Tyler - Proto-Dravido-Uralian (1986)

8/13/2019 Tyler - Proto-Dravido-Uralian (1986)

1/37

PROTO DRAVIDO URALIAN

Stephen A. TylerDept of Anthropology and Linguistics

Rice University

September 986


2/37

Abbreviations:

Abbreviations used in this paper are as follows: UralianFi. Finnish, Vt. vote, Est. Estonian, Lp. Lappish, Md Mordvin Vty. Votyak,Zr. Ziryene, Vg. Voguil, Os. Ostyak, Hu Hungarian, Yr Yurak, Sk. Selkup,

otKm Kamassian, Yk. Yukagir; Dravidian Ta. Tamil, Ka. Kannadf Ko Kota,

(To. Toda Tu. Tulu, Te. Telugu., Kol. Kolami Pa. P a ~ j i Go. Gondi, Kur. Kurukhvtand Br. B r a h ~ i . Other abbreviations include DED Dravidian Etymological

Dictionary); DEDS Dravidian Etymological Dictionary: Supplement); DENDravidian Etymological Notes); FUV Finno-Ugric Vocabulary); IE Indo-

European); sg. singular); pl. plural)


3/37

T BLE 1. Proto Dravidian Phonology

Consonants;Bilabial Dental Alveolar Retroflex Palatal Velar

p t ;1 t c km n n ? n n ?

1 1.3r r

v y

VowelsFront Backi i u u

e 0 0a a

.1. sometimes written 2. = in various reconstructions3. Dento alveolar flap


4/37

TABLE 2: Proto-Uralian Phonology

ConsonantsBilabial Dental Alveolar Cacuminal

1

2.

p t

s sc

m n n ?

r

v

VowelsFront Back

l ue 0a a

These may be reconstructed with contrasting length.0Palat-velar fr icative Collinder.

Palatal Velark

.sc

?}?

y


5/37

TABLE 3: Uralian Dravidian Phonological CorrespondencesUr Dr Ur Dr Ur Dra a k k r 1a a c w va a t y y a c ta e s ca e s t

ay s ti s c

e e ~ .e e y tj re a 7Y ri i t t

;'i Jj1 f ( t t'

i ay t t0 0 n n- /0 0 n n

/0 u n nv u I) n.- u p pu 0 m mu y m vu 0 1 1

1 11 rr rr r.r t


6/37

T BLE 4: Proto-Dravido-Uralian Phonology

ConsonantsBilabial Dental Alveolar Retroflex Palatal

1

2.3.4.5.

p t

m n

1

r

v

..

Frontie

i....e

Vowels

a

t c...n n

1

r

Backu

0 0

All Dravidian alveolars are sp l t from dento-alveolars.All Ural ian sibi lants are variants of c.All Ural ian palatals are palatalized retroflexes.All Ural ian cacuminals are palatalized retroflexes.Ural ian a s a fronted palatalized) a.

?

Velark

y


7/37

T BLE 5: Summary of Noun and Verb Inflectional Correspondences and Proto-forms.

Proto-Dravido-Uralian

nominative

genitive/oblique -nV/ -tV

accusative -m

locative -ne/ -te

dative/lative -kV

present/hortative -k

past - i , - t , -c

Prato-Dravidian

-nV/ -tV

-n/ -m

-ne/ -te

-kku/ -ku

-k

- i , -t , -c

Proto-Uralian

-n, -ta/ -di

-m

-na/ -na-t ta/ -t ta

-kV

-k/- i , -s, -c


8/37

I 1Introduction

Since the publication of Dravidian and Uralian: the lexical evidence(Tyler 1968), which summarized research on extra-Indian Dravidian connectionsprior to 1968, a n u m ~ r of important publications have both widened anddeepened our understanding of the relationship between Dravidian and Uralian.The most important contributions have come from the work of I l l ic-Svityc(1971-84) and Marlow (1974). Unfortunately neither of these works has been

idely available. I l l i l -Svi tyc s work is in Russian and Marlow's is in anunpublished Ph.D. disserta t ion. I have not been able systematically to

