[INDOLOGY] External Origin of Dravidian

Sun Jan 24 19:14:40 UTC 2016

Correction to my post:

I typed :

But I don't think pre-Dravidian substrata issue need not be based on the
Tamil issue.

I wanted to say,

But I think pre-Dravidian substrata issue need not be based on the Tamil
issue.

On Sun, Jan 24, 2016 at 11:48 PM, Tieken, H.J.H. <
H.J.H.Tieken at hum.leidenuniv.nl> wrote:

> Dear list members, I was pleasantly surprised by the following sentence in
> Nagaraj's message:
>
> "I agree that cleaning the slate and starting out from the scratch is
> required."
>
> I had a deja vu of sorts, as this is precisely what I suggested in my book
> Kāvya in South India from 2001 with regard to the date of Old Tamil Caṅkam
> poetry between the 3rd c. BC to the 3rd c. AD. This early date is an axiom;
> if the facts do not agree, then the facts are wrong – and so is the
> messenger.
> Herman
>
> Herman Tieken
> Stationsweg 58
> 2515 BP Den Haag
> The Netherlands
> 00 31 (0)70 2208127
> website: hermantieken.com
> ------------------------------
> *Van:* INDOLOGY [indology-bounces at list.indology.info] namens Nagaraj
> Paturi [nagarajpaturi at gmail.com]
> *Verzonden:* zondag 24 januari 2016 6:44
> *Aan:* Hock, Hans Henrich
> *CC:* Indology
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [INDOLOGY] External Origin of Dravidian
>
> >In Telugu, you may find noun forms such as iravu 'place', irugu
> 'neighbour, neighbourhood' etc. which can possibly be argued as recent
> borrowings from Kannada or Tamil.
>
> ---- That argument can be made provided those words are found in Kannada
> and/or Tamil.
>
> There are a few other such instances where a certain root may not be found
> in its basic verb root form in Telugu may be found in its secondary verb
> root forms or other such derivatives forms as nominalizations. One such is
> paṇ = to do. In Telugu it is found in its causative form panucu/paṁcu, nominalized
> form pani but not in its basic verb form as in Tamil.
> >
> The words *ṟē**vu* (ఱేవు), *ṟē**vaḍu* (ఱేవడు), *ṟē**vadi* (ఱేవది) etc.
> are not derived from  'iravu' (<ir-) (note the alveolar trill, instead of
> tap). They are related to *[DEDR 516]*  *iṯ-/iṟ- 'to descend', 'to go
> beyond' *iṟaṅku* (*iṟaṅki*-) to descend, alight, fall (as rain),
> disembark; *iṟaṅkal* place of descent, of debarkation etc.
>
> The usages of రేవు rēvu are more with ర్ than with ఱ్ . Is not "*iṯ-/iṟ-
> 'to descend', 'to go beyond' *iṟaṅku* (*iṟaṅki*-) to descend, alight,
> fall (as rain), disembark; *iṟaṅkal* place of descent, of debarkation etc.
> " all from the tracing to Tamil ? Do we have *iṯ-/iṟ- 'to descend', 'to
> go beyond' *iṟaṅku* (*iṟaṅki*-) to descend, alight, fall (as rain),
> disembark; *iṟaṅkal* place of descent, of debarkation etc in Telugu? ( రేవడి
> rēvaḍi is as in renṭiki ceḍḍa rēvaḍi )
> > But Dravidian linguists have been wrongly reconstructing words and
> features found only in South Dravidian (esp. Tamil) to the parent language
> under the assumption that Tamil represents the archaic form of Dravidian.
>
> ------ I thought each reconstructions were done meticulously case by case
> choosing the most plausible root of phonetic change from among those
> required to account for all the available forms. I thought, otherwise,
> identifying any non-Tamil language as retaining the Protodravidian
> features/elements would not have been possible. But if it can be proved
> that 'Dravidian linguists have been wrongly reconstructing words and
> features found only in South Dravidian (esp. Tamil) to the parent language
> under the assumption that Tamil represents the archaic form of Dravidian'
> , it will be a path-breaking critique of the current methods of
> historical linguistics. Now that the likes of Prof. Hans Henrich Hock
> started to extend the argument to IE studies too, it may pave way for a
> revamp of the existing methods of historical linguistics. Any such change
> is certainly welcome.
>
> > I believe there is an urgent need to reevaluate the Dravidian languages
> considering the possibility of pre-Dravidian substrata in various branches
> of the Dravidian languages.
>
> ----- I think you are aware that such proposals are as old as the
> beginnings of Dravidian linguistics, though no systematic study ever took
> off. With you there seems to be promise of such a work in near future.
>
> > Suspending the belief that Tamil represents the most archaic form of
> Dravidian would be a starting point in this endeavour.
>
> ------ I agree that cleaning the slate and starting out from the scratch
> is required. But I don't think pre-Dravidian substrata issue need not be
> based on the Tamil issue. Des'ya components of various members of Dravidian
> family that can not be explained by the Dravidian model are what lead to
> pre-Dravidian substrata.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Nagaraj
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Hock, Hans Henrich <hhhock at illinois.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Suresh (and others in this thread),
>>
>> Whether or not we accept an “external” origin of Dravidian (i.e., more
>> recent than the peopling of Eurasia), you are certainly correct in
>> insisting that we need to consider the evidence of *all* the Dravidian
>> languages; privileging Tamil (or select other South Dravidian languages) is
>> methodologically questionable. True, being attested so early, Tamil offers
>> a window on a considerably earlier stage than what we find in the other
>> literary languages (and of course, much earlier than the “tribal” languages
