Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
36Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Family of Languages (1875)-Robert Caldwell-Part 4

A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian Family of Languages (1875)-Robert Caldwell-Part 4

Ratings: (0)|Views: 481|Likes:
Published by Veeramani Mani

More info:

Published by: Veeramani Mani on May 31, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/27/2011

pdf

text

original

 
THE
PRETERITE
TENSE.
397
and
if
there
were
any
real
alliance
between
tt-u,
through
its
provincial
pronunciation,
and
the
Telugu
ch-i,
we
should
undoubtedlyhave
here
an
instance
of
the
use
of
tt—i.e.,
of
d
in
modern
Telugu
as
well
asin
Tamil,
as
a
sign
of
the
preterite
verbal
participle,
and
consequently
of
past
time.
The
resemblance,
however,
is
illusory.
The
ch
of
the
Telugu
veichi
corresponds,
not
to
the
tt
of
the
Tamil
veittu,
but
to
the
kk
which
constitutes
the
formative
of
so
many
verbs
and
nouns
in
Tamil,
kk
makes
its
appearance
in
the
infinitive
of
this
very
verb,
viz.,
vei-kk-a,
to
place,
the
Telugu
of
which
is
vei-ck-a.
kk
ia
vulgarly
pronounced
ch
in
the
southern
part
of
the
Tamil
country,
and
the
same
pronunciation
universally
obtains
in
Telugu.
The
imperative
or
theme
of
this
verb
in
Telugu
is
not
vei,
asin
Tamil,
but
veich-u
(withthe
addition
to
vei
of
the
formative
ch-u,
which
is
equivalent
to
the
Tamil
kk-u)
;
and
from
this
veich-u,
the
preterite
verbal
participle
veich-i,
is
regularly
formed,
in
this
as
in
all
other
cases,
by
the
addition
of
i.
If
the
corresponding
Tamil
verb
formed
its
preterite
in
the
same
manner,
its
verbal
participle
would
be
vei-kk-i,
not
vei-tt-u.
A
casein
point
in
illustration
of
this
is
the
Tamil
tvi-kk-u,
to
lift,'
to
weigh
(Tel.
t4-ch-u),
the
preterite
verbal
participleof
which
is
M-kk-i
(Tel.
tH-ch-i).(5.)
TheTulu
Preterite.
The
Tulu
preterite,
like
that
of
G6nd,
divides
itself
into
two
tenses,
an
imperfect
and
a
perfect,
each
regu-
larly
inflected.
The
imperfect
tense
is
that
which
corresponds
to
theordinary
preteriteof
theother
dialects,
and
is
formed
in
substantially
the
same
manner
by
suffixingto
the
root
either
the
ordinary
Dravidian
t
OT
d,
or
the
^,
which
is
still
more
commonly
used
inseveral
dialects.
Compare
Tulu
itte,
I
was,
with
iddenu,
Can.
;
irunden,
Tam.
:
Tulu
kende
(ken
for
Ml)
with
ketten
(kel-ten),
Tam.
;
kelidenu,
Can.
i
appears
in
hilriye,
I
fell,
from
hUru,
to
fall
(Tam.
viru,
vir).
The
per-
fect
tense
seems
to
be
formed
by
suffixing
an
additional
d,
withsucheuphonic
changes
as
the
dialect
requires.
Compare
itte,
I
was,
with
itf
de,
I
have
been.
(6.)
Preterites
of
Minor
Dialects.
It
is
difficult
to
make
out
the
Tuda
preterite,
th
appears
to
be
the
sign
of
the
past,
corresponding
to
the
Tamil
and
Canarese
d
e.g.,
compare
dd-k-en,
Idance,
with
dd-th-h-ini,
I
danced.
This
th
is
written
ch
by
Mr
Metz
e.g.,
hindch-
pini,
I
asked
;
and,
according
to
him,
the
same
ch
appears
alike
in
the
present
and
the
past,
in
each
person
except
the
first.
Dr
Pope
inserts
th
before
ch
in
the
past
e.g.,
dd-th-chi,
danced.
In
the
Kota
dialect
the
past
seems
to
be
represented
by
si
e.g.,
compare
hogape,
I
go,
with
hdsipe,
I
went.
In
this
it
does
not
stand
alone,
as
will
be
seen.
InG6nd,
si
orji,
apparently
ft)ftened
from
ti,
forms
the
verbal
participle
of
the
preterite
;
but
the
perfect
tense
is
formed
by
suffixing
tt
e.g.,
 