.,incorporate I l l ic -Svi tyc s work in this paper, and can only indicate herethe general correspondence between his comparisons, reconstructions, andconclusions and those given by me in 1968 and by Marlow in 1974. For anaccount of the Russian work, readers should consult the paper by VShevoroshkin on Nostratic in this volume (pp. ) . In general though

.I l l ic-Svityc includes Dravidian and Uralian, along with Altaic and Elamitein h}.s reconstructed Eastern Nostratic family of languages. His conclu-sions,are supported by etymological comparisons, phonological reconstruc-t ions, and some morphological observations.

Marlow's work contains the most extensive vocabulary comparison yetachieved. She l i s ts more than 700 reconstructed Uralian vocabulary itemsrepresenting a core Uralian vocabulary and suggests Dravidian,cognates formore than 600 of the Uralian words. She also reconstructs a tentative Proto-Dravido-Uralian phonology based on systematic sound relationships between


9/37

2reconstructed etyma from both language families. systematicknowledge of both Dravidian and Uralian languages, ut i l izesources not normally available to those whose specialis t k is limitedto only one of the two language families. s th is valuable has not

~ been published and remains largely unknown toappendix to th is paper some representative etymologies from i t

Other work on Dravidian, not directly incorporated here, but formingpart of the growing discourse on wider dravidian connections, includes thestudies of several Japanese scholars on Japanese and Dravidian (see, e.g.Fujiwara 1981 for detai ls and references). The Japanese-Dravidian etymasuggested by Fujiwara look convincing, but I cannot really judge theJapanese evidence. Moreover, most of the Japanese scholars seek to show aconnection directly between Japanese and Dravidian, where, following Menges(1964, 1969), I would connect Prato-Dravidian and Proto-Altaic, the relation-ship between Japanese and Dravidian then being mediated through Altaic.

Closer to the his tor ic and contemporary Dravidian locale i s Elamite,and here McAlpin 1973) has provided a fai r ly convincing case for a geneticconnection between Dravidian and Elamite which will become even more evidentwith the publication of his further work, and with the progress of researchon the relationship between early non-cuneiform Elamite scr ipt and the IndusValley script . In this context, the recent attempts to translate the Indusscript ar.e relevant since both the Finnish and Russian teams have concludedthat the language of the Indus script is Dravidian. Even though thereis l i t t l e proof in the way of accepted t ranslat ion, the Dravidian at tr ibu-t ion i s s t i l l the most l ikely one. This might seem to be contradicted by


10/37

3ltfcheuer's (1978) recent attempt to l ink the Indus scr ipt with Sumerian,but in view of Boisson's (1985) attempt to l ink Sumerian and Dravidian,the contradiction dwindles.

Much of this work on the relation of Dravidian to archaic MiddleEastern languages is s t i l l in early stages and is consequently diff icu l tto evaluate, but in connecti'pn with both archeological and ethnologicalevidence, which has for some time implicated these relationships, i t isl ikely that further research will confirm them. One effect of the MiddleEastern connection is of course, to reduce the importance of geographic

1distance between the eravidian and Uralian languages as a stumbling block toacceptance of their genetic relationship. The Middle Eastern research, alongwith archeological evidence, suggests an unbroken chain of interconnectedcultures stretching from Central Russia to Central India, and we already knowfrom the case of Indo-European that geography i s neither a barr ier to, nor apredictor of genetic l inguistic relationships. Whatever the ultimatesignificance of this related research, we now have in hand an accumulationof evidence from independent sources confirming the genetic connection be-t w ~ Dravidian and Uralian.

Apart from etymological correspondences and morphological recon-s truct ions , the following l i s t provides a general background of structuralsimilari t ies between the two language families.

(1) Word order i s generally S 0 v.(2) Qualifers precede the qualified, thus adj + N a d ~ V.(3) Order of 'Comparison is s tandard+ comparator+ adj .(4) A separate negative conjugation, and a negative auxill iary


11/37

4inflected for person, number, and tense.

