri (vel-di), victory. vel, to conquer. pugar-chchi{pugar-di), praise pugar, to praise. dt-chi (dl-di), possession. dl, to possess. dt-ti (dl'di), a woman. dl, SL person. du ton-du{tol-du) K^ti ity. ton-dru (tol-du), f ^ '' tol, old. dei pet-tei {pen- dei), a hen. pen, female. parat-tei (parand-dei), shag- parandu, to scratch. giness. ton-dei (tol-dei), the throat. tol, to perforate. iZt-tei {itn-dei), uncleanness. itn, flesh. n kad-an, debt ( = kad-am). kad-u, harsh t kad-a, to m pass over. ar-an, virtue ( = av-am). ar-u, to cut, to define. 438 THE VERB. Formative. KOUN. Root. hu mara-huj usage. mara, ancient •? pan-hu, quality. pari, fit for use. en-bUf a bone. = elum-bu, the same. mbu nara-mbu, a vein, fibre. = ndr, fibre. idu-mbu, hauglitiness, oppres- id-u, to press. sion. ppu seva-ppUj redness. se, sev, red. kaTu-ppUj blackness. kaT-u, black. ppei kala-ppeij a plough. = kala-my a vessel. am par-am, a ripe fruit. par-u, old, mature. nal-am, a benefit. nal, good. [Illustrations of nouns ending in am, which double and harden the final consonant of the root before am.] g = kk + am dJch-am, increase. dg-u, to become. ng = kk + am vikh-am, a swelling. ving-u, to swell. nj = chch + am achch-am, fear. anj-u, to fear. d=ft + am Mtt-am, a company. kM-u, to join. nd = tt + am tdtt-am, a garden ( = tod-u). tond-u, to dig. nd-tt + am nttt-am, swimming. nind-u, to swim. mh -pp + am virupp-am, a desire. virumb-u, to desire. dm kur-dm, a company. kur-u, to gather together. mei murei-mei, order. muTei, a turn. ei-mei, closeness. ei, to be close (the num- ber five). Ay kur-dy, a tube. comp. kur-i, a hole. pd-y, a mat. pd-vu, to spread. ar sud-ar, brightness. sud-u, to be hot. pud-ar, a thicket. pud-u, new, fresh. dr pug-dr, fog. pug-u^ to enter. ir kul-ir, cold. comp. kul-i, to bathe. ug-ir, a finger-nail. ug-u, to shed. rti kudi-rei, a horse. kud-i, to leap ? [I do not include amongst the following nouns end- ing in al verbal nouns properly so called, which retain the force of a verb, and may be preceded by a nominative. The nouns I cite as specimens are secondary forms of still more primitive nouns ; or else the verbs from which they are formed are uncertain.] at pei-(y)-al, a boy ( =peid-al). pei=pasu, green, fresh. ud-al, the body. ud-u, to put on. pus-al, a hurricane ( = puyal). puy, to seize % VERBAL DERIVATIVES. 439 Formative. Noun. Root. ur-al, a mortal. = ur-am, strength. vay-al, a rice field. vei, to place ? varid-al, sediment at bottom ? of tanks. alei M-alei, a burning ground. iud-u, to burn. mar-alei, childhood. mar -a, young. vidud-alei ( = vidu-ttal), re- vid-2Cf to leave. lease).* il mug-il, a cloud. comp. mug-ir.io fold up, as a flower its petals. (ott-il, a cradle. = tott-i, a trough. vittil, a grasshopper. vett-u, to cut, to clip? ul alg-ul, the female waist. alg-u, to diminish (ulti- mate base al, not). vi kuru-vif a small bird. kur-u, small, tender. VZl tura-vu, a large well. comp. ttcrei, a ford. vei ida-vei, a lane. comp. id-am, place. para-vet, a large bird. par-a, to fly. ar id-ar, a petal of a flower. ? ag-ar, a fort ditch. = a^ar, to dig. al ad-al, skin. ? ul ar-ul, grace. ar-2«, to trickle down, to be precious. por-ul, substance, wealth. por-u, to unite with. ulei ur-ulei, a wheel. = ur-td, a wheel. TU kina-ru, a well. = JceTv-i, a well, a mine 1 veli-Tit, paleness. vei, white. 4. Nouns of Agency. — The participial nouns of the Dra vidian 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 i to the verbal root — e.g., un{n)-i (Tam. and Can.), an eater, from un, to eat ; Jcol(l)-i (Tam. and Can.), a killer, from kol, to kill. The Dravidian languages in borrowing feminine derivative nouns from Sanskrit, change the final i of the Sanskrit feminine into short i — e.g., sunda-H, Sans, a fair woman, becomes sundari. But this final i 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-talei, but from vi^udal-ei. The form vidudal is a verbal noun, properly so called, in common use. 440 THE VERB. from Sanskrit, is not to be confounded with the more distinctively Dravidian i, 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 i which in Sanskrit is sometimes used as a suffix of nouns of agency, generally masculines — e.g., Mr-i-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., havi) instead. Possibly i, the Dravidian suffix of nouns of agency, may have sprung from the same origin as the i 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 i, are destitute of gender ; their gender depends entirely upon the connection — e.g., panei-{y)-eT-i, Tam. a Palmyra climber (from panel, a Palmyra, and €T-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 vett-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., ndv-Ml-i, Tam. a chair, literally that which has four feet, from ndl-u, four, and Ml, 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-i, Tam. (as well as un{n)-i), 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 : — kal{l)-i, euphorbia, from kal, toddy, sweet sap ; vel{l)-i, silver, from vet, to be white ; pul-i, the cheetah, or leopard, from pul, small ; Hi, a person or thing that has nothing, from ilf not ; dr-i, the sea, from dr-u, to be deep. Compare also the follow- ing compounds : vari-kdtt-i, a guide, literally, a way-shower ; vdnam- hdd-i, the lark, literally the heaven-singer ; tottdl-vdd-i, the sensitive plant, literally, if (one) touch, the witherer, or as we should prefer to say, touch-me-and-I-wither. Adverbs. — It is unnecessary in a work of this kind to enter into the investigation of the Dravidian adverbs, for, properly speaking, the 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 indeclinable, or a verbal theme, or the infinitive or gerund of a verb ; and illustrations of the manner in which those words acquire an ad- 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 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-madaivjendru idi 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. !^ ffl Q r ^ Ph O o « t-l M O O o 5 I I* ^^ IS S3 ^ s ;^ t ^ s s s ^ I. 5- 1 S ?^ "^i iii.iiiiimii i'l's^-^ I's^lf ll's^'S^-i. l'S'l's> o m Xfl hH O ^.^ 1 I: ^ ^ « v «a §> I 1 ►^ ^^ .« i ^' ^ ^ t 1 ci 5J s i s i — 1 • ' (D-TQJ ^ /'*■'''— ^ ^o^-i3a^^2j . t L3 §> S" & 8> a ^ &> *> Os«3 o CO "Is "^ ap'+trOo^MCQ-pP^M 'Si 3 ^ 2§!>'^bC^S&H°&. 8 p-l ss Ph PE] S ^ S .11 Hi •< |1 3 ■<;^ '^ •^ > Ph H S5 H ^ P^ ^ oi NQ (^ fS 1 S t— ( 00 K>. M -*1 «s P^ 1 ft ft o
  • o I— ) Q H P5 O O e i t.- a 1 i .e =1 .» -^ 1 %i •gj •^ •B^ •a •^ *i5 •I5» 'S '^ r^ ^^ ^ ^*i •^ ^« ' V'— ^-^ "^^ -s ^ e <4> %■ t ^ ^ "fc « Z-^' ^ ;^ r« '^ ■^ ^ . ^ :js r« ^3 ^ ^. "s^ "^ ""to %^ "so ^•'^• HO "so "to ^>i. ^o. ^^. f^J.. ^o. i^. ^o. ^•1 (S e « « §:• « e 5j* g g g s S s § g g s p 1 <45 e ^ % .^- e ^^ 'b e *-^f QJ •*o «to HO %o •♦o to to to P^^o. •-lo. '"O. ^o. ^o. ►*;>. i*^. ^<5. ^*i■. J e « « e c ^ § S s § § g g s s s ^^ . * V v-.^-^ 05 ^i i> § ^-^ ^ 55 i i '«■• IS. 5> g • <>> g 8 ^ $ ?i •^ ^ •^ '^ I.f t^ ■^ '^ '^ •^ >i >> l*» 5Si ?a^ >i 1^ m ■ 1** "ii <»> "to ^to J ^ 'Si ^— ^^ > . , c^ P B Eh 1 1 1 % -. "g' ^1» <^ ■^ <^ < ■<;"to -< Ke »< i»5j *^ <-< >^ M f^i o o o ^ O ^ . ^ , g ■'"^^ ^ I 1 • ^> fl i t l4' f ^ ^ ! 5.! } 1 A 4 v^ 1 i ^^ .1- ^ ?r <;•£ ?r "-"^ 4 g? S g .iT C ^C/3 .-'§^~<^- ^"^ ^•^ ? ■^ ?s ^o s^ -§ 1 '^ «" S SJi'^ ^ S ii «^^(/) •^ '^ i^" '^ '^ ^ u-g ^ ?ai ?&» 5si S>i ^ - >» ?3i .5Ji i ■ii -^ ><^ i i^i ^ e > s d a »^ ^ '1^ 2 oj a ^ :3 oj t I i >i 55i '>s .?>i It S ^ '^ g v^ -co v^ g -co g 1 g I ^ ^^-^ $ S § &lff.&t>^ll> 5i ?> -co -co ^ ^ 5. >. -^ 5? ^ 11 $ . S>j Sfi-co -co 5> ?3^ ?&i . 2 -< p, « <{ Q Ph iJ -^ *t( FQ 1^ CA O :^ p^ o t4 Q t3 <1 Ph o 2 o i . I i « S ^(^ 1^ a o a I S*.^ § © g -^ fei a> o S 2 S ts-r; s ^ vs m .'w ,_iv^ to ^ ^ . o ^ c3 5ii ^ e ^^ is.i-r H S (15 S pi o S . 2? -tS ^ _ s •'^ ?3 O 02 4^ >i ^ 1 ?i ^, k S5 ? Is ^ S^i ."^ 5>i Ik >5 53i e « e ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ pi S^i >> ?5i i *to «ii ^< r< ^< t«< CO P. P. B s .1^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 5>i e^i ?&i >i $Si S^ ^ 5>i >i ?5i f< h< i>5i nC* f^ « ^5 V "^ <^ ^co ^ s» >s ?S ^.-^ ^^ ^^^ ^ S^ >i 5si 5>j >i >i 5fi >i 55i ?5i ^to VV5 V/5 VCO ^ •*£ o ^-^ •T3 O , , , , •_d fl o o O O •n ^ rcJ -^ r^S n3 1 O fe 1— 1 k < -I o o n 1 ^ l-H H o > <1 H eci -Jl <1 ^ f^ "i^ 6 a , . . • • ^ "to } 1 1 -w u V ;h s p Pk 43 ! a H- 1 1 1 K* >i g ^ |i 55i :^i 5^ p4 ^ S' 4 1 • >i >i 5^ >i PU 5>i ^ '^j ^ 'ij <« V ^ tri ^ ^ i '^ ^ e4 --v— . — ^ — . s' <1 1^ § 1 • 1 i 1 Hi 1 g § fS t 1— 1 s ?s « 11 a> o ? >■ w > § J. Oh B HD 1 1-1 e^ . 5^' l3 ^ ^2 Ill ■«1 ^ ^ ^^ ^"^ §^ ^ '^ ^ ^ ^ IU -^ -^ h< <<$ >« o^: •i ^-^ ^-^g^ ^1 ^^ 'i i4 3 ^^§ 1 1^-^. I v^ -^ "^ %^ H -T*^ ^ ■^ S ^ •CO 5>i ^C/3 v^ ^OJ ^^ veo VVJ -♦^ ^— ^^"^-^ , ^ ^ ^^— -v^— ^ M 6 d ■-T3 o O (D bo o o re 2 Eh 03 ^V o o 0) o /,, ^Sit:t e Is ^- .« .^" .«':^* .« .« S « §^ §^ §^ S^ S^ ^ ^ g^ g^ a;^^§?-a?-a^-a;-a:.s? ^^ « §§§§§§§§ ?= ^ ^ '^ '^ So* « e « « "^ g g S S e « e •5* e5 ?S "to ^ ^ s •KS 'W ■S II ft 1 1 o o i'i o , H ^ ^. > > H ^ g § '» 5»i <4J & ^ 0-. ^c* ^< ^< ^ lO ^ « S ' ^ S^ se c3 ■w-cb -co § * ^ • • i.i-^ -05 vt -05 s <^ Qj 5ri ;£i 5r 55^ O) o o 1^ -sJ w CD ^ o o n3 3 ^ m 1% •7-5 f*^ ^ fl ii L_i ^-^ J^ CD i" '^ ^ 03 O 2f » ^ -+-» rd ^ ^ ^• »4-l T o O fl d o ■^ <« p. bO r— » > a ■% 8 tl) fl^ © o ^ -p >» ^ a •7-1 rtl o D. ' ' s 8 s eS ^ >5 •7-1 0) pj § o t- ^ d h tj m S -^i• ■i^ ^ =: 5>i C 6 1 ^ ' ">' ..« .« ■^ -^ •ci. *Sl • 2^ '^* ' J. ^1 . J Id § "5^ « ^ « ji 'e'^ >^ >i ?5i ?5i ?i ^1 \ ^ "S ^ .'^ •S^ •5^ :gi ?s « « fc « e « « « ^ 0) -S 5 § -^. I-S. .^. ^^^^^S-3-^3^^S'3H ^S^ ^^ e ?s « S 53 S ^ c e « « S g s a g s § -1 S g g s pq ^^^ - ■ p:? '' ^ 5J ^ • • 1 i o O \—i 1 1 1 P < kJ W * • « • Ir^ t H § O 1 g o a a >; H — ^9 — — 1 2^ d 22 ^^ 1 3- 5^ a. ^ -4 ^ ^ !S ?5 "^-^ 2 I 1 II ><:? f< "<; "-5; ^< >>< V o lO ^i Si g •^ Ph ' ' "^ -^ 2 PM > !^'4 ^ ^ ^ . ^ d -1-3 ^ J d -u> . • ^ H §1^0 T3 ^ H^ O •4-3 o g ^■s ^ § § S^^l ^ Ti ^_^ S.« fl 'S^S J^ ■^ ^ ^-^ ^^Z ^ o ^ 1 ^ :i ^ '^ c» r,-, -^ u2 -=i H W CZ2 1 C3 ^ ^ .s ^ S3 fl ^ is: ^ ^_ ^ 1^ 1— 1 1:>^ :S a^ H . J-3 M .2 .^H t^ 'C O o <1 < Jab bb a> o ^ ;z5 03 M M .2 o • ; PO c^ H 1^ • P^ » >. I-H . f^ H -M >. -4^ •»:> -< .2 H .2 .2 O "C 'C ;h » o -< o O iS d k5 <1 bb o '5$ < !Z5 ^ -^ ^ U iz; a2 1 03 5j 1 . -^ m •C o -t1 d r: : : bb ■-d •^ ' ■ * M fcO o S '^ T^ c3 ^ t5 o O That do. That do. ^ o ^M -(.3 •4-3 o 03 TJ i-s TO O CO A r o l;^ C3 d 03 p PLI Ph Ph & Ph ^ 452 GLOSS ARIAL AFFINITIES. PART VII. GLOSSAKIAL 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 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 Prae- 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 L— INDO-EUROPEAN AFFINITIES. 1. INDEBTEDNESS OF SANSKRIT TO THE DEAVIDIAN 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 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 Tamil, 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 local 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 occasionally be used, for variety of metre or some other cause, especially after Sanskrit had ceased to be a spoken tongue), 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 Koman origin, such as denarius, ou^a, XI'tttov (in the sense of a minute of a degree), and even the Greek names of the signs of the Zodiac, have found their way into Sanskrit. If so, it may safely be concluded that a more con- siderable number of words belonging to the old Dravidian vernaculars must have obtained a footing in the Sanskrit vocabularies. The grounds or conditions on which I think any word contained in the Sanskrit lexicons may be concluded to be of Dravidian origin, 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 languages with collateral, related, or derivative words ; (ii.) when Sanskrit pos- sesses other words expressing the same idea, whilst the Dravidian tongues have the one in IJuestion alone ; (iii.) when the word is not found in any of the Indo-European tongues allied to Sanskrit, but 454 GLOSS ARIAL 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 w^ord in question to be Dravidian, not a Sanskrit derivative. Words prohahly borrowed hy Sanskrit from the Dravidian tongues. alclcdy 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. Diet. Comp. Acca Larentia, Lat. Mother of the Lares. attdj atti, a mother, an elder sister, a mother's elder sister. See Scythian Affinities. " Probably a word borrowed from the Deccan." — Williams' Sans. Diet. atavi^ a jungle, a forest. The root of this word is represented by Sanskrit pandits to be at, 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 atavi (in Tamil and Telugu adavi) was derived. Even the formative vi is one which is distinctively Dravidian — e.g., kelvi, Tarn, hearing, from kel, to hear. a7iij {kd, the pin of the axle of a cart ; derived, native pandits say, from an, to sound. On comparing this word with the Tamil dni, 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 SANSKRIT. 455 question is, which is the original? The Tamil word is con- nected with a family of roots, each of which has a real affinity in signification to that of a nail, considered as a fastening — e.^., an-ei, to embrace, to tie ; an-i, to put on ; mi-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 dni (after the analogy of p^Tzt, hand — parni) from the root ar, the original meaning of which was, he supposes, to fit. He com- pares also ara, a spoke. The Dravidian derivation seems to me preferable. amhd, amha, fatlier, mother; voc. amhe, amha. 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. dli, a woman's female friend. Compare dli, Tel. a wife ; dlu, a femi- nine affix ; Gond, dlt, a wife. katuTca, Icatu, sharp, pungent, fierce ; assumed Sanskrit derivation hat, to go. The corresponding Dravidian word is in Tamil kad-u, the root meaning of which appears to be ' excessive.' Dr Biihler derives hatu from hit, to cut, and thinks katu stands for kartu. The word katit is deeply rooted in Sanskrit, and is d, priori unlikely to have been borrowed from the Dravidian tongues ; and yet it can scarcely 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-u, Tam., to be sharp, is one of a cluster of roots which are united together by a family resemblance. Some of those are kad-u-gu, to make haste ; kad-i, to cut, to reprove; kad-i (with another formative), to bite ; kati, probably identical with kadi, curry ; kadu-kadu (a mimetic word), to appear angry ; kddu, and also kadam, kadavu, 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, meciianical or fine ; assumed derivation kal, to sound, to count. Tamil makes use of the same word {kald for 45G GLOSSARTAL AFFINIIIES. Tcald), but includes in the signification every science, as well as every art. We cannot. I think, doubt the derivation of kalei or kald from the primitive Dravidian root holy to learn (another derivative of which is Tcalvi, learning). The other meanings of the Sanskrit word Icald 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. Mver-i, turmeric, also the river Kaveri (Cauvery), (from its muddy colour) : assumed root Icav, to paint. Greek name of the same river, %a/5;j|o;. Possibly this word may be of Sanskrit origin. I may suggest, however, the possibility of the origin of the name of the river K^v^ri, from the Dravidian Mw, red ochre, or Jed (Jcd-vu), a grove, and er-u, Tel. a river, or er-i, Tam. a sheet of water. A celebrated temple on the banks of the river exhibits this latter word kd — viz., Tiruvanei-(^)M, near Trichin- opoly, ' the sacred grove of the elephant.' huti, a house ; related words kutira, hutira, also kutera, a cottage, a hut, and kutumba, a family : assumed derivation kut, to be crooked. There can be little doubt of the derivation of kuta-m, a w^ater-pot, from kut, crooked ; but the other words are pro- bably of Dravidian origin. In Tamil kudi means a house, a habitation ; root kud, to be together, a lengthened form of which is k'dd, to come together : related Tamil words are kudil and kudisei, a hut ; a provincial form of the latter of which is kuchchu. In Tel. and Can. gudi means a temple, and gudise. In Can. also gudasal-u, a hut. In Hindus, guti 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 diot, — each signifying a house. Was the Teutonic cot, cote, &c., also derived from this same Scythian or Finnish source ? kuni, kuni, having a crooked or withered arm, — a cripple 1 Compare this with kiln, Drav. crook-back; a derivative from kun, to stoop, an undoubtedly Dravidian root, from which it seems pro- bable that the Sanskrit kuni or kuni has been derived. kiUa^ a pond or pool, also a bank ; assumed derivation k'dl-a, to cover. Compare the Tam.-Mal. kul-am, and the Tel. kol-anu, a tank, a pool. The Tamil kul-am, a tank, is derived from hul-i, to bathe, ultimate root kul-u, to be cold, a pure Dravidian root. SANSKRIT. 457 hdtta, kota, a fort, a stronghold ; assumed derivation kut, to be crooked. Tlie Dravidian dialects make use of the same or a similar word for a fort, viz., kota in Tel., kote in Can., and Jcdttei in Tarn. Tamil having another and very ancient word for a stronghold, viz., aran, which is certainly a Dravidian root, it might be con- jectured that kottei 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. kdd-u, a line, a diagram, a line of circumvallation, which is sometimes used, especially in Malay Mam, to denote also a walled town, a fortifi- cation — e.g., K6li-MdUj Mai., Calicut, hddu itself is a verbal noun from hod-u, crooked, as in Icodun-Damir, bad Tamil, lite- rally crooked Tamil, kdd-u, when used adjectivally, becomes kott-u. khatvd, khattd, a couch, a cot; assumed derivation khatt, to screen. Compare the Tam.-Mal. katt-il, a cot, from katt-u, to tie or bind. The word kdtt-u is thoroughly and essentially Dravidian, and one which abounds with derivatives and related words. oidnd, 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 1 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 — i.e., by several persons; or. We must do as ten people do — i.e., as the world does. A numeral adjective ndld (from 'ndl-u, four), is occasionally used in Tamil to signify various, though literally meaning fourfold. The Tamil Dictionary gives us, as an instance of the use of ndld, one which is identical with the instance of the'use of ndnd given in the Sanskrit Dictionaries, viz., ndld vidam, in various ways, literally in a fourfold way ; with which compare the Sanskrit ndnd vidha, in various ways. It must be mentioned, however, that Tamilians consider this ndld a mistake for the Sanskrit ndnd. With respect to the Dravidian relationship of this word, the testimony of Tamil usage, such as it is, stands alone ; for in the Tamil dictionaries, and also in the Canarese and Telugu dictionaries, ndnd is regarded as . Sanskrit. 458 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. nira, water ; assumed derivation nt, 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, ntra and ndra may have been originally identical, but a reference to the Dra- vidian languages will show that 7}tra 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 ner, Tam. straight, nira is rarely used in Sanskrit in comparison with ap (connected with aqua)^ and ucla (connected with unda and 'D5w»). jala, another Sanskrit word for water, is supposed to have been borrowed from the Prse-Sanskrit northern vernaculars ; whilst I have little doubt that to nira a Dravidian origin should be ascribed. The corresponding Dravidian word is nir 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. Telugii ordinarily uses nillu for niru — i.e., the plural (nirulu, corrupted to ntllu) for the singular ; but Jiirtc, the singular, is also occasionally used, nir is in Gond softened to ^r, and in Brahui it has become dir. Malay^lam alone commonly uses for water another word, viz., vellam, which properly means a flood. This word is used in Tamil to denote the water with which rice-fields are flooded ; and it has pro- bably thence come to signify water in Malayalam. Even in that dialect, however, nir is also used. In Tamil the adjective tan, cool, is so frequently prefixed to nir, that in the colloquial dialect the compound iannir, water, literally cold water, has superseded the original and simple noun. The Tamil ntndu (base ni), to swim, seems to be closely related to nir, water. If so, it may have an ultimate relation with the Greek vs-w, Lat. no, nato, and also to nau, Sans, a boat. Probably nir may also have some ulterior connection with the Greek vrioog and vaeoc, wet (and through them with the modern Greek v^6, water), though these words are supposed (and perhaps correctly) to be derived- from vdu, to flow. pattana, pattana, patta, a city, town, or village : assumed derivation pat, to surround. Beanies derives it from 2^citra, a leaf, thatch. The Dravidian languages have probably borrowed the word pattanam as it stands, from Sanskrit ; and yet, as in the case of kota, 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 patta is probably identical with SANSKRIT. 459 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 villages in the south — e.g., Kdvil-patti, Temple-town. In Canarese the same word is hatti — e.g., Dim-hutty. The ulti- mate root of patti is probably padu, to settle down, to sink. Sanskrit seems to have adopted this word pafti, in addition to its own pu7'a (which is a true Indo-European word), and formed from it first patta, and then pattana. The word pettah, a suburb (Tarn, pettei), which is referred to by Wilson and Williams, belongs probably to the same root ii^^ patti, though it is not so likely to have been the origin of the Sanskrit pattam. pettei is derived from pyH'^y Tam. a suffix to the names of villages ; which, again, is identical with pddu and pddi, a place, a settlement, from padu, to settle down, feagh of which is suffixed to names of villages like pedu. panno, Prakrit, gold. This word is supposed by Ellis to be derived fr(?fn the Sanskrit suvarna. May it not have been adopted into Prakrit from the Tamil 2^07i, or the Telugu ponn-u, gold ? joalli, a city, a town, a village, especially an agricultural village. This is without doubt identical with the Dra vidian word palli, which is added to various names of places in the south — e.g., Trichi- nopoly, properly Tirisir^ppalli, " the city of the three-headed Asura." The Dravidian origin of this word is indicated, if ijpt proved, by the circumstance that it is chiefly, if not ex- clusively, used to denote places which are within the limits of the Dravidian tongues. From this word I derive the word palla, the name of the principal tribe of agricultural labourers or serfs in the Tamil country. hhaj, to share. hhdg-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 both the Sanskrit and the Tamil to be derived from a common and earlier source. Probably the former supposition is in this case .the more correct. At all events the Tamil-Malayalam pag-u is a pure, underived Dravidian root. A noun formed from it, signifying a share, is pang-u {fig for g, as is often the case) ; and a collateral root is pag-ir, meaning also to share. The Sanskrit word pangu means lame, and is altogether un- connected with the 'ftimil one. Other derived nouns are pagal, a division, daylight; pdl {= pagal), a portion; and pddi {jxigudi), half. 460 GLOSS ARIAL AFFINITIES. mtna, a fish ; assumed derivation mi {mindti), to hurt. The Dravidian word for fish is mi7i, a word which is found in every dialect of the family, and is tlie only word signifying fish which these languages possess, min is found even in the small list of Dravidian words contained in the R^jmah^l 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 inhabitants of the Malabar and Coromandel sea-boards were indebted for the word which denoted so important an article of their food and commerce, to a race of inland people coming from the North- West. Moreover, the derivation of min, which is supplied by the Dravidian languages, is as beautiful as the Sanskrit derivation is uncouth. The root of mm, a fish, is 7nin, to glitter, to be phosphorescent. Hence the glow-worm is min-mini by reduplication ; and min, a verbal noun which ^ .is formed from min by the lengthening of the included vowel (like tin, food, from tin, to eat), signifies in poetical Tamil a star, as well as a fish — e.g., vdn-mtn, a star (literally a sky- sparkler) ; and aru-mtn, the Pleiades — i.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 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 — viz., a word signi- fying that which glows or sparkles 1 valaksha, white ; assumed derivation vala, to go. May not this word be derived from the Dravidian vel, white 1 Compare also the related Dravidian words veli, space, the open air j velli, silver ; velichcham, light. The Hungarian vildg, a light, appears to be an allied word. Has ^the Slavonian veli, white, been borrowed from a Scythian source ? or is it one of those ultimate analogies which bind both families together ? val-a, to surround. valaya-m, a circlet, a bracelet. The Dravidian languages seem to have borrowed the Sanskrit noun, with or without modification ; but the verb from which the noun has been formed was itself, apparently, borrowed by Sanskrit from the Dravidian lan- guages. The corresponding Dravidian root is val-ei, to bend, to crook, metaphorically to surround. This word has a larger store of secondary meanings and wider ramifications than the SANSKRIT. 461 Sanskrit verb. It is also used as a noun, without any for- mative addition, when it signifies a hole, a sinuosity — e.g., eli'Valei, Tarn, a rat-hole. Whilst the Tamil makes occasional use of the Sanskrit valayam, a bracelet, an armlet* it also uses valeiyaly a verbal noun formed from valei, its own verbal root, to signify the same thing. Taking these various circum- stances into consideration, I conclude that the Dravidian verb has certainly not been borrowed from the Sanskrit, and that the Sanskrit verb has probably been derived from the Dravidian. valgu, handsome. valguha, sandal-wood. This word seems to resemble the Tamil-Malay- ^lam aragu (pronounced alagu), beauty. sava^ a corpse. sdva, adj., relating to a dead body. These words are said to be derived from sav, to go; but this derivation is surely much less probable than the Dravidian verbal root to die, which is sd in Tam. ; did, Mai. ; sd, Can. ; sei, Tuluj cha-chu, Tel.; Tel. infinitive, chdvadama. The vowel of sd is short in Telugu ; and in Tamil, MalayMam, and Canarese is short in the preterite tense, sd is undoubtedly a pure Dravidian root. Compare the Samoiede chawe, dead. Probably also the Sanskrit shei {sdyaii), to waste away, and 8h6, to be destroyed, have some ulterior connection with it. siikti, a curl. Tam. suttru, Can. suttu, Tel. chuttu, anything round, as a ring, a coil, a roundabout way. Eoot, suttru, to go round. sdya, the evening ; assumed derivation, s6, to destroy, to put an end to. The Tamil-Malay S,lam sdy, to lean, to incline (a pure Dravidian word), seems to be a much more natural derivation, the evening being the period when the sun inclines to the west. In the foregoing list of Dravidian words which have found a place in the vocabularies of Sanskrit, I have not included the names of various places and tribes in Southern India which are mentioned in the Sanskrit historical poems, and which have, in consequence, found a place in the dictionaries. In general, the vernacular origin of those words is admitted by Sanskrit lexicographers. In one case, however, a Sanskrit origin has erroneously been attributed to a Dravidian word of this class. Malaya, a mountain or mountainous range in Southern India, is represented as being derived from mal, Sans, to hold or con- tain (sandal-wood). The real origin is unquestionably the Dravidian mal-a, or mal-ei, a hill or %iountain, and also a hilly or mountainous country ; and the range of mountains referred to under the name of 462 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. Malaya is doubtless that of the Soutliern Gliaiits or tbe Malayalam country, which was called Male by the later Greek and early Arabian geographers. In 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 Dra vidian 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 dijBTer, 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 II., p. 461) — '' Sanskrit is a lan- guage of great antiquity and of wide diffusion. Long after it had ceased to be vernacularly spoken, it continued 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 distinct from it. From these circumstances it has resulted, 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 been 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 cf the German Oriental Society for 1869) — " It might have been expected beforehand that a great many Dravidian words would have found their way into SANSKRIT. 