FROM PROTO-TAMIL-MALAYALAM TO WEST COAST DIALECTS* by A.

GOVINDANKUTTY

Leiden University

Because the oldest M a l a y a l a m inscriptions and literary works 1 are n o t earlier t h a n a b o u t the ninth century A.D. and accordingly were cont e m p o r a n e o u s with M i d d l e Tamil, scholars h a v e almost a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o m e u n d er the delusion t h a t the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a separate language h a d to be dated to that period. 2 While c o n c e n t r a t i n g entirely u p o n this historical process o f differentiation, they h a v e consistently o v e r l o o k e d the * I am indebted to Professor F. B. J. Kuiper, who made a number of very valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality and contents of this article. I am grateful to Professor Kamil Zvelebil for a number of useful comments. 1 Since all ancient literary works written on the West Coast for a long time merely belonged to conventional genres of Tamil literature, their authors continued to write in the traditional literary language of the East Coast dialect (cf. Cilappatikdram). Not until the fourteenth century approximately, are clear traces of 'Malayalisms' found in certain literary texts, such as the Rdmacaritam. Therefore, it is for a long time almost exclusively the evidence of the West Coast inscriptions that gives us some information about the linguistic changes that have gradually taken place. R. Caldwell, A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of Languages (London, 1856), p. 12; 2nd ed. (1875), p. 23; 3rd ed. (1913, 1956), p. 18. He pointed out that Malayalam is an ancient offshoot of Tamil and regarded it rather as a dialect than as a distinct Dravidian language. Similarly, e.g., Jules Bloch, Structure grammaticale des langues dravidiennes (Paris, 1946), p. VIII ("... un dialecte d6tach6 du tamoul ...") and Emeneau, "The South Dravidian Languages", JAOS, Vol. 87 (1967), p. 365. See also Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, "Comparative Dravidian Studies", Current Trends in Linguistics, 5 (The Hague, Mouton, 1969), p. 327. Attempts to arrive at an exact dating of the separation were made by L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar and Kamil Zvelebil. The former stated that Malayalam, in its earlier stages, was more closely allied to what he denominated as Early Middle Tamil (see "Linguistic 'Preservations' in Malayfil.am", Journal of Oriental Research, Madras, Vol. XI [1937], p. 3). The latter pointed out that at the stage of linguistic development which he termed Late Old and Early Middle Tamil, Tamil and Malayalam were, very probably, basically one language, with Pre-Malayalam as a diverging western dialect of the spoken form of that common tongue (see "From Proto-South Dravidian to Malayalam", Archly Orientdlni, 38 [1970], p. 56).

FROM PROTO-TAMIL-MALAYALAM TO WEST COAST DIALECTS

53

simple fact that West Coast dialects had preserved, f r o m the earliest times onwards, features which are not f o u n d even in the oldest historical forms o f Tamil proper, that is, the East Coast dialects. These features must consequently be traced back to a prehistoric f o r m of Tamil. It can further be shown that in the West Coast speech some dialectal differences must have existed at an early date and that Malayalam must have developed f r o m one o f these dialects, while at least one other dialect must have disappeared in historical times, a It should be mentioned in this connection that a few scholars have put forward the view that Malayalam is an independent offshoot of ProtoDravidian. Since this view would seem to be at variance with b o t h the historical evidence and the methodological principles of historical linguistics, it is not necessary in the context o f this paper to enter m o r e deeply into a discussion of this theory. 4 This paper will deal with the historical relations between Tamil and Malayalam. I n order to make clear this problem, however, it is necessary first to consider the position of Tamil within the whole group o f South Dravidian languages.

