solution to the "kuyava' etymology

[Palaniappa]

In a message dated 98-01-19 03:50:58 EST, bhk at HD1.VSNL.NET.IN writes:

<< Old Ta. uvaRu has no cognate in any other Drav. language. But u:Ru (<PD
 *u:_tu) occurs in South, South Central and Central Drav. languages. So there
 is no relation between OTa. uwaRu and u:Ru, the latter is NOT derived from
 the former (cf. DEDR 761). DEDR does not put these as related.>>

Setting aside the example of "uvaRu" to be taken up later, let me quote
examples from DED, Madras University Lexicon (which is available now on-line
at the Cologne IITS web site which can be easily checked), and his own Telugu
Verbal Bases, which I hope Dr. Krishnamurthy will accept. (I do not have
access to DEDR today. So let me use examples from DED. If these are different
from DEDR, we can consider them later.)

DED 2794
tuvaRal - raining, drizzling, sprinkling
tURal - drizzling

DEDS 525
tukaL - dust, particle of dust, pollen;
tUL - dust, powder, particle, pollen

TVB 750
niva - to rise, become high (puRanAn2Uru), grow (kalittokai); spread, swell,
overflow (paripATal)
nIttam - flood (from *nivattam)

The reconstructed form is based on the paripATal reference Krishnamurthy seems
to have used (paripAtal 12.34). The paripATal text is "nivantatu nIttam". The
connection cannot be more clear. The meanings of individual words are:
nivantatu - rose
nITTam - flood (i.e., that which rose)

In the following pair, the first item is left out of DED for no reason.
nivaRu - to be powdered (Madras University Lexicon)
nIRu - dust, ash (DED 3060)
In TVB, Krishnamurthy uses only the contracted form "nIRu" for Tamil. For
Telugu, he uses both "nivuRu" and "nIRu". If he had also used the non-
contracted form in Tamil "nivaRu", he could have easily seen that his model
did not work. The contracted form in both Tamil and Telugu are the same
"nIRu", even though the second vowel is "a" in Tamil and "u" in Telugu.

Thus in each of the cases involving "u", the attested contracted form is "U"
while Krishnamurthy's model would predict "O" in Tamil. Similarly, in each of
the cases involving "i", the attested contracted form is "I", while
Krishnamurthy's model would predict "E". Therefore, the model is not valid. If
you remember, the model calls for a *total and complete* change of PDr
phonemes "i", "e", "u", and "o" to "e" and "o". It is enough for me to show
just one case where the rule does not apply to prove my case. I have shown
more than that. That many Dravidian linguists have accepted Krishnamurthy's
formulation may be due to two reasons. Either linguists with the required
knowledge of Tamil did not address this issue or those linguists who addressed
the issue did not have the required knowledge of Tamil. I do not know why else
the problem in the model could not have been realized until now.

<<Coming to
 kuyawa~kucawa, an intervocalic consonant is weakened and not strengthened by
 a natural phonetic process. -c- [-s-] thus gets weakened to -y- and not the
 other way round. The non-attestation of a form in old texts does not
 invalidate its antiquity if it based on comparative reconstruction. Please
 note that Ma. and Tu. also have the
 -s- forms. The Vedic forms could not have been borrowed from SD in which -s-
 > -y-/-0- is found. >>

I do not say that Vedic borrowed from SDr. Given the fact that the weakening
of intervocalic "-c-" is traced to Proto-Dravidian, it is certainly possible
to have the "-y-" form in the dialect encountered by Vedic.  Thus, even with a
*kucava form, my etymology will hold good.

As for the process of one-way change of "-c-" to "-y-", is it universal? Then,
can somebody explain the following? In DED, we find the following.

*kAy,  to grow hot, burn, etc. - Ta. kAy; Ma. kAyuka to be hot, To. ko.y-
(ko.c-) to be hot; Tu. kAyuni to be hot; Go. kAsAnA to become hot.

*koy, to pluck leaves, flowers, reap, harvest, etc. - Ta. koy; Ko. koy- (koc-)
to cut; To. kwIy- (kwIs-) to pluck fruits, Go. kOiyAna harvest wheat or crops,
etc., (M) koidAna to reap; Kur.  khoynA (khoss-) to cut down grass and the
like with the sickle, mow, reap

*kAy and *koy are PDr forms reconstructed by Dr. Krishnamurthy in his TVB.
Clearly, we have here "y" changing to "c"/"s"/"t".  In what way, is the
"kuyava"/"kucava" problem different, if we assume "kuy" is the base?

Now why do I say, "kuy" might be a possible base. There is a stock Tamil
expression which is considered by Madras University lexicon as just
onomatopoetic expression signifying loud complaint. The expression is "kuyyO
muRaiyO" describing how one laments. It can be interpreted as consisting of
two words. The second word "muRaiyO" means "Is it lawful/just?". ("muRai"
means law or justice.) The first part can be interpreted as "O kuy!" calling
for "kuy". If the original meaning of "kuy" was "some higher authority like
king or chief", it will make perfect sense. After all, from whom will one seek
justice?

This is not as outlandish as one might think. Consider the interjection of
grief "aiyO". DEDR considers this related to the word "ai" meaning "lord,
master, husband, king, guru, priest, teacher, father". So DEDR lists the two
words as 196 (b) and 196 (a) respectively. The meaning of "kuyyO" has not been
understood till now. Ultimately, this "kuy" may be related to "ku" meaning
"high place" (or hill as Dr. Krishnamurthy pointed out) which can also be
applied to a king. Compare the parallel similar concepts in Sanskrit "ka'kuda"

Finally, I do agree that reconstructed words can help decide on a linguistic
situation. Otherwise there is no way one can say Vedic borrowed anything from
Dravidian. My reason of stating the chronology of "kuyava" vs "kucava" was to
correct a factual error and satisfy my curiosity as to when "kucava" ever
entered the literary world from the colloquial.

I think I have tried to satisfactorily answer the questions/concerns raised
regarding the issue. As always, I welcome comments.

Regards
S. Palaniappan