4 03 Sanskrit. How could the Aryans liave sjjread themselves all over India without adopting a great deal from the aboriginal races they found therein, whom in the course of thousands of years they have sub- dued, partly by peaceful means, partly by force, and yet imperfectly after all up to this day ? In like manner no one can study the Dravi- dian languages without perceiving that Aryan elements are so deeply imbedded in them that their original nature can be discovered only with difficulty. Long labour and careful comparison of the principal dialects are needed to bring those elements to light. In the beginning of the investigation it may appear easy to distinguish what has been borrowed. Soon, however, it appears how wonderfully the Aryan elements have spread themselves in every direction, so that they pre- 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- skrit also. Dravidian words have not only got themselves naturalised therein, but have allied themselves so intimately to similarly sounding words, that through the passion for etymologising and the overvaluing of their sacred ton^e by which the Brahman s are distinguished, they either derive those words anyhow from genuine Aryan roots, or cut the knot by representing the Dravidian roots themselves as Sanskrit. We scarcely ever meet in India a native philologist who would be willing to acknowledge the existence of Dravidian elements in Sanskrit ; whilst we meet with many, at least in Malabar, who boldly take upon them- selves to derive from corruptions of the Sanskrit the whole of the Dravidian vocabulary, and even Arabic and European names. We Europeans, on the other hand, look simply at the nature of the case. Where peoples speaking differing languages are in constant intercom- munication with one another — when they trade or fight with one another, and have many joys and sorrows in common, they naturally borrow 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. " It might be anticipated, therefore, that as the Aryans penetrated further and further to the south, and became acquainted with new- objects bearing Dravidian names, they would as a matter of course adopt the names of those things together with the things themselves." Selections from Dr Gundert^s list of words which he thinks have pro- bably been borroived by Sanskrit from the Dravidian languages. Urunda, the name of a demon, round or rolling, from urul (pret. urundu)^ to roll. * 464 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. eda, edalca, a sheep or goat ; Drav. ddu, a sheep or goat ; root ddu, to frisk ; Tulu edu. karabdla, karavdla, a sword ; compare Drav. Jcai-vdl, a hand-sword ; vdl, a sword, may be from val, to bend. Karndtaka, Kar-ndt-agam, interior of the black country, from kar, black, oidt {nddu), country, and agam, interior — the black cotton soil of the Dekkan. 7iddu means properly the cultivated country, from nad-u, to plant. kunda, a hole ; Tam. kundu ; Tel. gunda ; Can. kuni ; Tam. kiiri. kurkura, a dog ; Drav. kura, to make a noise ; ultimate root ku, to cry. keydra, a bracelet worn on the upper arm ; Drav. ke% hand, arm, utu, to be used. kokila, the cuckoo ; Drav. kuyil. The Dravidian word is generally regarded as a corruption from the Sanskrit. Probably neither word is derived from the other, but each is mimetic. Drav. root ku, to cry, with the formative il, place. ghdta, a horse ; Tel. gurram. Compare Tam. kudirai, a horse, pro- bably from kudi, to leap. (See my own li^.) champaka, the Michelia champaka, a tree with a yellow fragrant flower. Also jambu, the rose-apple; Drav. semhu, red. ndranga, the orange ; Drav. ndr, to smell ; Mai. {ndranna) ndran-gdy {kdy, fruit), an orange. Compare also, however. Sans, ndgar- anga, an orange. pita, pitaka, a large basket ; Drav. pid, to catch, to hold. putra, son ; Drav. root pud, new 1 punndga, a tree from the flowers of which a yellow dye is prepared ; Drav. pon, gold. peta, a basket ; Drav. petti, a box or basket ; root, Tel. pet, to place. \_pid, to hold, contain.] phala, fruit ; Drav. par am, palam, ripe fruit ; root par, to become old. (Tel. pandu 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. muktd, a pearl; Prakrit muttd ; Tam. muttu. Probably both Sanskrit and Tamil words are from mut, the equivalent of Tamil mudal, first ; root mu or mi, to be first — the first of gems. Bhillas, probably Billas, from the Drav. vil, Ml, a bow, bowmen. rdtri, night ; Drav. ird, iravu ; Tel. re ; root, ir, to be dark {;lr-ul, darkness). virala, loose ; Tam. -Mai. viral, expansion, from viri, to expand. heramba,- a buffalo ; Drav. eruma, erma. SANSKRIT. 465 sringavera, ginger. The whole of this word seems to be Dravidian. Ginger is in Tamil and Malayalam inji or inchi, and this word seems to have commenced with s originally, as in Canarese the parallel word is siliiti (See Indian Antiqiiari/, Nov. 1872, contribution by Dr Burnell.) In earlier times, Dr Burnell says, the Greeks procured this article almost exclusively from Malabar. incJii, ginger, would naturally take the addition of ver, the Dravidian word for root (from vir, to expand) • also Sans, vera, saffron, vera 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, as they appear to me too conjectural. I am doubtful indeed whether 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 7'upa, form, is in Tamil uruvam, iiruvu, which seem undoubtedly tadbhavas. But there is also in Tamil an independent verb, uru, to be firm, solid, tfec, of which another shape is nru; and from this iiru comes the 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 rdpa is derived from this Dravidian uruppu, even though uriivu may be a tadbhava of rUpa. The following instances of words probably borrowed by Sanskrit 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 Indian Antiquary (No. for August 1872) on *'The Dravidian Element in Sanskrit Dictionaries." atta, an upper loft ; Drav. atta, the same ; root ad, to place one thing upon another. atta, boiled rice, food ; Drav. ad, to cook, past participle atta. atta (properly Jiatta), a market, a market-place ; Drav. hatta (hatti), a hamlet, properly patti. See pattanam in my list. dm, yesj Drav. dm, yes, literally it is or will be, the aorist future (neuter singular) of d-gu, to become. dra-Mta, brass, a combination of metals ; Drav. htfta, union ; root kud, to join. dta, dda, as a suffix, playing with, tending after — e.g., vdchdta, talka- tive ; Drav. ddu, to play, to use. dla, as a suffix, possessing — e.g., 3Ialaydla, mountain possessing, asva- vdla, horse possessing Drav. dl, to possess. dli, a ditch ; Drav. dli, a deep place ; root dl, to be deep. 2g 466 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. A few words are appended by Mr Kittel which do not begin with a. I quote those that have not been adduced already. pdlana, the milk of a cow that has recently calved ; Drav. pdl, milk. valli, a creeper ; Drav. valli, the same; root val, to bend, to surround. mukura, mukula, a bud ; Drav. mugid ; root mug, to shut up as a flower. kuta^ an earthenware vessel ; Drav. root kiid, to take in, receive. kuthara, an axe ; Drav. kadi, to cut. The other words adduced by Mr Kittel appear to me to belong, not 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. This is shown by the number of Mr Kittel's illus- trations derived from one initial vowel alone to be a very large class ; and it is evident that in many instances the Dravidian use of the word, or its relation vships, throws light on the use of the word in Sanskrit. 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 contained in the following list are true, underived Dravidian roots, yet they seem to be so closely allied to certain Sanskrit words, that they may reasonably be concluded to be the common property of both families of tongues. Possibly one or two words may have been borrowed at an early period by the one language from the other ; but in most cases, if not in every case, there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of the mutually independent origin of both the Sanskrit word and the Dravidian one, from a source which appears to have been common to both. The various words appear to be too deeply seated in each family of languages, to have too many ramifications, and (whilst they retain a ifamily likeness) to differ too widely, either in sound or in signification, to allow of the supposition of a direct derivation of the one from the other. Moreover, notwithstanding the 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 {desya) 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 SANSKRIT. 467 allied to Greek or Lafin, 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- 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 which appear to be the common property/ of Sandier it and the Dravidian tongues. adi, to strike, to beat, to kill. ud-ei, to kick, to stamp ; ud-ei, od-i, to break. Comp. uth, ilfh. Sans, to strike, to knock down. ad-ei, to get in, to attain, to possess. Comp. ad, Vedic-Sans. to per- vade, to attain. an-u, Tel., en, Tarn., to speak, to say. Comp. an. Sans, to sound. ar-u, to be scarce, precious, dear. Comp. Sans, ark to deserve ; argha, value. "uir-u, to creep; in the higher dialect of the Tamil, to ride (as in a palanquin). Comp. Sans, ur, to go. kad-a, to pass by or over. Comp. hat, Sans, to go. Icad-u, to ache, to be hot, pungent, fierce, swift. This is one of a cluster of roots united together by a family resemblance. Some of these are the following : — kad-i, to bite ; kad-i, with another formative, to cut, to reprove ; kad-u-gu, to make haste ; kav-i (probably identical with kad-i), curry ; kadukadu, an intensi- tive form of kad-u. kad-am, kad-avu, more commonly kdd-u, a forest; kad-u-gu, mustard. Supposing kad-u to have meant originally to be excessive, or to have acquired that meaning, another root will tffen appear to be related to it, viz., kad-a, to pnss ; Sans, kat, to go. Comp, Sans, katu, katuka, sharp, pun- 408 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. gent, vehement ; assumed root Icat, to go." Dr Buhler's deriva- tion of Icatu (in his paper on the origin of the Unguals of the Sanskrit, see p. 35), from hrit, to cut (kartu='katu)^ 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 katu is deeply rooted in Sanskrit, and is unlikely to have been borrowed from another tongue. It is still more unlikely that the 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 Sanskrit 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 katuTca, 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. karudei, 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 karudei, which is con- sidered to be a purely Dravidian word. Nevertheless, karudei appears to be allied to khara in origin, and also to the Persian char, and the Kurdish kerr. Comp. the Laghmani karatik, a female ass. kinna, Can. small, Tulu kini, Tel. cliinna, Tam. sinna. Comp. kana, Sans, a minute particle; also kantka, kaniya, small, young. There is no doubt of the Tamil sinna having been softened from kinna ; but I have some doubt whether the n has not been corrupted from r, for the ultimate root to which sinna is referred by Dravidian scholars is siv-u. key, Coorg, to do; Tuda kei, Kota ke, Gond ki, Old Can. gey, Coll Can. gey, Tel. chey, Mai. chey, Tam. sey. kei, hand ; all Dravidian dialects. Telugu has in addition kelu and chey-i or chey-i. 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 kei, hand. It cannot be doubted that these words were originally identical, like kar, to do, and kar-a, hand, in Sanskrit, key would naturally become kei, of which we see an appropriate instance in gei-du, having done, in SANSKRIT. 469 colloquial Canarese, whicli is the shape the older and more classical gey-du has taken. Though it seems certain that these words were originally identical, it does not seem quite so clear which of the two meanings, 'to do ' or ' the hand,' was the original one. It would be very natural to call the hand the doer ; on the other hand, ' to do ' is an abstract word, which cannot well have come into use until a large number of doings and doers had been provided with special names. Some word for hand would be required at a much earlier stage, and it is conceivable that to do meant first of all to use the hand. Compare these words with kar (kri), Sans, to do, and kar-a, hand. The k of kri is changed to ch in some of the tenses of the verb {e.g., chakdra, I did), just as we have seen above that the Dravidian k changes (still more systematically) into ch. The r of kar (or kri) always retains its place in Sanskrit ; and it appears in the corresponding Zend kar, to make {e.g., karditi, he made; compare Sans, kardti, he does), and also in those western Indo-European languages in which this root appears — e.g., Irish caraim, I perform). It is retained in the New Persian kar {kar dam, I did), but seems to have disappeared in the Old Persian ki, to do, and also in some inflexional forms in the North Indian vernaculars — e.g., Prakrit ka-da, and Marathi he-Id, made, the former supposed to be a weakening of kar-da or kra-da, the latter for karild. The included vowel of kar, Sans, changes in some inflexions to kur. Though there are traces of the existence of kar, to do, in most, if not all, of the Indo-European languages, it is not certain that there are any traces of kar-a, hand. The Greek "/i'l^ (gen. %sf-o'?), and the Old Latin kir, hand, are supposed to be connected rather with har {hri), to take, than with kar {kri), to do. The Sans- krit saT/a, lying down, one of the meanings attributed to which is ' hand,' seems to me to have no connection either with kar-a or the Dravidian kei (Tel. cheT/). But it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that between the Sanskrit pair of words, kar, to do, and kar-a, the hand, and the Dravidian pair, key, to do, and keij the hand, a close connection subsists. The existence of kar, to do or make, in Zend, shows that the Sans- krit word was not borrowed from the Dravidian ; besides which, it occupies too important a place in Sanskrit to allow that supposition to be entertained. It is equally impossible to suppose that the Dravidian languages borrowed key, to do, and kei, hand, from Sanskrit, kei, hand, is found in every Dra- 470 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. vidian dialect, however rude; and Icey, to do, or its equiva- lents, is found in every dialect except the Tulu, which shows by its retention of the noun Icei that it must originally have possessed the verb also. Each of these words Izey and Izti holds as essential a place in the Dravidian languages as Izar and Tcar-a in Sanskrit, and each of them has developed a host of derivatives and compounds. The Sans, liara, hand, and Tcarma, work, are freely borrowed by the Dravidian dialects ; but these words are never confounded with their vernacular equivalents, kei, hand, and seygei, seyal, seydi, Tarn, action, occurrence. There is also an old tadhhava of karma in use in all the dialects, viz., kam (also kammam in Tarn.), meaning * work,' especially smith's work, from a comparison of which with seygei, &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 tadhhava 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. hir-alf Tam. noise, voice ; root kur, to make a noise. Comp. Sans. kar, to shout; gar, to sound. Possibly the Tam. kori, the gallus gallinaceous, is connected with hir; and if so, the word gallus itself will appear to be related to kdri, gallus being in- stead of garrus; comp. garrulus. The ultimate root of the Tam. kur appears to be ku, to sound (probably a mimetic word), as in ku-y-il, the Indian cuckoo. kudirei, a horse ; Can. kudure, probably from kudi, to leap. Comp. SANSKRIT. 471 Sans, ghota, a horse. The Dravidian languages have borrowed ghota from Sans, (in Tamil gdram, godagam), said to be from ghut, to retaliate ; but kudirei is regarded as an underived, indigenous Dravidian word. It is probable, however, that the two words are ultimately related. Tcir-i, to tear. Comp. hhur, Sans, to cut, to scratch. ked-^c, to spoil or destroy, or (intransitively) to be spoiled or destroyed ; verbal noun ked-u, ruin ; relative participle ketta {tt for dd), bad ; Tel. ched-u. Comp. Sans, khid, to suffer pain or misery, and its verbal noun kheda, sorrow, distress. Comp. also khit, to terrify, and its derivative khet, bad, low ; Greek Titihog, sorrow. If these words are allied to the Dravidian one, as they appear to be, it must be in virtue of a common origin, for there is not a more distinctively Dravidian word in existence than ked-u. kod-Uf Tam.-Mal. fierce, extreme, rough, literally crooked — e.g., kod- ukku, Tam. the claws of the crab ; kod-il, Mai. pincers. Comp. Sans, kut, crooked. sil-ir, to tremble, to have the hair standing on end. Comp. cMl, Sans, to shake, to tremble. — See also subsequent list under kullr, cold. se, to be red ; Can. kena^ ken; chem, chen. This root forms the basis . of many adjectives and nouns (e.g., se7i, red), but is not used anywhere in its primitive, unformed shape. Comp. sona, Sans, to be red. sevi, Tam. ; chevij Mal.-Tel., the ear ; Can. kivi, Tulu keppi. Comp. srava, the ear, Sans., from sru, to hear. tad-i, a stick, a club ; verbal theme, tadi, to be thick or heavy ; tatt-u. to hit. Comp. tad^ Sans, to strike, to beat. tt, fire. Comp. Sans, di, the base of dtp, to shine. t'O^v-u, to sprinkle gently (as dust). tdv-u, to drizzle, to scatter, to spread abroad (as a report). The transitive of tilT-u is tfirr-u (pronounced tUttru), to winnow. The ultimate root of all these words evidently is til, which is also a Tamil form of the root. Comp. c/M Sans, to shake, to agitate ; a derivative from which is dhUli, dust. Comp. also tilsta, dust (derivative tus, to sprinkle), with which our own word dust is evidently identical. From Sans. dhUli, Tamil has borrowed tilli, tUl, dust, and also tUs-i; but there cannot be any doubt of the Tamil verbs tUv-u and titr-u being underived Dravidian themes, dliil or tH appears, there- fore, to be the common property of both families of languages ; whilst it is in the Bravidian family that the original meaning of this root appears to have been most faithfully preserved. 472 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. nad-a, to walk. Comp. the Sanskrit theme nat (said to be from nrii), to dance, to act ; derivatives from which are nat a, 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 7iatinchu or natisu, to dance, and their own theme naduclm or nadi, to walkj 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 ; nader (nadei), a way, a derivative from this root, is one of the words adduced by Kumarila-bhatta SiS 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, nah, to spin, originally to join together. Comp. also Greek vtiQm ; German nahen, to sew ; Latin necto. oiHl, Tam. thread, to spin, seems to be a verbal noun from a lost root nu, which must have meant to join together, like the Sans. nah. pal, many ; as a verb, to be multiplied. Comp. Sans, puhi, much, more commonly puru. pdd-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-l, and the Tamil pad-i, to read, have been borrowed; and the Tamil pdda-m, a lesson, is clearly derived from the Sans, pdtha, reading, pdd-u, to sing, how- ever, and pdtt-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 path-a and pdtha, as descended from some ancient source common to both. The ideas expressed are nearly related; for the reading of all Hindus (and all Orientals) is a sort of cantilena; and even the Sanskrit deriva- tive 2^cidi, to read, often receives in colloquial Tamil the mean- ing to sing. pdl, Tam. Mai. and Can. a portion, a part, a half. Comp. Sans, phal, to divide; also Latin pars, a portion, pdl appears to be identical with pagal, Tam. a division (also daylight), from pag-u, to divide. The medial g was softened away, as in pddi, half, originally pagudi, from the same root pag-u. See Semitic affinities of this word. SANSKRIT. 473 2nTa, other — e.g., pita-n, another man. Comp. para, Sans, in the sense of other, different, foreign, a sense which it often bears — e.g.f para-desa, a foreign country. It is with this preposition, and not with pra, before, forward, that I think the Tamil pira, other, should be compared. The use of the Tam. pira, and that of the Sans, para (in the signification adduced above) are identical ; and we might naturally suppose the Tamil word to have been derived from the Sanskrit. Tamil, however, whilst it admits that para was borrowed from Sanskrit, regards pira as an indigenous theme. The r of pira is unknown to Sanskrit, and is considered to be a distinctive mark of Dravidian words. Tamil has another word, piv-a-gu, after (ultimate base pir), which is generally considered to be independent of, and uncon- nected with, pira, other; and yet that this very meaning, after, is one of the many significations which are attributed to para in Sanskrit. Possibly both in Tamil and in Sanskrit, after, may have been the first meaning ; other, the secondary one. Comp. also piTa, Tam. to be born = to come after. It may be concluded, I think, that para and piva 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. poT-it, to bear, Comp. Sans, hhri (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. pdl, milk. The Dravidian languages do not seem to contain the verbal theme from which this word is derived. We may compare it with the Sanskrit pdf/asa, milk, and also with pd>/a, water, Zend peOj Affghan poi ; all of which words are derived from pd, Sans, to drink — a root which runs through almost all the Indo-European languages. Possibly the Dravidian pdl, milk, may be a verbal noun formed from this very theme ; for a large number of verbal nouns are formed in Tamil by simply adding al or I to the root. Notwithstanding this, the purely Dravidian character and connections of this word jydl, preclude the supposition of its direct derivation from the Sanskrit pd. If pdl, milk, could be considered as identical with pdl, a portion, its root woflld be pag-u, to divide. It is difficult, how- ever, to see why milk should have been called a portion, a 474 GLOSS ARIAL AFFINITIES. share. A poetical, but very common, name for arisi, unboiled rice, in Tamil is amudu-padi, the ambrosial portion or allow- ance. Was it in some such sense that milk was called pdl ? pe^-u, to speak ; Can. pel-u. Comp. bhdsh, Sans, to speak. pd, a flower, or to blossom, Tam., Tel., and Can. Comp. phull-a, Sans, to blossom, and pushpa, a flower. Looking, however, at the Mar^thi phul, a flower, from phulla, the Dravidian pil seems likely to have been derived from the Sanskrit after all. Tamil has an ancient word of its own for flowers, malar. valy strong ; val-mei, strength. Comp. Sans, bal-a, strength. See also next section. 3. Extra Sanskritic or West Indo-European Affinities : Dravidian words vjJiich appear to be specially allied to, or specially to resemble, words that are contained in the languages of the Westerri or Non-Sanshritic branches of the Indo-European family. 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 re- 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-ei, to shake. Comp. gu is po. Laghmani (an Afghan dialect) pdk, to go ; Greek /3a- w, to go j Lat. va-do, to march ; Heb. &o, to come, occasionally to go. p6d-u, to put. Comp. Dutch poot-en, to set or plant ; Danish pod-er, to graft ; English to put. hil-u, Can. to fall ; Tam. vir-u. Comp. English to fall ; German fall-en. mag-an, a son, a male. Comp. Gothic mag-tcs, a boy, a son, from the verbal theme mag, originally to grow, then to be able ; Gaelic male, a son ; Tibetan maga, son-in-law. Comp. also Lat. mas, a male. man, to remain, to abide (root of manei, house). Comp. Lat. manere. may-ir, hair. Probably from mxiyi, Mai. black = Tam. mei. Comp. Persian mui; Armenian mas, hair. mav-a, to forget. Comp. Lithuanian mirsz, to forget. md, a male, particularly the male of the lion, elephant, horse, and swine — e.g., ari-md, a male lion. Comp. Lat. mas, a male. m/lrg-u, to die, to languish, to mingle, mdr, to be confused, to be lazy ; Tndl, to die, to perish. Comp. Lat. marc-eo, to wither, to be faint, to be languid or lazy, and also the Greek fiaoaim, which in the passive voice signifies to waste away, or die. Possibly 9-11 these words have a remote connection with mri {mar). Sans. to die. It would seem, however, that there is a closer connec- tion between the Latin and Greek secondary themes here adduced and the Tamil than between the Sanskrit and the Tamil. marJca, Vedic Sans., according to some, means dying away. mig-u, much, great : as a verbal theme, to be much. miiij-u, to abound (from mij, nasalised), is a collateral root. Related words, Tel. migal-u, remainder, that which is too much ; mi- gula and migala, adverb and adjective, much, exceedingly, also 488 GLOSS ARTAL AFFINITIES. mikhili, tlie same ; Can. mig-u, to exceed, also migil-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, except mig-ti, and its correlatives. The Dravidian words 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-is ; the Persian mill or meah ; the Greek jOtiya or inyakoi ; the Old High Ger- man mihhil, michil; Norse mikil ; Danish megen ; English migh-t ; Scotch mickle, appear to be more closely connected ^ with the Tam. mig-u, the Can. migal and mokkala^ and the Tel. migala and mikkili, than with the Sans, mah-at. The final al of the Dravidian words is one of the most common for- matives of verbal nouns. See the section on " Roots." mUrgu, muru-gu, to plunge, to sink, amir appears to be a softened form of the same word ; and probably the g of miXrgu 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, hhanj (originally perhaps hhranj). mugil, Tarn, and ancient Can. a cloud. Comp. Sans, meglia, a cloud, from mill [mehati), to sprinkle. The word meglia has been borrowed from Sanskrit by the Dravidian languages, and is now more commonly used than mugil. The latter, however, is found in the classics, is much used by the peasantry, and appears to be a pure Dravidian word. Doubtless meglia and mugil are ultimately allied; but there seems to be a special connection between the Dravidian word and the Greek 6-/a/;^X-^, a cloud, the Lithuanian migla, the Slavonian mgla, and the Gothic milh-ma; in each of which the I of mugil retains its place. Dr Gundert derives mugil from Can. muchch-u {mug), to cover over, to shut in, with the addition of the formative il. muyalj to labour, to endeavour. Comp. Lat. mol-ior, to endeavour, to strive ; Greek /tiuX-og, the toil of war ; Eng. to moil, to labour or strive. murumuru, to grumble, to murmur. A very similar word morumoru, WEST INDO-EUROPEAN FAMILY. 489 to murmur, would naturally be regarded as identical with muTumuTu ; but a different origin is ascribed to each. moTU- mora is said to be simply and solely a mimetic word, one of a large class of imitative, reduplicated exclamations — e.g.^ he said moTu-moTu — i.e., he spoke angrily ; his head said kiru-Hru — i.e., it went round. muTumuTu, on the other hand, it is said, is not purely imitative, but is supposed to be regularly formed by reduplication from muTu, the base of muTit-hlcu, to twist, to chafe ; and the signification of grumbling, and being discon- tented, has arisen from that of chafing. Whatever be the derivation of the Tamil word, it may be compared with the Latin murmuro, to mutter. The Latin word is evidently an imitative one, the reduplication of the syllable mur being used to signify the continuance of a low muttering sound, mur has doubtless some connection with the base of musso, mussito, to mutter or grumble. Comp. also the Greek expression to say [iv (MJ, to mutter, to grumble. The Old Prussian murra, to mur- mur, is evidently related. See also the Scythian Affinities. The Tamil word means not only to utter a muttering sound, but also ' to express discontent, to be angry ; ' and in this it goes beyond the meaning of the corresponding Latin murrrmro. Muttering is in Tamil expressed by muna-muna, a somewhat similar, yet independent, imitative word. millch-u, the nose : theme mug-ar, Tam.-Mal. to smell. Comp. Greek fi\jytT7]D, the nose. The Greek word is said to be derived from ,au^w, to moan, to mutter, to suck in, or from /-tuga, the dis- charge from the nose (Latin mucus). It is worth consideration, however, whether the Dravidian derivation is not, after all, a more probable one. mel, fine, thin, soft, tender ; mell-a, softly, gently. Comp. Latin moll- is, soft, tender, pliant ; Greek fiaXaxog, soft, gentle, tender. The derivation of the Latin mollis, from movilis^ seems incon- sistent with the connection which subsists between mollis and fMa\ax.6g ; and the resemblance of both to the Dravidian mel is remarkable. Comp. Sans, mridu, soft, which is in Tamil med-u. I can scarcely think mel, like med-u, derived from mridu. rdy, Tel. a stone. Bearing in mind the mutual interchange of r and I, we may perhaps compare this word with the Greek Xa-ag or Xa/-a, a stone, rdy seems to correspond to Tam, arei (another form of pdrei), a rock. val, strong ; val-i-ya, van-'Mei (val-mei), strength. The Dravidian lan- guages have borrowed, and frequently use, the Sans, hala (in 490 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. Tamil halan, balam, and even valam) ; and it might at first be supposed that this is the origin of vali, &c. 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.