Hydronomy of Tamil rivers (Re: Again, SANSKRIT broadcasts)

[Lakshmi Srinivas]

--- Michael Witzel <witzel at FAS.HARVARD.EDU> wrote:
> In answer to several messages listed under both
> threads:
>
> Obviously, when trying to etymologize S. Indian
> river names we have to try
> all Dravidian possibilities, -- within the realm of
> probability.

Most rivers flowing in Tamilnadu do not seem to have
clear/convincing Tamil etymologies. Names like vaiyai,
koLLiTam are evidently phonetic Tamilization of alien
sounds. Trying to look at the semantic content of the
constituent syllables of these river names would lead
to absurd conclusions. For example there is already a
popular etymology for the river name vaiyai or rather
its variant vaikai. "Vaikai" literally means "keep
your hand" and on this basis an etymology has been
developed for which poor Siva had to be pressed into
service :-)

Some others like keTilam seem phonetically alien.

There have been attempts to etymologize some of the
rivernames. They fall far short of the requisite level
of satisfaction because in no case have the stem and
the affixes both been satisfactorily explained.

No doubt substrate element has to be posited if one
has to account for river names as well as place names
recorded in antiquity e.g., in the Periplus viz.,
Podouke (putukai/pukAr?), Kolchoi (koRkai), Muziris
etc

It is not as if culturally alien elements in the
population have not been noticed from Tamil texts. The
eyinar, for example, written up as the people of the
strong bow ("kotuvil") and ones who wear leather
sandals ("tOlaTi"). All references in the texts show
that they are, as a people, different from the people
of the texts. By the time of the Tamil texts they seem
to have been marginalized to a life in the "pAlai"
desert landscape and reduced to banditry.

Likewise the "vETar" meaning hunters, perhaps cognate
with "vedda" of Srilanka.

Or the "Kurumbar" meaning hillmen (?)although some
references would have them as Kannada speaking.

> Of course, we have to  look to non-Skt, non-Drav.
> sources as well. There
> is, after all, a Nilgiri substrate (Zvelebil 1990).
>
>
> And there are, also, the Vedda in Sri Lanka with
> another unknown substrate.

Also, some faunal names which sound rather
Austro-Asiatic viz., kuraGku (rhesus monkey), vilaGku
("animal"), karA ("crocodile", cf, Skt makara).

Of course, the majority school of thought in Tamil
studies seems to be that Tamils are autochthonous to
Tamilnadu but that goes against some of their own
legends e.g., the legend of the vELir chiefs having
emigrated from tuvarai of the bronze walls (cf VElir
varalARu by M irAkava ayyaGkAr) as well as the spatial
distribution of Megalithic culture's findspots viz.,
from North West to South East. Some of the latter's
cultural practices may be found in the Classical Tamil
texts. Many find spots are also close to what we know
of the then centers of population e.g., Adicchanallur
near Korkai etc. Korkai-1 has been dated to ca. 9th
century BC.

The autochthonous theory also makes somewhat untenable
the proposed presence of Dravidian speakers in the
IVC.

Thanks and Warm Regards,

LS

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/