Evolution of Principles and Techniquers of Exposition in the

Grammatical Works of Kannada - a Dravidian language.

Dr B V Maheedas, Retired Joint Director, Department of Public Instrution, Bengaluru

Grammar is a science which analyses, explains and illustrates the linguistic units of a
language, their use and the inter relationships between them. Its body generally comprises the
principles regarding sounds and letters in a language, words, formation of new words and their range
of meaning, and the syntax. Grammar helps us understand the idiomatic use of the language to better
communication, and analyse the relationship between languages, by highlighting the linguistic-
structure of the language and helping to compare and contrast it with the other languages. Language
is a learned behaviour that comes about when humans hear a language spoken around them ( Dragons
That Won’t Be Slain: p, 77) and grammar underlines the principles of the language to help learning it.
Letters, words, word-formation and sentence-formation are usual themes discussed in traditional
grammars. When language is used according to the principles underlying these, it serves the purpose
for whichever it is used appropriately.
Letters are written symbols for the sound units in the spoken language. When these are
clustered so that a meaningful unit is produced it becomes a word. Naming similar words with similar
function is a first step in the discussion of words of a language. This will then lead to classification of
words and a scientific analysis of the corpus. Thus the classification of words occupies an important
place in any system of grammar. A class definition enables us to understand the combinatorial and
syntactic power of the whole set of such words at one juncture. Then comes the details of
modifications a word of a particular class has to undergo to be in proper use in the language whether
in the spoken or the written form. For instance declension is a process which makes a noun fit to be
used in a sentence. How a specifically declined word gets its place in a sentence and to express what
meaning and the rules regarding the same is an important aspect of the class of words called the
nouns. The concept used in this connection by ancient Kannada grammarians is called Kaaraka and
the suffixes that get added in different kaarakas are called Vibhakti-pratyayas. Seven Kaarakas and
seven vibhaktis are defined for our language from the early times. Similarly the tense indicators and
conjugation suffixes (aakhyatas) in connection with verbs. Thus the principles of exposition developed
by grammarians bring to fore the regularity in language use, ease the learning of language, bring
clarity in expressions and help to compare and contrast languages. According to some scholars “the
similarities [between languages of the world] are numerous enough to suggest that languages came
from a universal source and that grammarians should rightly be searching for the universals that mark
that one language” (Dragons That Won’t Be Slain: p, 81).
 Which language, whether literary or spoken, is to be used for grammatical analysis is also a
matter of contention. That the spoken language is the true representative is now a generally accepted
principle. But a language is always in a state of flux and a grammatical work enunciating the principles
underlying a language over a period of time involves the changes that took place in the language
during that period. If such a treatise is to be written we can only depend on the language found in
literary works. Such a grammatical text has many advantages. It helps to understand the changes the
language has undergone over the years, helps in studying the ancient literature by interpreting the
ancient dialect, outlines the core rules which are of a permanent nature for that language etc. Since
this has to be done quoting illustrations from ancient poems and analysing them, grammarians are to
be bound by usages found in the literature. Such a grammar becomes authentic and useful, also for
those who intend to study ancient literature and intending to write in the ancient dialect.
All these apply to the field of Kannada grammar as well. The grammarians, who wrote
grammatical treatises between ninenth and eighteenth centuries A D in Kannada, based their analysis
of the language on ancient Canarese literary texts. They were also scholars in Sanskrit grammar and
modelled their works after the ‘grammars’ of that language. This conformity to Sanskrit works can be
seen in the adoption of the concepts, use of technical words, construction of Su:tra:s (aphorisms),
writing prosaic summary (vritti) for each su:tra, giving illustrations etc after their models. There are
different systems of grammar in Sanskrit and one or the other has predominantly influenced each
author in Kannada. Thus it can be said beyond any doubt that Sanskrit grammatical systems were the
motivating force to all ancient Kannada grammarians. These systems are marked by tri-classificaton
of words, discussing formation of new words in different chapters, elucidating syntax not in a separate
chapter but in an integrated manner along with other principles and all this in the terminology used in
Sanskrit grammatical texts. Later in the nineteenth century the English scholars who cultivated this
field introduced western elements to describe Kannada grammar. They introduced into Kannada the
eight fold division of words, new word formation within these classes as it may apply, a separate
chapter on syntax and the discussion of all the principles through western conceps and frame-work.
But every one of them, ancient and modern, strived to enunciate the rules peculiar to Kannada
language in their own way. This can be understood by a review of individual works, which will also
lead to clarify how the principles of exposition are evolved.
2. Naagavarma and tri-classification of words
He has written two grammatical trearises which date back to 1042 A D (Chitaguppi,1976:
p,547). kɑrn̥ɑːt̥ ɑkɑ bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a and śɑbdɑsmŕ ti are the titles of his two works. Lewis Rice opines
kɑrn̥ɑːt̥ ɑkɑ bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a is in Sanskrit suːtras after the manner of Pɑːn̥ini (Rice, 1882: p, iv).
Another scholar R Narasimhchar differs and rightly observes he has used the technical terms