^., val-am, the right hand; val-ij 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 rudiraental an idea as strong, val, also, more closely resembles the Latin val-eo, to be strong, and val-iduSf than the Sanskrit hala-m. val, fertility, abundance ; val-ar, and many related verbs, to rear, to cause to grow. Comp. Latin al-o^ to nourish. Connection doubtful. vdnffu, to receive, to take. Comp. German {em'p)fangen. vind-Uf the wind. Comp. Latin vent-us; English wind. The Tamil word seems to be derived from vin, the sky : its resemblance to vent-US and wiiid is, therefore, probably accidental, the root of those words being vd, to blow (Sans.), and their Sans, equiva- lent vdta. vireij to shiver from cold, to grow stiff from cold. Comp. Greek (ppiae-u, to tremble, to shiver; g/y-sw, to shiver or shudder with cold; g/y-o?, frost, cold, a shivering from cold ; also Latin frig-eo, to be cold ; frig-us, cold ; rig-eOf rig-or, to be stiff, as from cold ; English to freeze, vin, useless, vain. Comp. Latin van-us, empty, unreal, fHvolous, vain. vind-u, to wish, to want. Comp. English want from Saxon wanian, to fail. The corresponding Can. word is hedu, but this has also the shape of bendu. Another Can. form is beku, from an older belku. The root must have been vel, which means in High Tarn, to desire. ver-Uf 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 ver-u : ver-u, void ; the primitive meaning of which seems to have been 'distant.' SEMITIC. 491 SECTION II.— SEMITIC AFFINITIES, OK DRAVIDIAN WORDS WHICH APPEAR TO BE ALLIED TO HEBREW AND ITS SISTER TONGUES. The number of such words in the Dravidian languages is not great ; and it might be objected that in attempting to establish the existence of this class of affinities, in addition to affinities of the Indo-European and Scythian classes, I prove nothing by attempting to prove too much. I answer, that I do not attempt to establish anything or to prove anything. I content myself with adducing facts. I submit to the reader a list of words which exhibit some interesting points of 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 to show whether further investigation in this direction is likely to be rewarded with important results or not. In some of the instances which will be adduced, the Semitic words appear to resemble Indo- European words, as well as words belonging to the Dravidian lan- guages j but it will be found that the Dravidian analogies appear in general to be closer than the Indo-European, and it is for that reason that the words are inserted in this list rather than in the preceding one. In some instances, again, the only resemblances to the Semitic 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 by supposing them to have been introduced by the Jews who have settled on some parts of the Malabar coast ; for the Jews, whether "black" or "white," have carefully preserved their traditional policy 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 entirely unknown ; and the Dravidian languages were fully formed, and Tamil, it is probable, had been committed to writing, long before the Jews made their appearance in India. Whatever 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 ancient, pre-historic intermixture or association of the Dravidians with the Semitic race, or rather perhaps as constituting traces of the original oneness of the speech of the Noachidse. 492 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. app'd, father! vocative of app-an. This word for father is found 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 awe. Comp. Can. awe, a mother, or grandmother, amme, Tulu father, is allied to the Tam. ammdn, mother's brother, also father, though rarely used in the latter sense. The Mech, a Bhutan dialect, has appa for father; the Bhotiya aha; 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 h, 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 ; mdy to make (a child in the womb) ; whilst in the Semitic languages, those consonants are preceded by a vowel — e.g., Hebrew dh, father ; em, mother. Comp. also, however, amhd, Sans, mother. In this particular the Dravidian languages follow the Semitic rule — e.g., Tam. app-an, father; amm-dl, mother. The resem- blance between appan (vocative appd), and the Chaldee ahhd, father (Syriac dho), is remarkable. It is so close, that in the Tamil translation of Gal. iv. 6, ahha, father, there is no differ- ence whatever, either in spelling or in sound, between the Aramaic word abhd (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)-e, instead of the Tamil appd, as the translation of the second word. amm-d, mother ! vocative of amm-ei or amm-dl, mother. Comp. Heb. em, mother ; Syr. dmd. See also the Scythian and Indo-European affinities of this word, which are still closer than the Semitic. dr-u, a river ; Tel. er-u : correlative root eri, Tam. a natural reservoir of water. Comp. Hebrew ydr, a river ; Coptic jaro. See also Scythian Analogies. al, not. In all the Dravidian dialects al negatives the attributes of a thing ; il, its existence ; H (and sometimes al), is prohibitive. The vowel is transposed in Telugu, and le (the base of ledu), used instead of il. Comp. the negative and prohibitive particles of the Hebrew, al and 16 ; also the corresponding Arabic and Chaldaic Id. 16 in Hebrew negatives the properties of a thing, like al in Tamil, and another particle, din, a substantive mean 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 leth, it is not, a compound of Id, the negative particle, and ith, the substantive verb ' it is ' (a compound resembling the Sans, ndsti), with the corresponding Tel. ledu (Tam. iladu), it is not, which is compounded of le, the negative particle, and du,ihe formative of the third person neuter of the aorist. See also Sanskrit and Scythian Affinities. av-d, desire : a related word is dval, also desire, which is a verbal noun derived from the assumed root dv-u, to desire (Mardthi dvad, love). The Telugu form of this word is dhali. h between two vowels often becomes v. Comp. Heb. avvah, desire, a verbal noun derived from dvdh, to desire. The ultimate base of the Hebrew dv or av is identical not only with the Tamil dv or av, but with the Latin av-eo, to desire, and the Sanskrit av-a, of which to desire is one of the rarer meanings. Comp. also Heb. dhdh, to will. ir-u, to be ; Brahui, ar. Comp. Babylonian ar, to be ; also Coptic er or el, and the Egyptian auxiliary ar. The Dravidian word appears to mean primarily to sit, secondarily to be — i.e., to be simpliciter, without doing anything. ir-a, the ultimate base of ira-ngu, neut., to descend, and its transitive ita-lcku, to cau^e to descend. Comp. Heb. ydrad (biliteral base yar), to descend. xir-i, Can. to burn ; Tam. er-i. Comp. Heb. 'dr, fire, 6t, light. — (See also Indo-European Affinities.) vir, a city, a town, a village. Comp. Heb. dr or ^%r, a city ; Baby- lonian er, Assyrian uru, Accadian ''uri. er-i, to cast, to shoot. Comp. Heb. ydrdh (biliteral base yar), to cast, to shoot. erum-ei, a buffalo, especially a cow buffalo; Tulu, ermma. Comp. Heb. rem, a buffalo or wild ox. Kesemblance probably acci- dental. Boot of the Drav. word er (obsol), to plough ; root of the Heb. probably rilm, to be high. hUrj a sharp point. Comp. Heb. Mr, to pierce, to bore ; Sans, hhur, to cut. sdy, to lean, to recline. Comp. Heb. shd'an (biliteral base, sha or sha), to lean. sina-m, anger: verb, sina-kku, to be angry. Comp. Heb. sdne; Chald. sene, to hate; Heb. sinah, hatred. The corresponding Can. word being kini, 4o be offended, sina-m is probably softened from hina-m. Analogy doubtful. 494 GLOSSAKIAL AFFINITIES. sir-u, to hiss. Comp. Heb. slidrah (biliteral base shar), to hiss ; Greek cvPiZ^ca, to pipe, to hiss. sum-ei, a burden : verb, suma-hhu, to bear, to carry. Comp. Heb. sdmak (biliteral base sam), to support, to uphold, to weigh heavily on. siiv-ar^ a wall. Comp. Heb. sMr, a wall. sevv-ei, equal, level, correct : base sev or Se. A nasalised, adjectival form of the same root is sen — e.g., sen-Damir, correct Tamil, the classical dialect of the Tamil language. From se, sev, or sen, is formed semm-ei (sen-mei), an abstract of the same mean- ing as sevvei. . 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 sev or sen, the connec- tion is remote ; whereas the Tamil and the Hebrew words seem to be almost identical. ndtt-u, to fix, to set up, to establish : ulterior verbal theme nad-u, to plant. Comp. Heb. ndtd' (biliteral base nat), to plant, to set up, to establish. nttt-u, to lengthen, to stretch out ; formed by causative reduplication of the final consonant from nid-u (also nil), long. Comp. Heb- ndtdh (biliteral base nat), to stretch out. ndhhu, to look direct at, to address. Comp. Heb. nohah (base noh), straight forward, over against. par-u, to become ripe, to fruit; para-m, a ripe fruit. Comp. Heb. pdrdh, to be fruitful, to bear fruit ; pdrah, to blossom, to break forth (biliteral base of both, par). Especially comp. pert, fruit. Comp. also Armenian perh, and Persian her, fruit. Doubt, 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-a, also por, to cleave. Comp. Heb. pdldh, pdld, pdlah, p)dlag, pdlal ; and also (by the interchange of r and I) pdrash, pdras, and Chald. perds, to separate, to divide, to distinguish, &c. All these words (like the Tam. pdl and pir-i, and also pagir, 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 per-2i, a bringing forth or birth, a thing obtained, a benefit : collateral root, piT-a, to be born ; pir-a, Tam. other, after ; SCYTHIAN. 495 puT-a, outside. Comp. Heb. pdrdh^ to be fruitful ; pert, fruit ; pdrah, to blossom, to break forth. The connection between par-am, Tarn., and pert, Heb. fruit, cannot be depended upon ; but there seems to be an intimate relation between per-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-i, hd, Can. to come ; Tam. vd. Comp. Heb. bd, to come, to come in ; Babylonian, ba, to come. Tndi/, to die, to put to death. Comp. Heb. milth, to die. Comp. also muwo, dead, in the Lar, a Sindhian dialect. mdv-u, to change ; Can. to sell ; base mavu, other. Comp. Heb. mUr, . to change or exchange, of iRvhich the niphal is ndmar, as if from a base in mdrar or mdr ; mdhar, mdhar, to change, to buy. The corresponding Syriac mdr means to buy. misuhka-n, a poor, worthless fellow; misukh-ei, a worthless article. Comp. Heb. misken, poor, unfortunate. The Hebrew word is derived from sdkan ; but Gesenius says a new verb arose from this in several Semitic languages, the initial m of which was radical. It is singular that it has also found its way into Tamil ; Mai. misken. This word misken has found its way (pro- 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 borrowed from the Arabic or some Semitic dialect. mett-a, Tel. (Tam. mettei, Can. motte), a bed, a cotton bed, a cushion. The Dravidian word appears to be derived from mel, soft. Comp., however, the Heb. mittdk, a bed, a cushion, a litter, from ndtdh, to stretch out ; Latin matta. SECTION III— SCYTHIAN AFFINITIES ; OR, Dravidian words which appear to exhibit a near relationship, or at least a remarkable resemblance, to words contained in some of the lan- guages of the Scythian group, particularly to the Ugro-Finnish dialects. The majority of the affinities that follow are clearer and more direct than the Indo-European or Semitic affinities which have been pointed out in the preceding lists. Many of the words which will be adduced as examples are words of ^ primary character — words which carry a certain amount of authority in comparisons of this kind. A consider- 496 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. 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 I have stated in 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- 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. It would scarcely, therefore, be in accordance with analogy to expect to discover in the languages of the Scythian stock any very consi- derable number of words closely resembling words that are contained SCYTHIAN. 497 in the long-isolated cand far more liigMy 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 to the final separation of the Indo-European tongues from the Scy- thian, when words and meanings of words did not belong exclu- sively to the one rather than to the other, but were the common property of both. It may be objected that the argument derived from Scythian affinities is weakened by the fact that the Scythian words which correspond with certain words in the Dravidian tongues are not found altogether in one dialect, but exist some in one and some in another of the Scythian languages. I admit that such coincidences are not perfectly conclusive ; but I must remind the reader that he is obliged to be content with such partial coinci- dences with regard to the inter-relationship of the Scythian languages themselves. For the Scythian affinities apparent in the Dravidian pronouns and numerals, see the sections devoted to those parts of speech. ahJc-a, Can. and Tel. elder sister ; Tam. aJchei, aMd, and aJclc-dl ; Mar^thi akd. In Sans, aklcd signifies a mother ; and an im- probable Sans, derivation has been attributed to it by native scholars. I believe this word to be one of those which the Sans, has borrowed from the indigenous Dravidian tongues; and this supposition is confirmed by its extensive use in the Scythian group. The Sans, signification of this word, a mother, dififers, it is true, from the ordinary. Dravidian meaning, an elder sister ; but mother is one of its meanings in poetical Tamil, and a comparison of its significations in various lan- guages shows that it was originally used to denote any elderly female relation, and that the meaning of the ultimate base was probably 'old.' The following are Scythian instances of the use of this root with the meaning of elder sister, precisely as in the Dravidian languages :-^Tungusian oTci or akin; Mon- golian achan; Tibetan aehche; a dialect of the Turkish ege; Mordvin ahy ; other Ugrian idioms iggen. Tlie Lappish ahke signifies both wife and grandmother. The Mongol aka, Tun- gusian aki, and the Uigur ac/ia, signify an elder brother; whilst the signification of old man is conveyed by the Ostiak ikiy the Finnish ukko^ and the Hungarian agg. Even in the Ku, a Dravidian dialect, akke means grandfather. The ultimate base of all these words «s probably ak, old. On the other hand, akka, in Osmanli Turkish, means a younger sister ; and the 2 I 498 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. same meaning appears in several related idioms. It maj^, there- fore, be considered possible that alcka 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. ait-an, father; att-ei, mother; also dtt-an, a superior (masc.) ; dtt-dl, mother. We find in the Sans, lexicons attd, a mother, an elder sister, a mother's elder sister; also atti, 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 chancre of tt in some Dravidian dialects into ss or chch, is in perfect accordance with generally prevalent laws of sound. Hence the Malayalam achch-an and the Canarese ajj-a, grandfather, are identical with the Tamil att-an; and pro- bably the Hindi and Marathi djd, a grandfather, is a related word, if not identical, attei, mother (Tam,), is achclia, also achchi, in Mai. att-ei, Tam., att-e, Can., att-a, Tel., have also the meanings of mother-in-law, sister-in-law, paternal aunt ; and the corresponding Singhalese att-d means a maternal grand- mother; meanings which are not found in Sans. In South Malayalam dchcJii means mother, matron. For the Scythian analogies of these words, compare Finnish diti, mother, together with the following words for father — viz., Turkish ata ; Hungarian atya ; YixmiBh. dtia ; Cheremiss dtyd; Mordvin atai ; Ostiak ata. Comp. also Lappish aija, grandfather, and also aftje. It is remarkable that atta is also found in Gothic — e.g., attan, i-dX\ieT: ; aithein, mother, Comp. also drra, and Latin atta, 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. annei, mother; honorifically, elder sister, ann-ei and amm-ei are pro- bably correlative forms of the same base, 7ii being sometimes softened into n. Comp. however Finnish and Hungarian SCYTHIAN. 499 anija, motlier; Mordvin anai; Ostiak ane; and also anna and ana in two dialects of the Turkish. The Hindi aunt, a nurse, is possibly the same word. app-an, father. Comp. the following words for father-in-law — viz., Ostiak lip, 6p ; Finnish appi ; Hungarian ^p, ipa^ apos. See also Semitic Analogies. . amm-dl, amm-ei, amm-aii, mother : the word is also used honorifically in addressing matrons. Another form of this word in Malay^lam is umma, mother. The following are correlative words, amm-dy, maternal grandmother, aunt by the mother's side^ and amm-dn, mother's brother, also sometimes father's. Comp. Samoiede amma, mother ; Jenesei amma or am ; Estrian emnia ; Finnish emd. Comp. also Ostiak in-a, woman, wife j Hungarian eme. See also Sanskrit and Semitic Analogies. The Sans, amhd or ammd, mother, properly a name or title of Durg^, seems to be derived from the Dravidian word. The bloody rites of Durga, or Kali, were probably borrowed from the demonola- trous aborigines by the Brahmans ; and amma, mother, the name by which she was known and worshipped — her only Dravidian name — would naturally be borrowed at the same time. Comp. also the Scindian amd and the Malay ama, mother. It is remarkable that in Tulu the words which denote father and mother seem to have mutually changed places. In Tulu amm-e^ is father, appe, mother. See an explanation of this in the Semitic Analogies. Comp.* the Mongolian ama, father ; also Sans, amha, father. In Tibetan and its sister dialects, pa 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. ar-u, dr, precious, dear, scarce. Comp. Hungarian aru, dr, price ; Fin- nish and Lappish arwo. Comp. also Sans, argha, value, price, from argil, arh, to deserve. al, el, the prohibitive particle, noli — e.g., hodel (from Icod-u, give), give not ; Santal prohibitive did. Comp. Lappish ali or ele ; Ostiak ild; and Finnish did. See also Semitic Analogies. The Sans, alam cannot properly be called a prohibitive particle; it means enough. avva, Tel., a grandmother ; Tam. avv-a, a matron, an elderly woman ; Can. awe, a mother or grandmother ; Tuda av. Comp. !Mord- vin ava, mother. See also Indo-European Analogies. al-ei, a wave ; Can. ale ; a^a verbal theme alei means to wander, to 500 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. be unsteady. Comp. Finnish allolc, a wave ; comp. also Ar- menian alih See especially West Indo-European Affinities. dT-^l, a river; Tel. eru. Comp. Lesgliian or; Avar uor ; Yakutan (Siberian Turkisli) or^as; Lappish mro/ Ostiaky^a^^. Comp. also Armenian aru ; Coptic ^aro; and Hebrew 6r, yeor., dm, it is, yes ; root d, to become. Comp. Vogul dm, yes ; Hung. dm, yes, surely. iru-mhu, iron. Comp. Motor (a Samoiede dialect), ur, iron. See also Indo-European Analogies. td-u, Tel. to swim; Can. ij-u; Tam. nmj-u. Comp. Hung, usz, to swim ; Ostiak 'ddem ; Finnish uin. 'dr, a city. Compare Basque iri, a city. See Semitic Analogies. %il, to be in, to be ; as a noun, a being, an entity, a thing ; as a post- position, in, within ; Ancient Can. t)l. As a verb ul is very irregular ; and the I, though radical, is often euphonised into n. The primitive form and force of the root are apparent in the Tamil appellative verb uUadu {ul(l)-adu), it is, there is ; the Can. idlavu {ul(l)-a-vu), there are ; and such nouns as Tcadavul {hada-{y)-ul), Tam. God, literally the surpassing or transcendent Being ; and ul{l)-am, the mind, that which is within, ulladu (ul-du) has in Tamil been euphonised into undu (like kol-du, having taken, into Icondu), and this euphonised appellative forms the inflexional base of the Telugu verb imdu, to be. Comp. with ul, 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. 61, Hung, vol, to be. The primitive meaning of the Dravidian ul, seems to be ' within,' in which sense it is still used as a postposition in Tamil. erud-u, to write, to paint. Comp. Hung, ir, to write ; Manchu ara ; Fin. Mr. Tel. vrdyu, to write, corresponds, not to the Tamil erud-u, but to varei, Can. bai^e, to draw lines. elu-mbu, bone. Comp. Fin. lua ; Samoiede lu?/, bone. okk-a, Mai. all ; oka, Tel. one. Comp. Mordvin u'ok, all. kad-i, kav-i, to bite. Comp. Lapp, hash, to bite ; Hung. Jiarap {h in Hungarian corresponding with h in Finnish). See Indo- European Affinities. hatt-u, to bind, to tie. Comp. the following words, each of which has the same signification : Hung, hot ; Ostiak hattem (to fasten, to catch) ; Syrianian huta ; Finn, heitt ; Lapp, haret ; also Hung. hbtiel, rope. SCYTHIAN. 601 Jcariy an eye. Comp. Chinese ngan^ yen. Tcannir, tears. Comp. Finn, hdnyv ; Hung, honny. The Tamil word {Jcan-7117) literally signifies eye-water, so that this resemblance is probably accidental. hapjj-al, a ship, a vessel, probably a verbal nonn from happ-u, Tel. to cover over ; derivative Telugu noun Icapp-u^ a covering. The verb is not found in Canarese or Tamil, but the Canarese noun happ-ii, a subterraneous room, a pit-fall for catching elephants (covered over with branches of trees and grass), and the Tamil noun happal, a ship, properly a decked vessel, in contradis- tinction to padug^i, an open vessel, are evidently identical in origin with the Telugu verb and noun. The Malay word for * ship ' is Icapdl; but this has probably been borrowed direct from Tamil, and forms one of a small class of Malay words which have sprung from a Dra vidian origin, and which were introduced into the Eastern Archipelago, either by means of the Klings (Kalingas) who settled there in primitive times, or by means of the Arab traders, whose first settlements in the East were on the Malabar coast, where the Malayalam, the 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 hap or haha; Samoiede kehe ; Jenesei Jeep; Yerkesian kaf; Ostiak chap. See also the analogies adduced under the w^ord Jcehi^ a cave. Tcar-^i^ black, an euphonised form of which is Mr ; Gujarathi haro. Comp. Turkish quara or kara ; Calmuck char a ; Mongolian k'ara; Japanese kuroi. One of the eight words belonging to the language of the ancient Turks of the Altse, recorded by the Chinese, was koro, black. See Introduction. These Scythian affinities are too distinct to admit of the smallest doubt. There is evidently a connection between this Scytho- Dravidian root and the Sanskrit kdla, black; Tamil kdlam; from which there is a derivative, kdragam, that throws light on the relation of kdla to kar-u. Comp. Greek ytiX-atvog. Pro- bably also kri (kar), the radical portion of krishna, Sans, black (adjectival form kdrshtm), is related to the same Scythian theme, and ultimately to kdl-a. kara-di, a bear, from kara-du, rough. Comp. Samoiede korgo ; Tun- gusian kiiii^ kuuti. See also Indo-European Affinities. karu-gu^ an eagle. Comp* Ostiak kunik^ an eagle. See also Indo- European Affinities. 502 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. kariitt-u, the throat ; also hir-al, the -wind-pipe. Comp. Vogul huryd, the throat; Finnish kurhku, hero, herri; Kurd geru; Lappish karas, kirs. Comp. also the Slavonian gorlo ; Sans. griva, gala. kal, a stone. Comp. Lappish kalle, also kedke or kerke ; Lesghian gul ; Kamtschadale kual, kualla. Probably these words have an ulterior connection with the Finnish kiwi; Hungarian A*o; Ostiak key, kauch. Comp. also (through the interchange of I and r) the Tamil kdr, gravel, a pebble, with the Greek %?f-ac, gravel, and yj^-fidg, a stone, and the Armenian k'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-vu, a theft. Comp. Lappish keles, a lie ; Hung, tsal, to cheat ; also Sans, clihala, fraud. kdrr-u (pronounced kdttr-u), wind. Probably from kdl, one of the, meanings of which is wind, with the formative addition of du {kdl-du = kdttru) ; Tel. gdli. Comp. Kangazian (a Turkish dialect) ^a^, wind ; Sojoten (a Samoiede dialect) kat ; other Samo'iede dialects chat, kada (also a storm, chamt) ; Georg. kari; Jurazen chada. kdl/, to heat, or be hot, to burn to boil. Comp. Finnish keite, keitta, to boil, to cook ; Hungarian keszil. Comp. especially the Indo- European affinities of this word. kdl, foot ; Tuda kdl ; Tulu kdr. Comp. Mongol k'ul ; Ostiak kur ; Tun- gusian chalgan, halgan; Permian kok; Ossete kach, koch; Vogul lal ; Korean joa^/ Canton-Chinese koh ; Hung, gyalog, on foot. kira, old, aged. Comp. Hung, kor ; Oriental Turkish cliari ; other Turkish idioms, kar, kart ; Wotiak keres ; Lesghian heran. See the Indo-European analogies of this word. ktl. Can. below; Tam. kir ; ultimate base kir. Comp. Wolgian kilgi, kelga, deep. From the Tamil Hr is derived kir-aiigu, a bulbous root, with which we may perhaps compare the Slavonian koren, Jenesei koryl, a root. hidir-ei, a horse; Can. kudur-e. The Sanskrit glwta, 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 ghota (in Tam. ghoram, also godagam ; Tel. gurram-ii), in addition to its own kudir-ei; besides which Tamil provides us j^ith a probable derivation of kudirei, viz., hidi, to leap. I SCYTHIAN. . 503 The Scythian analogies are Jenesei hut and Lesghian hota. Comp. also Malay kuda. kud-i, a habitation ; kud-il, kiidis-ei, a hut, a cottage ; probably from kud (base of kild), to come together. In Tel. and Can., gud-i means a temple. A similar word, kuta or kuti, is also con- tained in Sanskrit. — See Sanskrit Affinities. It has a place in each of the dialects of the Finnish family — e.g., Mordvin kudo, a house; Cheremiss kuda, Finnish kota, Ostiak chot, Lappish kata. I suspect the Saxon cot had a similar origin. kul-ir, cold, to become cold : ultimate base kul ; related words kUd-al and kUd-ir, cold ; also Tel. and Can. cIloU, cold, sil-ir, Tam. to tremble, seems to be a collateral root. With kul-ir comp. Lappish kal-ot, to freeze ; Finnish cyl-ma ; and with chali (Tel. and Can.) comp. Permian cheli, cold. — See also Indo-European Affinities. kei, hand. key, to do. In all the Dravidian dialects kei is hand. In Telugu kehc is also found. The most common form of this word in Telugu is chey-i or chey-i. The word signifying to do is almost identical, viz., key, cliey, &c. — See Sanskrit Affinities. Comp. the following words in Scythian dialects ; — Hungarian kez (pro- nounced keis), Finnish kchesi (root kd — e.g., genitive kd-an), Estnian kdsi, Ostiak kef, Lappish Jcdt, Permian ki, Lasian ke, Mingrelian c/^e, Quasi-Qumuq (a Turkish dialect) kHya, Turkish kol, Mongol ghar, Tungusian gala. The Hungarian has both kar and kez; but the former is used to signify arm, the latter hand — a distinction which seems to prove that those roots, though perhaps ultimately related, have long been independent of one another. The words in the various Scythian languages signifying to do appear to stand in the same relation to the word for hand that they do in the Aryan and Dravidian lan- guages. Comp. the Turkish kyl, to do ; Mongol ki, Manchu gai, Mordvin M. These words resemble the Aryan kar, to do, but still more closely the Dravidian ki, ke, &c. The substantial identity of the Indo-European words for hand and to do, with the Scythian words, and of the Dravidian with both, seems to furnish us, as I have shown under the head of Sanskrit Affini- ties, with a reliable illustration of the original oneness of all these languages. kapp-u, Can. a subterraneous room, a pitfall; Tam. keb-i, a cave. Comp. Mongol aifft Manchu kobi, a cavity, a cave ; Ostiak kaba, kebi, kavi, a chamber. Comp. also kapj^l, Tam. a V 504 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES. ship, from kapp-u^ Tel. to cover over. — See Indo-European Affinities. kiviy Can. the ear ; Tarn, and Tel. (euplionically softened) chevi, Tulu Tceppi, Tuda hev% Braliui khaff: probably related words kdd-u, the ear, and kel, to hear. Comp. the following Scythian words signifying the ear : — Samoiede dialects ko, ku, kus; Korean kui, Ossete k'usj Kurd g'oh, Turkish dialects kulak. With the soft- ened Dra vidian form sevi, comp. also Sans, sravas, the ear. kel-u, Tel. the hand. Comp. Kuralian kell and Georgian cheli, the hand. See also kei. kel, to hear ; kel-vi, hearing. Comp. Finnish kiiul-en, to hear ; Syryan- ian kyla, Cheremiss kol-am, Hung, halla, also ker, to ask, Lappish kull-et {kullem, hearing), Ostiak kildj-em. Notice the change of the final I of the other Finnish dialects into dj in Ostiak, a sort of cerebral consonant, somewhat similar in sound to the final I of the corresponding Tamil kel. — See also the Indo-European affinities of this word. kol, to kill. Comp. Finnish ^moZ, to die; Cher, kol-em, Syry. kida, Hung. hal. — See also Indo-European Analogies. kdn, a king, a ruler; in honorific usage a shepherd, or man of the shepherd caste ; koii-mei, royal authority. Another form of the same word is ko, a king, a god. koyil in ordinary Tamil means a temple ; in the Old Tamil of the Syrian inscriptions it means a palace, literally ko-il, the king's house. It is hard to determine whether ko or kdn 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-if the domestic fowl; Can. koH, Tulu, kori^ Tel. kodi, Gdnd kdr (from ku or kd, to call, to cry as a bird (from which comes kuyil, Tam. the cuckoo, and kui-al, the voice). This word is 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, seval, Tam. a cock, or 2^^tt^h ^ ^^en, is prefixed adjec- tivally to the common term kdri. The Sanskrit kukkuta, a cock, may possibly be derived by reduplication from ku, to cry as a bird, and if so it is identical in origin with the Dra v. kdri, . 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 korecJi, 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. 