398
THE
VERB.
kei-U-dn,
I
have
called
;
kei-si,
having
called.
In
Seoni
G6nd,
also,
the
preterite
or
conjunctive
participle
suffixes
si
e.g.,
wunh-si,
having
spoken
;
but
the
past
participle
is
formed
by
suffixing
tHr
e.g.,
tvunJc-
titr,
spoken;
and
the
pasttense
simply
suffixes
t
e.g.,
wunh-t-an,
I
spoke,
wunkt-i,
thou
didst
speak.
An
imperfect
or
progressivetense
is
formed
by
inserting
und
or
nd,
apparently
thesubstantive
verb,
between
the
root
and
the
pronominal
terminations.
These
instances
tend
to
confirm
thesupposition
that
d,
or
some
modification
of
it,
is,
if
not
the
only,
yet
at
least
the
most
ancient
and
characteristic
sign
of
the
Dravidian
preterite.
Origin
of
the
Deavidian
Signs
of
Past
Time.
1.
The
most
probable
conjectureI
can
offer
respecting
the
origin
of
i,
is
one
which
would
confirm
thesupposition
of
its
secondary
char-
acter.
Iconceive
it
to
havebeen
originally
a
vowel
of
conjunction,
employed
for
the
purpose
of
euphonically
connecting
the
verbal
theme
and
the
true
sign
of
past
time,
d
or
d-u.
Where
the
theme
terminated
.
in
a
hard
consonant,
euphonywould
require
some
such
vocalic
bond
of
connection
e.g.,
the
Old
Canarese
hdl-d-en,
I
lived,
is
undoubtedly
somewhat
harsh
to
an
ear
that
is
attuned
to
Dravidian
phonetics
;
and
it
was
natural
that
it
should
be
softened,as
it
has
been
in
modern
Canarese,
into
hdl-i-d-enu.
We
see
a
preciselysimilar
euphonic
insertion
of
i
in
the
Latin
dom-i-tus
(instead
of
dom-tus),
tamed,
and
the
Sanskrit
ptd-i-tah(instead
of
pM-tah),
pressed.
Subsequently
we
may
suppose
the
true
preterite
c?
to
have
gradually
dropped
off;
whilst
i
remained,
as
being
the
easier
sound,
with
the
adventitious
signification
of
the
preterite.
There
are
many
instances
in
all
languages
of
euphonic
addi-
tions
coming
to
beused
instead
of
the
parts
of
speech
to
which
they
were
attached
e.g.,
in
the
Telugu
verb,
vu
is
used
to
represent
the
second
person
singular
of
the
pronoun
instead
of
nt,
thou,
though
vu
was
originally
only
an
euphonic
addition
to
ni,
by
which
it
was
con-
verted
into
ntvu.
It
deserves
notice
that
wherever
iis
used
in
Canarese
orin
Tamil,
instead
of
d,
as
a
sign
of
the
preterite,
theuse
of
d
would
in
that
instance
be
harsh
and
uncouth
;
and
that
on
comparing
the
Tamil
verbs
which
form
their
preterite
in
i
with
those
that
suffix
d,
no
reason
but
euphony
can
be
alleged
why
the
one
suffix
should
be
employed
rather
than
the
other
;
consequently
euphonic
causes
must
at
least
have
helped
the
development
of
i.
This
supposition
of
the
origin
of
i
from
the
vocalic
conjunction
of
d
with
the
verbal
theme,
would
also
account
for
the
circumstance
that
wherever
i
is
followed
by
a
vowel
(whether
the
initial
vowel
of
the
pronominal
terminations,
or
the
a
which
consti-
 