Two o f the most interesting features o f South Dravidian are the alternations i/e and u/o and the palatalisation o f k- > c- before i. The vowel alternations have been studied by Caldwell, 5 Subbayya, e Sreekanthaiya, 7 Burrow 8 and Narasimhia 9 and, most elaborately, by Krishnamurti, 1~ who however limited his study to the four literary 3 A linguistic analysis of the language of the early Malayalam text R6maearitarn forces one to arrive at this conclusion. This conclusion will be developed elsewhere. 4 U.l!fir S. Param~swara Aiyar, K. Goda Varma, K. M. George and a few others maintained the view that Malayalam is an independent offshoot of Dravidian. See Vadasery I. Subrarnoniam, "Malayalam", Current Trends in Linguistics, 5 (The Hague, Mouton, 1969), p. 374. 5 R. Caldwell, op. cit., 2nd ed. (1875), Part I, pp. 77-79. 6 K. V. Subbayya, "Primer of Dravidian Phonology", Indian Antiquary, Vol. 38 (1909), p. 160. 7 T.N. Sreekanthaiya, "The Mutation of I, U, E and O in Kannada", Proceedings and Transactions of the Eighth All-India Oriental Conference (Mysore, 1953), pp. 769800. Quoted by Bh. Krishnamurti but not accessible to me. 8 T. Burrow, "Dravidian Studies II", BSOS, Vol. 10, pp. 289-97. g A.N. Narasimhia, G.O.K.L, pp. 169-70. Quoted from G. S. Gai, HistoricalGramrnar of OM Kannada (= Deccan College Dissertation Series, 1) (Poona, 1946), p. 5. xo Bh. Krishnamurti, "Alternations i/e and u/o in South Dravidian", Language, Vol. 34 (1958), pp. 458-68.

54

A. GOVINDANKUTTY

South Dravidian languages. It can be stated as a general rule that in words which have a in the second syllable, Tamil-Malayalam has i, whereas Kannada has e. Since Telugu has been shown to be a Central Dravidian language,11 it can here be left out of consideration. On the other hand, a study of the Toda and Kota material which will be published elsewhere, shows that these languages have e and o in common with Kannada. Since the palatalisation k- > c- before i is not a general South Dravidian feature but is limited to Tamil-Malayalam, it is clear that this development can only have taken place at a time when the vowel systems of Toda-Kota and Tamil-Malayalam had differentiated with regard to i/e and u/o. The fact that at that time Toda-Kota had e offers a simple explanation for the absence of palatalisation in Toda-Kota, as well as in Kannada. The Tamil-Malayalam group accordingly stands quite apart from the other South Dravidian languages. This is clearly shown by such stemmas as the one given by Kamil Zvelebil, 1~ which is as follows: P(roto)Ta. I

Pre.Lit.Ta. OTa. Late Old and Early Middle Ta.

I I

Ta.

Ma.

To.-Ko.

The object of this paper is to show that the relations within the TamilMalayalam group should be revised. To this end it will be necessary to discuss the following features of the West Coast speech: (1) the g-problem, (2) Second Person Oblique form and (3) the Sandhi l + k.

3. The fi-problem
Comparative studies lead us to assume the existence of a phoneme/fi/in Proto-South Dravidian. In Proto-Tamil-Malayalam it must still have
tx Bh. Krishnamurti, Telugu Verbal Bases ( = University of California Publications in Linguistics, Vol. 24) (1961), p. 269. x2 See Archly Orientdlni, Vol. 38 (1970), p. 65 and Comparative Dravidian Phonology (The Hague, Mouton, 1970), p. 14.

