Indian Antiquary Vol 62

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 170

158
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ AUGUST, 1933
South and Central
Kurukh - Kurukh k- Brahmi gì Brahûi kDravidian k
Malto ki? (below)
kiya, kita
ki., kekida. (to lie down)
(below)
kid. (to put to kur-ugu (to be shor.
bed)
kur. (to roll kir. (to turn tened)! kir. (to turn
up); kurr. (to round) back)
be shortened)! kirugir. (whirling) kill. (to pinch) ..
kiss- (to pinch) [Kúi-Gôndi) kis. (to
pinch) kúd. (to be joined)
kud-(to string,
thread) cf. s., sai, etc. (to
khe- (to dio)
kah (to die) kc. (to die) die) Tam, kar-ai (bank of
karrak (river river)
bank) The following points are noteworthy in the above list :
(a) The velar fricative x- of Kurukh and Bråhui is a special development in these north Dravidian speeches ; Malto in corresponding positions shows also r. None of the southern and central Dravidian speeches show 2- in initial positions but only k. (or g- in some dialects rarely). 2- in Kurukh. Brahûi and Malto may very probably be secondary growths in these dialects. The factors which influenced this secondary change in these dialects are not clear; but possibly the frequency in Kurukh and Brâhâî of loan-words (Persian and Arabic) with initial x. may have been a contributory factor.
(6) Both in Brahải and in Kurukh there are words with k-(II in list above) corresponding to k- words of the rest of Dravidian. What exactly prevented the change here of the original Dravidian plosive kto X-, as in the other words adduced in the list, is a matter demanding enquiry. It is possible that (i) the spirantization was more active before back vowels than before front ones, and (ii) the existence of certain Indo-Aryan loan-words with k- may have exercised in some cases a preventive influence.
MISCELLANEA. FRANCISCO PELSAERT IN INDIA. word regarding the genesis of the Fragment of When I was preparing for publication the version Indian History, which he gave to John de Lact, of Pelseort's Remonstrantie, mnde in conjunction and which the latter printed in his De Imperio with Professor P. Geyl (Jahangir's India, Cam. Magni Mogolis (Loiden, 1631); the question whethor bridge, 1926), I was able to find very fow data to that Fragment is Pelaaert's work thus rerrains show the extent of the personal experionce on which undecided. Pelsaert based his observations. The gap is filler! Polsaert was one of a party sent, under the lead to some oxtont by incidental reference to him in of Wouter Heuten, from Batavia to India on the the MS. diary of Pieter van den Broeke (BPL 053 Nieuwe Zeeland, which reached Masulipatan in the in the library of the University of Leiden), and the autumn of 1620. The party travelled overland to following facts taken from this source may be of Surat, where they arrived on 6 Dec. that year; interest to students of the period.
Pelsaert's rank was then onderkoopman, that is, It must be promised that van den Broeke was a junior factor. On 20 Jan. 1621, he started with a vory unsatisfactory diarist, apt to record trivialities caravan for Agra, as assistant to Heuten, who had at length, and to ignore important occurrences in been chosen by van den Broeke to take charge of the which he played # conspicuous part. No inference Agra factory whatever can be drawn from his silenco : we have On 28 Sept., 1623, Pelsaert, now ranking as factor, merely to be thankful for what he gives, and regret arrived in Surat with a caraven of merchandise from that he did not give us more. Among many other Agra. He worked for the next six months in the omissions, it may be noted that he did not write a Surat factory, and on 22 March, 1624, he was sent