505 still exists; and wLen it was introduced into Upper Asia, the name by which it was known in India would naturally be intro- duced along with the fowl itself. That name being, not San- skrit, but Dravidian, it would almost appear as if the domestic fowl had been introduced from India into Central and Northern Asia prior to the irruption into India of the Aryan race, and the consequent cessation of intercourse between the Dravidians and the Scythians. The Dravidian word seems to have found its way into two languages of the western branch of the Indo- European family, viz., the Persian and the Eussian. Comp. Persian hhor-os, a cock; hour-eh, a poulet ; and the Kuss Mr, a cock 5 Icur-itsa, a fowl ; diminutive, hilr-otchka, a chicken. sdral, rain driven by the wind : in the usage of the Southern Tamil- ians, the rain brought by the south-west monsoon. Comp. Samoiede sari^e, Permian ser, Votiak sor, rain. sa, or sdg-u, to die ; Tel. chachic (base cha). Comp. Samoiede chawe and chabbi, dead, — See Sanskrit Affinities. cher-u, mud. Comp. chedo, zerta, choti, and chat', Lesghian words for clay. ial-a, Tel. the head ; Can. ial-e, Tam. tal-ei. Comp. Mongol tolo-gai, Calmuck tol-go, Buriat Ud-gai^ Samutan (a Tungusian dialect) doll ; other Tungusian dialects diill, del, deli, Turkish tor. ti, fire. The more commonly used Tamil word for fire is neruppu, Tel. nippu, nippuha ; but tt is the more classical Tamil word, and it is much used by the mass of the people in the southern dis- tricts of the country ; classical Can. ti, Tulu til. The Scythian affinities of this word for fire, are peculiarly distinct — e.g., Samoiede tu, tui, ti, ty, Manchu tua, Hungarian tilz, Ostiak tut, Tungus. togo, Lesghian tze, zi, zie, Finnish tuli, Lappish tall, Mongol dtd. Comp. also Gaelic teine, Welsh tdn, and Persian tigh. Sans, tejas, brilliancy, is from tij, to be sharp. Comp., however, div. Sans, to be bright, and especially dt and dtp, to shine. ier>, chariot. Comp. Mongol t'creg, chariot. tol, skin ; Can. togal-u. Comp. Vogul toul, towl, skin. nakk-u, to lick ; derivative noun ndhhu; ultimate form nd, the tongue. Comp. Ostiak nal, to lick, and ndl, the tongue ; Samoiede nawa, the tongue; ndlige. Can. the tongue. Comp. Hung, nyelo. nag-ei, to laugh, laughter. Comp. Ostiak ndg-am, to laugh; ndch, laughter; Hung, nevet. ndy, a dog; probably fiom nd, the tongue = the animal that licks. Comp. noliai, a dog ; Calmuck 7iolcoi, nochoi. In Telugu, a fox 506 GLOSSARTAL AFFINITIES. is nahha, from nakJcu, to prowl. Another word for dog in classical Tamil is nayahhan, from naya, to be affectionate. neTti (pronounced nettri), the forehead (from neri, to stand upright) ; Tel. nud-ur. Comp. Lesghian naia, nodo, nete-hek, the fore- head. nod-u, Can. to see, to perceive; nokk-u, Tam.-Mal. Comp. Mongol niidu, the eye. ndyiT-u, neyir-u, Tam.-Mal. ; nhar-u, class. Can. the sun. Comp. Hung. nydr ( = ndr), summer ; nap, a day ; also Mongol nar-an, the sun ; Ostiak ndi, Afghan nmar. pasu, green ; pul, grass. Hung, pazsit, grass ; Vogul pz2;a, Ostiak pady. pei-(y)-an, pet-{y)-al, Tam.-Mal. a boy, a servant ; pei-dal, Tam. and Mai. but especially the latter, a boy or girl, a child ; Can. heida (for peida), a boy or girl, peiyan is a masculine ; the words in al and dal are verbal nouns, and therefore neuters, dal is as common a formative of verbal nouns even in Tamil as al, and the two forms are mutually convertible, peiyal and peidal being abstracts, are therefore capable of denoting either sex. The theme or base of these words is evidently pei, a softened form of pas-u (^pas-u=pay-u—pei). Hence pasan-gal, Tam. the older form, is often used as the colloquial plural, instead of peiyan-gal, which is now reckoned more correct. Comp, the following Ugrian words for son : — Vogul p)y, pu; Mordvin and Syry. 2^iy Votiak pyes; Finnish poika ; Hungarian fiu ; Estrian poeg ; Ostiak pach, pocli, pagul, pagam, pyram; Lappish patja. The Swedish poike appears to be derived from the Finnish poika; and the Greek era?-?, the Latin pu-er, and the English hoy, are evidently related words. See Indo-European Affinities. The Dravidian languages appear to contain the ultimate theme of all these words — viz., pei, Tam. to be green or fresh, a word which has been softened from pas-u {pay-u, convertible into pei), green, by a common Dravidian law. par-a, old (by reason of use) ; Can. pala-ya, old, what is old. Comp. Mordvin peres ; Syry. porys; Ostiak pirich, old. See Indo- European Affinities. pal, tooth (pandri = pal-di, Tam. a hog, the animal with a tooth or tusk). Comp. Lappish pane, padne; Wolgian p)adne, pdi, pin ; Ostiak joaw^, penk, pek; Cher. py. pal, pala, many, various. Comp. Finnish palyo ; Manchu fulu. pdl, a part, a division, a half. Comp. the following Ugrian words SCYTHIAN. 507 signifying a half: — Samoide pedled; Cher, pele; Lappish hedle; O&tmV pelek; Hungarian /e^. See also Semitic Affi- nities. pid-u, to catch. Comp. Finnish pidan, to catch. pir-agit (base pir), behind, after. Comp. Ostiak pir, pira, behind, hindermost ; Finnish pera. See Indo-European and Semitic Affinities. pill-ei, a child. Comp. Yarkand Tartar hilla, a child. What is the origin of the Hindi pilld, a cub, a pup ? See also Indo- European Affinities. p>u-gei, smoke (Tel. joo^-a). Comp. Hung. /it5, smoke; also the follow- ing words signifying vapour in the Turkish dialects : hug, buck, hugu. Comp. also the English /o^/. pen, a female ; Can. lienn-u. Comp. Lappish hene, a female. pokhil-i, Tel. the navel (ultimate root probably jyoy, Tam. hollow). Comp. Ostiak puldam, the navel. hayir, Can. the belly ; Tam. vayir-u ; Gond pir. Comp. Kangazian (a Turkish dialect) har, the belly ; Armenian port ; Albanian harh ; Ostiak perga ; Mordvin pah. hdl, Can. to exist; Tam. vdr, to flourish, to live prosperously. Comp. Oriental Turkish hdl, to exist ; Hung, holdog, happy. man-a, Can. a house : class. Tam. man-ei. Comp. Samoiede men, a house ; Vogul unneh. Theme of the Drav. word 77ian, to abide, to exist; manilci, Tel. existence, home. mar-am, a tree, wood ; Can. mar-a ; Tel. mdn-u (for m7'dii-n). Comp. Lappish miior, muorra, a tree, wood; Quasi-Qumuk Turkish murm, murcli ; Mongol modo ; Tomsk, madji; Finnish metsa ; Lettish mes. mar-i, offspring, the young of certain animals, as the deer, the horse, the ass, &c. ; also in Can. a young child ; Mongol mori, a horse ; Manchu morin ; also German mdhre ; Old German marah; Gaelic marc. According to Aug. Schlegel (Sinico Aryaca), the root of the Mongol mori, &c., is found in the Chinese ma, a horse, with the addition of ri as a suffix. Pro- bably the Drav. word is from mar-u, other. mal-a, Can., Mai., Tel. a hill, a mountain ; Tam. mal-ei. This Drav. root has found its way into the Sans, lexicons as the base of Malaya, the Sans, name of the Western Ghauts — Malaydlam, or as the later Greek and Arabian geographers called it, "Male.'' It has probably given their name also to the Mal- dives or Mal-div«, the dives (Sans, dwipa), Or islands, pertain- ing to Male or Malayalam. Comp. Albanian malli, a hill; 508 GLOSSARIAL AFFINITIES, Vogul molima; Permian mylk; Volgian (by a change of I into r),mar; Samoiede mari; A-v^vmehr; Ymnhhrndki. muTumiiTu, to grumble (not wholly a mimetic word). Comp. Finnish miiraj, and Hungarian morog, to murmur. See also Indo- European Affinities. mun, before ; Hung, emun, umun, before. The e or ^c of the Hung, word is prosthetic. Chinese for face is mien or 7ni?i. vdn, heaven ; also mdn. Comp. Mordvin mdnel, lieaven ; Tungus. nyan; dialect of the Kukies in the Chittagong hills, van. vdy, the mouth. Comp. Samoiede aiw-a, mouth ; Lappish saiive ; Hung, ayakj lip ; szay^ mouth. vir-i, to watch, to keep awake. Comp. Finnish vir-ot, to watch; Hung, vir-ad. velich-arrij light ; mlalck-u, a light. Comp. Hung, vildg, 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. dla, Can. deep. kasappu, bitter. Mtu, Can. little. kitta, near. sUppu, to suck, ser, t.o gather. ^erippu, shoe. iiragu, wing. ioZ, speak. sor (Can. and Tulu sdru), to leak. sudu, to heat. sUly pregnancy. surukku, narrow. iarei, to sprout. iilei, to be full. ) \ Hung. ala. keseril. kis, kits, kdzel. szop. szed. tzipello. szarny. szol. tsorge. s?2/, to roast; 5t2<5,tobake. szul, tohviug forth. szoritj szilck. terem. tel, tolj full, fill. tdnru, to appear. podi, powder, dust. p6r, battle. pes-2i, to speak. betta, Can. mountain. mdgu, child. mdl, to perish. muyal (Tulu nosa- ) lu), a hare. j mulei, breast (woman's) ve, to boil. vinei, action, sin. vir, to unfold. \ viru (Tulu lur), to 'fall. Hung. tUnni. por. per. besze. bertz. magzat. mill. nyuL melly. buz-in. bitn, sin. virr, dawn. virdq. vit^ to sow. to to blossom. bukni. vet. The following Chinese, Japanese, and Mongolian affinities are chiefly selected from lists contained in ..Mr Edkins' " 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. SCYTHIAN. 509 kan, eye. sey, chey, to do. meiy ink. < ahJca, elder ) sister. j pad-a7\ to ex- ) paiid. J katt-u, totie, ) a tie. J sid-ar, to ( scatter. T pad-u, to suf- fer, used as a pas- Chinese. ngan. tsu. meh. Comp. Greek aha, elder brother. hat, to extend. hit, to tie, a tie. sat, to scatter, to sow. Comp. Lat. ser-o. had, hit, to spread, then to be acted upon used as a sive auxi- liary. iru, to be. karic, black. para, to spread. para, old. haru, black. 2Md-ar, to ex.- Chinese. sign of the pas- sive. Japanese. keL hand. art, iri, ori, uri, to be, to dwell. Tcuro or kuroi, black. haru, haru, to ex- tend. hurui, furui, old. Mongolian. kara, black. hadarahu, hadaral, extension. gar. Comp. Sans. kara. I trust the reader w411 remember that in comparing Dravidian words 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 an aid to further, more extended, and more searching inquiry, and therefore not unscientific, to draw the attention of scholars to such resemblances as exist — whatever their nature or degree. It is desir- 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. APPENDIX. EVIDENCE THAT THE TuDA, KoTA, GoND, Khond OR Ku, Rajma- HAL, AND OeaON LANGUAGES ARE DrA VIDIAN TONGUES, AND THAT THERE IS A DrA VIDIAN ELEMENT IN BrAHUI. The Tuda, Kota, Gond, Kliond or Ku, Rajmahal, and Oraori 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 \ have now thought it best to place it in the Appendix. 1. Tuda. — 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 tlie Rev. F, Metz, of the Basel Missionary Society, missionary on the Nilgherry Hills. 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 infoi-mation. I shall conteq^ myself here with transcribing the concluding paragraphs. 512 APPENDIX. " § 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. "2. The language seems to have been originally old Canarese, and not a dis- tinct dialect. The Tudas were probably immigrants from the Canarese country, and have dwelt in the Nilagiris for about 800 years. A few Tamil forms were 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 difiers from its sisters." — " Outlines of the Tuda Gram- mar," included in Colonel Marshall's ** Phrenologist amongst the Todas." 2. KoTA. — Whilst the language and customs of the Tudas have always been regarded with peculiar interest, the K6tas (a tribe of craftsmen, residing from an unknown antiquity on the Nilgherry Hills), being exceedingly filthy in their habits, and 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. G-o, or shall go. Went. dne hdgape. hdsipe. * ni hSgapi. • kddi. avane h6gaTco. hdda (it went, hCte). ndme hdgapeme. hdsipeme. ntve hdgaptri. hdsipiri. avare hdgako. hdsiko. 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 h instead of p {hogu, to go, instead of p6gu), 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 ho, seems at first sight entirely non-Dravidian, but in reality it is in perfect agree- ment with several poetic forms in Old Tamil and Old Canarese. The sign of the 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., hdgako, he goes ; hdgiho, 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 addition of alik to the root — e.g., tin, eat ; tinalik, to eat. The infinitives of the corresponding verb in Canarese are tinna, 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. KUDER DRAVIDIAN TONGUES. 513 3. GoND. — A grammar and vocabulary of the G6nd language were published ni 1849 by the Rev. J. E. Bribery, at Bishop's College, Calcutta, aud a paper on the language of the Seoni GOnds, by Dr Manger, including " The Song of Sandsum- jee," appeared shortly after in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society. A translation of the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark into Gondi by the Rev. J. 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 interesting commencement to its literary history ; and this has been followed vip 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 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 so easy to determine to which of the cultivated Dravidian dialects it is most 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, 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- tive condition of these languages is not destitute of foundation. The chief particulars in which G6nd agrees with Telugu, rather than with Tamil or with Canarese, are as follows : — (1.) The pronouns of the first aud second persons, especially the second person plural, have most resemblance to Telugu. Compare mikun, Gond, to you, Telugu, mtku, with the Tamil umahhu, 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 G6nd 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 tadhhavas seem to have been borrowed by it from the Telugu — e.g., nattur, blood, from the Telugu netturu, a corrupt derivative from the Sanskrit ractam. In some instances again Gond agrees remarkably with Canarese — e.g., the Gond infinitive is in dU or iU. In Telugu and Tamil the infinitive is invariably in a ; the Tamil has a verbal noun ending in al, of which the dative is used as a supine ; and the High Tamil occasionally, but Canarese ordinarily, uses this very form al as an infinitive. Gond also like Canarese sometimes prefers h where the Telugu has ch and the Tamil s — e.g., the ear, is in Tamil sevi, Telugu chevi, Canarese hivi., in Gond also kaui. To do, is in Tamil sey, Telugu cMy, Canarese gey {g hard), Gond kt. Such agreements of the Gond with the Canarese are rare ; 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; Tamil has two, ar and gal, the former epicene, the latter neuter : Gond also has two, 6r and k. (2.) Goad, like colloquial Tamil, makes much use of a double plural for personal pronouns and the personal tern^jnations of verbs, by combining 6r and k, like the Tamil ar and gal — e.g., compare the Gond 6r and 6rk, they, with the colloquial 2 K 514 APPENDIX. Tamil avar and avargal; dndur, dndurJc, they are or were, with the Tamil dndr, dndrgal. (3.) The instrumental case in Telugu is formed by the addition of cheta : G6nd> like the Tamil, uses dl. (4.) G6nd 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 deni, of it ; Tamil adin, of it ; G6nd adend. (5.) The Telugu negative particles are Udu, there is not, and kadu, it is not ; the corresponding particles in Tamil are illei and alia; in Gond hill^ and halU. (6.) Telugu systematically uses d instead of Tamil vocalic r; the G6nd retains the r of Tamil ; e.g., tdu or adalu, Telugu, to weep ; Tamil a^a, Gond ara. So also compare Hu, Telugu, seven, with Tamil ^ru and G6nd ySr-ung. (7.) G6nd, like Ancient Tamil, forms its future by appending k to the root. Compare Gond kt-kd, I will do, with Ancient Tamil sey-gu ; compare also Ancient Canarese gey-gum, used for all tenses and persons. (8.) A number of G6nd roots denoting objects of primary importance correspond with the Tamil rather than the Telugu — e.g.,] Telugu. Tamil. G6ND. three, mUdu, milndru, m^nd. tree. mdnu. maram, marrd. great, pedda, peru, paru, par. In a large number of instances Gond, 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, pSndgdl. to fall, vira, ara. to fill. nira, niha. light, velicham, verchi. many, much, pala, valle. district, nddu. ndr (a village). dew. pani, ptni (cold). break, a4ei, ureha. Notwithstanding the affinities between the G6nd and the 'other Dravidian dialects which have now been mentioned and illustrated, G6nd possesses a large number of roots which are not fou^nd elsewhere, and exhibits peculiarities of grammatical structure of such a nature as amply to justify our regarding it as a distinct 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 G6nd 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 lias lost the relative participle of the other Dravidian dialects, and uses instead hd, 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. RUDER DRAVIDIAN TONGUES. 515 (3.) Ifc has a passive voice, formed, as in some of those iN'orthem idioms, by- prefixing the past participle of the active voice to the substantive verb. (4.) The remote and proximate demonstratives {Hit, hi) which in Tamil are avaVy ivar, in Telugu vdru, vtru, are in G6nd corrupted into 6r and Sr. The neuter plurals, which in Tamil are avei, ivei, in Gond are dH, til ; but a form more in accordance with Tamil is preserved in some of the oblique cases — viz., ave and ive. (5.) The base of the interrogative pronouns in Tamil, Telugu, Canarese, Ma- lay^lam is y, often softened into e. In Gond it is b—e.g., hor, who? (masculine singular), bad, who, which ? (neuter-feminine singular) ; plurals, bork, bd4, what men ? what women and things ? bd, why ? This Gond ba resembles the Tulu interrogative 'v6, which Dr Gundert derives from e-v-u. (6.) Instead of the regularly formed negative voice of the other dialects, the G6nd forms its negative verbs by simply prefixing the negative particles hille or hcdle, to the verb. For example, thou art not, or thou becomest not (in Tamil dgdi/f in Telugu kdvu), is in Gond halle ayvi. A similar use of the negative par- ticle is found in the Kota language. The only thing in the other dialects which at all corresponds to this is the occasional formation in poetical Tamil of a neg- ative verb by the insertion of the negative particle al between the root of the verb and the pronominal suffix — e.g., pis-al-en, I speak not, Iot pis-in. (7.) The chief difiference, however, in point of grammatical structure between the Gond and the other Dravidian dialects, consists in its peculiarly elaborate and complete conjugational system. In this particular it is rivalled by the Tulu alone. (See "The Verb: Conjugational System,") Tamil, Malay^lam, 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 structtare, 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 possesses 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, it has a causal verb, but it stands alone in having also an inceptive. In these particulars the Gond grammar has acquired a development peculiar to itself, perhaps in some degree through the influence of the highly inflected Santal, its Kolarian neighbour to the northward. There is a peculiar refinement in the grammar of the Gond which is deserving of notice. The possessive forms of the personal pronouns agree in number and gender with the substantives they qualify. Thus, whilst ' my hand ' is ndva led (Tel. noL Jcei, Tam. enadu Jcei), ' my son ' is ndvdr marri, in which ndvdr, my, mens, is a masculine singular formed from mdv', abbreviated from mavd, with the addition of 6r, he (or they, the plural feeing used for the singular, like Teh vdru, Tam. avar). The corresponding Tam. enadu (in enadu magan, my son) is in itself distinctively a neuter, formed from du, the affix of the neuter singular ; and yet it is used without distfliction of gender (or number in the colloquial dialect) to qualify masculines and feminines. In the Tamil poetical dialect 516 APPENDIX. enadu, my, is replaced in tlie plural by ena — e.g., ena keigal, my hand. The Q6nd possessive of the personal pronoun has all four forms complete :— ndwdr. tammur. my brother (masc.) ndwd. seldr. my sister (fem.-neut.) ndwdrk. tammurh. my brothers (masc. plur.) seldrh. 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 distinct 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 diflferences are numerous and essential. In many particulars Ku accords more closely than G6nd with Tamil, Telugu, and the other Dravidian tongues ; in some things less so. For example : — (1.) Gond forms its infinitive in dU or iU ; Ku, like Telugu, Tamil, and modern Canarese, forms its infinitive by suffixing a, sometimes va or jpa. Thus, to become, is in G6nd dydU ; in Telugu M ; 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 liille or lialle. In this point Ku differs from G6nd, and agrees with the other dialects. Thus, I do not, is in Gond liille Mydn ; in Tamil seyyen ; in Telugu cheyanu ; in Canarese geyenu ; in Ku gienu. 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 singular by means of the suffix (^u : Canarese and Tamil by anu and an. Ku by means of the suffix dilu or dnyu. Thus, com- pare vddu, Telugu, he, with the Tamil avan, Canarese avanu, Ku avdnu. (3.) Ku pronouns bear a closer resemblance to the Tamil and Canarese than to the Telugu and Gond, as will appear from the following comparative view : — Telugu. Gond. Tamil. Canarese. Ku. I, nimi. ajid. ydn (ancient). an (ancient). dnu. we, memu. amdt. ydm (do.) dm (do. ) dmu. thou, ntvu. ima. nt. ntnu. inu. * 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 Observer 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. RUDER DRAVIDIAN TONGUES. 517 Telugu. GOND. Tamil. Canarese, Ku. ye, mtru. imat. ntr. ntvu. tru. he, remote. vddu. 6r. avan. avanu. avdnu. he, proximate, vtdu. ir. ivan. ivanu. ivdnu. (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 Telugu ini, or i ; in Canarese re, rH, or dgyu. One of the suffixes employed in the Tamil is Mlj which in the speech of the vulgar becomes M ; and this very particle M, added, as in Tamil, to the preterite, is the suffix by which the Ku also forms conditional or contingent verbs — e.g., If I do, is in Telugu nenu cMyuduneni ; in Canarese ndnu gtyidare ; in colloquial Tamil this is nan cliey- ddkkd ; in Ku also (from the root gi, to do), it is dnu gitekkd. On the other hand, in the following particulars Ku agrees more closely with Telugu than with TamU or Canarese. (1.) It uses the neuter singular to denote the feminine singular. (2.) The oblique cases or " inflexions " of the pronouns of the first and second persons, singular and plural, are identical with those of Telugu. (3.) The case terminations of Ku are nearly in accordance with those of Telugu. (4.) The pronominal signs suffixed to the Ku verbs accord on the whole better with Telugu than with any other dialect — e.g., in Tamil the second and third persons plural end differently, the one ir, the other dr ; in Telugu they end alike — both generally in aru ; in Ku also both these persons end alike in eru. (5.) In Canarese all relative participles, including that of the relative verb, end in a ; 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 eti ; and in the Ku also the relative past participle exhibits this ending. Thus, awa, jTamil, that became ; in Canarese dda ; in Telugu (indefinite tense), ayytti ; in Ku the same form is dti. The various particulars now mentioned prove Ku to be distinct from G6nd ; and though it is allied to it, it is allied only in the same manner as to the other 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 means of the suffixes du, i, or si, the only suffixes known in the other dialects, but by suffixing to the root a, 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 i or pi. 5. Rajmahal. — The lists of words hitherto published do not go a great way towards proving this language distinctively Dravidian. The evidence of the pronouns and lowest numeral is clear; but the other distinctively Dravidian words found in the lists are not numerous. For the present, perhaps, all that can be said with certainty is that the Rajmahal contains a distinctively Dravidian element. When it has been* examined as carefully as the Or^on, it may be possible to speak of its relationship in stronger terms. It is 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, Mni. Drav. kan. we, en {nam, om). nose, muna. do. mUkku. thou. nina. tooth, pdla. do. pal. you, nina (nima in nimJci, yours). ear. kedu. do. kddu. he, she, it, dth. hand, kikha. do. kei. they, ovmr. hair, tale. do. 'head.' this. ih. tree. man. do. mdn-u. that. dh. flower. pJiUp. do. pit. here. ino. fish. mtn. do. mm. there, ano. dove. pUrah. do. purd. one. art, ort scorpion. , tilah. . do. Ul. why. endhar. pain, ndgi. do. nogn. dative suffix, leu. above, mekthi. do. mil. mother. aya. do. dyi. daughter ', moki. do. mag-al. man. al, alia. do. dl. come, bar-en. do. har-a. go, ek-en. do. tg-a. Unfortunately the inflexions of the RdjmahS,l 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 ku ; 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. Oraon. Much light has been thrown on the construction and vocabulary of the Or^on by an article on that language in the Journal of the Bengal A siatic Society, vol. xxxv., by the Eev. F. Batsch, a missionary who has laboured amongst the Orions in Chlitia MgpCir. The personal pronouns, which are very regular and distinctively Dravidian, are as follows : — I. We. Thou. You. nom. en. em. nm. mm. gen. engha. emJvai. ninghai. nimhai. dftt. engage. emage. ningdge. nimdge. ace. engan. eman. ninin. nimin, nimanum. abl. engusti. emgustin. ningusti. nimgustim. instru. enganti. emanti. ninante. nimMnti. loc. engmi. emanu, emanum. ninganu. nimganu. agent. enim. emim. ninim. 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. THE BRAHUI. 519 (2.) The third person is represented only by ds, he, ad, it or she, dr, they. Notice the Dravidian epicene phiral in r. What ? is end. (3.) Postpositions, ge, to, for; nu, upon; mund, before; mechla, above; huti, besides ; hatha, beyond ; menya, up ; htnya, beneath. These are purely Dravidian words, gusti, from, I cannot identify.^ (4.) Numerals. One, onta ; two, enr ; three, mund ; four, ndcli. f Adjectival numerals — ort dlao, one man, irib alar, two men. The rest of the numerals are borrowed from the northern vernaculars. (5.) Words certainly Dravidian are dl, man, pal, tooth, hhan, eye, hoi, mouth, mot/, nose, bar, come. (6.) With the exception of the words cited above, the rest of the Or^on nouns, adjectives, and verbs present scarcely any point of resemblance to Dravidian words. The mass of the words in the Or^on vocabulary may be Kolarian, but do not seem to be Dravidian. This instance tends to show that languages may be cognate, Avhilst yet the proof may survive only in the pronouns, the first few numerals, and the structure. 7. Dravidian Element in Brahui. — 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 afiiliated 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 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- eation, such as many, several, &c. 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 A static 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 nt, thou, precisely as in all the Dravidian tongues. The plural of this pronoun — viz., num, you {numd, of you), is also wonderfully in accordance with old Dravidian forms. The Canar- ese is ntm, you ; the Or&on nim ; the old Tamil possessive is num-a, you (in which we see traces of an obsolete base num or nUm, you) ; and the ordinary base of the oblique cases of this pronoun in Tamil is um. It has been objected that there is nothing distinctively Dravidianjn these forms, seeing that ni, thou, appears in some shape in the Australian dialects, in Chinese, and in many of the languages of High 520 APPENDIX. Asia. This pronoun of the second person lias 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 nt in the singular to num in the plural appears to me still more distinctively Dravidian. (2.) Whilst nim or nUm is to be considered as the most classical form of the plural of the Dravidian pronoun of the second person, nir is the form ordinarily used in a separate shape in Tamil, mtru in Telugu; and in consequence of this plural termination in r, in nearly all the Dravidian idioms the second person plural of the verb in the indicative mood ends, not in im or um, but in ir, eru, dru, iri, &c. The same peculiarity reappears in the Brahui. Whilst the separate pronoun ends in m, r is the pronominal sign of the second person of the verb — e.g., areri, ye are, arer, they are ; with which compare the Canarese iru{tt)tri, ye are, iru{U)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 tan, 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 as the other pronouns, (4.) Nouns form their plurals by adding k, as in Gond — e.g., hult, a horse, hultJc, horses. (5.) The root of the substantive verb in Brahui is ar, in Tamil and Canar- ese v: (6.) Bopp remarks that the three lowest numerals could never be introduced into any country by foreigners. The truth of this remark is illustrated by several circumstances of which Bopp could scarcely have been aware. From five upwards the numerals of the Orfton are foreign. From four upwards the Brahui numerals are of Indo-European origin {e.g., char, four, panj, five, shush, 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 irat ; compare Can. eradu, two; Tarn. irat-{tu), twofold or double. In Brahui, three is musit ; compare Can. mijir-u ; Tel. mUd-u ; Tulu miiji. The Dravidian bases of these numerals are «', 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, it or at, is merely a neuter formative, like that which we find in the Dravidian languages {e.g., compare ir, the base and numeral adjective 'two,' with iradu, the abstract neuter noun) : consequently the agreement of the Brahui with the Dravidian numerals, both in the base and in the formative, is complete. If we remember the interchangeable relation of « and r, and if we regard the Canarese mUr, 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 mUji), 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 achat in Pehlevi. (7.) In the class of auxiliary words (prepositions, conjunctions, &c.) compare the Brahui moni, opposite, with the Tamil munne, before. The number of nouns and verbs in Brahui which can with certainty be identi- THE BRAHUL 521 fied with Dravidian roots is not considerable, but it is equal to the number found in the OrAon vocabulary. Brahui. Dravidian. Brahdi. Dravidian. eye, Jckan, khan, kan. stone. khal, kal. mouth, M, bay, vdy, hoi. bow, bit. bil, bir, vil. ear, hhaf, kivi, kdd-u, hU. saw, ara. ara-m. face, mon, mun, before. scorpion. telt. m. brain, milt, millei. to cut, hare. aru, ari. son, mar, marri (Gond). to beat, khal, kol (to kill). mother, di. dyi. to do. ke, kar, ke, ge, chey. water, dtr, ntr. to come. bar, bar, var. milk, pdhlt, pdl. - to be, ar. ir. The analogies 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 Jess essential character and less distinctive than the analogies which are discoverable between the Kolarian 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. Brahui. Bodo. Dhimal. thou. nt, nt, nang, nd. you, num. num. nangchUr, ny^l. we. ndm. ndn. Jong, kyel. self, tan, ten, goui, tdi. one. or, as-it, chS, e. two. irad-u. irat. gnS, gne. three. mUr-u, mus-it thdm. sum. eye, kan, khan. mogon, mt. ear, kivi. khaf, khomd. ndhdthong. water, ntr, dtr, ddi. cM. stone. kal. khal. onthdi. UnthHr. It seems unnecessary to give a larger number of instances ; for whilst the 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 few of those structural affinities which they have in common, not only with the Dravidian, but with the Tibetan, and with every language and family of languages of the Scythian group. 