Proto-elamo-dravidian (McAlpin, David, W., 1974)

7/28/2019 Proto-elamo-dravidian (McAlpin, David, W., 1974)

1/13

TOWARD PROTO-ELAMO-DRAVIDIANDAVID W. MCALPINPortland, OregonIt is demonstratedhere that the Dravidianfamily of languagesin South Asia iscognatewithElamite,an ancient anguageof West Asia.Thisdemonstrations basedon57 Elamitewords(mostlyverbstems)pairedwithcorrespondingDravidian erms.Thecorrespondencesare, on the whole, straightforward nd interlocking.A beginning smade in reconstructinghe phonologyof Proto-Elamo-Dravidian.*

Although numerous attempts have been made to find genetic connections, theDravidian family of languages has long remainedan isolate in diachronic studies.Most of these attempts have been toward Uralic or the various languages of theancient Near East, plus a smatteringof others.1This papershows that the Dravidianfamily is cognate with Achaemenid Elamite, an ancient language from around thePersian Gulf, which has also been an isolate.2 Not only can these two languages beshown as cognate, but enough detail is available to begin reconstructingthe proto-language, which I have tentatively labeled Proto-Elamo-Dravidian (PED). WhileElamite is cognate with the Dravidian family as a whole, it is in no sense a Dravid-ian language as that term is normally used. Thus, the term 'Dravidian' has beenleft to its currentusage, referring o a well-definedgroup of South Asian languages.To the best of my knowledge, only two previous attempts have been made toconnect Elamite and Dravidian. The first, by Caldwell ([1913] 1961:65-7), com-pared Dravidian with the Elamite of the Behistun inscription as part of ageneral comparison of Dravidian and 'Scythian' languages. The second, by Bork(1925:82-3), compared Elamite with Brahui. Both studies lack sufficient data tobe convincing. Without the background work of the Dravidian etymologicaldictionary (DED, Burrow & Emeneau 1960), and particularly the glossary inHallock 1969, little more could be said than that the similarities between

* I wishto thank RichardT. Hallockfor hiscommentson an earlierdraft of thispaper,and forhis advice and correctionson details of Elamite.I also want to thank Andrew Sihler for hiscommentsand hisencouragement.However,I take soleresponsibilityor the ideaspresentedhere.1Dravidian has been connected to the languagesand languagefamilies listed below, wherethe numbersrefer to entries in Andronov'sbibliography 1966); the list is far from exhaustive.Particularnote should be takenof Burrow 1946 and Tyler1968.Ural-Altaic(Scythian):67, 68, 110, 547, 697.Uralic: 95, 255, 548, 551, 639, 658.Altaic: 376.Korean: 266.

Basque: 316-19, 682.Sumerian:659.Hittite: 526.Mitanni:83.Indo-European:228.Austric:467.Nubian: 653.Indeterminate: 0, 65, 262, 470.2 Credit is due Erica Reiner for the germ of the idea that Dravidian and Elamitemight berelated.

89

This content downloaded from 117.193.185.109 on Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:26:21 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


2/13

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 50, NUMBER 1 (1974)Dravidian and Elamite are suggestive, and no conclusive demonstration wouldbe possible.

1. ELAMITE,lso called Anzanite or Susian,3was the languagespoken in Elam-an ancient kingdom centered on Susa, immediately to the east of Mesopotamia,between the Zagros Mountains and the Persian Gulf. Existenceof the kingdom wasfirstrecorded about 3000 B.C.,and it continued with variations in status and poweruntil defeated by the Assyrians under Assurbanipalin 640 B.C. The area was laterabsorbed into the Achaemenid Persian Empire. Elam borrowed heavily fromMesopotamia and was definitely in the sphere of Mesopotamian culture, but itmaintained a separate identity throughout.4 The language of Elam has been re-cordedin three versions.Thefirst,Proto-Elamite,was a hieroglyphicscript,firstusedonly a few centuriesafter the beginningof writing in Sumer.This scriptwas in usefrom 3000 to 2200 B.C.,and has neverbeen deciphered.The second version,MiddleElamite, was written in a cuneiformscriptderived from Sumerwhich came into usearound 2500 B.C.It was used in the records of the Elamite kingdom at Susa. Thethird version, Achaemenid Elamite (AE), derives from the special relationship ofthe Elamites to the Achaemenid Persians.5The Elamiteswere the imperialrecord-keepers, and Elamite functioned as the third language of the empire after OldPersian and Akkadian. AE data come in two sets. The first is from the royal in-scriptions6f-well composed, carefully written, containing about 5,000 words. Thesecond set consists of the imperialrecordsfrom Persepolis,7which are translationsof recordsmadefor and by the Elamiteclerks. Many of these memoranda are literaltranslations from Old Persianand are often hastily written, so they are not neces-sarily reliable in individual cases, or for syntax in general. However, the corpus isenormous, about ten times the size of the inscriptions.This gives them a statisticalvalue and depth of lexicon not available from the other sources. From this totalmass of data, a relativelylarge number of presumablynative Elamite lexical itemsemerges,after all Old Persian, Akkadian, or other obvious loanwordsare removed.A substantial number of verb stems is especially important.AE was written in a cuneiform syllabarywith relatively few (ca. 20) word signsother than the numerals and determinatives.8Unfortunately these word signs are3The majorsources on Elamiteare: Bork 1925, Paper 1955, Cameron1948,Hallock 1969,and Hallock'sotherworks cited in the references,below.4 Remarksby travelers,as recordedby the geographer stahri, ndicate hat Elamitecontinuedto be spokenaroundSusa untilafter 1000A.D. (Bork,73).5When the AssyriansunderAssurbanipalcapturedSusa and most of Elam, the remnantofthe ElamiteKingdom(calledAnshan)fell to a branchof the Achaemenid lan fromneighboringPars;thus Elam was the firststep in the Achaemenids' oad to empire.Since it was this Anshanbranchof the Achaemenidamilythatfoundedthe empire,Elamwas centralto it, and Susawasalwaysa majoradministrative apital. Later,the Persianbranch of the family (i.e. from Pars),beginningwith Darius,gainedthe throneaftera briefusurpation.It was Dariuswho built Per-

