DIETER B.

KAPP

BASIC COLOUR TERMS IN SOUTH DRAVIDIAN TRIBAL LANGUAGES

INTRODUCTION

It is more than 30 years since Brent Berlin and Paul Kay have published their pioneering study Basic Colour Terms: Their Universality and Evolution (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969). This research analysis for which the authors examined the colour terminology of altogether 98 languages whereby, however, they could rely upon informants in the case of 20 languages only led to the interesting result that although dierent languages encode in their vocabularies dierent numbers of basic colour categories, a total universal inventory of exactly 11 basic colour categories exists from which the 11 or fewer basic colour terms of any given language are always drawn. The 11 basic colour categories are: white, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange and grey (p. 2). Another nding which was totally unexpected (p. 2) is the following: If a language encodes fewer than 11 basic colour categories, then there are strict limitations on which categories it may encode. The distributional restrictions of colour terms across languages are: 1. All languages contain terms for white and black. 2. If a language contains three terms, then it contains a term for red. 3. If a language contains four terms, then it contains a term for either green or yellow (but not both). 4. If a language contains ve terms, then it contains terms for both green and yellow. 5. If a language contains six terms, then it contains a term for blue. 6. If a language contains seven terms, then it contains a term for brown.

Indo-Iranian Journal 47: 193201, 2004. DOI: 10.1007/s10783-005-1740-y.

* Springer 2005

194

DIETER B. KAPP

7. If a language contains eight or more terms, then it contains a term for purple, pink, orange, grey, or some combination of these (p. 2 f.). Accordingly, Berlin and Kay proceeded from at least seven stages in the evolution of basic colour terms (p. 22), viz.: Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage I II IIIa IIIb IV V VI VII black, white black, white, red black, white, red, green (extending into blues) black, white, red, yellow black, white, red, green, yellow black, white, red, green, yellow, blue black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown black, white, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange, grey (eight, nine, ten, or eleven terms).

If, however, the internal linguistic reconstruction of colour vocabulary, the common procedure in historical linguistics (p. 37) is applied in regard to the determination of basic colour terms, a colour term such as orange is, strictly speaking, suspect (cf. p. 6) insofar as it is primarily the name of a fruit; for, color terms that are also the names (or contain the names) of objects characteristically having the color in question are more recent additions than color terms which are not (or do not contain) such a name (p. 37 f.). Thus colour terms such as orange, gold, silver and the like must be excluded from the inventory of basic colour terms (cf. p. 6) since they have to be regarded as colour terms of comparison. The same holds also as far as foreign loan words are concerned (cf. p. 6); for, color terms that can be shown on linguistic grounds to be loan words are likely to be more recent additions than native color terms (p. 37). Among the 98 languages from which Berlin and Kay collected experimental data for their analysis, attention was also paid to ve languages spoken on the Indian subcontinent, viz., to Urdu as well as to four Dravidian languages: Plains Tamil, dialectal Malayalam, Paliya and Toda. Let me, in the following, comment upon the categorisation oered by Berlin and Kay in the case of these four Dravidian languages.

SOUTH DRAVIDIAN TRIBAL LANGUAGES

195

PLAINS TAMIL (Gardner 1966)

Plains Tamil is seen by the authors as having a typical Stage V vocabulary in exhibiting the basic colour terms: vel l ai white :: karuppu (Y karuppu) black  sivappu (Y civappu) red paccai green manjal (Y man cal : ) yellowand  n lam blue (p. 33, 49, 86 f.; cf. gure 15). On internal evidence, however, Plains Tamil displays Stage  IIIa, since n lam is a loan word from Indo-Aryan (not from Hindustani, as is mentioned on p. 41!) and man cal : is a colour term of comparison primarily meaning turmeric. (Cf. Kapp 1987.)
DIALECTAL MALAYALAM (Goodman 1963: 9 f.)