(5) Common verbal structure consisting of base tense/modepersonal ending.

(6) Separate verb conjugations for objective and subjective

(7) Personal endings of verbs are derived from personal pronouns.(8) Common derivational order: root derivative suffix

inf lection.(9) Common pattern of affixation; elements joined by suffixing

rather than by prefixes or infixes.(10) Two correlative noun categories: Dravidian rat ional ( high

class )/nonrational ( low class ). is equivalent to Uralian animate/inanimate.

(11) Common nominal structure consisting of base case suffix orbase plural case suffix or base oblique post-position.

12) Cases: sboth have case system,.,consisting of a set of corecases (nominative, genitive, accusative, dative, and locative) and otherder:f.. Y'ed cases.

(13) Post-positions: other case relations are expressed bypost-posit ions derived from nouns or verbs.

(14) Singular-and plural have the same case forms.(15) Adjectives and adverbs are scarce and usually derived from

nominal or verbal phrases.(16) There are no definite and indef inite art ic les(17) Gender systems are ei ther absent or underdeveloped.


12/37

(18) Echo words are frequent.(19) A ounnon system of enumeration (see below, pp. JZ..).Given these impressive paral lels of structure , the large ommon

vocabulary, and systematic sound correspondences already provided no onecan any longer reasonably conclude that the genetic relationship betweenDravidian and Uralian is only a ~ i k l y possibil i ty. I take i t as suff icientlydemonstrated and consequently turn to the next order of business, which i sthe reconstruction of Dravido-Uralian phonology and morphology.

I I Proto-Dravido-Uralian Phonology

Based on the proto phonology of Dravidian underlying the DravidianEtymological Dictionary (Burrow Emeneau 1961) and on Zvelebil s Compara-t ive Dravidian Phonology (1970) we have the following table of Proto-Dravidian phonology.

Table 1 about here

Based largely on the work of Collinder (1960), Proto-Uralian phonologyis reconstructed as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2 about here

Using the l i s t of cognates published in Tyler (1968), and in Marlow(1974), we derive the phonological correspondences between D r a v i d i i ~ a n d

-


13/37

6Uralian indicated in Table 3.

Table 3 about here

From the correspondences in Table 3, we derive Proto-Dravido-Uralian phonology as given in Table

Table 4 about here

While much continues to be problematic, part icularly in theUralian reconstructions, and many detai ls remain to be worked out, we cans t i l l point to some general processes of phonological change. Among themare: (1) palat izat ion; (2) vowel fronting - sometimes in association with

(palatalization; (3) te troflexion.Palatal izat ion is a process internal to both language families

.,;involving k > c, k > kh, k > s before front v ~ l s in Dravidian and probablyn > ~ before front vowels or a lab ia l or velar palatal in the next syllable.,c. , ,In ~ r o t o U r a l i a n a palatal series ft, s , n, 1 is reconstructed even though

/ , ,the evidence for s , n, 1 is very contradictory and points to their derivativestates, possibly as the result of contact with Slavic. In Uralian the

.,; ; /.. C t / I 'probable development is : k > c; ~ > , > ; c > s ; s > s ; 1 > 1 ; t > c.Uralian af f r icates would a l l be allophones or derivatives of Proto-Dravido-Uralian t , *c, and *k. Where Proto-Uralian does not have the,expectedpalatal izat ion the conditioning following syl lable i s either reduced orcontracted through the loss of an intervening syllable. This would be


14/37

part icularly the case with syl lables containing a sonorant r or 1. The.pre-palatal s is a positional variant of Proto-Dravido-Uralian *r where i t

is not derived from palatal izat ion of an underlying k.Uralian has many vowels with fronted/raised allophones. In Pro,to

Uralian ~ i s the main reflex of this process. In other cases, vowel-in i t ia l words wil l have an onset glide v/y which has the effect of frontingthe vowel. These glides sometimes become permanently affixed and the vowelbecomes fronted. n identical process occurs in Dravidian i / e and u/oin i t ia ls . Palatal izat ion of an in i t ia l consonant before a front vowel inUralian may result in subsequent variants in which the vowel of the f i rs tsyllable is raised. This also occurs in Dravidian, but less frequently.