sepolisprimarilyas a ceremonialcapital.6 The majorinscription s the greatBehistun nscriptionof DariusI, whichis trilingual n OldPersian,Elamite,and Akkadian.This inscriptionprovided heoriginalcluesfor the deciphermentof the cuneiformscripts.7Thesehave been collectedand translatedby Cameronand by Hallock 1969.8 Paper (4-36) has a detaileddiscussionof the script and phonology. Hallock (1969:82-6)gives the actualsign lists and transliterationcheme.

90



3/13

TOWARD PROTO-ELAMO-DRAVIDIANused for some of the most common nouns, which as a result are often difficult tointerpretphonologically. The considerablePersianizationof the texts allows accessto the writing system and phonology through names and loanwords. Voicing isdefinitely not contrastive; and while graphic gemination is contrastive in part, it isnot yet certain that there was phonological gemination. In general, true geminatesare normally written as such, while true non-geminates may vary. The writtengemination contrast is much more consistent for sonorants than for obstruents.Three vowels (a i u) are always contrasted; a fourth (e) often is; and a possiblefifth (u) is sometimes indicated, but more probably stands for [w]. Based on in-ternal structuringand comparison with Old Persian and Akkadian, the basic unitsof the script (presumably also the phonemes) are:9 a i e u (i) (h)y k tp s s c r n I(1)m. The unit h is probably empty in AE; i.e., hV is only an initial variant of V.However, this is not the case for older forms of Elamite,whereh is used in the verbmorphology: cf. Middle Elamite huttahs'they did', hutta 'he did' (AE has huttasfor both). The units s and c do not seem to be in full contrast; separatesigns existfor SACAand for si cI, but otherwise only one sign exists for the pair. I use I torepresent the consonant of the sign EL.When they occur in Persian names, [m]and [v] are both writtenas m in Elamite. The units n and r tend to be interchange-able in some positions, particularlyin case endings. It is almost certain that vowelnasalization existed and was not written except for the optional insertion of the(presumably) original nasal: HI-DU-I.Sand HI-IN-DU-IS both exist for 'Hindu', butOld Persian may be an influence here. Second vowels in two-vowel sequences areusually dummies: DA-IS s written for das, etc. Many final vowels and some inter-consonantal vowels are also to be ignored. The morphology is of the agglutinativetype, and the structure of the verb is quite simple. Adjectives follow nouns, andverbs occur at the end of sentences. Other relevant details of the morphology willbe discussed when compared with Dravidian. Little more can reliablybe said aboutthe syntax, because of contamination from Old Persian in AE.

2. THE DRAVIDIANLANGUAGESare indigenous only to South Asia,10 primarilyin southern India, where they form a continuous block of over 120,000,000speak-ers.11As literarylanguagesthey have a long history, with Old Tamil going back atleast to the earlycenturiesA.D.,and splittinginto MiddleTamil and Old Malayalamaround 1000A.D.Old Kannadais firstrecorded around 500 A.D.,and Teluguaround1000. These four are the major Dravidian languages. Tulu and Kodagu are alsoimportant but non-literary members of the family. The other languages in thefamily are spoken by tribal groups, of which Gondi and Kurux are the most im-portant numerically.Diachronicallythe Dravidian languagesare divided into threemajor groups labeled South, Central, and North. South Dravidian (SDr.) consistsof Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Kodagu, neighboring tribal languages, and

9 Because of its essentially graphic nature, the transcription of Elamite is normally given initalics. The actual cuneiform signs are cited in small capitals according to Hallock's scheme.Because of their more abstract nature, I normally cite Dravidian and PED between slashes.10Abbreviations used below for names of Dravidian languages are: Ta[mil], Ma[layalam],Ka[nnada], Te[lugu], Kur[ux].11The basic sources on Dravidian are Burrow & Emeneau 1960, 1968, Caldwell 1913, Kumara-swami Raja 1969, and all of Krishnamurti's and Emeneau's works cited in the references, below.

91



4/13

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 50, NUMBER 1 (1974)

probably Tulu. Central Dravidian (CDr.) consists of Telugu, Gondi, and a numberof tribal languages of Central India. North Dravidian (NDr.) consists of isolatedBrahui and the closely related Kurux and Malto of Eastern India. Brahui, spokensouth of Quetta in Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan, is the least typicalof the Dravidian languages. South Dravidian provides the great bulk of Dravidianforms-especially Old Tamil, which has a position much like that of Sanskrit inIndo-European. Studies in Dravidian have probably been overly influenced byTamil.In general, Dravidianlanguagesare consistently left-branching,SOV, agglutinat-ing languages. Nouns and verbs tend to dominate the lexicon to the exclusion ofother form classes. As a result, there are few true adjectivesand adverbs;participlesand other verbals are used in their place. The phonology of Proto-Dravidian isanomalous in having six contrasting stop positions: labial, dental, alveolar,retroflex, alveopalatal [affricate], and velar. Of these, all except the alveolar andretroflex stops occur initially; no obstruents occur finally. The alveolar is the leastattested of the stops, and has disappearedin most Dravidian languages in favor ofthe five-stop pattern which is the South Asian areal norm: contrastive alveolarstop /r/ occurs today only in some dialects of Tamil, Malayalam, Toda, Kota, andKonda. It is realized as a tap or trill [?]when simple, and either as an affricate[t_r](Tamil) or stop [tt](Malayalam)whengeminate.Threenasals-labial, alveolar,andretroflex-clearly contrast by themselves in the proto-language; but Old Tamilshows some evidence that dental and alveolar nasals also contrasted,and Malayalamevidence points to the possibility of an initial alveopalatal/fi/. Contrastingalveolarand retroflex laterals exist along with a simple tap /r/ and a coronal approximate/r/ [i]. Semivowels /y/ and /v/ also occur. Proto-Dravidian stops and lateralscontrast in gemination when non-initial, but neverin voicing.12Consonant clustersare restrictedto sonorants followed by stops, and the clusters must be homorganicunless a juncture intervenes. The vowel system has five vowels /a i e u o/, withcontrastive length but no nasalization.Vowels in non-initial syllablesare less stable,and may fall into subphonemic vowel harmony.13Verb roots tend stronglyto thepattern (((C)V)C)V((C)C), where V is any vowel, C is any non-vowel, and CCrepresents clusters or geminates. A summary of the phonemes and majorclustersof Proto-Dravidian is given in Table 1.14