sɑm̊jñɑː, sɑndʱi, vibʱɑkti, kɑːrɑkɑ, tɑddʱitɑ, ɑːkʱyɑːtɑ etc after ś ɑrvavarma's kɑːtantra vyɑːkrɑn̥a and
further calls himself ɑbʱinɑvɑ śɑrvavarma which bear testimony that he has followed this latter work
(Nararasimhachar, 1985: p, 42).
2.1 Organisation of subject matter
sɑndʱi prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ, nɑːmɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ, ɑːkʱyɑːtɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ and kŕ dɑntɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ are the titles
of the four chapters in ś ɑrvavarma's kɑːtantra and each chapter has sub-divisions. In sɑndʱi
prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ, sɑm̊jñɑː pɑːdɑ and sɑndʱi niyɑmɑ, svɑrɑsndʱi nis̥eːdʱɑ, vyɑñjɑnɑ sɑndʱi, visɑrgɑ pɑːdɑ and
nipɑːtɑ pɑːdɑ are different subheads under which respective subjects are discussed. He has divided
the second nɑːmɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ into eight subdivisions viz: lin̊gɑ pɑːdɑ , vyɑñjɑnɑ pɑːdɑ , sɑkʱiː pɑːdɑ ,
yus̥mɑt pɑːdɑ , kɑːrɑkɑ pɑːdɑ, sɑmɑːsɑ pɑːdɑ, tɑddʱitɑ and striː pɑːdɑ. In this second chapter
declensions of nouns and the meaning a word gets after its declension, compounding of words,
suffixing nouns to form new words – these four aspects are discussed and hence the chapter is also
called cɑtus̥t̥ ɑyɑ (Saini: p.26). In ɑːkʱyɑːtɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ the verbs and their conjugation are explained
and in the last kŕdɑntɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ suffixing the verbs is dealt with. Though the suːtrɑs here are brief
they are explanatory and understandable and not so much loaded with technical terms as is the case
in Pɑːn̥ini's work. For instance it is easy to understand Ś ɑrvɑvɑrmɑ's “ɑvɑrn̥ɑ ivɑrn̥eː eː” “uvɑrn̥eː oː”
“ŕ ivɑrn̥eː ɑr” (katantra pdf p,14) are easy to understyand than Pɑːn̥ini's “ɑdeːn̊gun̥aɦ”. Similarly
Śɑrvɑvɑrmɑ's “eːkɑːreː ɑi ɑikɑːreːcɑ”, “oːkɑːreː ɑu ɑukɑːreːcɑ” are easy to understand than Pɑːn̥ini’s
“vŕiddʱirɑːdaic”. The kɑːtantra suːtras quoted here carry with them what are called vŕ ittis for further
clarification thus: “ɑvɑrn̥ɑ ivɑrn̥eː pɑreː eːrbhɑvɑti pɑrɑścɑ loːpɑmɑːpɑdyɑteː [as in] tɑveːhɑ” “ɑvɑrn̥ɑ
uvɑrn̥eː pɑreː oːrbhɑvɑti pɑrɑścɑ loːpɑmɑːpɑdyɑteː [as in] gɑn̊goːdɑkɑm̊” ((katantra pdf p,15). Thus
brevity, clarity and ready understanding are the characteristics of Ka:tantra su:tras in addition to the
some unique words used in the text.
Abʱinɑvɑ śɑrvavarma’s (Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ’s) kɑrn̥ɑːt̥ ɑkɑ bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a also has some what the
same type of organisation and techniques of description. Chapterisation here is: sɑm̊jñɑː vidʱɑːnɑ ,
sɑndhi vidʱɑːnɑ , vibʱɑkti vidʱɑːnɑ , kɑːrɑkɑ vidʱɑːnɑ , śɑbdɑriːti vidʱɑːnɑ , sɑmɑːsɑ vidʱɑːnɑ , tɑddʱitɑ
vidʱɑːnɑ, ɑːkʱyɑːtɑ niyɑmɑ vidʱɑːnɑ , ɑvyɑyɑ niruːpɑn̥ɑːvidʱɑːnɑ and nipɑːtɑ niruːpɑn̥ɑː vidʱɑːnɑ . It is
clear that Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ has modified śɑrvavarma’s units into a format suitable for Kannada and
created independent chapters out of subdivisions of śɑrvavarma. Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ uses the words sɑndhi,
sɑm̊hite, nɑːmi, tŕtiːyɑːdi vibʱakti, vibʱakti, ɑːkʱyɑːtɑ etc in the same sense as śɑrvavarma does.
This trend to conform to Kɑ:tantra and the influence the latter bears on Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ can be
seen from the first chapter kitself which is on letters. Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ has “ɑkɑːrɑːdɑyɑɦ prɑsiddʰɑ
vɑrn̥ɑːɦ” (Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ,1984: p,2) to define the kannada letters which is well compared with siddʰoː
vɑrn̥ɑsɑmɑːmnɑːyɑɦ of Kɑ:tantra (Kɑ:tantra pdf: p,1) defining Sanskrit letters. He follows Kɑ:tantra in
the explanation of the classification of words, nominal roots and word formation. In Kɑ:tantra a
nominal root is defined as dʰɑːtu vibʰɑktivɑrjɑm̊ ɑrtʰɑvɑllin̊̊gɑm̊ (Kɑ:tantra pdf: p,30) and rules
tɑsmɑːtpɑroːvibʰɑktɑyɑɦ (Kɑ:tantrɑ pdf: p,31) to explain the mediatisation of vibʰɑktis in different
numbers and meanings (kɑːrɑkɑ). He has not conglamorated all the vibʰɑktis into a su:tra but has
used them as Pɑːn̥ini does in his work both in order and in adopting their names. Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ
enunciates ɑrtʰɑvɑdɑkriyɑːvɑːci lin̊gɑm̊ and then adds tɑtoːvibʰɑktɑyɑɦ and rules mɑmimkeyɑdɑdol̥
in a conglammorated manner; He suggests kannada has no dvivachana and that Kannada does not
have different vibʰɑkti suffixes in different numbers by his su:tra dvitvɑbɑhutvɑyoːrgɑl̥ ɑːdɑu wherein
he suggests in plural number (in both dvivachana and bahuvachana) gɑl̥ is added before the vibʰɑkti
suffixes (Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ,1984: p,2).
He follows the tri-classification of words into lin̊gɑ-dhɑːtu-ɑvyɑyɑ as proposed by śɑrvavarma
in Kɑ:tantrɑ. But his expositions of how a lin̊gɑ (i.e. a nominal root) ending in a particular vowel
undergoes declension; how vowel-endings of dhɑːtus (i.e the verbal roots) influence the way they
get conjugated; which suffixes cause the formation of new words and how words combine with words
forming new ones - all these bring to fore the nature of Kannada language. Both the facts and the way
they are presented show the amount of research and the thought process Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ has put into
his work. These also evidence the principles of exposition here are evolved from the Sanskrit
Kɑ:tantrɑ.
In the section on words, the classes of words he has mentioned are, of course, only three:
lin̊gɑ, dhɑːtu and ɑvyɑyɑ. In sections on sɑmɑːsɑ and tɑddʰitɑ, centering around the topics of
combining the words and suffixing the words he explains the process of formation of new words. In
the section on ɑvyɑyɑs as expected he defines indeclinable words with examples but surprisingly he
has dedicated a separate section for nipɑːtɑs. This in a way indicates tri-classification is not very well
efficient to classify Kannada words. There is no separate chapter dealing with sentences and
whatever details of sentences are in the text, we find them in kɑːrɑkɑ vidʱɑːnɑ where he explains
which vibʰɑkti suffix is to be used in a particular kɑːrɑkɑ.
2.2 Śɑbdɑsmŕ ti is Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ's second work. It is unique in stating the rules of grammar in