In general, the cacuminal series in Proto-Uralian corresponds tothe retroflex series in Dravidian, with some reduction in the to tal numberof phonemes in the series in Proto-Dravido-Uralian. To this group we shouldadd the velar affr icate f Proto-Uralian cacuminals are a l l affricatizedretroflexes. This process also occurs within Dravidian where the reflexesof *r are often af f r icates . Since the Proto-Dravidian retroflexes do not

o c c u ~ in i t ia l ly this might indicate a different reconstruction, e.g. fromaffr icate to stop or sonorant, but since af f r icat izat ion occurs in Dravidian,af f r icat izat ion rather than de-affricatization seems more l ikely. Inaddition, Uralian has internal evidence for the existence of retroflexion.

The ~ ~ e S t i Q \ of ret rof lexion also involves a problem about consonantclusters . Both Uralian and Dravidian have frequent consonant clusters orgemination and there is some evidence to suggest that Dravidian retroflexescorrespond to Uralian consonant clusters , but th is i s diff icul t to determine


15/37

8jus t from the evidence of reconstructed roots.

The major source of problems in the reconstruction, however, apartfrom the Proto-Uralian vowels, are the l iquids, which generally correspondas a whole but not in particulars . That is , most r s and l s l ine up, butnot in a predictable pattern.

I I I . Morphological Reconstruction 2

This section is intended only as a beginning or introduction to thereconstruction of Proto-Dravido-Uralian morphology I t presents a recon-s truct ion of some numerals, the system of enumeration, the pronouns, theplurals of nouns, the core case suffixes, and some of the tense/mode suf-fixes of the verb.

NUMERALSDravidian-Uralian numeral correspondences include the numerals

''one four and ten and a conunon system of enumeration based on eight .o g ~ t e s for the numerals one and four are as follows:

Dravidian Ural anone DED834 Ta. onru FUV126 Fi. yksi

Ko od Lp ok'taTe. oka Vty. odik, okPa. ;. Zr. ~

DED3024 Ta. nal Fi . neljafour FUV102Ko .n ng Zr. nolKur. nakh Hu negy


16/37

Not that these forms also agree in consonantal variation. For one ,Vboth have variants with a nasal followed by *-t- (Cf. Ta. o ~ ~ u Zr. ot)

and a reduced form of this variant without the nasal (Cf. Ko. od, Vty,.

9

odik). Both also have variants with -k- rather than -n t - / - t - . Similarly,both have variants of four with a l iquid (-1-) and with a -k- or -g-.This may mean that the -k- forms are reduced variants of *on-k- and*nal-k- where the - t - and -k- have some function as suffixes (see PP I f

The system of enumeration is transparent in the following example:Te. Fi

one oka yksitwo rendu kaksithree mudu kolme.four nalugu neljafive ayqu vi i s isix aru kuusiseven edu se i t seeight enntmidi kahdeksannine tommidi yhdeksan.ten padi kymmenen

In both cases i t is obvious that the numerals for 8 and 9 are compoundforms. The Uralian system shows two variants. In Sk., for example, 8 is

.

~ t t y Ca k ~ t ; i t ty 2 J ciif leSS J II kbt 10) J 11 tWO from ten iS eight 0 II'::)and 9 is ukkyr caf kot (ukkyr 1), one from ten is nine. Yk., on the

3Qother hand, has for 8 s idnteet , from s i ~ 2, andfour is eight . Km also has the twice four form

tee t 4; thus, twice''sentee'df, from


17/37

10'sen= 2 and tee df 4). Yk. 9, however is 1as expected,in the minus

form (haasajUu, = 10). Fi. , ~~ t . , Lp. and Zr. have a variant form of2 before a 10 suffix; kah, gav- and kyk- srepectively 2 and -deksan, -deksa,

1\-ce, -mys, -aamys, jaamys respectively = 10. They are thus in the twofrom ten form. In these same languages 9 i s formed with a 1 (yh-, u-, ov-,ok- respectively) before the ten forms above, and are thus . one from ten =nine .