622 APPENDIX. 11. REMARKS ON THE PHILOLOGICAL PORTION OF MR 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 first edition of this work. What follows is the principal portion 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" took 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 graphic, 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 have 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. 523 done the better side of tlie 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 the book before us, viewed as a whole. Mr Gover informs us that Dr Caldwell, in his " Comparative Gram- mar of the Dravidian Languages" (that is, the Tamil, Telugu, Can- arese, &c.), was mistaken in classifying those languages with the Scythian or Turanian group (which, by the way, he did in the main only, not absolutely), and that the advance of philological science 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- hill Magazine for November last year. In a letter to the Athenaeum^ he adduces, in confirmation of his theory, the high authority of Dr Pope's name ; but pending the publication by Dr Pope of the materials Mr Gover says he has prepared, we must be forgiven for dealing ex- clusively at present with what Mr Gover himself has written. Mr Gover appears to us to be labouring under some misapprehension with regard to the enormous advance he supposes philological science has made since Dr Caldwell's book was published. During the sixteen years that have elapsed since then, he says, " new means of analysis have been furnished by the great German writers on language, new rules of classification have been adopted, the whole science of philology has been recast. Max MUller has won his fame. As it had been shown that Wilkins and Carey were wrong in deriving the Dravidian lan- guages from the Sanskrit, so it is now known that Caldwell and Rask were equally wrong in holding the theory of their Scythian origin. This theory was an error, leading to gigantic mistakes, but it has been dispelled by the progress of philological inquiry." "The science of language, which seems to have sprung into the world like Minerva, fully grown and armed, has during the past few years thrown vast light upon this dark subject." If all this advance has been made since Dr Caldwell's book was written, Mr Cover's statement that it was written sixteen years ago must have been a slip of the pen. He must have meant to say that the book was written sixty years ago, in the prse-scientific age, seeing that the first portion of Grimm's German 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 Milller, who had long already had an European reputation, must surely be considered to have won his fam.e 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 suflice 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 fact to four of assumption ! It would have been no loss to science if 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 * To which must be added Dr Bleek's " Comparative Grammar of the South African Languages." MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL. 525 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 people, an offshoot of the Finnish tribes, and their languages purely and simply Turanian. In reality his theory was not so dififerent 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 Dra vidian languages, not to the Aryan family, but to the Turanian group of families, 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 affinities as to the Turanian, contenting himself with holding that the Turanian affinities were more numerous and more essentially charac- teristic. 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- prehension by often using the word "Scythian" alone for short. His lists of Glossarial Affinities would almost satisfy Mr Gover's views. He adduced eighty-four Dravidian roots which he considered Scythian, 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 have been borrowed by the Sanskrit from the Dravidian vernaculars, he gave a list of twenty-one roots common to the Sanskrit and the Dravidian, and a hundred and six roots common to the Dravidian and the western representatives of the Aryan family. He considered also that those hundred and six roots " must have been introduced into the Dravidian languages before the Sanskrit separated from its sisters, or at least before the Sanskrit as a separate tongue came in contact with the Dravidian family." These roots, he said, "are so numerous, many of them are so remarkable, and when all are taken together the analogy which they bring to light is so distinct that an ultimate relation of some kind between the Dravidian and Indo-European families may be regarded as conclusively established" (p. 453). In the same page he suggests two alternative suppositions as to the nature of this relation- ship, one of which is that " it must be concluded that both races were descended from a common source." * He did not, however, consider * The following might also Have been adduced : — '' A consideration of the Dra- 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 afiSnities 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 "deep-seated Indo-Europeanisms " which he found imbedded in the grammatical structure of these languages. The fullest statement of 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 it. 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 tribes from the rest of the Japhetic family" (p. 306). "A similar form of the accusative being extensively prevalent, as we have seen, I have already expressed that the Dravidian family has retained some Prse- 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). "Instead 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 primaeval bases from which the demonstratives of the Sanskrit and of all other Indo-European tongues have been derived" (p. 340), MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL. 627 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). In another passage the theory of spontaneous development ab intra was advanced for the purpose of accounting for certain tendencies in the Indo-European direction observable in the treatment of the gender of nouns : — " (These tendencies) are not the result of Sanskrit in- fluences, of which no trace is perceptible in this department of Dra- vidian grammar, but have arisen from the progressive mental culti- 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 Gover. If Mr Gover had noticed these and similar passages, he could hardly have supposed the difference between Dr Caldwell's theory and his own to be so great and essential, and pregnant with such momentous consequences to the governors and the governed as he has done. 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- Europeanisms of the Dravidian languages more fully to light. The question between Dr Caldwell and Mr Gover is only one of less or more. Dr Caldwell's theory is so wide — it takes us so far back into the mist of ages — that there seems to be room in it for as many new theories as are likely to be invented. Room could be found in it even for Mr Cover's theory, if only its sharp corners were a little smoothed away. One of those sharp corners is the exclusiveness of his theory, 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 the great scholars in Europe. Doubtless Mr Gover will hold that so much of Dr Caldwell's book as advocates the existence of Aiyan 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 liim, 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 MR GOVER AND DR CALDWELL. 529 branclies — 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 teaching of the fathers of their race, degenerated in their worship, and thus a god was changed into a devil ! This idea is plausible, and it is ingeniously worked out ; but its accuracy depends on the nature of the evidence on which the alleged original signification of the Avord 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 is as to whether his argument is conclusive. This is a point, however, on which Mr Gover feels no doubt at all. He argues first that the root of the Tamil word 'pey is identical with the first part of the Sanskrit word for devil, pisdcka, which was derived from a root signifying ' light ; ' and then, that the Tamil relationships of this word combine to show that ' light ' was its original meaning. We may remark, at the outset, that, even if these statements were correct, they would not prove that the being now worshipped as a 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 root meaning had remained unchanged up to the time of its applica- tion to the worship of this god or devil ; or whether it might not have sustained one of those accidental twists so common in all languages, which are found to act as the starting point of new and unexpected meanings. It would not be safe to assume that, because the oldest shape of the root of the English word ' money ' is the Sanskrit man, Ho think,' therefore money acquired this name because it is some- thing that people 'think' a great deal about. The ultimate derivation might be correct, yet the assumption founded upon it would be erroneous. It would be found that the word 'money' received an accidental twist in the direction of its modern meaning. We should be taken to the temple of Juno Moneta in Rome, the Mint in which money was first coined, and there we should see how the change of meaning took place, — the goddess's name being derived from moneo, to warn, and this probably being an offshoot from man, to think. 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- dental change. We have, therefore, to ask not only whether it is a fact that the Sanskrit pis^^'ha comes from a root meaning to adorn, to shine, but also whether that was the sense in which the word came 2l 530 APPENDIX. to be so applied. It looks extraordinary tliat tlie 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, Nagas, Rakshasas, and Yakshas, and equal in beauty, as well as similar in signification, to that of the Devas, the divine beings, themselves. When we seek for an explanation of the reason why the term Fisdcha came to be applied to malignant beings, Sanskrit authorities supply us with derivations which differ widely from Mr Gover's. Dr Rost derives pUdcha 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 pisdcha. Fisdcha, according to them, means an ' eater of flesh,' and is substantially identical with the regular compound, pisit-asi, a word which has the same meaning. This view is corroborated by the fact that pesi, a noun regularly formed from the root pis, means both a lump of flesh, and the name of a female fiend. Compare the Tamil peyclichi, 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 jDej/, 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 pey derived from pisdcha by corruption or abbreviation, but holds merely that the roots are identical. The 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 pey 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 pey from pisdcha. Though the words are, to a certain extent, inter- changeable, yet people who are skilled in diabolical refinements draw a distinction between them. Pey, they say, means the ghost of a human being that has become powerful and malignant. It has a name and a place of residence, and is systematically worshipped. The jnsdcha, on the other hand, they say, has no home, or name, or wor- ship. The hhitta, they add, is a demon of a somewhat higher order, an attendant on the Brahmanical demon-gods. It is still more worthy MR COVER AND DR CALDWELL. 531 of notice tliat 'pey has meanings wliich pisdclia has not. In combina- tion with names of plants, pei/ means ' wild, uncultivated, useless for human food ; ' in combination with names of animals it means ' mad.' We often find that the use of a word in combination throws light on its original meaning. This may be so in this case — or it may not — as it is possible that this application to plants and animals may be only a metaphorical transfer of the older meaning of * devil.' Still, in either case, the direct derivation of pey from pUdcha, a word which is never used in this way, may be regarded as uncertain, though possible. We have now to deal with the Dravidian evidence adduced by Mr Gover to show that pey comes from a root meaning light. He begins his argument by stating that another form of the word in Tamil is penam, a devil, and this he says appears in Khond as pennu, the name of the deity, the meaning of which name is the ' sun ' or ^ light.' Its ultimate connection is with the Sanskrit pms and the Greek (palvM. From this he argues, that whether amongst the Khonds or the Tamil- ians, the worship of the devil was originally the worship of the light of the suji. Unfortunately for Mr Gover's theory, there is no such word for devil in the Tamil language as penam, though it is true that in Malay Mam there is a word meaning devil, pena, which would in Tamil be penei. In Tamil, however, we have a corresponding word joe, a word meaning foam, froth, which is represented as identical with ' fenam, a fuller form of the same word ; and this penam in turn is identical with the Sanskrit 'phena, froth. It looks as if the two words pey, devil, and pe, froth, with the more correct form of the latter, penam, were somehow connected. From pe, foam, would come peyi, one who foams, one from whose mouth pe comes, and peyi would naturally be abbreviated into pey. What more natural origin than this could be desired for pey, devil % Mr Gover may possibly object that, however plausible it may be, it leaves the Tamil word for devil as far as ever from the sweetness and light it ought to denote."' After discussing the inferences that may be drawn from penam being a Tamil word for devil, he proceeds to adduce examples of Dravidian words beginning with p, b,.or v, and meaning light, for the purpose of proving that pgy also must (could, would, or should) mean light. One of the words he adduces is veyyil, the heat of the sun. The root of this word, however, means not light, but heat. It is from ve, to be * Mr Beames suggested to me the possibility of the derivation of 2^^y — if derived from Sanskrit at all — from preta, a corpse, also a ghost, one of the Pra- krit forms of which would, according to the usual rule, be j^eya. preta (in Tamil piredam) occasionally has in Tafhil the meaning of ghost ; but pey never means corpse, peyam is unknown in Tamil. 532 APPENDIX. hot, one of the commonest roots in the language, and very prolific of derivatives. The two Tamil roots that really mean light, ol, a shining light, and vel, a diffused light, cannot be brought into any harmony with pey. Another word which he adduces is piei, which he says " in 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 pirei, 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. . Tine most natural derivation is pzr, the root of pira, other, and jnTar, to change. The meaning of pivei 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 at, 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 Eutluk, 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 Cover's view. And why should not this be its meaning V It is certainly very natural that the word for the day, as distinguished 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 assumptions 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 Vise 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 root 2^ctff-u, to divide: meanings— I, pagtcttal, division;' 2, *a divi- sion ;' 3, piridal, ' partition ; ' 4, inlattal, ' 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- tant example of the same) ; 8, ' the sun,' the cause of noonday bright- ness ; 9, ' light ;' 10, * the whole period of daylight,' the day, as distinguished from the night; 11, 'the day,' inclusive of the night; 12, 'time.' That pagal meant, and still means, especially midday, is well illustrated by the fact that the phrase Pagaleikku mel (and the 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 supposed it to be, but division, and with this disappears every trace of evidence from Dravidian sources in favour of the supposition that the Tamil 2^ey was not so black as he has been painted, but was origin- ally a bright being, a deity. Mr Gover informs us that a hundred other examples might be adduced in favour of this meaning of the word peg ; but it is impossible, of course, for us to deal with them until we know what they are. It is evident that Mr Gover was dili- gently looking out all over India for words for light beginning with the letter p, and in this inquiry he appears to have found only a very little help in Dr Hunter's lists. Of the seventeen South Indian words for light given by Dr Hunter, none begin with a p, so none could be made use of; but amongst the twenty-one words for light contained in the list of words belonging to the dialects of Central India, fortunately one word beginning with a p was found, and here it is. " In another dialect," says Mr Gover, " peymoro is the light." The Keikadi of Dr Hunter's lists is that other dialect. There are two letters different in Dr Hunter. He gives the word as paymaro, not as peymoro. This makes the resemblance of the first syllable to the Tamil peg a little more doubtful ; but apart from this, one would like to know the signi- fication of the second portion of the word, and the literal meaning of the entire word. It looks like a compound, and therefore requires explanation. One of our reasons for thinking so is that it resembles so much a word for day (not light) in another Central Indian dialect, the Yerukala of Dr Hunter's lists. The word is given in two shapes, pam- maru and pangamaru. This word must surely be a compound ; and if so, it is only when we come to know the real meaning of each part of the compound that we siJ^iall be able to determine its ulterior relation- ship. In this particular Dr Hunter's lists of words cannot always be 534 APPENDIX. trusted. When tlie questioner does not know the language 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 onr English devil — like that of the French diahle, the Italian diavolo, and the Ger- man teicfel, from the diaQoXo; 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 able to give the word an interesting extension. Beval is the Hindustani for a temple, and the name must denote, not the house of God, but a place where devils are worshipped ! ^Ir 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 have added the Japanese. This is 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 Turanians 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 SUNDARA PANDYA. 535 all Aryans. Even when tlius 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 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 historj'-. If the Gonds, the Khonds, and the other Dravidian 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- times look marvellously like Scythians. Those * Yeddahs of Ceylon ' (in Tamil Vedar, huntsmen), who are introduced as examples of Turan- ian " imperfectibility/' are probably the Dravidian aborigines of the island. According to Mr Gover, therefore, they must be Aryans. On the other hand, this discussion ceases to have any special importance or significance, when Dr Caldwell's Scythic theory is correctly appre- hended. If the Dravidian race separated from the great primitive Asian hordfes 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 dijBferentiate between Aryans and Turanians, in so far as the Dravi- dians are concerned, may almost as well be abandoned. In physiolo- gical characteristics and capacity for intellectual and moral develop- ment, the Dravidians are probably fit to be classified with the most favoured race; and, being a primitive race themselves, it is of little importance to what other primitive races we affiliate them. III. SUNDARA PANDYA. The following are the extracts from the Muhammedan historians referred to in the Introduction, with. Colonel Yule's remarks, and a few additional particulars. Passages from Polo's contemporary, Rashiduddin, quoted in Sir H. Elliot's " History of India" (new edition, p. G9). " M'abar, from Kulam to Silawar (should be Nilawar = Nellore), extends 300 parasangs along the sl*re The king is called Dewar, which means in the M'abar language ' the Lord of wealth.' .... Within the 536 APPENDIX. last few years (written towards 1300) Sundar Bandi was Dewar, who, with liis 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 Kail as it is in some MSS.)" Here, says Colonel Yule, we have Polo's Senderbandi Dewar and his brothers. Moreover, in Ramusio's edition of Polo, the brother princes are not five, but four, as in 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 differing. The third volume of the new edition of Elliot contains some 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. " M'abar 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. 092 (a.d. 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, " It is related by Malik al Islam Jumaluddin that out of that treasure (left by Sundar Bandi) 7000 oxen, laden with precious stones and pure gold and silwer fell to the share of the brother tvho succeeded him.'^ At a later date we have the following : — " 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 replete 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, &c., &c. This fortunate and happy sovereign had two sons, the elder named Sundar- Pandi, who was lesritimate, his mother beim; joined to the Dewar by lawful marriage, and the younger named Tira Pandi [Pirebendi of Von Hammer = Vira Pandi ?], 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.D.), and placed the crown on his head in the city of Mardi [Madurei is often mispronounced by the vulgar Marudei], and SUNDARA PANDYA. 537 induced the troops who were there to support his interests, and con- veyed some of the royal treasures which were deposited there to the city of ManMl (Menkpu in Von Hammer) Upon this his brother Tira Pandi, being resolved on avenging his father's blood, fol- lowed to give him battle, and on the margin of a lake which in their language they call Talachi (Ham., Telaji), the opponents came to action Tira Pandi, wounded, fell into the hands of the enemy. . . . . Manar Barmul (Ham., Permel), the son of the daughter of Kales Dewar, w^ho espoused the cause of Tira Pandi, being at that time at Karamhatti, near K^lul [Von Hammer, Kiramjetti, in the country of Kail], sent him assistance both in men and money, which was attended with a most fortunate result. Sundar Pandi ... at last met with the chastisement due to his ingratitude ; for in the middle of the year a.h. 710 (a.d. 1310) Tira Pandi, having collected an army, advanced to oppose him ; and Sundar Pandi, trembling and alarmed, fled from his native country, and took refuge under the protection of Alauddin of Delhi, and Tira Pandi became firmly established in his hereditary kingdom." Colonel Yule remarks — " This Sundar Pandi is quite different from the man of four brethren; first, because the latter had been dead eighteen years before this escape to Delhi ; second, — but no more reasons seem wanted after that ! The notion that floats in my mind is that the real kings of Madura were Kales and his sons Sundar and Tira Pandi, and that Marco Polo's Sender Bandi, Asciar, and brethren, were a separate family, probably of adven- turers, who had got possession of the coast country, and perhaps paid some nominal homage to Madura. But then Kales's name ought to be in the Madura lists as predecessor of Sundara Pandi." With reference to the Kales Dewar of Wassaf, circa 1309-10, it is deserving of notice that according to the Singhalese records the Pandyan king at that time was called Kulasekhara ; and that this was a different Kulasekhara from the one already mentioned in the Introduction ap- 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- vaneka Bahu the first, as I am informed by Mr Bhys Davids, began to reign in a.d. 1303, and died in 1314 ; and at the end of his reign Aryachakravarti, in command of an army sent by the Pandyan king Kulasekhara, took the capital of Ceylon and carried off the celebrated tooth-relic. The names of Sundara and Vtra are not mentioned by the Singhalese narratives in connection with this Kulasekhara. I have many inscriptions in my possession relating to the reign of Kulase- khara, but as none of the«i contains any date, except the year of the king's reign, I am unable to determine when he lived, or whether there 538 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. I have two inscriptions of one Vira Pandya ; but this Vira could not have been the Vira represented by the Muhammedan historians as Sundara's brother and rival, @r by the Singhalese annalists as his rival, for these inscriptions, unlike his, are dated, and according to them the date of this Vira Pandya's accession was a.d. 1437. The discrepancy be- tween liashiduddin's statement that the Sundar Pandi, who died in A.D. 1293, was succeeded by his Muhammedan minister, and Wassaf's statement that he was succeeded by his brother, is not a very serious one. Both statements may have been in a measure true. There is a discrepancy, however, in Wassafs own account of his two Sundars which seems to me at present irreconcilable. According to him, as to Rashiduddin, Sundar Pandi, the Dewar of M'abar, died in a.d. 1293, the year after Marco Polo's visit ; yet Kales, the father- of the other Sandar Pandi and Tira Pandi, who was murdered by Sundar in a.d. 1310, had been Dewar of M'abar for forty and odd years, and during the whole of that time had enjoyed unexampled peace and prosperity ! Wassaf here seems somehow to have misapprehended his authorities, for he provides no room for his first Sundar during Kales's long reign. After the above was written, an interesting extract from the Sin- ghalese historical records, regarding the invasion of Kulas^khara's territory by the Singhalese, was published in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. 2, 1872, by Mr T. W. Ehys Davids, then district judge, Anuradh^pura, Ceylon, an eminent Singhalese scholar. This extract is too long to give here in extenso, but the substance of it is as follows : — The Pandu king Par^krama, of the city of Madura, became terrified by the army with which King Kulasekhara was preparing to attack him, and sent ambassadors to the great king of Ceylon, Parakrama Bahu, to supplicate his help. Before anything could be done, Kula- sekhara, the king, had surrounded Madura with a large armj^, and taken pris(mer the Pandu king and his army. On hearing this, ParS,- krama B^hu, the great king, sent his general, Lankarapura, with a great army, filling several hundred ships, with orders to slay Kulase- khara, and establish in that kingdom some one who came of the stock of the kings of Pandu. This general with his army landed at a place called Lassilla, 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 SUNDARA PANDYA. 