FROM PROTO-TAMIL-MALAYALAM TO WEST COAST DIALECTS

55

been preserved since it has continued to exist in Malayalam up to the present day, although in a few words a variant form with n occurs in Modern Malayalam. In Tamil, on the other hand, it has partly become n from the oldest extant texts onwards. It follows, accordingly, that in the prehistoric period of Tamil when this dialectal differentiation took place>13 the ancestor of Malayalam (Old West Coast dialect) had already split off from the Old East Coast dialect, irrespective of the question whether the optional use of variants with initial g and n in the traditional literary idiom of the Sangam literature reflects a prehistoric dialectal split within the East Coast speech itself, or whether the fi-variants have entirely been derived from the West Coast dialect. In the following pages, the two categories will be discussed separately, viz., the Tamil words with initial n (3.1) and with initial fi (3.2). 3.1 Original h has become n in Tamil initially in the following words: Tamil 1. narampu (DED. 2364; Kali. 36.3; Pu_ram 109.15) 2. na[i (DED. 2366; Puram 136.12; Tol. Col. 323) 3. n~k~l (DED. 2367; Tiruvac. 6.25) 4. ndn.al (DED. 2370) 5. n~rai (DED. 2372; Pu.ram 24.20; Kuru. 114.5; Pati_r_r. 23.21) 6. n~val (DED. 2375; Pu_ram 177.11; Tirukkdv. 191) 7. net.t.u(DED. 2385) 8. nerugcil (DED. 2388) neru~ci (Pu_ram 155.4; Pati_r_r.26.10) 9. neruppu (DED. 2389; Pu_ram 125.2) 10. ne[i (DED. 2393; Puram 23.15) 11. neri (DED. 2395; Puram 135.2) 12. neri (DED. 2394; Puram 330.1 ; Pari. 14.13) 13. not.i (DED. 2396; Akam 47.7; Tol. E_lu. 7) 14. n~n (DED. 4234; Cil. 29.2.4) Malayalam ~arampu, narampu

ga[uizhuka ga~hal ga.nal gara, nara gaval get..tu, get.t.i ~eruggil gerippu, nerippu ge[iyuka ge_ri, ne_rivu geri, neri got.i, not.i na_n

Among the words quoted above, Tam. na_ndeserves special notice because is On this prehistoric split in Tamil see, e.g., T. Burrow, "Dravidian Studies V", BSOAS, Vol. I1, Part 3 (1943-46), p. 606 and S. V. Shanmugam, "Some Problems in Old Tamil Phonology", lndo-Iranian Journal, XIII (1970), p. 35,

56

A. GOVINDANKUTTY

in this case Malayalam is the only Dravidian language to have preserved initial h, the antiquity of which has been established beyond doubt by recent research. 1~ From the preceding material it emerges that, while Malayalam has almost consistently preserved the Proto-Dravidian h in initial position, Tamil has n instead of it. 3.2 Original h has been preserved in Tamil, although variant forms with n are often attested as early as the oldest texts: Tamil 1. han.t.u (DED. 2362) ~en.t.u (Akam 176.8; Kur. 117.2, 401.3) nan. t.u 2. ~amali(DED. 2363;Puram 74.3;Akam388.14; Ku_r. 179.2; Narr. 285.5; Pat.t.. 140) 3. haral (DED. 2365; Pati_r_r.30.6; Mur. 120) naralum (Pu.ram 120.18) narala (Akam 14.23) 4. hahcil (DED. 2368) nahcil (Pu.ram 19.11) 5. ban. (DED. 2369; Mull. 63; Pu_ram 14.9) nan. (Kali. 15.2) 6. hayi_ru(DED. 2371; Pati_r.r. 88.38; Puram 6.28) nayi_ru (Kamp. 1235.1) 7. hal (DED. 2373; Puram 82.2) hal (Cfvaka. 2513) 8. halam (DED. 2374; Pu_ram 18.2; Kali. 124.1) 9. ~al.al(DED. 2376; Pati.r_r. 51.5; Kur. 50.1) nal_al (TOvar. 1016.9) 10. hal.i (DED. 2377; Akam 122.8) 11. haru (DED. 2379; Cft[a. irata. 54) na_ru (C~vaka. 885; Pu.ram 113.9) 12. ~a.ru (DED. 2380; Peru. ilana. 11.51) n~ru (C~vaka. 885; Pu_ram 113.9) 13. g6_n_ru(DED. 2381 ; Kur. 25.4, 36.4; Kali. 37.14) nanru (Tiv. iya_r. 1.17) Malayalam ~a.nt.u

nan. t.u -garahhuka narahhuka h~hh6l n~hgil ~cT.n hayiru galuka halam hal_al

naru h~ru na_ru gannu

z4 For a detailed discussion of the tT-problem in the First Personal Pronoun cf. Bh. Krishnamurti, "Dravidian Personal Pronouns", Studies in Indian Linguistics (Annamalainagar and Poona, 1968), pp. 189-205.