In Dravidian 9 i s generally in the from or minus form. Forexample, Ta. o ~ p a t u = 1, patu = 10), Go. unmak (un = 1, mak = 10)

l fone from ten DED 862). The num}{al 8 though, is less c lear . In SouthDravidian, with the exception of Tu., i t appears to be a simplex form

e ~ F u , en-, e ~ F u , but Tu. and Central Dravidian languages generally have acompound form of en- or en- plus -rna, -midi, -madi, -mater, -mur-. These-m- suffixes appear to be tens even though none occurs as a free formwith that meaning. -lJllla, e.g. would seem to be two from ten . TheseCentral Dravidian versions of 8 would thus be comparable to those inUralian using 10 as a subtractive base, but Dravidian e ~ ; e n is probably

- ~ : . _ ~ - - ~ .DENS 13 Ta. e ~ a i other ,ot 4erived from any numeral for 2 (but seethe rest ; Br. elo the other one , the second ), though i t may be

cognate with *in- DED 387), inai pair , double , couple , whichwould then yield *en - tu where - tu might be cognate with Uralian 4, as inYr. teet , Km tee 'da, Sk teety, and thus ceoyield a twiJ( four form inDravidian, but th is seems far-fetched without further evidence on theDravidian side. I t i s more l ikely that Dravidian *en- i s cognate with*ell- count , calculate , number DED 678). I t i s thus, the number thatcounts . I t may be cognate with Hu. nyole 8, but without further evidencefrom Uralian, th is i s only speculative


18/37

11There is also a connection here with Indo-European. Some reflexes

of IE 8 appear to have a dual suffix, indicating something l ike twice four .These dual forms may point to the existence of an archaic IE method ofcounting by fours that is probably related to the similar Dravido-Uralian system of counting by doubling . Whatever the IE connection, i tis clear that both Dravidian and Uralian have a conunon system in which eightand i t s factors and multiplesare the basis. I t should be noted that systemsof weights and measures based on eight or sixteen have been current in Indiasince the Indus c i v i l i z a t i o n ~ ~ d ~ e ; ~ s t i l l in u s e ~ t h e second m i l l e n i ~ B . c ~ J(16 annas to a rupee, an 8 anna crop , etc. up to about 1950, when Indiachanged to a decimal and metric system.

The ten suffixes in Zr. -mys, -(aa)mys, (jaa)mys (Cf. kykjamys =t lu. / .-vt. ~ u . ( ( i / . . . - rvtiilrfY { t t ~ M i i w n - : . . C\);1 0 - 2 = 8, okmys = 1 0 - 1 = 9 ; ~ t h e Fi. and Est. suffixes -menen, men(kymmenen = 9, kymm = 9) form a cognate set to which should be added theFi.-mant, as in kolmant third , and the following tens : Vty. jwamyn (20),komyn (30),)Kvatymyn (40), vetymyn (50); tZr. nela-myn (40), Vg. nal-men (40),Hu. negy-ven (40), hat-ven (60). These yield an Uralian ten form in *min- t .

