Reviews Of Different Books

Page 42

288 REVIEWS survey for all Dravidologists. The Dravidian family is said to consists of "ca. 22 languages spoken by about 110 million people in South Asia". He arrives at this number in spite of the fact that he takes Ollari and Gadaba as different languages. In his historical survey a tribute is rightly paid to L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar. What this scholar has achieved, managing to remain in contact with what was being done outside India in spite of the relative isolation in which it was his fate to work, shows that he was an outstanding and original scholar. Krishnamurti's judgment of the work of that generation is reasonable and fair. He even finds something to praise in E. H. Tuttle's publications. In his excellent survey of recent publications (primarily those by Emeneau and Burrow) occurs his thought-provoking suggestion of reconstructing a ProtoDravidian laryngeal (or h-type of sound) in the demonstrative and interrogative stems *iH-, *uH-, *aH- and *ya-leH- to account for the unexpected vocalism in Kui, Kuvi and Brahui and for h in Kuvi. [As for the glottal stop in Kuvi, Kui (dialectally), Konda and Gondi (dialectally) Burrow and Bhattacharya, IIJ, 6 (1962-63), p. 243, consider it to be "presumably of fairly recent origin", ancient Tamil having anticipated this development by its aytam which, accordingly, is not historically connected with the Central Dravidian developments.] Krishnamurti points to the forms gi for i, ga for a and ge for e in low class Telugu of Telangana, for which he assumes *H > 8, parallel to Old Tamil eHku 'steel' > colloquial mod. Tamil eggi (p. 320). As his notation eHku shows, Krishnamurti identifies the Old Tamil aytam with his reconstructed PDr. phoneme H/. He, however, overlooks the fact that the distribution of the OTa. aytam is entirely different from that of his reconstructed /H/. Mod.Ta. eggi with its curious intervocalic [g:] may be hard to explain in detail but there can be no doubt that it represents a particular development of /k/, which may or may not have been conditioned by the preceding aytam. Since the aytam must have disappeared from living speech at a very early period, it is not easy to imagine a straight-line development from OTa. ehku to eggi. The Tranquebar Dictionary gives eku by the side of ehku (instead of *ekku, which would be the normal representation). However that may be, the colloquial form eggi gan hardly prove anything in this connection, no matter how OTa. ehku, without cognates in Dravidian, can be explained. On the other hand, demonstrative pronouns in general constitute a particular category in that, as a result of their function, they are open to various kinds of emphatical reinforcements. Cf., e.g., Sanskrit a + sau, Latin *hod + ce > hoc, Old French (ecce + hoc >) co, mod. French ce, French celui > celui-ci, celui-la, Boer-Dutch hier-die 'this' (the old demonstrative die 'that' having taken over the function of the article de, itself a demonstrative in origin), etc. So far the theory of a Dravidian laryngeal (cf. L. V. Ramaswami Aiyar's article in Indian Antiquary, 59[1930), p. 197ff.) would not seem to rest on a solid foundation. With the aytam, which only occurs in long stops (cf. Ta. ehku- 'to pull with fingers (as cotton)': Ma. ekkuka-'to card cotton', Ka. ekku- 'to dress cotton, card wool) it has certainly nothing to do. In the discussion of the personal pronouns Krishnamurti refers to his explanation of *nam as standing for n + yam 'you and we' (p. 321), which he has since elaborated in the Emeneau-Festschrift, p. 194. Such a dvandva-compound of two pronouns, however, would be a unique phenomenon in Dravidian word-composition. In the sub-grouping of South-Dravidian Krishnamurti suggests an improvement on Emeneau's diagram in assuming that Kodagu split off from the Tamil (-Malayalam) branch at a later date than Toda and Kota (p. 326). As for Malayalam, the traditional view that it has split off in the Middle Tamil period (a view still represented by Krishnamurti's diagram on p. 327) is only a very rough approximation of the real historical process. See A. Govindankutty, IIJ, 14, pp. 52-60. As for the genetic relationship of Dravidian with other language-families, Krishnamurti's criticisms of some arguments of Altaic scholars (p. 328) are fully justified. "At the same time", he adds on p. 329, "it must be admitted that there is a fairly large