3. CORRESPONDENCERULES AND THE PHONOLOGY OF PED. The following corre-spondence rules are based on the pairs of lexical items in the glossary (?4). Thecorrespondencesare sufficientlycomplete and detailed to allow a partialstatementof the phonemes of PED. The rules are given in the following format: *A > B: C.Here *A representsthe PED phoneme, B the AE graphicalunit, and C the Proto-12 It wouldbe moreaccurate o say that Proto-Dravidianhad a tense-laxcontrastwhichcouldbe indicated phonologically by length, gemination, manner, and/or voicing, depending on theenvironment. I follow tradition by indicating this with written gemination. It should be kept inmind that this need not be true phonological gemination, e.g. in /1kk/, /Ikk/.13See Krishnamurti 1958 for a discussion of this problem. Since it is sometimes impossible todistinguish {/i/ /e/} and {/u/ /o/} before /a/ in Proto-Dravidian, I have marked these indeterminatevowels with a grave accent, i.e. */i/ and */u/.14 The NCC cluster pattern is not attested in Dravidian; see Kumaraswami Raja for argumentsconcerning its validity.

92



5/13

TOWARD PROTO-ELAMO-DRAVIDIANp- t- c- k-

-p- -t- -r- -t- -c- -k--pp- -tt- -rr- -tt- -cc- -kk--mp- -nt- -nr- -nt- -fic- -ik--mpp- -ntt- -nrr- -ntt- -iicc- -irkk-m- n- n- (?)-m- -n- (?) -n- -n--mm- -nn- (?) -nn- -nn--m -n -n-1-, -11-, 1C-, -1; -1-, -!1-, -1C-, -!;-r-, -rC-, -r; -r-, -rC-,-r (?);y-, -y-, -yy-, yC-, -y; v-, -v-.i, i, e, e, a, 5, o, 6, u, u.

TABLE 1. Proto-Dravidianphonemesand major clusters,with theirdistribution.Dravidian phoneme. The arrowhead (>) is read as 'gives rise to', and the PEDenvironment is indicated by the slash and dash notation along with the commonsymbols. After each rule, the numbers in parenthesesrefer to the glossary wherethe examples are presented. Glossary pairs with numbers under 36 are primecorrespondences; pairs with numbers 37-48 are of a secondary nature; and pairswith numbers above 48 are doubtful. A hyphen after a form indicates that it hasbeen abstracted in some way (i.e., it is a root or stem), and the usual asterisk isused before unattested Dravidian forms.

3.1. VOWELS AND SEMIVOWELS.(1) *e > 0: e /I# ta (5 [PED *ita], 7, 49a [PED *ena]).*u u(2) *a > a: a(3) *i > i / #C(4) *u > u: u(5) *o > u: oJThis set of correspondencesholds for all thecognatepairsexcept28 (see glossaryfor discussion)

and 37.(6) *e > eli: e / #C C (45, 46, 51, 52, 56).Two possibleexceptionsare bera-: paray- (19) and be- : vay-(orpey-?) (40).The /a/ in /paray/is quiteprobablya phonologicallyconditioneddevelopmentn Dravidian.Note that cila andpirare grammaticalparticlesin AE. This, togetherwith the restrictedoccurrenceof e, probablyindicates that Elamitehad a normalstresson the firstsyllableof a morpheme,as most often inDravidian(butnot always,cf. rule 1).(7) *a > a: a(8) *i > i : / #(C)VC(C)(9) *u > u: u

Examplesare numerous.Counter-examplesnclude 14, 31 (with unstable unstressedvowel);22, 54 (non-comparablebecauseof derivationalmorpheme -ay/ in Dravidian);and 8, 21, 48(withdifferent tem vowels).(10) *Wi] > 0: v [e] I # IV (35a-b, 47, 48).(11) *w > : v / V (7; cf. rule 47).

93



6/13

LANGUAGE,VOLUME 0, NUMBER1 (1974)3.2. CONSONANTS.

(12) *k > k: k / #V , V_ # (14, 38, 51, 53).(13) *k > 0 k 15 / V V (possibly with h?) (24).(14) *kk > kk: kk /VV V(39).(15) *sk > gk: kk/ V V(29).(16) *Uk > k: qk / V. V (35a).(17) *ykk > kk *:ykk / V V (31).