Kannada-verse called kɑndɑpɑdyɑs. As explained in another work of mine (Maheedas, 2010)
Śɑbdɑsmŕ iti has the following additional details to that given in kɑrn̥ɑːt̥ ɑkɑ bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a:
1. He has called the vowels except the first two i.e. the short and long ɑ as nɑːmi Though this
does not find a place in his earlier work and is included here it is in accordance with the Kɑ:tantrɑ
su:tra svɑroːɑvɑrn̥ɑvɑrjoː nɑːmi.
2. Has illustrated a verse which compares the twelve nɑːmis of Kannada grammar to twelve
suns of heaven which is a mythological notion. This shows Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ's originality and
creativity.
3. In Śɑbdɑsmŕ iti he has explained the principle of ɑdʰyɑːhɑːrɑ i.e. ‘a word left out’ (as for
instance in ‘come in’ the initial ‘you’ is left out. ‘You’ is the ɑdʰyɑːhɑːrɑ) and this was not in
his first work. However this was defined in an earlier work Kɑvirɑːjɑmɑːrgɑ and the tradition
is continued here.
 4. In Kɑrn̥ɑːt̥ ɑkɑ bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a only the necessary words or sentences were illustrated
under any rukle. In Śɑbdɑsmŕ iti quotqtions of whole of the verses are given as illustrations
in certain places and this brings an element of authenticity.
5. Here he has introduced the concepts of jɑːtyɑikɑvɑcɑnɑ (‘collective singular’) and
vibʰɑktipɑllɑt̥ ɑ (using one nominal suffix instead of the other) (Kɑn̥ɑjɑ).
With all this Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ has made the work comprehensive and achieved clarity and
accuracy in expressions compared to his first work.
3. Keːśirɑːjɑ
The exposition in Keːśirɑːjɑ’s work in all the areas of letters, words, word-formation
and syntax are advanced, refined and in a way ideal. Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ’s explanation of the two special
vharecters called ś ɑkɑt̥ ɑreːpʰe (r̤) and rɑl̥ ɑ (l̤) show only that there was some confusion about them at
his time. In bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a: with greater effort lɑ, rɑ, d̥ɑ will become l̥ ɑ, r̤ɑ l̤ ɑ prɑyɑtnɑːśrayɑːt
lɑrɑd̥aiva l̥ ɑr̤ ɑl̤ ɑːɦ (Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ, 1984: p, 5) says his rule. This is the only su:trɑ Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ has for
the explanation of these two native letters. In his śɑbdɑmɑn̥idɑrpɑn̥ɑ, Keːśirːjɑ dedicates six verses
from su:trɑ 28 to 33 to explain the nature and the use of l̥ɑ, r̤ɑ and l̤ɑ and makes a list of 181 words
where one should use l̤ ɑ only . This technique of listing words to fecilitate explanation is used here for
the first time in a work of Kannada grammar. He further uses this technique in the context of words
which should always contain ‘bindu’ i. e. the labiodental nasal represented by ‘0’ where he enlists 33
words of that type where people some times use the words without ‘bindu’. He has dedicated a
complete chapter to enumerate the verbal roots wherein he rules ‘there are no roots in Kannada
ending in aspirated consonants , n̊, ñ, ś, s̥ and h’ and gives a list of 985 Kannada roots as a
justification to this rule (Keːśirːjɑ: p, 280-301). Then again in prɑyoːgɑsɑ:rɑ a section dedicated to
meanings of words, he lists the words and meanings (in Kannada ) of 233 words (Keːśirːjɑ: p, 361-
366). He uses the technique also in ɑpɑbʰrɑm̊śɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ and tɑddʰitɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ with some
modification.
3.1 Keːśirɑːjɑ also followed the system of tri-classification but created classes within each class
and attempted to bring out an accurate classification of words. His postulation that kriyeyɑm̊
nud̥iyɑdudu vibʰɑktiyɑnillɑdudu artʰɑmul̥l̥udu ɑntadu lin̊gɑm̊ (that which is not a verbal root and which
do not take nominal suffixes but has meaning is a nominal root) (Keːśirɑːjɑ: p,85) is very nearly a
translation of the corresponding su:tra in bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a but the sub-classification he adopts and the
definitions given are unique. In the same su:tra he gives the four sub-classes kŕit, tɑddʰitɑ, sɑmɑːsɑ
and nɑːmɑ and gives examples to each of them. In the next su:tra he postulates that “words which
end in ‘tu’ and ‘du’ such as ol̥l̥itu, mellitu, bet̥t̥itu, tel̥l̥itu, bisidu, ɑsidu, kɑd̥idu, nid̥idu are nouns of
quality” (Keːśirɑːjɑ: p,92). He then proceeds to say that sɑrvɑnɑːmɑ and sɑm̊kʰye are also ‘linga’s
(nominal roots) along with kŕit, tɑddʰita, sɑmɑːsɑ and nɑːmɑ (Keːśirɑːjɑ: p, 105). At a later stage he
rules ‘in sɑm̊kʰye (number) and pɑvɑn̥ (quantity) ’v’ may be inserted’ wherein he differentiates nouns
of quantity as a separate class (Keːśirɑːjɑ: p,115). Then he mentions adjectives but whether he
considers it as another class or not is not clear. Thus Keːśirɑːjɑ seems to suggest that all declinable
do not simply make one class. Then under ɑvyɑyɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ he classes indeclinables into imitative
words, verbal indeclinables, words which mention time like nɑːl̥ e, tomorrow; ninne, yesterday etc,
kɑːlɑːrtʰɑ such as ɑːgɑl̥ , iːgɑl̥ etc, and ‘viśɑn̊kɑː prɑśnɑ mɑm̊d̥ɑlɑːkśeːpɑ:rtʰɑ ’. However actual number
of word classes is not categorically expressed in his text. (It may be mentioned here that Kittel later
basing his inferences on these lines says that in Kannada there are thirteen classes of words).
3.2 After word-classification word-formation is an important aspect that any grammar
deals with and it is attended in this work like this: In sɑmɑːsɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ (Keːśirɑːjɑ: p,179-215)
he explains how words are compounded together to get new ones in form and meaning. In tɑddʰitɑ
prkɑrɑn̥ɑ (Keːśirɑːjɑ: p, 216-233) he details the ways of suffixing the nouns (with what are called
tɑddʰiʰtɑ prɑtyɑyɑ ) to get new words. His technique of describing the varieties in the ways of
combining the words, analysing the process involved, bringing out the meaning of the new words by
illustrating from ancient texts are all unique. In tɑddʰitɑ prkɑrɑn̥ ɑ he explains how annexation of a
particular suffix gives the word new meanings.
3.3 “Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ's Śɑbdɑsmŕ iti has no section on ɑvyɑyɑs, his bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a has. The same