539 five, but they also were overthrown. Then, at the order of Parakrama Babu, the general set up a pillar of victory at a place near Rameswara, and formed a town called Parakrama, where he lived. Whilst he was there Kulasekhara sent Sundara, the Pdndu hing, with many council- lors, to attack him, but the Singhalese general beat them in three pitched battles. He then fought «everal battles with Alawana Perumal and other chiefs, and took various countries, villages, and towns. Kulasekhara then entered on a campaign in the Kandaya district, but was defeated, and was obliged to take refuge, with his warriors, in a city which they barricaded. The Singhalese, however, broke in, and Kulasekhara escaped through a gate in disguise. Thereupon the Sing- halese celebrated a festival of victory, and made Vira Pdndu king with great ceremony. The narrative then goes on to relate how Kula- sekhara, after his flight in disguise, fortified himself in the stronghold of Tondamana, and afterwards sallying thence retook Kandayaru, defeating two of Lankarapura's lieutenants, and how Lankarapura again defeated him, re-established peace, and confirmed Vira Pandu on the throne, restoring the banished Tamil nobles to their lands, and anoint- ing Vtra Pandu in the city of Madura. We find here again the very same three names that appear in the Muhammedan histories — Kales (doubtless Kulasekhara), Sundara, and Vira : and both narratives, though differing in other particulars, agree in leaving Vira on the throne. The dates differ very considerably. Parakrama Bahu the Great, king of Ceylon, ascended the throne in 1153 A.D., and died in 1186. His expedition against the Pandyan country appears to have commenced in 1173; whilst Wassaf represents Vira Pandi as finally triumphing over his brother Sundara, the mur- 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 Kulasekhara, 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 the Singhalese or the Muhammedan narrators — (surely not the Sin- ghalese, who are remarkably trustworthy) — must have fiillen into a chronological error of more than a hundred years. The Sundara of the Singhalese narrative presents few or no points of resemblance to the 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- perable difficulty in the way of identifying this more eminent Sundara with the first Sundara of the Muhammedan historians, who died in 1293, and the Sender of Marco Polo, who was alive 1292. According to the Muhagimedan historians the flight to Delhi of Sundara, the murderer of Kulasekhara, led to the invasion of the 540 APPENDIX. Madura country by Malik Kafur. I avail myself again of Colonel Yule's kindness. Additional statement by Wassaf, not given in the printed extracts. " In the last year but one of Alauddin's reign (a.d. 1315), he sent his general Hazardinari (alias Malik Kafur), with four lakhs of men, to conquer M'abar. The Raja of M'abar hid himself in the jungles. The booty was tremendous ; 700 elephants, and gold to such extent that every soldier had 25 lbs. ! The farmer-general, Sura- juddin, desired to place his treasure in security (and was plundered, whereupon he took poison). . . . The son, Malik Nizamuddin, betook himself to the court of Alauddin to complain of this robbery, and obtained, with the restoration of a part of his property, the administra- tion of the finances, which had been entrusted to his grandfather Jumaluddin Et Thaibi, and his father Surajuddin." According to Ferishta, Malik Kafur conquered M'abar as far south as Rame- shwar, or Adam's Bridge, opposite Ceylon, where he built a mosque. M'abar was regarded by Ferishta as a portion of the Belala king- dom of Dwarasamudra. Ibn Batuta, who appears to have visited Madura in a.d. 1348-9, found the country still under Muhammedan rule. The Pandya kings after a time got the better of the Muham- medan intruders and resumed their ancient sway, but I am unable to fix the date. The earliest dated inscription of this second line of Pandyas in my possession is that of Vira Pandya in a.d. 1437. IV. ARE THE PAEIARS (PAREIYAS) OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 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 Hindus, or else Tamilians, Malayalis, &c., 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- 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 inquire whether, and to what extent, this opinion may be regarded as correct. ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 541 It is necessary here to premise some remarks on the meaning of the term Hindil. This term is used in India in a variety of ways, but its most common, as well as its best authorised meaning, is that of an adherent of the system of religion called Hinduism. It is true that this use of the term is liable to serious objection, inasmuch as the term Hindu originally meant, and ought still to mean, an Indian — an inha- bitant of India — irrespective of the religion to which he belonged. It seems hardly fair to use a term which in itself has not a theological, but a geographical meaning, to denote the adherents of one out of several religions which prevail in the region to which the term applies. There is no such inconsistency pertaining to the use of the terms Buddhist, Jaina, Muhammedan, or Christian. Notwithstanding this, in consequence of the difficulty of finding any other convenient term to denote the followers of the Brahraanical religion, or the religion of the Vedas and Puranas, and also in consequence of the followers of this religion forming the great majority of the inhabitants of India, people have been led to adopt the national name as a term of religious nomenclature. This meaning has been made authoritative by its use in official documents, and by a decision of one of the courts, to the effect that the term Hindtis, as used in the ' Indian Succession Act,' is meant to denote the adherents of the religion called Hinduism, in con- sequence of which Indian Christians are declared not to be Hindtis in the meaning of the Act. This being the case, it seems to have become desirable that the term Hindii 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 Hindus, and also that some of the predatory wandering tribes are probably not Hindus ; though, geographically, they have all as much right to the name of HindU as the Brahmans themselves. In some of these cases, however, it would be safer to say merely that such and such classes are not regarded as orthodox Hindtis. As for the Pareiyas and the lower castes generally in the more civilised districts of the country, they are Hindus by religion, like the rest of the com- munity. The Brahmans and the Pareiyas equally worship Siva and Vishnu, and therefore are equally Hindtis. The differences between them pertain to caste, not to religion. Many persons, especially in Northern India, have been accustomed to use the term Hindti as synonymous with Aryan. They call the Brahmans and the higher castes of Northern India Hindtis, but with- hold the name from the aboriginal races. This seems an improper use of words, inasmuch as it denationalises not only the low-caste inhabi- 542 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-tis, 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 a better claim to be called Hind-us than the Aryans themselves. To deprive the Dravidians and other primitive races of the name of Hindu, 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 descendants of Norman families. Some again mix the two meanings^— the religious and the ethnological — together, and thus, as it appears to me, produce inextricable confusion. Thus Mr Beanies, in a note to the Introduction to his '•' Comparative Grammar of the Aryan Vernaculars of Northern India," p. 39, says, " For the information of readers in Europe it may be necessary to explain that the word Hindi! is always used in India as a religious term, denoting those Aryans who still adhere to the Brahmanical fiiith, and who in most parts of India constitute the majority of the 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 Beames's own opinion, or it refuses the name of Hindil to those Dravidians in Madras and elsewhere, who consider themselves, and are generally considered by others, amongst the most orthodox and zealous Hindus in India. In Southern India, Dravidians are invariably called Hindis in public documents ; and the University of Madras divides candidates for its honours amongst the Hindu community into two classes only, Brahmans and ' other Hindus ; ' by the term, other Hindus, denoting all persons 'not Brahmans' who are adherents of tlie Hindu religion. Notwithstanding this, in Southern India itself the term Hindu 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 Aryan in Mr Beames's definition. This restriction of the name of Hindu 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 Shanars, 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 by Europeans that tbey are ' not Hindtls.* This style of expression is owing, I believe, to a misapprehension, inasmuch as the Shanars, in their ori^^inal condition, before their reception of Christianity, were adherents of the ordinary Hindil religion, though generally it was a low type of that religion which they followed. They were certainly not 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 the Tamil castes, whether higher or lower. The practice of demonolatry does not make a man cease to be a Hindu by religion, the demonolatry of the aborigines having been incorporated with the worship of E-udra from very early, if not even from Vaidik times. The greater number of the Buddhists in Ceylon are demonolaters — the origin of demono- latry in Ceylon and India being no doubt the same ; yet, though demonolatry is further removed from Buddhism than from Hinduism, we do not think of saying that the Singhalese are not Buddhists. 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 less are Hindus. The notion that the Shanars are not Hindus is a notion unknown to the Hindus themselves. By the Hindus they are regarded as simply one caste out of many. We must now, however, bring this digression to an end, and resume our inquiry respecting the relationship of the Pareiyas. The Pareiyas (called in Telugu Malavaiidlu = Malas) are not the only 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 of those classes ; but partly because they are the most numerous servile tribe (their numbers amounting in some places to so much as a fifth of the population), and partly because they are more frequently brought into contact with Europeans than any similar class, in consequence of the majority of the domestic servants of Europeans throughout the Madras Presidency being Pareiyas, they have come to be regarded by some persons as the low-caste race of Southern India. Hence, besides the above-mentioned discrepancies in the application of the name HindCl, there are various errors afloat respecting the origin of the Pareiyas and their position in the caste scale, which require to be noticed before entering on the question now to be discussed, ' Are the Pareiyas Dra- vidians % ' Europeans were generally led to suppose, on their arrival in India several generations ago, that the Pareiyas were either the illegitimate offspring of adulterous intercourse, or were persons who had been excluded from caste for their crimes. This notion appears to have 644 APPENDIX. been invented and propagated by tlie Bralimans and tlie 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 Hindu 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 castes, 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 Vaisyas and servile or Sudra Aryans, in accordance with the progressive subdivision of labour ; and secondly, through the introduction of one aboriginal tribe after another within 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 Mlechchas, into Sudras. In Manu and similar S'astras, no mention is made of either of these causes ; but the new or mixed castes are attri- buted exclusively to fictitious mixtures of the older castes. The more respectable of the new castes are attributed to the legal intermarriage of persons belonging to different castes of recognised respectability ; another and inferior set of castes are attributed to the adulterous intercourse of persons of equal respectability, but of dififerent caste, or of high-caste men with low-caste women ; whilst the lowest castes of all are represented to have sprung from the adulterous intercourse of high-caste women with low-caste 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 Dravidian castes had no such origin. The only 'mixed caste' known in Southern India, is that which consists of the children of the dancing girls attached to the temples. Of this class the female children are brought up in the profession of their mothers, the males as temple florists and musicians. In all ordinary cases, when children are born 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 lionourable of the two castes to which its parents belong. Where 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 ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 545 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 woman's illegitimate offspring. The child rarely sees the light; the mother either procures an abortion or commits suicide. To suppose, therefore, as Europeans have sometimes been led to suppose, that the entire caste of Pareiyas (including its siibdi visions, and the ' left hand ' castes corresponding to it) has come into existence in the surreptitious manner described above, or that it is composed of persons who have been excluded from other castes for their crimes, is a baseless dream, which seems too preposterous for serious refutation. Though it is pro- bable that it was from the statements of natives that the Anglo-Indian community originally derived this notion, yet I never met with any natives, learned or unlearned, by whom the notion appeared to be entertained ; and the Pareiyas themselves, who regard their lowly caste with feelings of pride and affection, which are very different from what might be expected of them, would resent this representation of their origin, if they had ever heard of it, with indignation. Anglo-Indians who are not acquainted with the vernacular lan- guages, often designate Pareiyas as outcasts, as persons who are without caste, or as persons who have no caste to lose. It is true that the Pareiya servants of Europeans will sometimes vaunt that they belong to ' master's caste ; ' and some masters are said to have found to their cost that their Pareiya servants practise no scrupulous, super- stitious distinctions respecting meats and drinks. Notwithstanding this, to suppose that the Pareiyas have literally no caste, is undoubt- edly an error. The Pareiyas constitute a well-defined, distinct, ancient caste, independent of every other; and the Pareiya caste has sub- divisions of its own, its own peculiar usages, its own traditions, and its own jealousy of the encroachments of the castes which are above it and below it. They constitute, perhaps, the most numerous caste in the Tamil country. In the city of Madras they number twenty-one per cent, of the Hindu population ; the Vellalas, who come next to them, numbering fourteen per cent. Though the Pareiyas themselves will admit that they belong — or, as they would prefer to say, that they belong at present — to the lowest division of castes, and are not fabled to have sprung from even the least noble part of BrahmS,; nevertheless, they are not the lowest of the castes comprised in this lowest division. I am acquainted with several castes in various parts of the Tamil country, which are considered lower than the Pareiyas in the social scale ; and in this enumeration I do not include the Pallas, a caste between whom and the Pareiyas there is an unsettled dispute respecting precedence. The treatment which the Pareiyas receive from 2 M 546 APPENDIX. the castes above them, is doubtless unjust and indefensible ; but it is not generally known by those Europeans 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.g., the caste of shoemakers, and the lowest caste of washermen ; that they are, equally with the higher castes, filled with that compound of pride of birth, exclusiveness, and 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 always being carried on in Southern India between the ' right hand ' and the ' left hand ' castes, the Pareiyas range themselves on the right 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 are better acquainted with Indian affairs, the theory of the illegitimate 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 castes, and the so-called 'outcasts,' that speak the Dravidian lan- guages, especially the Tamil Pariahs (properly Pareiyas), the Telugu Malas, 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 Hindiis, are the higher castes alone Dravidians, Tamilians, Malayans, &c. ? and are the Pareiyas and people of similar castes to be regarded as belonging to a different race 1 On the whole, I 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 ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 647 mountain ftistnesses and pestilential jungles — like the Rajis or D6ms of the Himalayas, the Weddas of Ceylon, and the Mala-(y)-ara8as of the Southern Ghauts; whilst others, probably the majority of the race, would be reduced to perpetual servitude, like the Pareiyas, Puleiyas, and Pallas. The history of the subjection of the Prae- Aryan S'udras of Northern India, would thus form the counterpart and sup- plement of the history of the subjection of a still older race. Though, however, all this may be conceived to be possible, and though there may not be any ^ priori improbability in it, it is more to the purpose to state such circumstances and considerations as appear to be adducible in its support. (1.) The Pareiyas, the Pallas, the Puleiyas, and several other low- caste tribes, are generally slaves to the higher castes, and most of them appear always to have been in an enslaved condition ; and it is more natural to suppose that they were reduced to a servile condition by conquest, than to sup"pose that entire tribes were enslaved by the operation of ordinary social causes. If, then, the castes referred to were a subjugated people, they must have settled in the country at an earlier period than their conquerors, and probably belonged to a different race. (2.) The low-caste inhabitants of Southern India are distinguished from the entire circle of the higher castes by clear, unmistakable marks of social helotry. The title of 'S'Mra,' which has generally been assumed by the higher castes, or which was conferred upon them by the Brahmans, is withheld from the low-caste tribes; they are not allowed to enter within the precincts of the temples of the Dii majorum gentium; and wherever old Hindii usages survive unchecked, as in the native protected states of Travancore and Cochin, the women belong- 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 separate the people of ten or twenty different castes or tribes from the rest of the population, are incompatible with the supposition of an original identity of race. (3.) There are various traditions current amongst the Pareiyas to 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 much more honourable. Wilks observes that there is a tradition that the Canarese Pareiyas were once an independent people, with kings of their own. The Tamil Papiyas sometimes boast that at an ancient period tlieirs was the most distinguished caste in the country. They 548 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 which had previously been occupied by themselves. There is a similar tradition that the Kuravas, 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 Egdttdl, the only mother — a form of K§,li, and the tutelary goddess of the ' Black town ' of Madras — when a tdli, 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 claimed by Pareiyas in other parts of the country, especially at the worship of divinities of the inferior class, such as the village ammds, 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 " Archae- ological Notes," in the Bombay Antiquary for July 1874, adds a few instances of the privileges enjoyed by the lower castes. "At Melkotta, the chief seat of the followers of R^m^nuja Achdrya, 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 Trivalur, in Tanjor, the head man of the Pareyars is mounted on the elephant with the god, and carries his chaiiri. 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, and, their origin being forgotten, are much misunderstood. These ARE THE PAREIYAS OF SOUTHERN INDIA DRAVIDIANS ? 549 privileges are remarkable instances of survivals from an extinct order of society — shadows of a long-departed supremacy, bearing witness to a period when the present haughty high-caste races were suppliants before the ancestors of degraded classes whose touch is now regarded as pollution." (5.) The strongest argument which can be adduced in support of the Prse-Dravidian origin of the Pareiyas and similar castes, consists in the circumstance that the national name of Tamilians, Malayalis, Kannadis, V>rvU««^>'W Afghan Q 570 APPENDIX. invaders of India were Seljukian Turks ; the Mogols were, as their name seems to import, Mongolians ; and the hordes that followed the fortunes of both classes of invaders, were a mixed race — a colluvies gentium — comprising various tribes and races of Mongolian and Tatar-Turkish origin, called by the Hindus Turushkas, in Tamil Tarukkas, or more commonly Tulukkas — i.e., Turks. The proportion of Persians and other races of Indo-European origin who accompanied the AfghS,ns and Mongols in their expeditions, was exceedingly small. Hence, the Muhammedans of India may be regarded as a Tataj--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 Mongol- ians, but in the Siberian Turks. Notwithstanding this, we generally search in vain amongst the Indian Muhammedans for signs of a Tatar, origin. With the exception of a somewhat greater breadth of face and head, and a more olive complexion, they do not now differ from the , Hindus, properly so called, in any essential point. They exhibit, it is true, special peculiarities of physiognomy and expression ; but every Hindu tribe or caste has, in like manner, a peculiar physiognomy of its own, by which it differs from every other tribe. A change appears to have 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 from Tatars into Europeans. I cannot forbear bringing out more fully the argument founded on the change which has passed over the Turks and Magyars by citing the words of Dr W. B. Carpenter ("Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology "), as condensed by Archdeacon Pratt (" Scripture and 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 Turks of Central Asia, that many writers have referred the former to the (so-called) Caucasian rather than to the Mongolian stock. Yet historical and philological evidence sufficiently proves that the Western Turks originally belonged to the Central Asia group of nations, with 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 eastern, that the change has taken place. Any result arising from intermixture of the Turkish race with the inhabitants of the countries they conquered, Dr Carpenter shows to be altogether inadequate to DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE. 571 explain the plienoraena. Another instance of the same modification is to be found in the Magyar race, which forms a large part of the population of Hungary, including the entire nobility of that country. This race, which is not inferior in mental or physical character to any in Europe, is proved by historical and philological evidence to have been a branch of the great northern Asiatic stock, which was expelled about ten centuries ago from the country it then inhabited, bordering 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 Samoiedes pursue the chase during only the milder season — for one in the south of Europe, in fertile plains abounding in rich harvests, the Magyars gradually laid aside the rude and savage habits which they are recorded to have brought with them, and adopted a more settled mode of life. In the course of a thousand years their type of cranial formation has been changed from the pyramidal to the ellip- tical ; and they are become a handsome people, with fine stature and regular European features, with just enough of the Tatar cast of countenance, in some instances, to call their origin to mind. Here again, it may be said that the intermixture of the conquering with the conquered race had a great share in bringing about this change ; but a similar reply must be returned, for the existing Magyars pride them- eelves greatly on the purity of their descent ; and the small influence of Sclavonic blood which may have taken place from time to time, is by no means suflBcient to account for the complete change of type which now manifests itself. The women of pure Magyar race are said by good judges to be singularly beautiful, far surpassing either German or Sclavonian females. A similar modification, but in less degree, appears to have taken place in the Finnish tribes of Scandinavia. These may almost certainly be affirmed to have the same origin with the Lapps ; but whilst the latter retain, though inhabiting Europe, the nomadic habits of their Mongolian ancestors, the former have adopted a much more settled mode of life, and have made considerable advances in civilisation, especially in Esthonia, where they assimilate with their Kussian neighbours. And thus we have in the Finns, Lapps, and Magyars, three nations or tribes, of whose descent from a common stock no reasonable doubt can be entertained, and which exhibit the ^^//^t/Zv >Z most marked differences in cranial characters, and also in general con- ^ii^ii/^^tf formation, the Magyars being as tall and well-made as the Lapps are MiXy^a^Ac short and uncouth." Mr Edkins also remarks (in ''China's Place iii-;y^«<*' ^ Philology ") that the Turks of the east, even those of Chinese 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 Gonds 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. It seems to have arisen in the 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 peculiar degree of permanence are the Tibetans and the Mongolian nomads, who still inhabit the original seats of their race. The Indian tribes which are now most distinctly characterised by Mongolian peculiarities, are those which entered India by the North- East, and are probably of Tibetan origin. The Garos and other forest tribes on the Bhiitan frontier, as described by Mr Hodgson, seem to be decidedly Mongolian ; and the Kols and SantMs are probably descended from a similar stock. The existence at an early period in the vicinity of Orissa, of barbarous tribes differing in appearance from the rest of the Hindlis, and exhibiting a Mongolian or foreign type, is attested by the following passage in the " Periplus Maris Erythraei." 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 Kt^o'idat (Sans. Kirdtas X) a race of people with flattened noses (evidently Mongolians), also the horse-faces and the long-faces, all of whom are said to be cannibals. Then sailing eastwards, and having a certain sea on the right, we come to the Ganges." The statement of Strabo which has already been quoted, joined to the negative evidence of this DRA VIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE. 573 passage, seems to show that at the Christian era, the civilised, culti- vated Dravidians (the Pindyas, Cholas, Kalingas, &c.) did not materi- ally differ in physiognomy or personal appearance from the northern Hindiis ; and that certain barbarous inhabitants of the jungles, who are barbarians still, were the only tribes that appeared to be dis- tinctively Mongolian. The Gondali of Ptolemy, who are classed among ' the Bitti,' and distinguished from ' the Phyllitae ' (probably the Bhills), were probably the Gonds, but it is not said whether or not they differed in appearance from the more cultivated Dravidians. Some writers, I think erroneously, speak of the 'jet blackness' of the Gonds ; and the Rajmahal people are said to be black. Notwith- standing this, according to the account of that accurate observer, Dr Buchanan Hamilton, the features of the Malers or Rajmahal hill people, do not essentially differ from the Aryan type. " Their lips are full, but not at all like those of the Negro. Their faces are oval, not shaped like a lozenge as those of the Chinese are. Their eyes, instead of being hid in fat and placed obliquely like those of the Chinese, are exactly like those of Europeans." We have seen that some of the Yind- hya Nish^das are described in the Purdnas to be 'as black as crows ;' but without debating the accuracy of the portrait of those primitive tribes, which the Pur^nas have drawn, and which seems to be con- firmed on the whole by the photographs in Colonel Dalton's "Ethno- logy of Bengal," it will suffice for the present to remind the reader that those very Purina writers entertained so different an impression respecting the mass of the Dravidians of the south, that they fell into the opposite error of Aryanising them, and supposed the Kalingas, P^ndyas, Chdlas, K^ralas, and other Dravidians, to be descended from Aryan princes of the Lunar line. It was not until after the above was written that I became acquainted with Sir George Campbell's " Ethnology of India." His impression 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 strong as mine, whilst the reason for the similarity he assigns is dif- ferent. He says (p. 15), "I draw no wide ethnological line between the northern and southern countries of India, not recognising the separate Dravidian classification of the latter as properly ethnological. It seems to me that among all the Hindu tribes the Aryan element now 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 that there is at any geographical parallel any decided line. A change of language takes place -vfhere passing southward we exchange the Maratta for Telugu and Ciinarese. But looking at the people, we see 674 APPENDIX. no radical change of feature or characteristics. It may well be that although the people speaking a Dravidian language in the South may always by force of numbers have linguistically prevailed over each separate batch of immigrants, and so far annexed them ; still by successive immigration, notwithstanding a Dravidian form of speech, the Aryan blood has come in reality greatly to prevail. The mere fact that they are recognised as orthodox Hindis seems to imply the northern origin of all the better castes in the South, and that is their own account of their origin. I have no doubt the southern Hindus may generally be classed as Aryans, and that the southern society is in its structure, its manners, and its laws and institutions, an Aryan society. After all, in their main characteristics the southern people 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 other features may still be traced ; but, colour perhaps excepted, the aboriginal features are probably gradually wearing away." He re- gards the race that preceded the Aryans in the occupation of India as having been a race of Negritoes. " I take as a great division of tribes and castes the black aboriginal tribes of the interior hills and jungles. There can, I suppose, be no doubt that they are the remnants of the race which occupied India before the Hindus. They are evidently the remains of an element the greater portion of which has been absorbed by, or amalgamated with, the modern Indian race, and which, mixed in various degrees with the high-featured immigrants, has contributed to form the Hindii of to-day. In the South their speech still forms the basis of the modern languages." As regards features, he thinks with Colonel Dalton, that lower races would gradually assimilate themselves to a higher race living amongst them, though inferior to themselves in number. Professor Huxley's views of Dravidian ethnology, together with those of Professor de Quatrefages, seem to be substantially identical with Sir George Campbell's. So also are those of Dr Logan already referred to. This theory of the origin of the people of Southern India, considered from an ethnological point of view alone, seems nearly perfect. The 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 large, brown, and comparatively handsome Tudas of the Nilgherries, the fairness of some entire tribes of low-caste Dra vidians — e.g.