Anotherpossible patternexistswith sunki: *cukkay 54), but the connection s doubtfuland thePED form is unclear.(18) *t > t : 0/ # VrC (15, 17; cf. rule 28).(19) *t > t : t /# V (16, 39, 56).(20) *t > t : t / V_ V (5, 7, 33, 38).(21) *tt > t(t) : tt / V V (1, 20, 35b).(22) *rt > rt : t /V V (15, 31; cf. rule 38).(23) *p > p: p / # V (18, 19, 20, 52, 57).The set be-: tay- (orpey-?) (40) may be an exceptionto this rule.(24) *p > p: v/V V(11, 13b).(25) *mp > p(p) : mp/ V V (26; cf. rule 16).(26) *S > s : t I# V V (21, 22, 23; cf. rules 18 and 28).(27) *s > s : y V V, V _# (2, 3, 12).(28) *s > s: 0 / # VX, C V, V C where X = any C except li/rand /1/ (6?, 29, 41, 42, 53; cf. rules 18 and 26).Note in rules27 and 28 how often the vowel next to the PED /g/ is long in Dravidian.This maybe one originof Dravidiancontrastivevowel length.(29) *c> c: c/ {} (25, 44, 45).(30) *c > s c {a (24, 43, 54).(31) *cc > cc: cc V/V V(30, 34).(32) *nc > ns: nc / V (37).(33) *r > r: r/V V, V_ C (3, 6, 8, 18, 19, 21, 23, 43, 52).(34) *r > rr: r/VV V (14, 32, 41).Rules33 and 34, with theirexamples,are in themselvesclearproof that Elamiteand Dravidianare cognate languages.For two languageseach to have contrastingr's is not common;but thatthese r's should correspondone-to-one,withoutcounter-example,16orders on the statisticallyimpossibleunlessthe languagesare cognate.(35) *n > n : n / #V (26, 27, 28, 29).(36) *n > n: n/r (?) /V V (46, 49a).(37) *nn > tnn: n(n) / V V, V. # (25, 42).(38) *rn > rn : n / V V (17, 44; cf. rule 22).

151 use the symbol k for the weak /k/ of SDr. verb morphologywhich disappears n manypositions,see glossaryset 24.16 However, three pairsare indeterminate.Glossaryset 18 is ambiguoussince there are twoequallyplausibleDravidianentries.In set 14 the Elamiteform is ambiguous,and in set 43 theDravidian orm is ambiguous.

94



7/13

TOWARD PROTO-ELAMO-DRAVIDIAN(39) *nr > nr: n+ r / V (9; cf. rules 22 and 38).(40) *nk > nk: nk /VV V (49b; cf. rule 16).(41) *1 > : } / V V (22, 35a-b, 45, 47, 48, 51; note rule 10).(42) *1>n: I/V #(27).(43) *11> 11: 1(1) V V (16, 50).(44) *1 > : 1 (36, 56, 57).(45) *m > m : m / # V, V V (10, 31, 34; cf. rule 47).(46) *mm > mm(?) : mm / V V (4; see discussion in glossary).(47) *v > m : v / # V (30, 32, 33, 46, 55 [iur< *vur?];cf. rules 45 and 11).

For rules45-47, recallthat the Elamitegraphicunit m does not contrast[m]and [v],and that itsactualphonologicalvalue is ambiguous.The correspondencesare straightforward,and the variations are well within thelimits of phonological possibility. If we add /y/, which exists in both AE and Drav-idian but has no cognate pairs, then the tentative set of phonemes for PED iscompleted. This is given in Table 2. The major changes from PED to Elamite are

p- t- c- k- m- n--p- -t- -k- -m- -n--tt- -cc- -kk- -mm- -nn--mp- - ic- -rk--rkk-

-k (?)s-, - s-,k-, -s; -l-, -ll-, -1;C-, -t;-r-;, r-, -rt-, -rn-, -rs-; (y,) -w, (v-?).a, i, e, u, oTABLE. Phonemesand clustersof Proto-Elamo-Dravidian.

the merger of /m/ and /v/ (perhaps with vowel nasalization taking over the con-trast), the loss of /o/, and the loss of nasals before consonants. More detail isdifficult, since so little is known of the actual phonology of Elamite.For Proto-Dravidian, contrastive vowel length was developed (retained?), andconsonant clusters were simplified. There are several indications that Dravidiandevelopedinternalcontrastive vowel length. One is that South Dravidian verb rootsof the form (C)VCVC rarelyhave long vowels, while long vowels are fairlycommonin the form (C)VC. This may be the result of the loss of the middle consonant, withfusion of the adjacent vowels. Another indication is that, in purely Dravidianforms, long vowels are rarely followed by geminate consonants unless a junctureis involved; i.e., (C)VCC, (C)VC, (C)VC, and (C)VC+C are common, but(C)VCC is not. Third, and similarly, some archaic South Dravidian verbs vary instem-vowel length; Ta. Ma. 'see' has /kan-/ for the present-futurebase (beforevowel) and /kan-/ for the past base (before consonant); see also the discussionof glossary set 24. These data suggest that long vowels and long (i.e. geminate)consonants were in complementary distribution at some point in Dravidian.If we add a compensatory lengthening because of loss of /s/, it is quite likelythat the great bulk of Dravidian vowel-length contrasts can be explained as aninternal development. The simplification of the consonant clusters led to new

95



8/13

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 50, NUMBER 1 (1974)

types of articulations in Dravidian;17 thus */rt/ and */rn/ became /t/ and /ni/respectively.However, this is not the only source of the Dravidian retroflexseries;PED */// gives rise to /1/, and vowel environment seems to influence the distribu-tion of retroflexes.Where PED had prevocalic *t *l after *e or *i, the consonantinvolved is retroflex in Dravidian: see glossary sets 5, 33, 47, and 48, along withrules 20 and 41. I have no explanation for this odd rule, and it will be interestingto see if more data will verify or contradict the observation. The alveolar series inDravidian arises from */r/, with */ni/ > /nr/ (see rules 33 and 39). However, it isnot clear where Dravidian /rr/ comes from, possibly from */tr/ or */rt/. The originof /r/ is also not clear, but */rs/ is a possibility (see glossary set 6). Dravidian hasmerged */w/ and */v/, if they were ever really separate.Otherchanges are relativelyminor, and consideration is limited by our level of knowledge of Proto-Dravidian.