has been adopted in śɑbdɑmɑn̥idɑrpɑn̥ɑ” (Seetharamaiah, 1979: p, 215). Thus the tradition of

Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ is kept moving and transferred to genext. Similarly in ɑpɑbʰrɑm̊śɑ prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ Keːśirɑːjɑ

outlines the principles of accepting of words into Kannada from Sanskrit. Here also he has followed

Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ but his formulations are more comprehensive, refined and clear. He has given additional
details to what Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ has had outlined.

3.3 In none of the above mentioned works is there a separate chapter on syntax. Details of
sentence construction in some form appear under the su:trɑs explaining Kɑːrɑkɑ, vibʰɑkti, etc
particularly the illustrations in śɑbdɑmɑn̥idɑrpɑn̥ɑ are speaking on Kannada sentences. ‘Though
adjectives which come at the beginning of a sentence are in the nominative, while ordering the words
to extract meaning, they all agree with the case of the last word (for which they are adjectives)’; ‘when
a sentence has three subjects in three genders and if there is a verb which governs all of them it (the
verb) agrees with the last of the subjects’. At another juncture he explains in what circumstances
ɑdhyɑ:ro:pɑ will be effective and the concerned words agree. There can be differences of opinion
about his postulations but it can not be denied that Keːśirɑːjɑ brings out these factors more clearly
than others (Seetharamaiah, 1979: p, 159-160). Thus Keːśirɑːjɑ’s śɑbdɑmɑn̥idɑrpɑn̥ɑ has achieved
new heights in being comprehensive in grammatical details and adopting advanced means of
exposition.
4. Bʰɑt̥ t̥ ɑːkɑl̥ ɑn̊kɑdeːvɑ
Bʰɑt̥ t̥ ɑːkɑl̥ ɑn̊kɑdeːvɑ wrote his grammatical work Śɑbdɑːnuśɑːsɑnɑ in 1604, in Sanskrit su:trɑs
as did Nɑːgɑvɑrmɑ in Kɑrn̥ɑːt̥ ɑkɑ bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a. He ‘has quoted more than fifty su:trɑs from
Śɑːkɑt̥ ɑːyɑnɑ's Śɑbdɑːnuśɑːsɑnɑ, about thirysix su:trɑs from Pɑːn̥ini's As̥tɑ
̥ ːdhyɑːyi, about thirty
su:trɑs from Śɑrvɑvɑrmɑ's Kɑːtɑntrɑ and six from [Deːvɑnɑndi's] Jɑineːndrɑ vyɑːkɑrɑn̥ɑ ’
(Seetharamaiah, 1979: p, 107). Amongst these “in fact, Śɑːkɑt̥ ɑːyɑnɑ followed the same technique in
his grammar which was adopted by Pɑːn̥ini in the As̥tɑ
̥ ːdhyɑːyi” and most of the technical terms have
been taken from As̥tɑ
̥ ːdhyɑːyi” (Saini: p,109) and revised his postulations in the light of the other
systems prevalent at that time. Jɑineːndrɑ vyɑːkɑrɑn̥ɑ also primarily used Pɑːn̥ini's material (Saini:
p,101). Thus in elucidation and organisation Bʰɑt̥ t̥ ɑːkɑl̥ ɑn̊kɑ’s inclination is clearly towards Pɑːn̥ini. He
prefers to use the words sup and tin̊ instead of vibʰɑkti and ɑːkʰyɑːtɑ. “mɑmikevɑttɑn̥imɑdɑdol̥ sup”
and “ɑmɑrɑyirenevu tin̊ ” (Bʰɑt̥ t̥ ɑːkɑl̥ ɑn̊kɑ,1969: p,44-45) are his su:trɑs for case suffixes and verbal
terminations. He also uses Pɑːn̥ini's terms like du, kit, śit, etc with the same connotation as in
As̥tɑ
̥ ːdhyɑːyi. He uses the material of his predecessors in his work but in the construction of su:trɑs
he follows a different tradition and in this way stands uniquely. Though ‘Śɑbdɑːnuśɑːsɑnɑ is more
detailed and comprehensive’ (Seetharamaiah, 1979: p,103) its mode of exposition is difficult to
understand and is therefore less useful. Among the techniqiues he has developed (after Pɑːn̥ini only)
the construction of gɑn̥ɑpɑːt̥ʰɑs is well appreciated. For instance: besekoːlɑːdɑyɑɦ: besekoːl,
tɑlekɑt̥ t̥u, ol̥ɑkɑi, mol̤ɑkɑi, por̤ɑkɑi, ol̥ɑkoːt̥e, porɑkot̥ e, por̤akɑt̥t̥u, bɑr̤ ikɑːl, posɑtole, ol̥ɑtoːt̥ɑm̊,
posɑtoːt̥ ɑm̊, kɑypɑr̤ e, kɑtturimigɑm̊, sosemuddu, nɑsumul̥ isu, irkkoːd̥i, irttɑd̥i, irppɑni, orkkoːl, orkɑɑi,
okkɑn̥n̥ɑm̊, mukkɑn̥n̥ɑm̊, mukkod̥e, mukkoːd̥i, muttɑl̥ e, mukkuppe iti besekoːlɑːdirɑːkŕ iti gɑn̥ɑɦ
(Bʰɑt̥ t̥ ɑːkɑl̥ ɑn̊kɑ,1969: p, 113). This comes under a su:trɑ at the end of sɑndhi prɑkɑrɑn̥ɑ , which
forbids tŕitiːyɑːdi ɑːdeːśɑ , it is to be understood that in these words k,t,p do not become g,d,b as they
generally do.
5.Śriːrɑn̊gɑpɑt̥ t̥ ɑn̥ɑdɑ Kŕ is̥n̥ɑmɑːcɑːri– Propounder of ɑnyɑdeːśya pɑdɑs
Śriːrɑn̊gɑpɑt̥ t̥ ɑn̥ɑdɑ Kŕ is̥n̥ɑmɑːcɑːri wrote his Hosɑgɑnɑd̥ɑnud̥igɑnnɑd̥i(1838) in the modern
dialect of Kannada and it is the first work of its kind in many ways. For the first time in the history of
Kannada linguisitic literature we find a non-Sanskrit origin mentioned for our language by a native
grammarian. He might have been influenced by Ellis’ papers but this has not been acknowledged. He
says, the four languages “tul̥u, kɑrnɑːt̥ ɑkɑ, mɑlɑyɑːl̥ ɑ and ɑːndʰrɑ are not of Sam̊skŕ it origin and are
‘drɑmid̥ɑːbʰɑːsɑs’” (Kŕis̥n̥ɑmɑːcɑːri: p.iii) thus implying Kannada is of Tamil origin. He also records
certain phonetic changes that has happened over the years as for example the changing over of
consonant ending of old Kannada words into u-ending (u is a vowel) in the modern dialect, p changing
into h, l̤ changing into l̥ , r̤ changing into r and also words like udircu, nɑːn̥cu changing into udurisu ,
nɑːcu etc (ibid. P,171) and these are found for the first time in a text of grammar. But from the point