^ the Madigas or ' Chucklers ' of the Telugu country, and the combination of Mongolian features with a black complexion in the Gonds and Or^ons of the Central Provinces. It cannot be expected, however, that any theory should perfectly meet and explain all the peculiarities DRAVIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE. 675 observable amongst mixed races, especially where their mixture dates from prse-historic times. Notwithstanding the prima facie attractiveness of this theory, I am doubtful whether ethnology is entitled to settle the question, without any reference to the evidence furnished by history and philology. The historic and linguistic diffi- culties in the way of the acceptance of this theory seem to me to be very considerable. The better castes of Southern India — that is, those that have the entree of the temples and the members of which are regarded as " ortho- dox Hindus " — are too numerous to suit the hypothesis in question. Judging by the results of the census of the city of Madras, the higher Dravidian castes (not including Brahmans) form at least four-fifths of the entire population of Southern India. Small bodies of men be- longing to the Aryan or North Indian race might have migrated to the South, and amalgamated with Dravidian tribes, in the manner sup- posed by the theory under consideration, without any record of their migration surviving, except perhaps in the lighter complexion of their descendants. But it seems difficult to suppose that such an immense migration as the theory requires — whether all at once or in successive waves — can have taken place, subsequently to the composition of the Vedas, during the period covered by the epic poems and the Puranas, without leaving behind it some trace of itself, either in Sanskrit or in Dravidian literature, in coins or inscriptions, or at least in the northern names and relationships of the principal castes. The account in the Mah^-bh^rata 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 have expected everywhere to find. In this very manner traces of the northern relationship of certain princely families in the South still survive. Those families not only call themselves Kshatriyas, but keep up their connection with the great E^jput families of the north, by occasional intermarriages. A certain number of floating popular traditions, such as that such and such castes are descended from such and such Solar or Lunar kings, are, I admit, in favour of the theory ; but such traditions have no place in the literature, and seem to me to be pretty much on a par with the tradition of the artificers of the South, to the effect that they are the descendants of Visva-karma, the architect of the universe. Castes that have really a northern origin, 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 question seems irreconcilable also with the great prepon- derance of Dravidian over Sanskrit names of places in Ptolemy and the other Greek geographers. The only names of Sanskrit origin they give 576 APPENDIX. US are those of tlie river K^veii, Cape Comorin, the promontory Kory, the city of Madura, and the town Brachme, together with the names of two of the Southern princes, Pandion and Kerobotras. All the rest of the names, whether belonging to the coast or to the interior, are purely Dravidian, from which it may fairly be concluded that the great bulk of the population was even then Dravidian, not Aryan. The distinction drawn between the district of Ariace and that of Damirice (Lymirice) (see " Introduction,") would seem also to show that the settlements of the two races were even then clearly defined. Brahmans had doubtless established themselves in various places in the Grecian period, and apparently their influence was extending, but there is no evidence that the bulk of the people in the South then consisted of Aryans, or that they had already been Brahmanised. It is an important fact, convey- ing an inference in the same direction, that as late as the seventh century Kumarila-bhatta, himself said to be a South Indian Brahman, and the first Indian scholar who clearly discerned a difference between Sanskrit and the Dravidian vernaculars, styled the Dravidas and Andhras (the Tamil and Telugu people) " Mlechchas," meaning thereby rude, abori- ginal, non-Brahmanised tribes (see *' Introduction "). If the great bulk of the South Indians, including the whole of the better castes, had been Aryans in origin, equally with himself, and as orthodox Hindus as himself — as probably they would have been if they had been Aryans — it is difficult to suppose that he would have made use of this contemptuous expression. The theory in question seems to me inconsistent with the insignifi- cant position occupied in the speech of the cultivated Dravidians by Sanskrit, the language of literature amongst the Indo-Aryans, or the Prakrits, the old Indo-Aryan vernaculars. The Aryans were so masterful a people, with so high a conception of the divine origin and excellence of everything belonging to themselves, that wherever they established themselves they Aryanised everything they found. There is no instance on record of an aboriginal language holding its ground in the face of an Aryan occupation. In Northern and Western India, and in Bengal and Orissa, where the course of events was in accordance with this theory — that is, where Aryan colonies gradually spread themselves over the country, conquering and partly absorbing the aboriginal 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 DRA VIDIAN PHYSICAL TYPE. 577 SO numerous at any time in the Soutli as they were in those parts of India which were nearest the first settlements of their race in the Pan- j^b. 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 remain still. It supposes, indeed, the Gonds, the Tudas, the Puleiyas, and similar tribes to be the truest, least changed representatives of the ancient Dravidians. Though, therefore, the Afghans lost their language on their arrival in. India, and 'adopted the languages of the highly cultivated races they conquered — {Groecia 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 so 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 princes, attended by small bodies of armed followers and a few Brahman priests — the result would probably be that a certain num- ber of words connected with government, with religion, and with the higher learning, 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 concluded that it fairly represents the reality. The only influence Sanskrit has exerted is seen Tn the enrichment of the Dravidian stock of words ; and the only influence exerted by Prakrits is seen in the 2 o 5/» APPENDIX. mode in which a certain number of those words are pronounced. The position the speech of the Aryans would naturally have acquired in Southern India^ if the whole, or even if 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, probably 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 1 The result was that the Aryan speech — the Pali-Prakrit — became supreme, and that the speech of the aborigines disappeared,, leaving only a very few traces 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 (Tamraparni) was identical with the name o-f the principal river south of the Kaveri on the opposite coast of the mainland, would seem to show that the party led by Yij-aya was an offshoot from a similar party that had established itself at an earlier period on the banks of the Tamraparni, probably at Kolkei, 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 difEcult to reconcile with the hypothesis that the great bulk of the inhabitants of Southern India are Aryans by origin, not Dravidians. On the whole, therefore, I am unable as yet to commit myself to the ac- ceptance of the hypothesis in question,, though I confess myself unable to set up in its room a hypothesis that will cover tiie whole ethnological field with such apparent ease. . Further research seems to be required ; and a careful comparison of the physical type of tke lower castes in Southern India with that of the rude, aboriginal tribes of the Central Provinces, seems to be specially desirable. The second volume of Dr Muir's " San- skrit texts" (new edition) contains much information, from North Indian sources, respecting the Aryan immigration to the South. The conclusions at which he has arrived have thus been summarised. " The 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 Yindhya mountains, and failed ta make any serious impression beyond the limits of Maha- ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDTANS. 579 r^slitra ; leaving the Dravidian tongues of the peninsula as monuments to record what manner of people had dwelt in that land in previous YII. ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS. Religious usages are sometimes found to throw light on the origin or relationship of races. Similarity in the religious ideas and practices of any two primitive tribes strengthens any evidence of their relation- ship that may be furnished by similarity of language. Let ns see whether any light can be thrown on the question of the relationship of the Dravidians by an inquiry into their religious usages. A priori^ this inquiry seems likely to lead to some result, inasmuch as the religions of the ancient Indo-European nations and the old Scythian religions of Upper Asia present many essential points of difference. In the earliest times we find amongst the nations of the Indo-European family the universal prevalence of certain tenets and usages, which each of those nations appears to have inherited from the common pro- genitors of the race. Their objects of worship were either the sun, the sky, water, fire, and other elements of nature personified, or a Pantheon of heroes and heroines ; and one of the most characteristic 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', religious peculiarities appear to have prevailed, we shall probably find on inquiry that there are reasons for attributing to that race an Indo- European origin or relationship : and in like manner a family likeness (exceedingly dissimilar from the particulars now mentioned) will be found to characterise the religious practices of the nations and peoples of the Scythian group. In endeavouring to ascertain the characteristics of the primitive Dravidian religion, we are met by a serious but not insurmountable difficulty. The Brahmans, by whom the Aryan civilisation was grafted on the old Dravidian stock, laboured assiduously, if not to extirpate the old Dravidian religion, yet at least to establish their own in its room as a religion of paramount obligation; and they are generally supposed to have succeede(f in accomplishing this object. Notwith- standing their success, however, it is still possible in some degree to 580 APPENDIX. discriminate between the practices introduced by the Brabmans 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 V^das nor from the Pur^nas, 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 Dra vidians, f as still practised in many districts in Southern India. * This word Shamanism is formed from Shaman, the name of the magician- priest of the North Asian demonolaters. Shaman, though a name appropriated by demonolaters, is of Buddhistic origin, and was adopted from the Mongolians. It is identical with ^amana, the Tamil name for a Buddhist, and 'is derived from the Sanskrit word Sramana, a Buddhist ascetic. The use of this word Shaman, in Siberia, must be of comparatively modern origin ; but the system of religion into which it has been adopted and incorporated is one of the oldest superstitions in the world. + A full account of the peculiarities of the Dravidian demonolatry was contained in a small work of mine (now out of print), called ** The ShS-ndrs of Tinnevelly," ANCIENT KELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS. 681 1. The Shamanites are destitute of a regular priesthood. Ordinarily the father of the family is the priest and magician ; but the oiaice may be undertaken by any one who pleases, and at any time laid aside. Precisely similar is the practice existing amongst the rude tribes of Southern India. Ordinarily it is the head of the family, or the head- man of the hamlet or community, who performs the priestly office ; but any worshipper, male or female, who feels so disposed, may volun- teer to officiate, and becomes for the time being the representative and interpreter of the demon. 2. The Shamanites acknowledge the existence of a supreme God, but they do not offer him any worship, believing that he is too good to do them any harm. The same acknowledgment of God's existence and the same neglect of his worship characterise the religion of the Dravidian demon olaters. 3. Neither amongst the Shamanites, nor amongst the primitive, un- Brahmanised demonolaters of India is there any trace of belief in the metempsychosis. 4. The objects of Shamanite worship are not gods or heroes, but demons, which are supposed to be cruel, revengeful, and capricious, and are worshipped by bloody sacrifices and wild dances. The officiat- ing magician or priest excites himself to frenzy, and then pretends, or supposes himself, to be possessed by the demon to which worship is being offered; and whilst in this state he communicates, to those who consult him, the information he has received. The demonolatry published by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. I think I prored in that work that the demonolatry of the Shang,rs, and other primitive tribes of Southern India, did not originate with the Brahmans, or in any local develop- ment of the religion of the Brahmans ; but that, on the contrary, the element of demonology which is contained in the 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 cannot be unreasonable to suppose that it was from the same or a similar source 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 BrS,hmana of the Rig-veda, in connec- tion with the character attributed, and the worship offered, to Rudra, afterwards identified with ^iva. I apprehend that we have a mythical record of the adop- 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- ing to that story, ^iva]{i.e., Saiva Brahmanism) found himself unable to subdu* the old elementary divinities, and to secure to himself the exclusive homage at which he aimed, till he called in the aid of the demons (the demonolatry of the aborigines), and put himself at ^jeir head in the person of his (pro-re-natus) son, Vlra-bhadra ; a demigod whose wife, emanation, or representative, Bhadra-kftU, is regarded by the Sh^ndrs as their patroness and mother. 582 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 description of the Shamanite worship would apply equally well to the Dravidian demonolatry ; and in depicting the ceremonies of the one race we depict those of the other also. Compare the following accounts of the demonolatrous rites of the Shamanites of Siberia and those of the demonolaters of India. The description of the Shamanite worship is formed from a series of arranged quotations from the descriptions which various Russian travellers and 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 mainly taken from my paper on " the Tinnevelly Sh^nars," a paper which was written before I was aware of the identity of the demono- latry of Siberia with that of Southern India. Shamanite Demonolatrous Rites. — " When the Shaman, or magician, performs his superstitious rites, he puts on a garment trimmed with bits of iron, rattles, and bells : he cries horribly, beats a sort of drum, agitates himself, and shakes the metallic appendages of his robe ; and at the same time the bystanders increase the din by striking with their fists upon iron kettles. When the Shaman, by his horrible contortions and yells, by cutting himself with knives, whirling and swooning, has succeeded in assuming the appearance of something preternatural and portentous, the assembled multitude are impressed with the belief that the demon they are worshipping has taken posses- sion of the priest, and regard him accordingly with wonder and dread. When he is quite exhausted with his exertions, and can no longer hold out, he makes a sign that the spirit has left him, and then imparts to the people the intimations he has received." Marco Polo, speaking of some rude tribes of Central Asia, southward of the Burman frontier, not then converted to Buddhism (Colonel Yule's edition, vol. ii. pp. 53-61), says — " And let me tell you that in all those three provinces that I have been speaking of, to wit, Carajan, Vochan, and Yachi, there is never a 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 tells what ails him, and then the conjurers incontinently begin playing on their instruments, and singing, and dancing; and the conjurers dance to such a pitch that at Jast one of them will fall to the ground lifeless, like a dead man. And then the devil entereth into his body. ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRA VIDIANS. 583 And when his comrades see him in this plight they begin to put ques- tions to him about the sick man's ailment. And he will reply, * Such 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 thee to pardon him, and to take of his blood or of his goods what thou wilt, in consideration of thus restoring him to health.' And when they have so prayed, the malignant spirit that is in the body of the pros- trate man will (mayhap) answer, * The sick man hath also done great despite unto such another spirit, and that one is so ill-disposed that it will not pardon him on any a-ccount ; ' — this at least is the answer they get if the patient be like to die. But if he is to get better, the answer will be that they are to bring two sheep, or may be three, and to brew ten or twelve jars of drink, very costly, and abundantly spiced. More- over, it will be announced 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 name is given. And they are to bring so many conjurers, and so many ladies, and the business is to be done with a great singing of lauds, and with many lights and store of good perfumes. That is the sort of answer they get if the patient is to get well. And then the kinsfolk of the sick man go and procure all that has been commanded, and do as has been bidden, and the conjurer who had uttered all that gets on his legs again. " So they fetch the sheep of the colour prescribed, and slaughter them, and sprinkle the blood over such places as have been enjoined, 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 and everything is ready, they begin to dance and play and sing in honour of the spirit. And they take flesh-broth, and drink, and lign-aloes, and a great number of lights, and go about hither and thither, scattering the broth and the drink and the meat also. And when they have done this for a while, again shall one of the conjurers fall flat and wallow there, foaming at the mouth, and then the others will ask if he have yet pardoned the sick man? And sometimes he shall answer 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, again, and then he shall be pardoned ; so this they do. And when all that the spirit has commanded has been done with great ceremony, then it will be announced that the man is pardoned and shall be speedily cured. So when they at length receive such a reply, they announce that it is all made up with the spirit, and that he is propi- tiated, and they fall to eating and drinking with great joy and mirth, 684 APPENDIX. and lie who liad 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 on the above : — 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." — (./. A. S. B., xviii. 728.) 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." — (Ibid.) 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, except that I never saw animals sacrificed on such occasions." — (Sir A. Phayre.) Mouhot says of the wild people of Cambodia called Stiens : " 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 me — he is strangling me ! '■ Then they question the person who has thus become possessed. They ask him what remedies will save the patient ; what remedies does the evil spirit require that he may give up his prey ] Sometimes it is an ox or a pig ; but too often it is a human victim." — (Journal 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 ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS. 585 red nations of North and South America. Hinduism has assimilated these " prior superstitions of the sons of Tur," as Mr Hodgson calls them, in the form of Tantrika mysteries, whilst in the wild performance of the dancing dervishes at Constantinople we see perhaps again the infection of Turanian blood breaking out from the very heart of Mussulman orthodoxy. " Dr Caldwell has given a striking account of the practice of devil- dancing among the Shanars of Tinnevelly, which forms a perfect parallel in modern language to our traveller's description of a scene of which he also had manifestly been an eye-witness." Thus far Colonel Yule. I now adduce the passage from my own paper, of which Colonel Yule quoted the principal portion. Shanar Demonolategus Eites. — " When it is determined to offer a sacrifice to a devil, a person is specially appointed to act the part of priest j for devil-worship is not, like the worship of the deities, appro- priated to a particular order of men, but may be performed by any one who chooses. The ofiiciating priest is styled a devil-dancer. Usually the head man, or one of the principal men of the village ofi&ciates ; but sometimes the duty is voluntarily undertaken by some devotee, male or female, who wishes to gain notoriety, or in whom the sight of the preparations has awakened a sudden zeal. The officiating priest is dressed up for the occasion in the vestments and ornaments appro- priated to the particular devil that is worshipped. The object in view in donning the demon's insignia is doubtless to strike terror into the imagination of the beholders ; but the party-coloured dress and gro- tesque ornaments, the cap and trident and jingling bells, of the performer, bear so close a resemblance to the usual adjuncts of a pantomime that an _ European would find it difficult to look grave. The musical instruments, or rather the instruments of noise, which are chiefly used in the devil-dance are the drum and the horn ; with occa- sionally the addition of a clarionet when the parties can afford it. But the favourite instrument, because the noisiest, is that which is called the bow. A series of bells of various sizes is fastened to the frame of a gigantic bow, the strings are tightened so as to emit a musical note when struck, and the bow rests on a large empty brazen pot. The instrument is played on by a plectrum, and several musi- cians join in the performance. One strikes the strings of the bow with the plectrum, another produces the bass by striking the brazen pot with his hand, and a third beats time and improves the harmony by a pair of cymbals. Wh^n the preparations are completed, and the devil- dance is about to commence, the music is at first comparatively 586 APPENDIX. slow, and the dancer seems impassive and sullen, and either lie stands still or moves about in gloomy silence. Gradually, as the music be- comes quicker and louder, his excitement begins to rise. Sometimes to help him to work himself up into a frenzy he uses medicated draughts, cuts and lacerates his flesh till the blood flows, lashes him- self with a huge whip, presses a burning torch to his breast, drinks the blood which flows from his. own wounds, or drinks the blood of the sacrifice, putting the throat of the decapitated goat to his mouth. Then, as if he had acquired new life, he begins to brandish his staff of bells, and dance with a quick, but wild, unsteady step. Suddenly the afflatus descends. There is no mistaking that glare, or those frantic leaps. He snorts, he stares, he gyrates. The demon has now taken bodily possession of him, and though he retains the power of utterance and of motion, both are under the demon's control, and his separate consciousness is in abeyance. The bystanders signalise the event by raising a long shout attended with a peculiar vibratory noise. The devil-dancer is now worshipped as a present deity ; and every by--^ stander consults him respecting his disease, his wants, the welfare of his absent relations, and the offerings which are to be made for the accomplishment of his wishes. As the devil-dancer acts to admiration the part of a maniac, it requires some experience to enable a person to interpret his dubious or unmeaning replies, his muttered voice, and uncouth gestures ; but the wishes of the parties w^ho consult him help them greatly to interpret his meaning." A similar system prevails in the hilly districts of Mysore, as appears from an article on the demon-worship practised in the Maln^d district in that province, in the Indian Antiquary for September 1872, by Mr Narasimmiyengar of Bangalore. There also the priest " works hini- aelf to a state bordering on frenzy, and whatever he may utter in that condition is considered to be a supernatural revelation." A still more extraordinary outburst of demoniacal frenzy takes place amongst the Kdrs, Kurkus, or Mu^sis, a people of ChAti^ NagpUr, in connection with the worship of one of their divinities. These people belong to the Kolarian, not to the Dravidian stock, but their religion, like that of the old Dravidians, seems to be mainly a worship of evil spirits. " The divinity may be invoked at any time, and in all sicknesi and misfortunes his votaries confidently appeal to him. The Baiga is always the medium of communication, but he assembles the people to aid him in the invocation. Musical instruments are produced, dancing commences, and the invocation to the spirit is chanted until one or more of the performers manifest possession by wild rolling of the eyes and involuntary spasmodic action of the muscles. The affection ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS. 687 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 com- 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 injury from the heat or pressure. This lasts for a few minutes only, and is followed by the spasmodic stage. With hands and knees on 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 Gans^m himself, or one of his fami- liars, that has possessed the victim. If it be the great Gansam, 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 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 de- scribed have sprung from 8 common origin : and I may add that the conformity which has been traced between the old religion of the Dra- 588 APPENDIX. vidians and that which was once the religion of almost all the Scythian nations and tribes corroborates the suspicion of the Scythian relation- ship,, on the whole, of the Dravidian race. Whilst the demonolatrous rites which I have now described appear to have constituted the prevailing superstition of the ancient Dravi- dians, we meet also with traces of the existence of systems that correspond in part to those which prevailed amongst the Indo-European races. The religion of the Khonds, Kandhs. or Kus, though it contains a demonolatrous element, may be described as in the main a worship of gods of rivers and mountains, of gods of the earth and the sky, and of the gods of elements and genii loci. It is in part an elementary 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 independent of it in origin. This remark especially applies to that section of the Khonds which used to practise human sacrifices, and delighted in cruelty and gloom. A worship of gods of rivers and mountains similar to that of the Khonds is found amongst some of the Kols, and also amongst the Sub-Himalayan and Bhutan tribes described by Mr Hodgson, — in most instances modified by an element of terror, and intermixed with demon worship pure and simple. Amongst the Dravidians of the plains scarcely any reliable trace of the worship of the elements has ever been discovered, except in so far as it can be shown to have had a Brahmanical origin. Indeed there is reason to believe that the old Vedic or Elementary worship of the Brahmans had already merged into the mythological and mystical system of the Pur^nas, before the Brahmans effected ft settlement in the South. So far as appears, every usage of the plains which is not of Brahmanical origin is either identical with Shamanism or allied to it. The religion of the Tudas of the Neilgherry (Nilagiri) hills exhibits some peculiarities which have been regarded as ' Scytho-Druidical.' The peculiar veneration with which the Tudas regard the manes of ancestors; their sacrifices to secure the peace of the dead j 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 religious system and social life of the Tudas accord to a certain extent with usages which prevailed in the earliest ages amongst most of the tribes of the Indo- ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS. 689 European race. Our ignorance of the history of the Tudas, and of the circumstances which compelled them to take refuge in the Neilgherry hills, renders it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether their religion sprang from the same origin as the Dravidian demonolatry, whether it is to be placed to the account of their early association with some Indo-European race, or whether it was a spontaneous develop- ment of the Tuda mind. The religion of the Tudas has sometimes been called Druidical, Celto-Druidical, or identical with the religion of the ancient Celts ; but, with the exception of the performance of some of their rites in the deep gloom of sacred groves, — a practice which was not peculiar to the Celts alone, but which prevailed amongst various ancient nations, — it does not appear that there is anything distinctively or certainly Druidical in the existing system of the Tudas. 