P E R S O N A L P R O N O U N S IN T A M I L A N D D R A V I D I A N by KAMIL ZVELEBIL Praha

0. The purpose of this brief note is to indicate the possible development of the system of Tamil personal pronouns and to try to reconstruct the PDr forms of the same. I have first arrived at the reconstruction of the proto-forms of Tamil from within, and the next step brought the reconstruction of some still earlier forms, possibly PDr. Subsequently, the reconstructed forms compared favourably with the Dravidian etyma and a striking fact appeared: it seems that the PDr system of personal pronouns has been best preserved in Ollari and Parji, partly also in Kolami and Naiki. 1 1. The development of the pronouns may be best shown within five columns of a table (see p. 66). The first column includes the reconstructed Proto-Dravidian forms, the second the hypothetical Proto-Tamil forms, the third the Old Tamil forms, the fourth the modern (Standard) Literary forms, the fifth and the last the modern (Standard) Colloquial forms. 2. Commentary 2.1. 1.p.sg. PDr *d_n, obl. *an, Old Tamil, y@, obl. e_n, cf. Kol. a'n, obl. an, Nk. c~, obl. an-, Pa dn, obl. an, Ga. (O11) dn, obl. an, cf. also Ko. a'n, obl. en, Ka. dn, obl. en, Go. and, Kui dnu, Br. f, obl. (k)an, etc. For the origin of the palatal onglide *@ > y @ (and similarly in pl. *dm > ydm) in Old Tamil and Tu.lu, cf. such pairs as Ta. yd_ru, ~ u , river (Te. (ru, river, Go. ~r, water, Kon.da ~ , water, Kui ~su id., Kuwi Oyu, ~ju, id.), Ta. ydmai, dmai, turtle, tortoise (Ka. drne, dye, ~ve, id., Tu. ~me, turtle), Ta. y ~ a i , d_nai, elephant (Ko. a'n, To. a'n, Ka dne, 1 There are some features, in phonology, morphology and syntax, which connect Parji with the most ancient attested forms of Kanna.da and Tamil. Cf. a review of Burrow-Bhattacharya, The Parfi Language, by the present author, in ArOr. 24 (1956), pp. 342-4. Cf. in this connection also the review of S. Bhattacharya, Ollari, in ArOr., 26 (1958), p. 332.

66

KAMIL ZVELEBIL

Ko.d. a'ne, Tu. an~, Te. gn@u, etc., Pa gnu, Ga. Oll. gnig, etc.).The inital y - in Tamil seems to be a classical literary style-innovation as opposed to the original initial a - (cf. Ma. ff.ru, fiver, ,ima, turtle, a.n.tu, year, a.tu, goat, ,ina, elephant) which was maintained in the CT, cf. a:ne, elephant, a:me, turtle, a:ed.u, year, a:ru, who. The change y > n in Old Ta. ya.n SLT nan, C T ntT: m a y be perhaps explained on account o f analogy with either the pl. ndm or the 2. p. nf. 2.2. 1.p.pl. P D r *am, obl. *am, Old Ta. yam, obl. em, cf. Kol. a'm, obl. am-, Nk. am, obl. am, Pa. ~m, obl. am-, Ga. (Oll.) dm, obl. am, also Ko. a'm, obl. am-, Ka. din, obl. em, Go. ammat etc. It seems that the inclusive: exclusive opposition was n o t existing in the original Proto-Dravidian. The primary, and, at the early stage o f evolution o f PDr, the only distinction was sg. : pl. = -_n: -m. The system o f P D r p r o n o u n s was the following: PDr 1. p. sg.
nora.

Proto-Tamil
*(y)an_
*en_

Old Tamil

SLT nan_
9 len_ nA:
en~

SCT

*an*an_

Van_ en_
ham
nam

obl. 1. p.pl.
nora.

*(nam) *(nam)
*am
*am

*(n)am *(n)am *(y)am *era *(n)in_

i

nam incl. ham

na :ma namma

obl. 1. p.pl
nora.

yam
em

nafika| excl. na :~ga efika! ni u0 e~3ga ni: un~6

obl. 2. p.sg.
nora.

*in*in_

ni

obl. 2. p.pl.
nora.

*(n)in_ (ram__) nin_ (nun_) *(n)im *(n)im (num) *tan_ *tan_ *tam *tam him nix
tlum

*ira i*im *tan_ *tan*t~.m

*tam

obl.
3. p.sg.
nora.

nix *nirkal. ni:x3ga ni~a! urn uflka.1 uoga ~ o~ga

obl.
3. p.pl.
nora.

tan- demonstr. demonstrative pronouns ipr6nouns from from pronom, adjective roots a-, i-, uroots a-, itan_ demon, pron. in some dialects, ta: tam demonstr. pronouns from roots a-, i-, utam demonstr. pronouns demonstrative pronouns from pron. adjective roots a-, i-

obl.

PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN TAMIL AND DRAVIDIAN

67

Nora. Sg *~_n *i_n *fft_n P1 *~tm *im *tam Sg *a_n *i_n *tan

Obl. PI
*am

*ira *tam

Later - though still at the PDr stage - a new distinction appeared that of inclusive vs. exclusive. The original unit pl. dm *split into *din with exclusive connotation (developing in PSDr and PT into *ydm with exclusive connotation) and *ndm with inclusive connotation (developing in PSDr and PT into *ndm with inclusive connotation). The following data support this hypothesis: 1. The neat dichotomous system of oppositions (sg,-n vs. pl.-m, nominative full long vowel vs. obl. weakened and shortened vowel) in the reconstructed PDr and PT forms; 2. the fact that the correspondences of related Dr. etyma form a much fuller and more regular system with Ta. ydm < PT*(y)dm < PDr *dm than that of Ta. ndm < PT *(n)dm < late PDr *(n)dm; cf. item 4231 (ydm) with item 3019 (ndm) in Burrow-Emeneau, Dravidian

Etymological Dictionary;
3. the fact that in the Old Tamil period the opposition inclusive: exclusive was still very weak if it was there at all: Tolkdppiyam, the oldest Tamil grammar extant, notes the coexistence of ydm and ndm but does not mention any difference in their use (ydn ydm ndme_na varaumpeyarum s. 647). In my very detailed analysis of the entire text of Na_r.ri.nai(one of the Et.t.uttokai collections, cca. lst-3rd Cent. A.D.) I have found both pronouns used promiscuously without any distinction in meaning. If there was any difference then it was only a slight connotative difference. To sum up: It seems to me that the opposition inclusive: exclusive as a clear-cut distinction of denotation has crystalized rather late in Dravidian. 2.3. 2.p.sg. PDr *f_n, obl. *i_n, PT *n~, obl. *ni_n, Old Tamil nf, obl. n/_n. The form *n~ is supported by such etyma as Ka. n~.rn, nfn(u), Ko.d. ni'n~, Kon.da n~n, Kuwi n~nu, n~nft, Kur. nfn, Malt. nfn. The PDr * ~ is supported by such etyma as Pa. fn, obl. in-, Ga. (OIL) in, obl. in-, Kui fnu, Tu. ~, obl. nin. The SLT obl. u n is prob. < nu_n < ni_n, the loss of initial n- being a later analogy with the 1. p. n ~ , obl. e_n. The change of i > u might have

68

KAMIL ZVELEBIL

first occurred in the pl. nfm, obl. nim > num (under the influence of final -m?).

2.4.2.p.pl.

PDr *im, obl *im, PT *nfm, obl. *nim, Old Tamil n?m, later form nfr, obl. num. The form n~m actually exists in OT, cf. also Ko. ni'rn, To. nrm, Ka. nfm, Kur. n~m, Malt. nim. The PDr *im is supported by such etyma as Pa. ~m, obl. ira, Ga. (Oll.) fm, obl. ira-, Go. immat..

The final -r in Old Tamil (later) nfr may be on account of analogy with the p l . - r in demonstr, pron. pl. a-v,a-r, i-v-a-r, etc., or with the pl surf. -it (as in makal-ir, the pl. nfr possibly < nf-y-ir, an attested OT form, cf. Tolk. s. 673, nfyir n[ e_na varfluh kilavi). SLT n[~kal > *n[r q- -kat.; obl. num prob. <*nim <*ira.

2.5. 3.p.sg. PDr *t~n-, obl. *tan_, 3.p.pl. *tam, obl. *tam, Old Ta. t ~ , obl. tan-, pl. tam, obl. tam.
I am convinced that within the PDr and PT system, the personal pronouns of 3.p.sg. and pl. were *tc~, tam. Only later (in the Old Tamil period itself), the demonstrative pronouns formed from dem. adj. roots a-, i- and u-, began to be used in the function of personal pronouns. This is supported by the following facts: 1. In the Old Tamil texts, ta_n and tam are still used as personal pronouns of 3.p. uyartin, ai, especially when referring to the subject mentioned in a preceding piece of text, cf. Nat. 72. 5-7 kon.kan_ /y@ yay ahcuva len_i_num tan e_r/pirital c~lan_ ma_n_n~, Though I said to the lover: I fear mother, he did not at all intend to leave me. The same use may be found in Cilappatikdram and in Nalatiyar. The Tamil Lexicon says, under tan, pron. 1. He, she or it. 2. Oneself. 2 2. M. R~tjamgl~ikkam quotes in his interesting book Tami.lmol.iccelvam (K~traikkut.i 1956) p. 76 some instances of the use of t ~ as personal pronoun in the dialect of Putucc~ri: atu e_nakkut teriydtu, atu

pa_r.riya vivararn tanakkut teriyum; td_n at.ikkat.i ahkupp6vatu va_lakkam,

I don't know about that; details about that are known to him; he is in the habit of going there often.
2 Such use of reflexive pronoun is found e.g. in German, cf. Enzyklop&tisches Deutschbdhmisches W6rterbuch (Prag, 1916), p. 1234: "in ~Uterer Sprache oft nur nach-

driicklicher als einfaches er, sie, es; auf ein vorhergegangenes Subjekt bezogen (heute aber als steif empfunden) :... ein Hund ist abzugeben; der selbe ist gram.. Wit kamen zur Fiirstin; dieselbe sagte uns..."

PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN TAMIL AND DRAVIDIAN

69

3. In the full and regular set of corresponding Dr. etyma tan is mentioned to be used, in some languages of the family, not in the function of a common reflexive (oneself) but only in the 3rd pers. (Go. tan& Kur. tdn); Old Kanna.da and Te. used, it seems, this pronoun also in the function of the personal pronoun in the meaning he, she, it.