of view of style of elucidation the innovation he has introduced is the question and answer pattern.
Each question acts as a title and the answer a discussion of that topic. Apart from this he has
introduced a new concept called ɑnyɑdeːśya pɑdɑs for received words into the language from
sources other than Sanskrit which word has since been become popular in the field of Kanada
grammar. The words received from Sanskrit are however called tɑdbʰɑvɑs. He has followed
Śɑbdɑːnuśɑːsɑnɑ in other respects.
6.Western Grammarians and the Eight Parts of Speach: Rev Thomas Hodson
In the nineteenth century the western scholars who wrote Kannada grammars in English
especially the Christian missionaries brought in certain innovations in the techniques of exposition
and elaboration of grammatical principles. Though the first of such works was prepared by Rev
William Carey in 1817, an effective and neat presentation of Kannada grammar fitting into the western
principles was written by Rev Thomas Hodson in 1859. He applied the concepts and principles which
were in vogue in the English and Latin grammatical works with a perfection to explain Kannada
grammar as if they are the only principles which can explain it (Kannada grammar) clearly and
accurately. In his An Elementary Grammar of the Kannada or Canarese Language, kɑnnɑd̥ɑ
bʰɑːs̥eyɑ prɑːtʰɑmikɑ vyɑːkɑrɑn̥ɑ he perfected the classification of Kannada words into eight parts
of speech adopted for the first time by Carey; discussed three declensions of nouns; two conjugations
of verbs; used western grammatical terminology; listed words which designated masculines and
feminines among animals; listed all Kannada letters and illustrated their pronunciation by English
words e.g. ಅ a, as in far. He adopted a new way of describing sandhi: he pics up a vowel and
illustrates how every other vowel coalesces with it because of euphony. This is different from the
manner of old Kannada grammarians.
6.1 He does not even mention the tri-classification of words prevalent in old Kannada grammatical
treatises. He successfully fit in the Kannada words into eight parts of speech - the classification used
in English grammars. Since his grammar was meant for those from the west who wanted to learn
Kannada this method was very useful. Noun, verb, adjective, pronoun, adverb, conjunction,
interjection and postpositions (in place of prepositions) are the eight parts of speech that are included
in Hodson’s classification. He has sub-grouped certain words under each parts of speech to complete
the process of classification. In some places there are certain erroneous statements. For instance:
when he lists masculines and feminines among animals (e.g. gu:l̥i, bull - ɑːkɑl̥ u,cow) he uses the term
‘gender’ but the correct term would be ‘sex’ as both the words are of the same, neuter, gender.
However such faults are not errors of the system itself and can be considered accidental mistakes in
the usage using an incorrect term.
6.2 While creating sub-groups also he has conformed to the concepts of English grammar. For
instance: Pronouns are subdivided into personal, demonstrative – among them remote and proximate,
reciprocal, indeterminate, numerical, quantitative, interrogative, local are the subtitles he has
mentioned. He has adooted this technique of subgrouping in other classes also.
6.3 He has organised certain processes also in a way that they conform to the eight fold
classification of words. For example: The principles of new word formation such as the sɑmɑːsɑ
(compounding of nouns) and tɑddʰitɑ (suffixing words to get new ones) are arranged under nouns.
These aspects used to come in different chapters in traditional native grammars. Similarly the case
terminations and pronominal suffixes to verbs come under nouns and verbs respectively.
6.3 He has a separate chapter on syntax dedicated to details of how a word belonging to a class
is used in a sentence. Explanation and illustration is the technique used to bring out this aspect of
grammar. He has illustrated three hundred Kannada sentences wherein he has transliterated and
translated every one of them. This is useful for English knowing people to learn Kannada and to
recognise the uniqueness of Kannada sentences by comparing and contrasting them with their
English versions. These are techniques which were introduced to the field of Kannada grammar by
the western grammarians perfected in this work by Thomas Hodson.
6.4 Another innovation introduced by Hodson is the addition of annexure. Since he was looking at
Kannada grammar through his European English eyes and used terminology of the west to explain
the same it was helpful to give a glossary giving Kannada equivqlents to technical words he had used.
This he has appended. In addition to this he has given Kannada words and their English equivqlents
to certain numerical terms representing numbers of decimal multiples of hundred and the names of
some fractions which is a speciality of Dravidian languages. Including all this in annexures is a new
thing not known till then in Kannada grammatical literature.