Dialectal Malayalam is considered as belonging to Stage VI in exhibiting the following colour vocabulary: (Y vel vella l a) white :: ( Y kar uppu) black kad u p :  cuw pp (Y cuvappu) red pa c ca (Y pacca) green (Y man man n a) yellow :n :a  (Y n nila la) blue tav ta (Y tavit tu-(niram)) brown. ::   Since n la is a loan word from Indo-Aryan as in the above case of Plains Tamil and since man tu(-niram) primarily n a and tavit ::  denote turmeric and bran, respectively, Stage IIIa holds also for dialectal Malayalam. e e e
PALIYA (Gardner 1966)

According to Gardner (1966) the Paliyas discriminate colours exclusively in terms of brightness, viz.: vel l e illuminated (sometimes bright) :: manja bright

196

DIETER B. KAPP

 n lam of medium brightness sihappu dark karuppu dark or in shadow. So, Berlin and Kay who relied on this source could not but classify Paliya as belonging to Stage I (black, white) (p. 4850). However, as the eld data oered by Gardner seem rather doubtful since they are obviously based on a highly subjective interpretation, the categorisation given by Berlin and Kay (interesting variant, p. 49) is in all probability incorrect. What has to be expressly noted, is that, according to Gardner, strangely enough, the Paliya color terminology does not contain an equivalent of Tamil paccai green, a color which is not found missing in any South Dravidian literary or illiterate language. In my view, the Paliya color inventory cannot but be in accordance with that of Plains Tamil and dialectal Malayalam and, thus, comes under Stage III a.*
TODA (Rivers 1905: 327)

Toda is classied as a Stage II language in exhibiting the basic color terms: pelthiti it is white karthiti it is black gh red, blood, orange po whereby arsena yellow, pachai green and nil blue were disregarded as borrowings (p. 61). Leaving aside Rivers outdated evidences on which Berlins and Kays categorisation was based, we nd when consulting the DEDR that, according to this etymological dictionary, the Toda colour inventory consists of the following terms: ka, kax, kaxt black (DEDR 1278a) po l : white (DEDR 5496a) ko - red (DEDR 1931)

*Note the authors interesting discussion on p. 50 which proceeds on the speculation that the Paliyans may at one time have spoken a language unrelated to Tamil (and perhaps to any other extant language).

SOUTH DRAVIDIAN TRIBAL LANGUAGES

197

po c green (DEDR 3821); poq ( l) green (not dead; of tree, grass) arsn saron, yellow (DEDR 220) puI c bluegrey (DEDR 4356) nar grey(DEDR 3609) According to these data which were collected by M.B. Emeneau, Toda has to be regarded as a Stage IIIa language (black, white, red, green) since the primary meaning of arsn is saron and nar is only used in regard to hair whereby puI c is disregarded because of its indistinct colour shade. In the following I shall turn to some further tribal languages spoken in the Nilgiri Hill with a view to examining their respective colour terminology according to the categorisation set forth by Berlin and Kay. Let me start with Kota which, together with Toda, forms a small sub-group of the South Dravidian family of languages.
KOTA (DEDR)

kar black (DEDR1278a); kaIr black (DEDR 1395) vel : white, true (DEDR 5496a) ken, keIt red (DEDR 1931) pac green, raw (of meat), unboiled (of water), unbaked (of pots) (DEDR 3821) puIc blue, green (DEDR 4356) arcn saron (i.e. turmeric) (DEDR 220) bul liver-coloured (DEDR 4310) Since, in applying internal linguistic reconstruction, we have to exclude the two last-mentioned colour terms, Kota, like Toda, has to be categorised as a Stage IIIa language, if we leave aside the indistinct colour designation puIc (cf. Toda).
 ALU KURUMBA (Kapp 1982)

kari-, karu-, karupu, ke ruve :d re:na black, blackness : u, ke    be l e-, be l l e:na white, whiteness l :: :: nettaru-makke blood-like, red acce green; etc. aricina-makke turmeric-like, yellow man :n : u-makke soil-like, brown

198

DIETER B. KAPP

 Kurumba colour terminology we nd that In examining the Alu  only three terms are relevant for its categorisation: black, white and green. This nding contradicts Berlins and Kays theory of the evolution of basic colour terms. Stage II would thus have to be split up into Stage IIa (black, white, red) and Stage IIb (black,  white, green), with Alu Kurumba as a perfect example of the  latter.
 PALU KURUMBA (Kapp: Fieldnotes)

karuta (which became) black  be l e white l :: co:re blood, blood-like, red pacce green manja turmeric, turmeric-like, yellow pul te-n ra of the colour of the tamarind fruit : iya(:):kot :: 