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 usages of the Tudas, through the researches of Colonel Marshall, and especially those of the Rev. F. Metz. Most of the information respect- ing the Tudas acquired by Mr Metz during a long life of missionary labour amongst the hill tribes of the Neilgherries,''will be found in Colonel Marshall's book. It is now known that the Tudas have a priestly family or clan ; that the bell-god they venerate so highly is a memorial of the bell worn by a succession of sacred cows ; that the men of the tribe eat flesh once a year in a dense forest ; and, in particular, that the cows that are slaughtered at and after a funeral, are not 'sacri- fices 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 race) in the other world. Colonel Marshall, after describing the rites of the Tudas in detail, thus comments on the items of information he has furnished in chap. xxii. pp. 186 — 189 : "What we have seen in Tuda rites and ceremonies is little else than the arrangements which a pastoral and communistic people have made for the provision and care of an article of food, doubtless at one time essential, not merely for due sustenance, but to their very existence in the land. These customs having through the course of ages so mellowed as to have acquired all the effect and influence of sanctity, we find ourselves now in the inte- resting position of actual witnesses to the growth of the earliest germs of religious belief and observance, as they develop in the mind of primitive man from the material nucleus whence they originated. " We note that the stage when the cow, the milk-giver and support on which the people have (impended almost from all time, has grown, from an object of the greatest solicitude, to become one of deep rever- S90 APPENDIX. ence and (so far as they have yet learnt to express themselves) of worship. The flesh is not eaten. 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 godhead 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 holy precincts. They acknowledge the existence of gods, perhaps even of a Supreme God (Usuru Sw^mi), 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 determining 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. 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 dispose of their dead by cremation.] The funeral service seems to favour the idea that the transition of the soul is the dogma which, though unexpressed, lies like an instinct 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 witchcraft 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- ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS. 591 olatry, they do not do so with the enthusiasm of other primitive races of South India. Indeed I had not one opportunity of witnessing feats of exorcism. "I incline to the belief that in any matters of religion beyond what I have described, they have been influenced through the proximity of cognate races, who themselves, again, have at different periods been variously Hinduised or inoculated with the strange customs of other tribes in India, cognate or otherwise. Thus, through the Aryans, the Tuda sense ©f adoration has been educated ; more gods have been introduced than he knows what to do with ; and his natural love of relics has been intensified and impraved. From being at first memorials of cattle herds, the relics have grown to be venerated as souvenirs of ancestors. On the other hand, the mildness and contentedness of the tribe have (so I think) led them to drap or to avoid much of the demonolatrous habit of other members of that Dravidian race to which they belong. Certainly any superior ideas;: any notions of the soul, or of sin, and all forms o^f invocation in prayer, small as even collec- tively they may appear to be, bear the appearance of their having come to them through the instrumentality af the Aryans ; partly, no doubt, from Brahmanical sources : in part, perhaps, in course of some very early contiguity, antecedent to the migration of either race, from a common cradle-land, into India." The supposition of the Druidical eharacte-r of the Tada religion arose in part from the error of attributing to the Tudas various remains which were peculiar to an earlier and apparently extinct race. Those remains consist of cairns or barrows, cromlechs, ki&t-vaens, and circles- of upright, loose stones, which are nearly identical in form with those that are found in Eurape in the ancient seats of the Celts : and what- 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 for hesitating to style them DruidicaL It must be understood, how- ever, that the term * Druidical ' is used not scientifically, but only in a vague general sense, like that in which the word ' Scythian ' is used. In the cairns or barrows referred to, vases, cinerary urns, and other vessels of glazed pottery are often found, which sometimes contain human bones, more or less charred, and mixed with ashes, sometimes a little animal charcoal alone. Most o-f these vessels have a peculiar glaze * of a rich red colour, with a zig-zag ornamentation : some have * Dr Hunter, of the Madras School of Art, an eminent authority on these matters, explains that this is not what is technically called a glaze, but a peculiar, skil- fully executed polish. See IndHtn Antiqiuir'if, 1873,. in a paper by the Rev. Mr rhillips. 592 APPENDIX. a black glaze. Brass and iron implements of agriculture and of war have often been discovered in them : in several instances a bell has been found, as in some of the Celtic barrows in England ; and occa- sionally gold ornaments have come to light. Though these remains seem to be undoubtedly Druidical in character, it does not follow that they belong to a period of very high antiquity. On the contrary, they can set up no claim to an antiquity equal to that of many Druidical remains found in Europe. The rich glaze of the pottery; the elegance of the shape of some of the vessels (compared with the rude cinerary urns d,iscovered 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 Neilgherry hills ; and hence it was natural that these remains should at first be attributed to the Tudas, the supposed aborigines of the Neilgherries, who are as peculiar in their customs as in their language. On further research it was 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 they ascribed them to a people still more ancient than themselves, by whom they asserted that the plateau of the Neilgherries was in- habited prior to their arrival. Sometimes they designated the cairns as burial places of the Kurubas or Kurumbas, a race of nomad shepherds who once overspread a considerable part of the Tamil country (possibly the * nomadic S6r3e ' of Ptolemy), and of whom a few scattered relics still inhabit the slopes of the Neilgherries. It appeared, however, 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 existed in immense numbers on the Ana-mala hills, — a range of hills on the south side of the great Coimbatoor gap, which forms the com- mencement and the northern face of the Southern Ghauts ; and further investigation proved their existence, not only in mountain ranges, but in almost every part of the Dekhan and Peninsular India, from Nag- pore to Tinnivelly, and also in various districts in the presidency of Bombay. Similar remains are found also in Circassia and Paissia; and circles of stones surrounding ancient graves are found both on the Southern Arabian coast and in the Somali country in Africa. This discovery has had the effect of disconnecting the cairns and other so-called Druidical remains of the Neilgherries from the Tudas, almost as completely as from any other Dravidian race or tribe that now exists ; and the question of the origin of the relics which have been discovered in such numbers not only in the Neilgherries, but in many other parts of India, and in the plains as well as on the moun- tains, and also the ulterior question of the relationship and history of the people of whom these relics are the only monuments that remain, have now become problems of a more general and of a deeply interest- ing character. Captain Meadows Taylor has discovered and examined a large number of these remains at Raj an Koloor, in Sorapoor, and also at Siwarji, near Ferozabad, on the Bhima; and has devoted much attention to the comparison of them with similar remains found in England. He calls them ^ Scytho-Celtic,' or ' Scytho-Druidical.' More is now known about the cairns of the Neilgherries than was known when the above remarks first appeared. The late Mr Breeks, of the Madras Civil Service, devoted much time and labour to the examination of those remains, in which he was much assisted by Mr Metz. Mr Breeks was understood to have a book on the subject nearly ready for publication at the time of his death. That book has not yet appeared, but I aril indebted to private communications from Mr Metz for the following items of information. There are no less than six different kinds of cairns and cromlechs on the Neilgherries of which only one kind, that called azdrams, small stone circles, can be attributed to the ancient Tudas. The Tudas make use of those circles up to the present day as places for the burning of their dead. Of the structures generally called cromlechs, one kind is called Btra- Icallu (Can. * hero-stones '). These appear to be sculptured memorials of great men, and some of them are evidently modern. Memorials of a similar nature are still erected by the Kurumbas, one of the Neilgherry tribes. Another kind was erected, he says, by the Badagas, the most numerous of the Neilgherry tribes, after their arrival from the Canarese country several centuries ago. The kist-vaens, Mr Metz says, 594 APPENDIX. are called Moriara mane., the house of the Morias or Maurias, whom he identifies with Usbeck Tatars, or the Maury a race. It 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 with a high Tatar head-dress. These remains are not claimed by any 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. It 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 Hindus 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 pdiidu-huris. I have not heard this word used myself, nor do I find it in VVinslow'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 Fundus, or Fandava brothers, to whom, all over India, ancient mysterious structures are generally attri- buted. To call anything ' a work of the Fandavas ' is equivalent to terming it ' Cyclopean' in Greece, ' a work of the Ficts' 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 Malay alam the term appears not as Fandu(k)kuri, but as Fandi(k)kuri, which seems to mean a sepulchre of the Tamilians [called Fandis in Malabar, from their connection with the Fandyan 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 Fandava brothers. In the extreme south of the peninsula where I have ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRA VIDIANS. 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 muttar tdri. If this were a correct word, it would mean the tdri, 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 jars 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 be- longed to the Buddhists, and the proficiency 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)tdri, 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- ^lam Dictionary " (Appendix), the word nannu : nannannddi is thus explained: "A kind of cairn; of two kinds; 1, a deep and narrow clay urn (kuri-tdli), buried perpendicularly, with a stone lid, contain- ing bones, the tools of the deceased, &c. ; 2, a monument of stone slabs 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 Tret^yuga 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, and in particular with the beauty of their pottery. If it should be held, on the other hand, that they were a race of nomadic Scytho- Druidical shepherds, who wandered into India after it was peopled and settled, and then wandered out, again, 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 w^ere 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 w^ere 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, (fee, 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 * See a paper on this subject, by the Rev. Maurice Phillips, iu the Indian Anti- quary for 1873. ANCIENT RELIGION OF THE DRAVIDIANS. 597 period — a period perhaps as early as the introduction 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 quasi Druidical rites, it may be concluded that a large number, perhaps the majority, of the ancient Dra vidian inhabitants of India were demonolaters or Shamanites, 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 Dra vidian 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. INDEX. INDEX OF PRINCIPAL PROPER NAMES. {Figures in old-style type (136) denote the pages of the Introduction.) Abhiras, 112. Abor-Miri, 141. Accadian, 493. Ethiopians, 109 ; 566. Agamas, 86, 130 ; 145. AgastSs'vara, 120, Agastya, loi, 119, 120, 126, ^ 127, 146, 147. Ahava Malla, 135, 136. Albt, 90, 98, 99. Akrida, t8. Altaic, 55, 65. AmbalakkA,du, 12 ; 14. Ana-mala, 593. Andarse, 16, Andhra, 2, 6, 8, 13, 14, 30, ^ 47, 108, 123 ; 576. Aiidhra-Dr^vida-bliasM, 4, 31, 129. Andre Indi, 14, 30, 32. Anglo-Saxon, 50. Aornis, 103. Appar, 143. Appa-Kavi, 123. Aravam, 18, 19, 20. Arcot, 96. Argaric Gulf, 102,103. 'ApidKT), 14, 97 ; 576. Arimardana Pandya, 138. Arjuna, 15, 17, 115; 575. "ApKaros, 96. Armenian, 15 ; 54, 142, 226, 237, 285, 286, 428, 475, 484, 494, 500, 502, 507. Armorican, 376. Arrian, 105, 114. Arv^rs, 143. Arya-bhatta, 89. Aryd-vartta, 4, no; 32. Asoka's inscriptions, 14, 17, 22 ; 6, 8, 9, 10. Asam, 42 ; 278, 558. Assyrian, 133, 493. Ati - vira - Rama Pdndya, 139, 144, 14s. 146. Augustus, 15, 16, 105, 135. Australian, 78, 79, 80 ; 279, 290, 309, 519, 561, 562. Auveiyar, 131, 134, 136, i37, 152. Avar, 508. Ayddhya, 115. Babylon, 68, 92 ; 259, 268, 483, 493. Badaga, 11, 34, 37, 124, 125; 53, 172, 512, 557, 593. Baghistan, 68. Barace, 97. Basque, 278, 500. Bdrot, 104. Batsch, Rev. F., 40; 518. Beames, Mr, 61, 62, 63 ; 6, 10, 17, 19, 25, 29, 41, 45, 46, 47, 55, 58, 61, 82, 176, 177, 288, 298, 304, 457, 531, 542, 568. Behistun, 53, 59, 68, 71, 80, 106, no; 23, 33, 81, 170, 177, 178, 182, 191, 217, 222, 252, 284, 288, 290, 300, 366, 414, 496. Bellew, Dr, 519. Belticlil, 272, 276, 303. Beliichist&n, 2, 43, 70. Benfey, Professor, 34, 462, Bengal, 2, 39, 40, 41, 82, 109, 113, 151; 15,57,549,567, 576. Bengali, 7, 45, 46, 57, 60, 82, 150, 151 ; 29, 32, 36, 46, 47, 52, 55, 167, 173, 176, 221, 304, 305, 306, 330, 357, 399, 400, 409, 477, 565. Besclii, 132, 149; 12, 112, 121, 280, 281, 347, 366, 369. BrjTTiydj, 100, loi, 104. Bhlls, 38. 109 ; 47, 548, 560, 568, 573. Bhojpuri Hindi, 409. Bhotas, 6, Bhotiya, 492, 560. Bhtltan, 43 ; 177, 492, 572, 588. Bleek, Dr, 75 ; 40, 56, 82, 524.* Bodos, 42; 177, 189, 330, 521, 584. Bolingce, 32. Boiler, 66. Bopp, 133, 144, 196, 228, 272, 273,307,334,366,386,399, 457, 482, 520, 524. Bornu, 80; 136, 284, 288, 341. Boi^Txa, 104. Brachme, 576. Brahma, 47, IT3; 238. Brahmadesam, 104. Brahui, 9, 43, 44, 69, 79, 80, 107; 32, 38, 57, 62, 218, 136, 167, 168, 170, 195, 221, 226, 227, 230, 259, 265, 274, 283, 288, 29], 303, 311, 457, 493, 504, 511, 519, 520, 521. Breeks, Mr, 593, 594. Brigel, Mr, 35, 35 ; 415. Brown, Mr C. P., 26, 31, 32, 33, 47, no, 123, 124, 136; 72, 125, 129, 550. Buchanan, Dr, 97. Buddha, 19, 82, 104. Buddhism, 31 ; 580, 582. Buddhists, 14, 19, 81, 82, 89, 129, 138; 541, 543, 581 595- Buhle'r, Dr, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 455, 468. Buriat, 373, 505. Burghers, 34, 37. Burma, 41. Burmese, 6, 10, 275, 582, 584. ♦ Burnell, Dr, 4, 5, 37, 90, 97, 99, 121, 122, 129; 3, 8, 9, 10, 14, 465. Burton, 28. C. Gael, n, loi. Caelobothras, 95. Caldwell, Mr R. C, 148. Calicut, 22, 97; 57. Calingje, 16. Calingam, 32. Calingas, 103. 602 INDEX. Calingon, 102. Callaway, Bishop, 40. Calmuck, 143, 168, 174, 191, 278, 287, 501, 505. Calymere Point, 102, 103. Campbell, Mr A. D., 31, 32, 47, 123. Campbell, Sir George, 39, 40, 42; 566, 573, 574. Canara, 20, 33, 35, 36. Canarese, 33, 34, passim. Cannanore, 9. Canopus, 120. Carei, 99. Carey, 45 ; 523. Carnatic, 9, 35, 86, 96, 104, no ; 565. Carpenter, Dr W. B., 570. Carr, Major, 14. Cashmirian, 7 ; 336. Castr^n, 66, 67 ; 34, 142, 202, 287, 289, 303. Celobotras, 22. Celtic, 73, 74, 107, 151 ; 4, 32, 81, 190, 252, 272, 273, 275, 386, 528, 557, 592, 594, 596. Celtico-Druidical, 589. Celts, 71: 562, 589, 591, 592, 594. Central India, 42, Central Provinces, 38, 40 ; 574, 578. Xa^7]po5, 27, 104. Chaldean, 58; 61, 104, 133, 268, 303, 333, 368, 492, 493, 494. Chaiukya, 17, 123, 125, 135. Chandragiri, 20, 24, 35, Chandragiri, KS,j^, 10. Chellumbrum, 138. Chenna-pattanam, 10. Chennappa Nayakka, 10. Chentsu, 312, 313. Chera Dynasty, 96 ; 10. Cheralam, 22. Ch^ras, 15, 18, 22, 99. Cheremiss, 177, 190, 222, 230, 2.36, 456, 498, 500, 503, 504, 507. Chicacole, 29, 47. Chinas, 6 ; 551. Chinese, 30, 55, 59, 65, 68, 74, 78, 80, 84, 106, III, 114, 120; 54, 82, 88,226, 233, 267, 284, 285, 288, 290, 300, 308, 341, 358, 413, '476, 501, 507, 508, 509, 519, 534, 573. Chinese- (Canton), 278, 502. Chinese-(Mandarin), 278. Chinese-(Pekin), 279. Chinese Turkestan, 571. Chinglepat, 10. Chint^mani, 52, 86, 128, 132, 133, 144, 149, 150; 161, 194. Chitt^r, 100. Chola, 6, 8, 13, 14, IS, 17, 18, 30, 89, 95, 108, no, 112, 115, 116, 120, 134, 138, 141, 142, 143, 146; 9, 553, 560, 573. Choliya, 17, Chucklers, 574. Ch(itiS, N^gpftr, 39, 40, 41 ; 518, 586. Circassia, 693. Clay, Mr, 182, 240, 416. Clemens Alexandrinus, 14, 104, 105. Cochin, 3, 20, 89 ; 8, 10, 14, 15, 18, 547. Coimbatoor, 22, 24, 96 ; 593. Colchic Gulf, loi. Colcis Indorum, loi. Cole, Major, 36. Colebrooke, Mr, 12, 45. Colis, Coliacum, 103. Colombo, 9. Comorin, Cape, i, 9, 22, 25, 98, 99, 100, loi, 104, 119, 120, 122, 135 ; .576. Coorg, 36, 37, passim. Coptic, 492, 493, 500. Corean, 278. Coromandel, 11, 20, 25, 26, 27, 35, 102, 120 ; 460, 491, 564, 566. Cosmas Indicopleustes, 23, 27, 104, 105. Cottara, 98. Cottonara, 97. Courtallum, 145. Cranganore, 14. Ctesias, 93, 94, 105. Cunningham, General, 33, 96, 103. Curzon, Mr, no, in, 117. Cuthite, 133, 333. D. Daitya, 530. Daksha, 581. Dalton, Colonel, 38, 39, 40, 41 ; 561, 567, 573, 574, 587. Damilo, 13, no. Damirici, 14, 97; 576. Danava, 530. Dandakaranya, 108, 120. Danish, 14 ; 336, 476, 488. Daradas, 6. Darius Hystaspes, 68 ; 252. Dasyus, 57, 107, 112, 113; 544. Davids, Mr T. W. Ehys, 537, 538. Dawson, Rev. J., 38; ,513. De Nobilibus, Eobt., 213. De Quatrefages, Professor, 561, 574. Deva-N^gari, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 48. D6vjiram, 138, 143. Dewar, 141 ; 535, 536. Dh&rwdr, 29. Dhimai, 42, 78 ; 142, 290, 330, 521, 584. Dimirica, 14. Dionysius Periegetes, 103, 105. Doms, 109 ; 546, 547. Doric, 49, 139, 143, 285, 306. Dowson, Professor, 22. Dravidas, 2, 5, 6, 12, 14, 18, 20, 120 ; 576. Dravidian, 1-8, passim. Dr^vidi Prakrit, 7. Drflviras, 7. Driberg, Rev. J. G., 38; 513. Druidical, 589, 591, 592, 593, 594, 596, 597. Durga, 98, 499. Dutch, 25, 26 ; 133, 480. Dw^rasamudra, 540. E. Edkins, Dr, 55, 56, 68 ; 47. 267, 285, 288, 379, 402, 413, 433, 571. Eggeling, Dr, 22, 29, 136; 10. Egypt, 105 ; 552. Egyptian, 92; 9, 190, 268, 493, 562, 566. Elliot, Sir H., 535, 536. Elliott, Sir Walter, 135, 140, Ellis, Mr, 35, 36 ; 7, 8, 459. English, 49, passim. Esthonian, 82, 276, 287,431, 571. Ethiopic, 9, 268. Euraskians, 594. Eusebius, 105. Eustathius, 105. F. Faeeak, Dr, 534. Fatan, 536. Ferishta, 640. Festus Avienus, 105. Finnish, 46, 53, 59, 65, 66, 68, 71, 74, 106, 107 ; 23, 26, 33, 34, 59, 60, 63, 77, 81, 82, 114, 142, 150, 170, 173, 177, 178, 181, 190, 191, 200, 202, 221, 222, 226, 230, 2.36, 237, 249, 252, 269, 276, 277, 278, 286, 287, 289, 290, 300, 304, 330, 332, 355, 360, 368, 373, 386, 400, 409, 415, 431, 456, 470, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 525, 634, 571. Finno-Ugrian, 71 ; 303, 369. Frater Paulinus t, St Bar- tholomseo, 25. INDEX. 603 French, 3, 4, 10, 33 ; 39, 81, 276, 495, 534. Frisian, 195. G. Gaelic, 505, 507. Gangarides Calingse, 33. Ganges, 30, 32, 33, 41, 63, 98; 16, 572. Ganjam, 103 ; 516. Garo, 290, 572. Gauras, 7, 87. Gaurian, 45, 46, 60, 61, 83, 112 ; 176, 298, 304, 305, 306, 356, 358, 375, 400. Gautama, 146. Gentoos, 29. Georgian, 222, 226, 276, 286, 479, 502, 504. Georgius Syncellus, 105. German, 56 ; 18, 39, 70, 71, 108, 143, 190, 272, 390, 455, 472, 475, 476, 477, 479, 480, 481, 482, 484, 488, 490, 507, 523, 534, 571. Gesenius, 422, 495. Ghauts, 9, 20, 21, 24, 27, 35, 36, 37, 42, 100 ; 462, 507, 547, 557, 564, 565, 593, 595. Goa, 3, 147 ; 14. Godavari, 33, 38, 47; 572. Gond, 9 ; 513-515, passim. Gondali, 573. Gondvana, 29, 38, 39, 108, 116. Gothic, 73, 74, 114 ; 32, 131, 147, 170, 190, 195, 196, 199, 218, 237, 252, 263, 269, 274, 285, 307, 331, 332, 399, 400, 477, 480, 481, 484, 488, 498. Gover, Mr, 74, 124, 148, 153 ; 62, 260, 273, 305, 522, 523, 524, 525, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535. Graeco-Scythian, 44. Granl, Dr, 132 ; 385, 401. Grant, Mr Chas., 567, 568. Grantha, 24, 88, 145 ; 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 31. Grater, Eev. B., 37. Greek, 10, 14, 16, 21, 23, 27, 32, 56, 73, 74, 76, 90, 92, 93, 100, 102, 114, 120; 16, 32, 49, 61, 70, 72, 76, 79, 89, 99, 104, 108, 114, 130, 133, 139, 143, 148, 149, 168, 170, 171, 181, 190, 199, 218, 244, 252, 263, 265, 269, 272, 273, 276, 285, 287, 291, 304, 306, 333, 341, 342, 366, 399, 431, 453, 456, 458, 462, 467, 469, 471, 472, 474, 476, 477, 484, 488, 490, 496, 501, 502, 506, 509, 528, 531, 534, 535, 575. ^ Greeks, 94, 95, 96 97, 98, 99, loi, 102, 104, 105, 106, III, 118, 121 ; 465. Grimm, 523. Growse, Mr F. S. (M.A.), 58, 61. Gujar^ti, I, 2, 3, 7, 60 ; 16, 29, 36, 47, 55, 167, 170, 189, 259, 286, 304, 306, 308, 477, 501. Gulf of Manaar, 8, loi. Gdmsur, 39. Gundert, Dr, 18, 23, 24, 25, 28, 34, 61, 89, 97, 99, III, 114, 125, 150; 18,19,30, 50, 51, 52, 60, 66, 68, 71, 75, 83, 84, 86, 91, 94, 95, 107, 110. 114, 125, 127, 138, 143; 146, 147, 152, 157, 158, 159, 163, 167. 172, 175, 178, 179, 199, 200, 220, 222, 225, 227, 228, 233, 242, 246, 247, 250, 251, 260, 264, 322, 328, 342, 348, 366, 367, 368, 385, 395, 414, 415, 419, 421, 435, 462, 463, 465, 484, 488, 508, 535, 530, 594, 595. Guntur, 33. Gurjara, 7. H. Hala Kannada, 34 ; 7, 10. Hamilton, D. Buchanan, 573. Hebrew, 3, 45, 74, 77, 91, 92, 94; 17, 18, 23, 102, 104, 114, 119, 155, 266, 268, 272, 273, 330, 333, 336, 345, 368, 376, 422, 427, 475, 476, 478, 491, 495, 500. Herodotus, 93, 105, 109 ; 566. Himalayas, 189, 222, 278, 290, 330, 547, 558, 559.^ Himalayan, sub, 43 ; 558, 560, 584, 588. Himyaritic, 9. Hind, 542. Hindi, 7, 45, 46, 54, 57, 58, 60 ; 16, 27, 32, 36, 55, 57, 58, 177, 176, 177, 225, 286, 304, 306, 330, 423, 424, 477, 498, 499, 507, 513. Hindu, 4, 6, 10, 29, 120, 127, 128, 130, 145, 149, 150, 153 ; 15, 32, 35, 46, 472, 540, 548, 551, 554, 560, 56% 565, 566, 567, 570, 572, 576, 594. Hindustani, 2, 4, 7, 9, 34, 42 ; 52, 119, 176, 196, 197, 330, 354, 357, 366, 456, 480, 534. Hislop, Kev. S., 38; 567, 568. Ho (Hoi), 42 ; 312, 313. Hodgson, Mr, 39, 40, 42, 43, 56 ; 521, 558, 559, 560, 572, 584, 585, 588. Hoisala, 143. Holeyars, 548. Horim, 288. Hottentot, 40, 82. Hunfalvy, Professor, 66, 71; 252, 279, 369. Hungarian, 66, 68, 70, 80 ; 59, 81, 82, 94, 114, 132, 202, 203, 341, .342, 355, 373, 376, 400, 409, 460, 496, 503, 505, 508, 535. Hungary, 71 ; 571. Hunter, Dr, 12 ; 2.59, 309, 533, 591. Huxley, Professor, 574. Hwen Thsang, 14, 17, 30, 31, 129. Hyderabad, 2, 29. I. Ibn Batuta, 25, 28, 96, 105; 540. Indus, 44, 70, 103, no, 112; 32, 38, 57, 542. Irish, 107 ; 28, 39, 139, 273, 469, 479. Irtish, 177. Italian, 26, 45, 57, 84, 149; 276, 534. J. Jaffna, 84. Jaina, 14, 86, 87, 122, 124, 125, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 140, 143 ; 86, 541, 595. Jambulus, 10. Jangama, 149. Japanese, 55, 68 ; 54, 151, 177, 191, 200, 207, 254, 355, 356, 360, 402, 403, 413, 501, 508, 509, 534. Japhetic, 284, 288, 316, 526. Jat, 44. Java, 30 ; 6. Jenesei, 499, 501, 502, 503. Jesajabus, Patriarch, 27. Jews, 3, 21, 89, 90; 8, 9, 10, 39, 374, 491, 562, 566. Jones, Sir W., 58. Jumaluddin El Thaibi, 540. Jurazen, 502. K. Kafir, 4, 82. Kan, 499, 548. 604 INDEX. Kalingapura, 32. Kalingas, 8, 13, 31, 32, 33, 108, lis, 123, 135; 560, 573 Kallas, 553. KaWiyiKov, 102. Kaly^na, 125. KalyS,napuri, 35. Kamass, 142. Kambar, 52, 132, 133, 134, 136, 144. K&mbojas, 5. Kamtschadale, 502. Kanchi, 8. Kandh, 38 ; 516, 588. Kangazian, 502, 507. KaniyS,rs, 550. Kannadis, 549. Kannettri, 97. Kanuri, 80. Kanva, 123, 126. Kapila, 146. Kapur Di Giri, 22. Karen, 288. Kap^ot, 99. Karikaia Chola, 131. Karnataka, 2, 7, 8, 13, 33, 34, 35, 88, 89. Karndl, 29. Kdpovpa, Kariir, 96, 97, 99. Karu-nianal, 26. Katak Tributary Mahals, 38. Kattyw^r, 29. K4ty4yana, 16. K^veri, 8, 17, 18, 27, 100, 104, 119 ; 456, 576, 578. Kavi, 276, 285. K^yab, 11, loi. Keikadi, 312, 313, 533, 568. Kelan Kelu, 22. Kelat, 43. Kera, 96. Keralamputra,Keralaputra, 22, 95. Keralas, 8, 13, 18, 22, 90, 96, 97, 99, 105, 108, 139 ; 573. Kerala Utpatti, 150 ; 27. Krjpo^ddpos, Cerobotras, 22, 65, 96; 676. Kern, Dr, 8, 13, 33. Kdsava, 82, 124. Khandesh, 38. Khari Naga, 278. Khasas, 6. Khiwan, 276. Khond, 39; 516, 517, passim. Kiratas, 6; 560. Ki^l>Ldac, 572. Kistna, 6, 572. Kittel, Mr, 20, 124, 125; 220, 225, 228, 229, 234, 235, 238, 248, 249, 381, 382, 465, 466. Klaproth, 477. Klings, 10, 30 ; 501. Kocch, 41. Kodagu, 9, 36, 41. Koelle, Mr, 80. K61, Koitor, 38, 39, Koibal, 218. Kolami, 312, 313. Kolarian, 18, 40, 42, 43, 109, 112; 177, 515, 519, 521, 560, 568, 586. KoXxot, 99, 100, loi, 102. KwX^a/cot, 103. KcDXts, 100, 102, 103. Kolkei, 16, 18, 95, 99, 102, 119, 121 ; 578. KoUagiri, 8. Kols, 18, 40, 42, 43, 63, 64, 109 : 17, 46, 47, 139, 197, 209, 278, 341, 368, 558, 560, 567, 568, 569, 572, 588. K61 (Singbhfim), 313. Kofxap, KOfxapta, 98. Kongu, 22. Konkan, 40. Konkanar, 147. Konkani, 2, 33 ; 4, 14, 33. Korean, 38 ; 502, 504. Kori, 17. Korkei, 101. KQpv, 102, 104. Kory, 576. Kota, 37 ; 512, passim. Kotaur, 98. Kottar, 135. KoTTtdpa, 98. KoTTOvapLKTJ, 97. Krishna, 16, 17. Kshatriyas, 5, 6. Ku. See Khond. Kubja Pandya, 129, 140. Knki, 222, 508. Kulam, 535. Kulasekhara, 90, 119; 537, 538, 539. Kulotunga Chola, 131, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140- Kumari, 98. Kumarilabhatta, 5, 14, 31, 121, 122, 129 ; 16, 576. K