7. Greater’s Tables of Canarese grammar

In 1884 Rev B Greater introduced another innovation to record grammatical principles in a
brief ready recknor and suited for immediate reference. He transformed all the theory available
thereto in detailed explanations, into tables of different sizes and captured the whole of them in eleven
tables. The caption at the top of the columns and at the left end of the rows explains the rule with
illustrations in each cell. This technique was used by other grammarians here and there but
presenting the whole Kannada grammar in this form is a novel exercise and has its advantages. He
has quoted examples from the works of previous grammarians and this gives an impression of the
continuity of tradition. Table construction is a process of consolidation and a student who has once
studied the the grammar thoroughly can use these tables for ready reference.
8. Thus the western grammarians introduced several innovations in the exposition of
Kannada grammatical rules. And these got settled in the coming years and gave a completely new
look to grammatical elaboration in the later years.
9. Kittel’s Thirteen Classes of Words and the new Way of Presentation
Rev Ferdinand Kittel published his A Grammar of the Kanada Language in English
Comprising the Three Dialects in 1903. Upto that time Kannada grammar meant either old Kannada
grammar or modern Kannada grammar. Kŕis̥n̥ɑmɑːcɑːri called his grammar Hosɑgɑnɑd̥ɑnud̥igɑnnɑd̥i
i.e. mirror of modern Kannada, but in reality his is partly a grammar of medieval dialect and partly of
modern dialect. Kittel identified three stages in the development of Kannada and correspondingly
three dialects viz. Old Kannada, Medieval Kanada and Modern Kannada and his grammar
enumerates the rules relating to all the three of them. Hence he has to adopt different type of
techniques for elaboration of principles. He in a way updates the tradition of Keːśirɑːjɑ : He defines
rules relating to old Kannada following and correcting wherever necessary the rules enunciated by
Keːśirɑːjɑ; adds rules pertaining to medieval and modern dialects; states additional rules regarding
changes from one stage of the langauge to the next by his own research. Thus updated Kannada
grammar from every aspect and made it comprehensive.
9.1. An example can self explain Kittel’s techniques of exposition:
“193. In presenting the personal terminations let us use the European way of placing and naming of
persons viz first person (uttama purusha), second person (madhyama purusha) and third person
(prathama purusha)
1, The following are the personal terminations of the present,past and futur e tense in the ancient
dialect:
Singular. Plural.
1st pers. ಎಂ [em̊], ಎಂ [em̊] (if not followed by a vowel);
(before vowels) ಎನ್ [en]. ಎವು [ evu] (cf.137,a, nominative plural).
2nd pers ಅಯ್ [ɑy ] ಇರ್[ ir]
3rd pers.
masc. ಅಂ [ɑm̊], ಅರ್ [ɑr]; ಒರ್[ or] ( Rule198, 3,remark;
(before vowels) ಅನ್[ɑn]. Rule 200, 1);