The P alu Kurumba colour inventory reveals that P alu Kurumba    Kur has, like Alu umba, to be categorised as a Stage IIb language. 
MUD : UGA (Kapp: Fieldnotes)

karuta (which became) black  be l e white l :: co :re blood, blood-like, red pacce green manja turmeric, turmeric-like, yellow pul : iya- tamarind-like Since the Mud : uga colour terminology is in accordance with that of P alu Kurumba, Mud : uga is a further example of a Stage IIb  language.
IRULA (Perialwar 1979)

karuppu, karutta black; kari black, charcoal vella (Y vel l a) white :: kanatta, kanappe red (cf. DEDR 1406: Tamil kanal to be hot, boil, be angry; burn; re; etc.) pacce green

SOUTH DRAVIDIAN TRIBAL LANGUAGES

199

manja turmeric, yellow ni:la blue bu:da blue If we exclude the last term bu:da blue which corresponds to Toda and Kota puIc bluegrey or blue we can likewise classify Irula as belonging to Stage IIb. 
PAN : IYA (Kapp: Fieldnotes)

karuta (which became) black  bol : uta (which became) white tiyyu-ke a) red(ness) n :d : akan :aka like ery live coals; cuvapu (-nir  pacce(-n ra) green(ness)  man ja(-n ra) yellow(ness)  ni:la(-n ra) blue(ness)  For Pan : iya, we can likewise proceed from a Stage IIb colour vocabulary if we disregard the second given word for red which might be a borrowing from Tamil; otherwise Stage IIIa would be applicable.
T BE :T : U KURUMBA (Kapp: Fieldnotes)

karpu black  bol : u white tic-ke n :d : a:ge like ery live coals (cf. Pan : iya!) pacca:ge green manjal : a:ge turmeric-like, yellow ni:la:ge blue In as far as it exhibits the same colour terms as the afore-mentioned languages, Be t: tu Kurumba has also to be classied as a :  Stage IIb language in the evolution of colour terminology.

CONCLUSION Apart from a constructive critique which was aimed at Berlins and Kays categorisation in regard to the evolution of the colour vocab-

200

DIETER B. KAPP

ularies of four Dravidian languages, i.e., Plains Tamil, dialectal Malayalam, Paliya, and Toda, the colour inventories of altogether  seven Nilgiri tribal languages (Alu Kurumba, P alu Kurumba,   Mud uga, Ir ula, Pan iya, and Be t t u Kur umba) have been presented : : ::   and classied according to the categorisation set forth by Berlin and Kay. While Toda and Kota could, on the basis of their respective colour terminology, be classied as Stage IIIa languages, all the other Nilgiri tribal languages under examination exhibit precisely corresponding colour inventories which consist of terms for black, white and green, respectively, if we exclude colour terms of comparison as well as loan words, a phenomenon which is apparently to be regarded as a linguistic areal feature. Since Berlins and Kays categorisation lacks a stage having green in addition to black and white it was suggested to split up Stage II into Stage IIa (black, white, red) and Stage IIb (black, white, green) to remedy this lack.

REFERENCES
Berlin Brent & Kay Paul 1969: Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley/Los Angeles, University of California Press. Burrow T & Emeneau M.B, 1984: A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary. Second Edition. Oxford. Clarendon Press. (DEDR) DEDR, see Burrow/Emeneau 1984. Gardner P.M, 1966: Ethnoscience and Universal Domains: A Culture Without Color Categories. Austin: Unpublished Manuscript. Goodman John S, 1963: Malayalam Color Categories. Anthropological Linguistics 5, pp.112. lu Kurumba. Kapp Dieter B, 19741976: Fieldnotes on Pa  Kapp Dieter B, 19741976: Fieldnotes on Mud : uga. Kapp Dieter B, 19811982: Fieldnotes on Bet ::tu Kurumba.  Kapp Dieter B, 19811982: Fieldnotes on Pan : iya.   yan: Die Sprache der Alu-Kur Kapp Dieter B, 1982: AluKur umbaru Na umbas.  (Neuindische Studien; 7.) Wiesbaden, Harrasso Grammatik, Texte, Worterbuch. witz. Kapp Dieter B, 1987: Farbnamen im Tamil. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 137, pp. 6377. Kapp Dieter B, 1999: Farbnamen im Hindi. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 149, pp. 271288. Perialwar R, 1979: Phonology of Irula with Vocabulary. (Department of Linguistics Publication; 64.) Annamalainagar, Annamalai University.

SOUTH DRAVIDIAN TRIBAL LANGUAGES

201

Rivers W.H.R, 1905: Observations on the Senses of the Todas. British Journal of Psychology 1, p. 321.

University of Cologne Institute of Indology and Tamil Studies Pohligstr. 1 50969 Koln Germany