( IColl\:nder reconstructs mono FUV 133) and adds to the set Fi. moni many ,Lp. moad'de more than one , Vty. mynda as much as , Zr. symyn so much,so many and kymyn how much? He compares these to IE *mf(n- (Got. managsmany , several ; I r . meneic frequent , e tc . . As a numeral, however,

there is a better correspondence with the Dravidian tens suffix *mant-,which is probably the source of the Dravidian ten forms noted in connection

twith the discussion of eight and nine. These reflexes of * m a n ~ (ma, mak,madi, midi) are usually thought to be homorganic variants of *pan/pak- ten


19/37

DED 3236), but th is requires a very complex allophony for the in i t ia l*p- of *pan-/pak, to say nothing of the stem allomorphy when *pan-/pakfunctions as a tens base. The evidence i s more consistent with twoseparate tens words/suffixes, one \in *pan-/pak- or more l ikely, *pan-kand another in *ma(n)-/man-t-, the two la t te r being cognate with *man-t-DED 3847), which means group ,' herd , flock , but is also used as anumeral class i f ier suffixed to numerals when counting humans, as in Te.nalugu mandi manusulu ( four human men ) as opposed to nal,gu e ~ ~ u( four oxen ). Note here, too, the form-meaning correspondence with IE

0

12

~ n - , which thus points to an archaic form indicating collection in a l lthree language families.

As for the reconstructed form *pan-k- above, i t seems clearly con-nected to IE *pen-kw five . The interpretat ion is that the *-k suffix ofDravidian *pan-k and the *-kw suffix of IE can both be traced to an archaicdual or plural (on the dual and plural in Proto-Dravido-Uralian (see below,pp 20 I . *n this reading, *pan- means five , and pan-,k is ten or''two fives . I t i s probably cognate in i t s archaic reading with words for

f i s ~ , full , replete (Cf. DED 3174).To sum up, Dravidian and Uralian have clear cognates for the

numerals one and four, and probably also for ten (*man-t-). More importantly5they have the same structure of enumeration, both u s i n g ~ i m p l e x forms for the

f i r s t seven numerals and compound, derivative forms for eight and nine.Enumeration i s based on eight, which i s either a doubling of four or sub-t ra t ion of two from ten. Both systems also implicate a more remoteconnection with IE of the sort postulated in Nostratic.


20/37

13PRONOUNS:

The correspondence between Dravidian and Uralian pronouns is com-plex, but s t i l l apparent. There is f i rs t of a l l a general s tructuralequivalence in the dis t inct ions of person and number, but not in gender.Uralian does not distinguish between masculine, feminine, and neuter inthe third person, whereas Dravidian distinguishes between masculine on theone hand and feminine/neuter on the other in the singular third person.

Compare the following paradigms.

Finnish TeluguSingular Plural Singular Plural.mina me -enu memus t pers.

2nd pers. sina te nuvvu miruh;; he va:du m/f - varu3rd pers.

f /n. adu V t/f /n aJ u

Dravidianists do not agree on the reconstruction of gender in Proto-Dravtdian, but something on the Telugu pattern above has been thought l ikely,even though i t is doubtful that there was a dis t inct ion between masculineand feminine/neuter in the singular. Note too, that the plural dis t inct ioni s not specifical ly an indication of number as such. I t is as much, i f notmore, an indication of respect and honor, indicating the difference between

high class and low class people and things. All the early nativegrammars a t tes t to this dis t inct ion and note that low class nouns need notbe pluralized, though they can be. I t i s thus doubtful that these plurals


21/37

14are plurals or that they encode a gender dist inction since both males andfemales, as well as some neuters can be either high class or low class.In effect , so called gender wouldbe marked only n the plural since thatis where the honorific suffix occurs. h i ~ would mean that the masculinesingular i s a la te development inspired .by the imbalance created byhonorifics in the plural.

Dravidian has a dist inction between inclusive and exclusive in thesecond person plural that seemingly has no direct counterpart in Uralian.I t also has a set of reflexive pronouns (*tan- sg.,/*tam- pl . which occurin f i r s t and second person and are used as th ird person pronouns.

Phonological correspondences in pronominal forms are similarlycomplex. Collinder reconstructs m i n ~ / m y n a for f i r s t person sg. in Uralianwhere Dravidian f i r s t person sg. i s *yan/*nan. Similarly, Uralian has

mi/ my in f i r s t person pl. while Dravidian has yam/ nam. Where Uralian hasm-, Dravidian seemingly has *y-/*n-, but both have an n/m opposition in

singular and plural. That i s , Uralian has m i ~ / m i FUV 34, 35, 145) wherethe sign of the singular is -na. The argument advanced here is that mi ishe plural marker -m and i s not the pronominal base to which -na is suffixed.