ಒಂ [om̊] ಅರ್[ɑr] ( Rule198 3" remark; Rule 201, i);

ಅರು [ɑru] (Rule198, 3,remark),
fern. ಅಳ್, ಒಳ್, ಆಳ್ [ɑl̥ , ol̥, ɑːl̥ ] ಅರ್[ɑr] ; ಒರ್[or]
( Rule198, 3, remark).

neut. ಉದು,ಉತು,ಉತುು,ಇತುು,ತು ಉವು[uvu]; exceptionally ಅವು [ɑvu]

 [udu,utu,uttu,itu,ittu,tu] (Rule 194, remark 1; Rule 198, 1).
About ಅದು[ɑdu] and ಅವು [ɑvu] of the negative see Rule 209, 210
The personal terminations ಅಂ[ɑm̊] , ಒಂ[om̊] , ಅಳ್[ɑl̥ ], ಒಳ್ [,ol̥] ಉದು [udu], ಅರ್[ɑr] and ಉವು[uvu]
are also the suffixes for the krillingas in Rule 177, 179, 185, 186, 198,remark 1. 253.
2, The following are the correspondingpersonalterminations of the mediaeval dialect:
Singular. Plural.
1st pers. ಎಂ[em̊] , (before vowels) ಎನ್ [en];ಎನು[enu];ಎ[e]. ಎವು [evu]
2nd pers. ಎ [e] ಇರ್[ir]; ಇರಿ[iri]
3rd pers.
masc. ಅಂ [ɑm̊] , (before vowels)ಅನ್[ɑn];ಅನು[ɑnu];ಅ[ɑ]. (ಅರ್)[ ɑr]; ಅರು[ɑru]
fern; ಅಳ್[ɑl̥ ];[ಅಳು[ɑl̥ u] (ಅರ್) [ɑr]; ಅರು[ɑru]
neut. ಉದು[udu]; ಇತು[itu],ಇತುು[ittu]; ಅತುು[ɑttu];ತು[tu] ಅವು[ɑvu]
An occasional ಅದು[ɑdu] for ಉದು[udu] in MSS. for the third person singular neuter is perhaps
a mistake of the copyist.
3, The following are the corresponding personal terminations of the modern dialect:
Singular. Plural.
1st pers. ಎನು[enu]; ಎ[e] ಎವು[evu]; ಇವಿ[ivi]
2nd pers. ಎ[e] ಇರಿ[iri]
3rd pers.
masc. ಅನು[ɑnu]; ಅ[ ɑ] ಅರು[ɑru]
fern. ಅಳು[ɑl̥ u] ಅರು[ɑru]
neut. ಅದು[ɑdu]; ಇತು[itu]; ತು[tu] ಅವು[ɑvu]”
(ಕಿಟೆಲ್, 1903: ಪು,127)
9.2 Kittel’s system of elaboration is clear from this example. Whenever he takes up a rule of
grammar (generally following Keːśirɑːjɑ) he is particular to explain how it works in all the three
dialects. This technique was not known in Kannada grammar till that time and Kittel is successful in
adopting it to make Kannada grammar comprehensive in all respects and to include the
developments in the field in the previous years; and seems most suitable for the purpose for which it
is used. On the one hand he declares “The present Grammar is chiefly based on Kesava’s
Sabdamanidarpana” (Kittel, 1903: p,i) with all humility; on the other he quotes extxensively from
śɑbdɑmɑn̥idɑrpɑn̥ɑ and at places from other texts as well (eg. ‘This is only in the Sabdanusasana.
Cf.No. 8.’ Kittel 1903: p, 205. Again ‘Nagavarma introduces it under his sutra 80 when he writes,the
agent (kartri)may be expressed by the instrumental (tritiya) ‘ ibid.p, 324. ) and has made his work very
authentic.
9.3 Following Keːśirɑːjɑ’s enumeration of word-classes, sub-classes within each class and
sub-classes within sub-classes Kittel names thirteen classes of words in Kannada. They are: nouns
nɑːmɑ lin̊gɑ , pronouns sɑrvɑnɑːmɑ, verbal nouns kŕillin̊gɑ, compound nouns sɑmɑːsɑ nɑmɑ, nouns
got by suffixation of other nouns tɑddʰitɑ nɑːmɑ , nouns of quality gun̥ɑvɑcɑnɑ , numerical nouns
sɑm̊kʰye – these are word classes which take up case terminations (since Keːśirɑːjɑ conformed
himself to tri-classification he didi not specify numerical noun and noun of quality as separate
classes); verbs dʰɑːtu are words which undergo conjugation to take up personal terminations;
imitative words ɑnukɑrɑn̥ɑːvyɑyɑ, adverbs kriyɑːviśeːs̥ɑn̥ɑ, interjections bʰɑːvɑboːdʰɑkɑ, conjunctions
sɑmuccɑyɑ, postpositions (Keːśirɑːjɑ has put all these under one class which he called indeclinables
ɑvyɑyɑs ). Thus Kittel proposes a thirteen fold classification of Kannada words (Maheedas,2015: p,
405).
9.4. Kittel’s system of exposition in this work is unique. He generally begins his discussion by
quoting Keːśir ɑːjɑ and saying Keshava says like this, and then interpreting Keshava’s words he
broadens and stretches the meaning of Keːśir ɑːjɑ’s suːtrɑs to encompass to all he has to describe –
as if a good traditional (Sanskrit) commentator; Just like Vedas are the starting point for all our
religious ɑːcɑːryas so is Keːśir ɑːjɑ the base-line for Kittel. Then he proceeds to explain how the rule
works in medieval and modern dialects and at places traces how an old Kannada form undergoes
changes paving the way to new forms. These sometimes lead to advanced linguistic discussions like
in deciding the leading vowel of pronouns (Kittel,1903: p, 77-80) in Kannada which go a long way in
identifying the leading vowels of pronouns in the Dravidian. In this manner Kittel bases his work on
Keːśirɑːjɑ, updates tradition to the new developments in Kannada language, makes Kannada