FROM PROTO-TAMIL-MALAYALAM TO WEST COAST DIALECTS

57

14. hin.am (Pu_ram 177.14) nin.am (DED. 3037; Pu_ram 152.27; Man.i. 28.33) 15. himir (DED. 2382) Remir (Net.unaL 90) nimir (ToL Por. 547; Pu_ram 14.7) 16. heki_l(DED. 2383; Kali. 73.8; Ku.r. 11.1) neki_l (Akam 26.17; Ku_r. 50.3; Pu_ram 251.3) 17. Rekili (DED. 2384; Akam 108.7) 18. gemi (DED. 2386; Tirukk6v. 165) 19. Reri (DED. 2387) neri (Pu_ram 174.8) 20. Reli (DED. 2390; Pu_ram 247.2) 21. Ytel.(DED. 2391 ; Pu_ram 15.1) ne! (Pu_ram 18.28) 22. Rel (DED. 2392)

nin.am

niviruka
--

gamun.!uka ~eriyuka

Rellu

From 3.1 and 3.2 it has become clear that, while Malayalam has almost consistently preserved the Proto-Dravidian R, in Tamil (1) this phoneme is either preserved or occurs side by side with a variant n, often in one and the same text, and that as early as the oldest literature, or (2) it has become n in a prehistoric period without leaving any trace of the original R. Since we find already in the earliest extant Tamil literature n-forms without R-variants, while Malayalam retains the h-forms, 15 it is clear that the development fi > n must have taken place in the prehistoric period an in one or more dialects only of what was to become the group of East Coast dialects. The differentiation between the West Coast dialects and some of the East Coast dialects must accordingly have been a fact already in this period and certainly before the Sangam literature.

4. Second Person Oblique Form

From the following chart it seems clear that, while Malayalam has i in the initial syllable of the oblique forms, Tamil has almost exclusively u in
is Cf. also L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar, "Linguistic 'Preservations' in Malayft]am", JORM, XI (1937), p. 4 and "A Primer of Malayalam Phonology", The Bulletin o f the Rama Varma Research Institute, Vol. V, Part 2 (July, 1937), p. 101. According to him, r~ > n is a late Middle Ta~nil change, which theory is not acceptable. 1B S . V . Shanmugam, op. c/t., p. 37. "... rTa > na must have begun even in the PreTamil period."

58

A. GOVINDANKUTTY

Tamil Sg. Nora. P1.

n~ nhn n~h-ka[

Malayalam
n~

nihha[ nin-

ninSg. Obliq.
/'/t/m nun
un

P1.

t/m-

ni~ital. -

the same position. A comparative study of the Dravidian second personal pronouns points to the conclusion that -i- > -u -17 is a later innovation attested only in Tamil. The oblique forms with u are found in Tamil as early as the oldest Sangam literature side by side with forms having -i-. To quote a few: u_n (Akam 222.2), urn- (Akam 56.14, Pu_ram 45.5), nurn (Pu_ram 9.5), nuntai (Ku_r. 40.2), n/_n (Pu_rarn 12.5, Kali. 91.22). Since Malayalam has not shared this innovation is and since we can also date this innovation to a period before the Sangam literature, it is now possible to conclude that the split between the East and West Coast dialects must have started in the prehistoric period.
5. The Sandhi 1 + k

In literary Tamil, both in internal and external sandhi, l + k becomes _rk. The earliest extant Tamil grammar T o l k @ p i y a m refers to such a change in one of its sfitras. 19 Instances are not wanting and in the earliest Tamil texts it is attested. S~
~ Kamil Zvelebil, "Personal Pronotms in Tamil and Dravidian", Indo-Iranian Yournal, VI (1962), pp. 67-68: "The change of i > u might have first occurred in the pl. nim, obl. him > num (under the influence of final -m?)." as L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar, "Linguistic 'Preservations' ...", op. cit., p. 8: "The inflectional base ni_n- of the second person sing. pronoun M, i~ certainly a very old archaism in the West Coast speech, since even during the Middle Tamil period u_n-had

begun to exercise dominance in Tamil."

