________________
xviii
DEŠINĀMAMĀLĀ view is untenable because it is geographically, historically and philologically impossible and absurd. The Dravidians were separated from the Aryan Colonists of Northern India by the Mundas lying between both and any borrowing by the Aryans from the Dravidians instead of from the Mundas with whom they came in direct contact is geographically impossible. It is also historically impossible. We must first answer the question when did the Aryans first come in to contact with the Dravidians ? Was it in the Vedic age ? Or after the Mahomedan Conquest ? If it was in the Vedic age then how can the Prakrit dialects, the vernaculars of Northern India of the intermediate period and of which we possess literary records in the Pali literature, in the Jaina canonical literature and the Asoka inscriptions preceding the birth of Christ by several centuries and which are the immediate predecessors in the line of descent of the modern vernaculars of Northern India-show a synthetic and inflexional structure like the Sanskrit ? They ought to have shown an analytical structure like the modern vernaculars of Northern India which is ascribed to the influence of the Dravidian tongue. Are we to suppose then that the Dravidian invasion of Northern India took place from the country of Tamil and Telugu speaking races about the time of the Mahomedan invasion or a little before it in order to give birth to the modern vernaculars of Northern India which show an analytical structure ? It is also philologically impossible. The Dravidian family of languages are agglutinative while the modern vernaculars of Northern India, show an analytical structure in some respects still retaining their inflectional character. They substitute for some caseaffixes and tense-affixes independent words which are inflected but they show no sign of agglutination like the Dravidian languages. How is the descent of an analytical
