Wed Jul 8 22:17:51 UTC 1998

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.

N. Ganesan

More information about the INDOLOGY mailing list