This is confirmed by the distr ibution of personal endings for verbs inUralian, which are derived from the pronouns. Finish, for example, has -n,f i r s t person sg. and -m f i r s t person pl . personal endings. Though some-times reversed, -n and -m are the usual markers of the f i r s t person in verbs.Dravidian, too, uses derived forms of the personal pronouns as personalendings and has the same distr ibution: -n f i r s t person sg . , -m f i r s t personpl.


22/37

en

15There i s no direct correspondence between in i t ia l consonants in

the pronouns because each family has used different forms of the pronominalvariants that must have been present in their common ancestral source.Evidence for this variat ion is common in the daughter languages of both

)..Dravidian and Urali,n. Note, for example, Dravidian *yan/*nan, *yan/*namDED 4231, 4234), but also Te. emu, nemu, memu; Go. ammat, mammat f i rs t

person pl . ) ; Te. enu, nenu, Go. ana, nanna f i rs t person sg.) . In Uralian,compare Fi. mina, Hu. en, Vg. am f i rs t person sg.) . Thus, Proto-Dravido-Uralian had f i r s t person forms in *CVn/*Vn (sg.) , and *CVm/*Vm pl . ) . Proto-Dravidian *y- in pronouns was originally probably an onset glide. Thephonological realizations of the in i t ia l consonants was either *m- as acommon f i r s t person pronominal base or *n-/*m- in which the in i t ia l consonantreduplicated the signs of the singular and plural respectively. Thetentative Proto-Dravido-Uralian reconstruction for f i r s t person pronouns is :

(n)- '1*'/eY-/*(m) en- sg. *(m)em pl .The second person pronouns are problematic in a different way.

Uralian has *tirJ./*tyna sg. and t i / ty pl . FUV 57, 62) for second personpronpuns, while Dravidian generally has *(n)in-/*in- sg. , * n ) f m - / * m ) ~ pl .on the pattern of the f i r s t person. The second person also has a highclass pl . in *nfr- . As in the f i r s t person, these pronouns in both lan-guage families are the source of the second person endings of the verbs,Uralian generally having forms in *-t- (Collinder 1960:308-10), Dravidianin *-i(m)/*-t sg. and - i r p l A solution along the l ines of the f i r s tperson is tempting, but not l ikely since i t would leave - i - / - f : as theonly mark of the second person. A better solution is to re la te the Uralian


23/37

16forms in *-t - to the Dravidian reflexive pronouns *tan- sg. , tam pl . ,especially since they are also used as pronouns of the second person anyway(Cf. DED 2582, 2612 as in Ta. tim ''you (honorific pl . ) , t inkal id They can also be used in the third person 'for he , she , and i t .This interpretation f i t s the fact that ITralian, too, had two words for

thou , one in *t- , and another in *n- (eollinder 1965:134). Since onlyUralian shows the t /n variat ion in the non-reflexive pronouns, i t seemsl ikely that Dravidian has specialized i t s reflexive pronouns from the*t- pronouns in Proto-Dravido-Uralian. This i s corroborated by the occur-renee of second person sg. personal endings in - t and - t in Central

I CDravidian, and perhaps by endings in -s (


24/37

17vowel marking remote and near respectively. In this group we should alsoconsider the Uralian reflexive pronoun reconstructed as *ica FUV 16),which Collinder notes is probably a compound of *i ce, the reconstructeddemonstrative. Although nothing i s straightforward here, i t i s clear thatthe demonstratives and the third person pronouns are derived from the sameunderlying base, something l ike *t i . The evidence from Hu. az he ,

ashe , that , and ez he , she , this , and the evidence of *ic r

Documents

Tyler - Proto-Dravido-Uralian (1986)