4. GLOSSARY F COGNATETERMS. he following numbered set of cognate termsconsists of AE words followed by Dravidian forms. The Elamite is given as nor-malized by Hallock 1969, except that c is used for z and (u)l is used for EL.Hallock's normalization is very conservative and, in general, uses the mostcommon form as the norm. It should be kept in mind that voicing is not contrastive-i.e., be equalspe, etc.-and that m could be either [m] or [v]. Dubious readingsof the Elamite forms are in brackets. The Dravidian form is either a reconstructionbased on the information in Burrow & Emeneau 1960 and 1968 (DEDS), or acitation of the best attested form. The reconstructions are preceded by the usualasterisk, while the cited forms are preceded by the standard abbreviation of thelanguage. Where a citation form is a reasonable approximationto the reconstruc-tion, asterisk and language name are separated by a slash: (*/Ta.) indicates thatthe form attested in Tamil is usable as the Proto-Dravidian form. The Dravidianterm is immediatelyfollowed by its referencenumberin DED(S). Dravidianortho-graphic ai has been normalized as /ay/. The ordering is that of the Elamitephonemes given in ?1 above.(1) atta 'father': */Ta. /attan/ 'father, elder'; */Ta. /attay/ 'woman of rank, father'ssister'(DED 121).18(2) as 'herd(s),domesticanimal(s)': */ay/ 'cowherd(caste),cow' (DED 283).(3) aras 'granary'(?), 'largebuilding' (?) [cf. irfa-(6)]: */Ta. /aray/ 'room, chamber, reasury'(DED 272).(4) am[la?]'mother'19 */Ta. /amma/ 'mother' (DED 154).(5) da- 'set, place, deposit; send': */Ma. /it-/ 'place, deposit, put; throw, cast away; give'(DED(S) 375).Cf. */Ta. /itam/ 'place, space, spot' (DED 368).Note rule 1.(6) irsa- 'great', irsana great thing', irsara great person' [cf. aras (3)?] : */Ta. /iray/ 'anyonewho is great,king,etc.' (DED 448). Cf. */Ta. /eru-/ 'rise,ascend,be high' (DED 723a)[/r/ < /rs/?]

17This processhas not yet completelystopped.In Malayalam,whichhas a veryconservativephonology, Sanskrit ks is assimilated as [c] (i.e. [ts]), contrastingwith the non-retroflex c].18 The word /attan/ is archaic in all Dravidian languages having the term; */Ta. /appan/'father' is moreusual.19The Elamite form occursin a singleunclearreading.The cuneiformsigns LA and MA differprimarilyn the angleof theirfirststroke,so ma could be a possiblereading.Terms such as thisand 'father' (1) are, of course, weak evidencethat the languagesare cognate. However, thesetermsareconsistentwith correspondences ased on otherevidence; t would be surprisingf thelanguageswerecognatebut thesetermswerenot.

96



9/13

TOWARD PROTO-ELAMO-DRAVIDIAN(7) dau- help' : */Ta. /utav-/ 'help, be of use' (DED 522).20(8) uri- 'believe': */Ta. /uru-/ 'pass in one's mind, think, heed' (DED 610). Cf. */Ta. /unni-/'think, consider, meditate' (DED 625). Especiallynote Brahuihunning hur-, hutt-)

'look (for), consider'with both /nn/ and /r/ in one verb.(9) unra'each', un 'one' + ra (?): */onr/ 'one thing, the number one' (DED 834d) [< /on/'one' + /t/ 'thing']. Cf. */Ta. /or/ 'one' (DED 834a).21(10) umi-'grind(grain)': */Ta. /umi/ 'husk, chaff' (DED 548).(11) hapi- 'apply pressure,press oil' (?): */Ta. /avi-/ 'become repressed,subdued;suppress,repress,extinguish,destroy' (DED 226).(12) hasa-'count, reckon': */Ka. /aya/ 'measure,extent,boundary'(DED 311).(13a) hi 'this', opp. hupe that': */Ta. /i(v)-/ [/i/ beforeC, /iv/ before V] 'this' (DED 351). AfundamentalDravidian formative found in all Dravidianlanguages,contrastingwith*/Ta. /a(v)-/ 'that' (DED 1) and with */Ta. /u(v)-/ 'nearyou' (DED 475).(13b) hupe'that', opp. hi 'this': */Ta. /u(v)/ 'not near, not far, at an intermediatedistance;near you' (DED 475). This term is archaic in most modern Dravidianlanguages.(14) karri(kariri) kid': */Ta. /karu/ 'young (of animal),foetus (of animal)' (DED 1074).Cf.*/Ta. /kori/ 'sheep' (DED 1799)?(15) tarti- 'conceal, comprise' (?): */at-/ 'shut, close, obstruct,conceal' (DED 73). Note rules18 and 22.(16) talli- 'write': */Ta. /tall-/ 'push, push forward,pushin' (DED 2559).22(17) turna-'know': */Ta. /u.nar-/ awaken, be conscious, perceive,know' (DED 518). Noterules 18 and 38.(18) pari- 'go to, issue' : */Ta. /pari-/ 'run away, flow quickly,fly off' (DED 3311). Cf. */Ta./pari-/ 'run, go out, escape' (DED 3268).(19) bera- read' : Ta. /paray-/'speak, say, tell' (DED 3318).(20) putu'lamb': */p6tta/ 'young (animalor plant)' (DED 3748); AND */Ta. /pottu/ 'male (ofanimals)' (DED 3747).(21) sara-'cut off, divide' : */Ta. /tari-/ 'be cut off, cut, cut down' (DED 2562).Note rule 26.(22) salu 'a high social class', salur 'gentlemen': */Ta. /talay/ 'head' (DED 2529), a basicDravidianterm.(23) sura-'(to) present' : */Ta. /tura-/ 'leave, forsake, abandon, give up' (DED 2768).23(24) sa- 'go to, go off': */Ta./ca(k)-/ 'die' (DED 2002).Cf. */cak-/'go, moveforward,proceed,happen'(DED 2006).24(25) cinna(qualifies'boys') pps. 'infant': */Ta. /cinna/ 'little, small, young' (DED 2135), abasicDravidianterm.(26) nappi god' : */Ta. /namp-/ 'believe, trust,long for, confidein' (DED 2975).(27) nan'day': */Ta. /nal/ 'day' (DED 3025).(28) nu 'thou', numi'you (pl.)', -ni 'thy' : */ni/ (obl. */nin/) 'thou' (DED 3051); */nim/ (obl.*/num/) 'you (pl.)' (DED 3055).25

