Sanskrit

[N. Ganesan]

Prof. C. R. Selvakumar wrote:

>As I pointed out, it is a valid construction in Tamil to say
> Active:   nAn   avaLukku   paricu       aLittEn
>             I     to her   prize        gave
KANNADA     nAnu   avaLige   bahumAnavannu koTTE

>
>PassiveI:   paricu    ennAl    avaLukku  aLikkappaTTAtu
>             Prize    by me     to her     was given
KANNADA      bahmAnavu nanninde  avaLige   koDalpaTTitu

>
>PassiveII:    avaL   ennAl    paricu        aLikkappaTTAL
>               She   by me    prize         was given
KANNADA        avaLu  nanninde bahumAnavannu koDalpaTTaLu

>I don't think Sandra van der Geer's claim* about Tamil based on
>K. Rangan's article (which I don't have access to at this moment)
>is valid.

Dr. Sandra van der Geer wrote:
>>Your suggestion of passiveII sounds good. Maybe it depends on the =
>>kind of verb you use, but as to the occurrence of the characteristic, =
>>this makes no difference. Thus, looking at your sentence PassiveII, I'm =
>>inclined to say that IO to SU is possible in Tamil, and the same will =
>>probably be true for Kannada.

[...]
>>Languages which do not allow movement/raising of IO to SU are IE Hindi, =
>>German, Dutch?, and Sanskrit. Languages which do so are non-IE Tamil, =
>>Kannada?, and Japanese. So far, the only exception to IE is English.

May be now "Kannada?" can be changed into "Kannada" in the last sentence.


Regards,
N. Ganesan