>> which are attested only since the 19th century). But as you pointed out in
>> your earlier message, other languages preserve archaic features too.
>> Neglecting these can lead to questionable reconstructions.
>>
>> There is a similar situation in Modern Indo-Aryan, where we have
>> relatively early attestations in the literary languages, but no comparable
>> ones for the “tribal” languages of the Northwest; and yet, it is these
>> northwestern languages that preserve much more of the complex consonant
>> combinations of Old Indo-Aryan (Sanskrit) than any of the literary ones
>> (even Gujarati, Sindhi, Kashmiri can’t compete, although these at least
>> preserve the C + r clusters). (If we reconstruct on the basis of literary
>> (early) Modern Indo-Aryan, we won’t reach something close to the ancestral
>> Old Indo-Aryan but only something close to Apabhraṁśa.) See the discussion
>> between Pattanayak (1966), Katre (1968), Sen (1973), and Miranda (1978).
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>> On 23 Jan 2016, at 09:26, Suresh Kolichala <suresh.kolichala at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Nagaraj gaaru,
>>
>> I hope you agree that the verb form ir- 'to be' *[DEDR 480]* either as
>> copula or independent verb cannot be attested in Telugu. This verb, so
>> important in South Dravidian, is remarkably absent in Central and North
>> Dravidian languages, and in many of South-Central languages. In Telugu, you
>> may find noun forms such as iravu 'place', irugu 'neighbour, neighbourhood'
>> etc. which can possibly be argued as recent borrowings from Kannada or
>> Tamil.
>>
>> The words *ṟē**vu* (ఱేవు), *ṟē**vaḍu* (ఱేవడు), *ṟē**vadi* (ఱేవది) etc.
>> are not derived from  'iravu' (<ir-) (note the alveolar trill, instead of
>> tap). They are related to *[DEDR 516]*  *iṯ-/iṟ- 'to descend', 'to go
>> beyond' *iṟaṅku* (*iṟaṅki*-) to descend, alight, fall (as rain),
>> disembark; *iṟaṅkal* place of descent, of debarkation etc.
>>
>> If you believe in my proposed theory of external origin of Dravidian,
>> then the whole question of what constitutes Proto-Dravidian becomes
>> problematic.  Under the usual historical linguistic principles, words
>> and features found only in one branch (South Dravidian, in this case) do
>> not provide evidence for parent language (Proto-Dravidian). But Dravidian
>> linguists have been wrongly reconstructing words and features found only in
>> South Dravidian (esp. Tamil) to the parent language under the assumption
>> that Tamil represents the archaic form of Dravidian. It is a classic
>> catch-22 situation.
>>
>> I believe there is an urgent need to reevaluate the Dravidian languages
>> considering the possibility of pre-Dravidian substrata in various branches
>> of the Dravidian languages. Suspending the belief that Tamil represents the
>> most archaic form of Dravidian would be a starting point in this endeavour.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Suresh.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for going back to a week old post by Mr Suresh Kolichala
>>>
>>> > The copula verb man- 'to be' is replaced by ir- 'to be' in the South
>>> Dravidian languages. As you know, ir- 'to be' is not found in
>>> South-Central, Central and North Dravidian languages. (ir- most likely
>>> a local verb for 'to be')
>>>
>>> It is true that 'ir-' is not the copula verb in south-central. In
>>> Telugu, the major language of the south-central, the copula verb is 'agu'
>>> (<ak) = to be as/ to become. unD =to be which is found in Malayalam in
>>> copula situations is found in Telugu as an independent 'to be'  verb in
>>> non-equational VP sentences.
>>>
>>> >(ir- most likely a local verb for 'to be')
>>>
>>> gives me the impression that you consider that the root 'ir-' is not
>>> found in south-central. But the word iravu ( as in chImalu peTTina puTTalu
>>> paamulakiravaina yaTlu- sumatIs'atakamu ) is a nominalization of the verb
>>> root 'ir-' only. The words rEvu , rEvaDu/ rEvaDi etc. form from 'iravu'
>>> (<ir-) through metathesis.
>>>
>>> Another point is,is it not a good idea to count the number of
>>> Proto-Dravidian features retained by Tamil and the other Dravidian members
>>> to decide which is the 'most conservative among Dravidian languages' ? ( I
>>> do not think that there was any claim that all the Proto-Dravidian features
>>> are retained by Tamil only and no other Dravidian language retained
>>> Protodravidian features.)
>>>
>>> -N
>>> --
>>> Nagaraj Paturi
>>>
>>> Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
>>>
>>> Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
>>>
>>> FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
>>>
>>> (Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>>> indology-owner at list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing
>>> committee)
>>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__listinfo.indology.info&d=BQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=yKOAMu7Fm_W5kv9CXfjbmb6aWTY6BVQCYZ5TKkB486Q&m=UOEFQg0LvonRQRaX6UlC_NKC7F8O2SpPYeq6WNPeTUA&s=oGaimwx2iH-M5R6zUQQpQ0mdN3FuZSJAomSQq4kcf1c&e=>
>>> (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Nagaraj Paturi
>
> Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
>
> Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies
>
> FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,
>
> (Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )
>
>
>
>

-- 
Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20160125/c7bde27f/attachment.htm>