20 There is also a parallelform */uitak-/help, etc.' which occurs in many languages.Internalreconstructionwould favor /utak-/ as the older form, but /utav-/ seems very widespread.Noterule 1.21 SinceElamitenormallyusedfigures n writingnumerals,relatively ew Elamitenumbersareknown. Of these, none seems to be cognate with Dravidian,except possibly Elamiteki 'one'with Dravidian*/ok(k)/'one, whole' (DED 834b).Numbersystemsneed not be stable diachroni-cally; Altaic has repeatedlyreplaced ts numbers.22 This is a strikingcorrespondence,onsideringhatElamiteused a cuneiform criptemploying

a stylusand wet clay.23 The actual meaningsseem to be closer than the glosses suggest;cf. the Elamitehasurasta'for [provisions]he presented'.24 In Tamil and Malayalam, ca/ is a term of disrespect,best translated kick the bucket'. Itis also one of the few verbs showinga variationin vowel length: Ma. cakuka'to die', cattu'died'. This is undoubtedlyan archaism.25Both the Elamiteand Dravidian orms show variationbetween i/ and /u/ in their forms for

97



10/13

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 50, NUMBER 1 (1974)(29) nuske- guard,keep,protect': Ta. /nokk-/ 'look at, see, watch' (DED 3144).(30) macci- remove,withdraw'26: */vacc-/ 'carryoff, seize,rob' (DED 4567).(31) martukkasportionof herdpaidto herdsman or hisservices' : */matarJkk-/engageforhire,

put down deposit' (DED 3795).27(32) marri- seize, hold, occupy', marripartisans': */Ta. /vari-/ 'bind, tie, fasten' (DED 4305).Cf. */Ta. /vari/ 'tax, levy' (DED 4307).(33) mite- 'go forth': */Ta. /vit-/ 'leave, quit, abandon; let go, dispatch,throw' (DED 4419),a basic Dravidian erm.(34) mucci'vat(s)' (?), 'some sort of storagevessel closed from above' : */Ta. /mucc-/'cover,close' (DED 4025).(35a) laki- 'go across' [cf. -lakkaacross]: Ta. /vilark-/ 'be transverse; urnaside; fall across,separate'(DED 4450).(35b) lati- 'reserve' (?): Ta. /vilatt-/ 'turnaside, divert,separate'(DED 4450).28

The following entries are of a secondary nature. They provide furtherevidenceto support already established correspondences.(36) ulma- 'think', ulma= ulma (?): */u!(!-/p-/k-)/'think, think on' (DED 600). Cf. */Ta./ul/ 'interior,inside,mind' (DED 600).(37) unsa-'receivein exchange': */Kur. /inj(r)-/'receive,accept,get' (DED 365; NDr. only).The suffix r/ is a regularstem formative n Kurux.(38) kuti- 'carry away, bear, uphold', kutira 'bearer': */Ta. /kuti-/ 'jump, leap, escape; trot,jolt, shake while walking' (DED 1419). Also */Ta. /kutiray/ 'horse' (DED 1423).29(39) tukki-'cut, engrave' : */tukk-/'push, shove, remove'(DED 2689).(40) be- 'create' : */Ta. /vay-/ 'put, place,store up, create' (DED 4565). Cf. */Ta. /pey-/ 'rain;put, place' (DED 3610).(41) sarra- 'collect (?), assemble' : */lar-/ search, collect, gather' (DED 319). Always foundcompoundedwith*/ac-/ 'search,examine,gather'(DED 306),as in Ta. /aray-/'search,etc.'30(42) sinnu- come': */Ta./in-/ 'bear(young),yield, produce'(DED 473).Also as a derivative nthe same stem: */Ta. /int-/ 'gather,come together, oin' (DED 458).(43) sari- 'destroy': */car-/ 'tear, cut, split' (DED 1951).The /r/ is ambiguous; t may be /r/.(44) cirna milk' (?): */Ta. /cinujk-/ 'ooze, issue in drops,drizzle'(DED 2079).(45) cila 'so, thus, then, as follows' : */Ta. /cel-/ 'go, flow, pass on' (DED 2286).(46) meni'then, after,after that' : */ve(ri)n/ back, after,behind'(DED 4518).(47) li- 'deliver, turn over to, communicate': */Ta. /vili-/ 'say, speak, call, invite' (DED 4460).Cf. */pili-/ 'call, shout' (DED 3447).