THE
PRETERITE
TENSE.
399
tiites
thesign
of
the
relative
participle)
it
picks
up
again
the
d
which
it
had
gradually
lost,
and
uses
it
as
an
euphonic
bond
of
conjunction,
eitherin
its
original
shape
of
d,
as
in
Canarese,
or
in
its
nasalised
shape
of
n,
asin
Tamil
and
Telugu.
The
manner
in
which
ti
is
sepa-
rated
from
the
theme
in
some
Telugu
preterites
e.g.,
kon-i-ti-ni
(hon-
ti-ni),
I
bought,
confirms
this
supposition
of
the
euphonic
originof
i.
2.
d,
the
more
characteristic
sign
of
the
Dravidian
preterite,
presents
many
interesting
resemblances
to
corresponding
signs
of
past
time
in
various
Indo-European
and
Scythian
languages.
It
may
have
an
ulterior,
though
remote,
connection
with
t
or
ta
(alternating
with
7ia),
the
ordinary
suffix
of
the
Indo-European
passive
participle
e.g.,
jnd-ta-h,
Sans,
known;
Greek
yvu-ro-g
;
Latin
(g)n6-tu-s
:
hhug-na-s,
Sans,
bent
;
Gothic
hug-a-n{a)s.
In
Gothic
this
suffix
is
d
or
t;in
New
Persian
invariably
d.
In
Sanskritthe
participle
which
is
formed
from
ta
is
in
general
distinctively
passive
;
but
a
few
traces
exist
of
a
preterite
signification,
only,
however,
in
connection
with
neuter
verbs-
e.g.,
ga-ta-s,
one
who
went
;
hhH-ta-s,
one
who
has
come
into
being.
A
preteritesignification
predominates
also
in
the
active
participles
formed
by
suffixing
tavat
(derived
from
the
passive
ta)
e.g.,
kri-favat,
was
making,
and
in
the
indeterminate
past
participle,
or
gerund,
which
is
formed
by
suffixing
tvd
e.g.,
kri-tvd,
having
made
or
through
making.
Though
there
may
possibly
be
some
ultimate
connection
between
the
preterite
d
of
the
Dravidian
languages
and
the
passive
(and
secondary
preterite)
t
of
the
Sanskrit,
the
use
ofthis
c?
as
a
sign
of
the
preterite
is
too
essential
a
characteristic
of
the
Dravidian
languages,
and
too
rare
and
exceptional
in
Sanskrit
to
admit
of
the
supposition
that
the
former
borrowed
it
from
the
latter.
The
I
which
constitutes
the
sign
of
the
preterite
in
Bengalihas
been
supposed
by
Professors
Max
Miiller
and
Bopp
to
be
derived
from
the
past
participial
t
of
the
Sanskrit
e.g.,
karildm,
I
did,
is
derived
by
them
from
karita,
Sans,
done,
followed
by
the
personal
termina-
tion
dm.
This
supposition
is
confirmed
by
the
conformity
of
karildm
to
the
New
Persian
kardem,
I
did,
and
by
the
use
in
Marathi
of
a
similar
preterite
in
I,
which
is
supposed
to
be
derived
in
like
manner
from
theSanskrit
passive
participial
t
e.g.,
mi
kelo-m,
1
did,
mia
gel6-n,
I
went.
The
interchange
of
d
and
I
is
of
frequent
occurrence
;
and
possibly
theSanskrit
t
may
have
become
d
oi
d
before
it
was
corrupted
into
I.
There
is
no
proof
of
this,
however,
and
the
I
which
is
used
as
the
equivalent
of
t.
or
d
in
the
formation
of
the
Slavonian
preterite
byl
(Pers.
blld.
Sans,
bhdtam),
he
was,
shows
that
t
may
have
passed
into
I
immediately,
without
the
middle
point
of
the
cerebral
d.

Activity (36)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
dave_765 liked this
bhbatson liked this
n_malan liked this
n_malan liked this
TBCD liked this
sridatla liked this
n_malan liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->