Tolk@piyam, E_luttatikdram, Ilampftra.narn (Madras, S. S. Publishing Works, 1964). E.g., from the meta-language toli_rk~(s~tra 125). Cf. also sfitra 150. 2o n a l + ku > na.rku (Na.rr. 19.9), Ko.rkai (Na.r.r. 23.6), cuval + kalitta > cuva.rkalitta (Ku.r. 204.3). x,

FROM PROTO-TAMIL-MALAYALAM TO WEST COAST DIALECTS

59

In contrast with the situation found in Tamil, Malayalam has preserved ~1 the cluster lk, 2~ even in external sandhi, up to the present day. The only sandhi phenomenon that calls for mention is the lengthening of k, which is mostly, although not universally, found. An early instance of this cluster is indirectly attested in the Greek spelling K r l k h o i ~3 in the Periplus (circa 80 A.D.) and Ptolemy (circa 150 A.D.), which reflects a West Coast pronunciation *Kolkkai for what in the Eastern dialect was Ko_rkai. The change lk is one of the early features which marks a prehistoric differentiation between the East Coast and the West Coast dialects.

6.

Conclusion

The preservation of the initial h-, the inheritance of the second person oblique form with -i- and the preservation of the cluster lk in Malayalam, when compared with the prehistoric changes which they underwent in Tamil, point to the conclusion that the differentiation between the East Coast and the West Coast dialects has started in a prehistoric period. The Proto-period which must be posited as the result of historical reconstruction was, accordingly, the common starting point for the ancestors of both Tamil and Malayalam, which represent the final developments of the East Coast and the West Coast dialects. For that reason it would seem that "Proto-Tamil-Malayalam" (parallel to, e.g., "Proto-TodaKota") is the only correct designation for this prehistoric stage of linguistic development. 21 L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar, "Dravidic Sandhi", Quarterly Journal of the Mythic Society, Vol. 23, Nos. 3 and 4 (Jam-Apr. 1937), p. 250: "The illustrations pdl-k-kit.M.i, mu.l-k-kombu, tOl-p-pett.i show how Mal., unlike literary Tamil, preserves -I and -1 unchanged and doubles the following plosive." 82 In the West Coast inscriptions of the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, instances with and without this sandhi change are found. However, in the fourteenth century inscriptions this sandhi is not attested (see A. C. Sekhar, Evolution of Malayalam, Deccan College Dissertation Series, 10, Poona, 1953, pp. 36-37). The thirteenth century Malayalam grammar Lfldtilakam mentions this sandhi change (see 3.26). In Rdmacaritam, an early Malayalam text, both varieties are found, e.g., viltta!i (1.4.4), na_r.ru.na (8.3.2). The r-forms are obviously due to the influence of the East Coast (Tamil) dialect in literary usuage. For a detailed description of this phenomenon, see L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar, "A primer of Malayalam Phonology", Bulletin of the Rama Varma Research Institute, Vol. VI, Part 2 (1938), pp. 91-96. ~8 L.V. Ramaswami Aiyar, "Primer ...", Bull. Rarna Varma Research Inst., Vol. VI, Part 2 (1938), p. 92; F. B. J. Kuiper, "Two Problems in Old Tamil Phonology", Indo-Iranian Journal, I1, 3 (1958), p. 221.

60

A. GOVINDANKUTTY NEW STEMMA Proto-Tamil-Toda Proto-Tamil-Malayalam

I I I

West Coast Dialects (prehistoric)

East C o a s t Dialects (prehistoric) Old Tamil

Early Malayalam

Early M i d d l e Tamil

Ko.d.

To.

Ko.

F o r the exact l o c a t i o n o f Ko.dagu see Bh. K r i s h n a m u r t i , Current Trends in Li,,zguistics 5, p. 326f.

[NOTE OF THE EDITOR. Since wrong conclusions with regard to this contribution might

be drawn from a recent publication in JAOS, 92, it is necessary here to state that Govindankutty's paper was completed at Christmas 1970 and then shown to some colleagues for criticism. Only the stemma was then added, on the advice of Prof. Zvelebil, to bring out more clearly the implications of the term "Proto-Tamil-Malayalain" introduced by the author.]