'you'. Since this variation s unusual or both languages, t mightreflecta variation n PED. Alsonote that both languages orm the pluralin /m/-a veryrarepluralin both. It seemslikelythatboth Elamite and Dravidianhave replacedtheir 3rdperson pronouns.The 1st personpronounsdo not seem to correspond:El. u(n) 'I', nuku'we'; Dr. */yfn/ (/yan/) 'I', */yam/ (/yam/) 'we(incl.)', */nam/ (/nam/) 'we (excl.)'26 For pairs30-34, recall that the Elamitegraphicunit m does not distinguish[m] from [v].27 This is the longestfit of any cognatepair.In fact, the Elamitewouldalmostexactlyfit witha possibleTamilnoun derivedfrom the verbstem, viz. *matakkay.28 The Tamilformsin 35a-b seem to be derivativesof a stem */vila(C)-/ be across'. Note rule10.29 In Dravidian, secondary meanings have come to predominate. The main semantic connectionto AE is the second group of meanings,referring o movements n carryinga headload.TheDravidianfor 'horse' is actuallytoo close to the Elamitefor 'bearer', and is quite possiblyaloanword nto Dravidian.30That this is originallya compoundverb is indicatedby the fact that it is the only SDr. verbin its conjugationclass with two long vowels that is not an obvious compound.Otherwise, orthis class long vowels arerestricted o monosyllables.

98



11/13

TOWARD PROTO-ELAMO-DRAVIDIAN(48) lilu- 'come forth': Te. /velalu-/'go/come out' < */vel-/ 'be open, public' (DED 4526).Cf.*/Ta. /veli/ 'be public;outside' (DED 4526).

The following entries have cognate pairs which are of a more dubious nature.Correspondences depending on their evidence alone are to be considered provi-sional.(49a) na- 'say': */Ta. /en-/ 'say, utter,express,think' (DED 737).31(49b) anka(or naka)'if, when' [Conditionalof na-? Metathesis?Two ver6s?] : Ma. /enkil/ 'if',conditional of /en/. The conditionalin /-kil/ is an archaic SDr. patternkept in thisfrozenform.(50) ulla- '(transportand) deliver'(i.e. cause to be in a place) : */Ta. /ul-/ 'be, exist in a place'(DED 599),a fundamentalDravidian erm.(51) kellira 'commander,admiral' < kelu-(?) 'govern' (?): */kel-/ 'conquer, overcome, suc-ceed' (DED 1641).(52) pir 'in addition, together': */Ta. /perukk-/ gather,pick up, glean' (DED 3623).(53) sak 'counterpartpayment), quivalency': */Ta./ak- (a-, an-)/ 'become,verbof identity,be'(DED 282),a fundamentalDravidian erm.(54) sunki'king': */cukkay/ star, dot' (DED 2175).(55) mur where,place (?)': */Ta. /Qr/ village, town,city' (DED 643).(56) telte 'a kind of fruit': */Ka. /tel/ 'thin, fine, delicate' (DED 2826). > */tel+tu/ 'delicateone'.(57) pul 'a kind of fruit' : */Ta./puli/' sourness, artness' DED 3546);alsoTa./puli/ 'tamarind'.

5. COMPARISONF MORPHOLOGIES.he basic morphology of Elamite is fairlywell worked out, the principal remaining problem being that the meaning of thevarious verb forms is often ambiguous. The modern Dravidian languages havefairly simple morphologies. However, the major effort in historical Dravidianstudies has gone into the phonology. As a result, our knowledge of Proto-Dravidian morphology is spotty at best, although the morphology of Proto-South-Dravidian is fairly well worked out.32 For these reasons, the following discussionof morphology is uneven in quality and usually tentative in nature.The verb in Proto-South-Dravidian had only two basic forms contrasting intense (or aspect?), traditionally labeled past and future. Another fundamentalpattern contrasted the finite verb (i.e. final, with personal verb endings) with thenon-finite (i.e. non-final, without personal verb endings). There was also a largeset of participles and other verbals, and a separate negative verb conjugation (ornegative verb?) A very important derivational pattern throughout Dravidian is thecausative series,33 where the causative of a verb stem is formed by doubling thefinal consonant or by an augment, e.g. Ta. /matajk-/ 'be folded', /matakk-/< */matarkk-/) 'fold', and /var-/ 'go', /varutt-/ 'cause to go'.

31 The verb/en/ is an absolutelyfundamental erm in Dravidian,having manysyntacticuses.It is the similarityof use, as much as the phonology, that indicatesthis pairas cognate. If meta-thesis is involved,it is a uniquecase; butvoweldeletion seems morelikely(see rule 1).32 See Subrahmanyam 971for an excellentsurveyof Dravidianverbmorphology.However,his conclusionsmay be too heavilyorientedtoward South Dravidian. See also Emeneau1967for a detailedcomparative tudyof South Dravidianverbmorphology.33This causative series can go as far as four degreesmorphologicallyn Modem Malayalam:var-'come', varutt-,varuttikk-, nd varuttippikk-. he term'intransitive' s restricted o the firstverb root, since the first causativeof an intransitive oot becomes a transitive-'to causeto befolded' equals'to fold'. Manyverb roots in Dravidianareintransitive ndagentless,andare thustranslatedas passives.Thereareprobablyno truepassiveformations n strictlyDravidianstyles.

99



12/13

LANGUAGE, VOLUME 50, NUMBER 1 (1974)The Elamite verb also had a very sparse morphology.34 The main contrastseems to have been between transitive and non-transitiveforms. There was also a

present-future distinction which was not morphologically involved in the transi-tive-non-transitive contrast. Each of the above forms had a secondary form withthe element -ma- added as an auxiliary. Personal endings were used throughout.In addition there were 'final' and 'continuative' forms, besides the imperativesand verbals. Nothing in the morphological forms of South Dravidian and Elamiteseem to correspond directly except possibly the Elamite present-future in -n-(Conj. III) corresponding with the Old Tamil future (i.e. non-past) in -un/-um.Also, the 3sg. ending in Conj. III -n-ra- seems to correspond to the Dravidianpersonal ending */-anr/ (see below). In general, the verbal morphologies of the twolanguages seem capable of corresponding, but too little is known of the history ofeither language for anything definite to be stated.The situation with the nouns is somewhat clearer. Dravidian nouns have a simpleagglutinative structure,noun (+ plural) + case. The plural marker is varied, with/-r/, /-kal/, and /-lu/ being the most common in South and Central Dravidian.Only four formal cases in Dravidian do not have an obvious internaldevelopment:the nominative, accusative, dative, and genitive. Nouns often have two stems, onefor the nominative and vocative and another (called the oblique) for all othermarked cases, but the details vary from language to language. The Elamite nounhas a similar agglutinative structure, the usual plural marker being -_p.35Four ofits simple cases-nominative, accusative, allative,36and genitive-correspond tothe basic Dravidian cases above. These are comparedwith their Dravidiancounter-partsin Table 3.37Another striking correspondencebetween Elamite and Dravidianis in the 2nd person pronouns (see glossary set 28).

TAMIL KANNADA TELUGU BRAHUI ELAMITENOM. 0 0 0 0 0Acc. -ay -an/-am -nu)e -n/-r/0DAT. -ku -ke -aku -(n)e (ALL.) -ki/-kaGEN. -in/-a -a -a -na -na/-niTABLE. Comparisonof basic cases in Dravidianand Elamite.

Two noun formatives are also noteworthy. The way to form an abstract nounfrom another noun in Elamite is to add -me(-mi): sunki 'king', sunkime'kingship,kingdom'. This is obviously related to Ta. /-may/, a formative of abstract nouns;e.g. alavalay 'babbler', alavalaymay 'babbling'. Elamite personal nouns areregularly formed in -ra: kellira 'commander' (51), kutira 'bearer' (38). Thisprobably corresponds to the Dravidian 3rd person formative */-anr/ (Ta. -an, Te.-.duetc.), which is used both as a noun formative and as a personal verb ending.6. No attempt has been made to be exhaustive in the searchfor Elamite-Dravid-ian correspondences, although the great majority of possible Elamite words were

34 Informationon the Elamiteverb is abstracted rom Hallock 1959.35 It is possiblethat this corresponds o the pluralin /-v/ in the 3rdpersonneuterpronounsofTamil and Malayalam.36 The simpledativehas no endingin Elamite.The allative ndicates motion toward',as doesthe dativein Dravidian.(Information oncerning he Elamitenouns is takenfrom Paper,69-90.)37 The Dr. accusativeendingis usuallythe sameas the nominative or inanimates.

100



13/13

TOWARD PROTO-ELAMO-DRAVIDIANinvestigated. Of about 300 good AE lexical items, i.e. those with a statable phono-logical form and a usable meaning, about 60 correspondences were established,with about 10 more of a very dubious nature. This list of 300 included meaningssuch as 'a kind of tool' and 'a kind of fruit', even though it is almost impossibleto establish a good correspondence for such a word. Other Elamite words areavailable, but with very ambiguous meanings, if any.This paper is obviously the firststep in a continuing process. Thereare undoubt-edly errors in some of the forms of Elamite, and particularlyof Proto-Dravidianas presented here. However, the major thesis that Elamite and Dravidian are cog-nate does not depend on a few etyma, but on the mass of data. The correspondencesinterlock too well for the thesis to be doubted.

REFERENCESANDRONOV,M. 1966. Materials for a bibliography of Dravidian linguistics. KualaLumpur: Dept. of Indian Studies, University of Malaya.BORK,FERDINAND.1925. Elam, B: Sprache. Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte 3.70-83.BURROW, T. 1946. Dravidian studies IV: the body in Dravidian and Uralian. Bulletinof the School of Oriental and African Studies 11.328-56.

-, and M. B. EMENEAU.960. A Dravidian etymological dictionary. Oxford: ClarendonPress. 1968. A Dravidian etymological dictionary: Supplement. Oxford: ClarendonPress.CALDWELL,EV. ROBERT. 913. A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian family of languages. 3rd ed. London. (Reprinted, Madras: University ofMadras, 1956, 1961).CAMERON,EORGE . 1948. Persepolis Treasury tablets. (Oriental Institute publications,65). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.EMENEAU,M. B. 1962. Brahui and Dravidian comparative grammar. (University ofCalifornia publications in linguistics, 27.) Berkeley & Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia Press.- . 1967. The South Dravidian languages. JAOS 87.365-413.HALLOCK, ICHARD . 1958. Notes on Achaemenid Elamite. Journal of Near EasternStudies 17.256-62.. 1959. The finite verb in Achaemenid Elamite. JNES 18.1-19.-- . 1960. A new look at the Persepolis Treasury tablets. JNES 19.90-100.

. 1962. The pronominal suffixes in Achaemenid Elamite. JNES 21.53-6.. 1969. Persepolis Fortification tablets. (Oriental Institute publications, 92.) Chicago:University of Chicago Press.KRISHNAMURTI,H. 1958. Alterations i/e and u/o in South Dravidian. Lg. 34.458-68.--. 1961. Telugu verbal bases. (University of California publications in linguistics, 24.)Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press.- . 1969. Comparative Dravidian studies. Linguistics in South Asia (Current trends inlinguistics, 5), ed. by T. Sebeok, 309-33. The Hague: Mouton.KUMARASWAMIAJA, N. 1969. Post-nasal voiceless plosives in Dravidian. (Dept. ofLinguistics, publ. 18.) Annamalainagar: Annamalai University.PAPER,HERBERT. 1955. The phonology and morphology of Royal Achaemenid Elamite.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.SUBRAHMANYAM, . S. 1971. Dravidian verb morphology: a comparative study. (Dept.of Linguistics, publ. 24). Annamalainagar: Annamalai University.TYLER, STEPHEN. 1968. Dravidian and Uralian: the lexical evidence. Lg. 44.798-812.[Received 30 October 1972.]

101

Documents

Proto-elamo-dravidian (McAlpin, David, W., 1974)