grammar comprehensive, and brings in clarity and accuracy in the elucidation of grammatical
principles and, his methods are suitable to bear all this load.
10 Kɑnnɑd̥ɑśɑːlɑː vyɑːkɑrɑn̥ɑ1859
Though this is a text book of grammar for school students we find a culmination of ali the
principles developed upto that time in this work. It represents a unique system of classification of the
whole subject of grammar first and then elaboration of its parts. This has eliminated a situation
wherein the different parts such as the letters, the words, the word formation and the syntax all
standing separately as if they are isolated wholes. The whole grammar is divided into Letter segment
ɑkśɑrɑkʰɑn̥d̥ɑ, Word segment śɑbdɑkʰɑn̥d̥ɑ and Sentence segment vɑːkyɑkʰɑn̥d̥ɑ (and then a
segment on prosody for the use of schoolers) showing that all these segments are inseparable parts
of the same grammatical substance. The letter segment enumerates the Kannada letters and
classifies them into vowels, classified consonants and unclassified consonants. The word segment
comes up with a unique way of identifying each word by three components viz. Its grammatical form
ruːpɑɑbʰeːdɑ in terms of whether it is the root(nominal or verbal) or a derived form; secondly its souce
in terms of its origin jɑːtibʰeːdɑ ; and lastly its lexical part of speech vɑːgɑrtʰɑbʰeːdɑ. For instance the
word kot̥tɑ
̥ nu (=gave away) is a deːśyɑ (i.e.original Kannada), vyutpɑnnɑ i. e. derived (from kod̥u = to
give), kriyɑːpɑdɑ i.e. verb (in past tense). Every word has a tri-identity like this. This may sound like
parsing of words in English grammar but it is not exactly the same.
10.1 This treatise has followed the question and answer pattern of
Hosɑgɑnɑd̥ɑnud̥igɑnnɑd̥i and is written in a maner most suitable for pupils of schools. This is perhaps
the last one of traditional grammatical works which has introduced innovative techniques towards
effective elucidation and communication of principles. After this text more than thirty grammatical texts
meant for schools have been published in the twentieth century. These text writers are mainly
concerned with the ease of teaching Kannada grammar in schools rather than any techniquewise
innovation in exposition of principles or introducing new data or new methods of analysis. For
instance Panje Mangesha Rao writes his kɑnnɑd̥ɑ muːlɑ vyɑːkɑrɑn̥ɑ so as to be helpful to teach the
subject in the inductive method; C M Ereseeme and D Revanna write their kɑnnɑd̥ɑ vyɑːkɑrɑn̥ɑ
sitable for teachers who teach in the deductive way (Maheedas,1997: p,,34). Evolution of expository
techniques in the arena of traditional grammars can be said to be complete with Kɑnnɑd̥ɑśɑːlɑː
vyɑːkɑrɑn̥ɑ.
11. Later, new development and new way of writing came forth in the writings of
D N Shankara Bhat in the later part of the twentieth century. He has produced about ten works on
grammar in Kannada and a number of research articles in national and international linguistic
journals. He is concerned with creating a Kannada grammatical system in its own right and does not
endorse the systems evolved from Sanskrit or English traditions. But he has not produced a
comprehensive and complete grammatical treatise. In the many books and articles he has written he
outlines how a Kannada grammatical text evolving the principles out of an analysis of the language
itself, easy to grasp and use, makes teaching easy and contributes to development of the language
can be constructed. His principles can be seen as an attempt to develop a constructive grammar for
Kannada. But his attempts have not been well appreciated and have not been very successful.

Bibliography
1. Kɑːtɑntrɑ pdf: The Katantra with the commentary of Durgasimha Edited with notes and
indexes by Julius Eggeling Printed by Stephen Austin and Sons Clcutta 1874,
Bibleothica Indica, Asiatic Society of Bengal.
2. Bʰɑt̥ t̥ ɑːkɑl̥ ɑn̊kɑdeːvɑ, 1968: : kɑrn̥ɑːt̥ɑkɑ Śɑbdɑːnuśɑːsɑnɑm Ed. D Padmanabha Sharma

(Rajakamal Prakashana: Bangalore )

3. Chitaguppi, Bhimarao, 1976: immɑd̥i nɑːgɑːvɑrmɑ in Sɑmɑgrɑ Kɑnnɑd̥ɑ Sɑːhityɑ Cɑritre

vol.3 pages 547-565 (Prasaranga: Bangalore University)
4. Greater B Rev. 1884: Tables of Canarese grammar (Basel Mission Book and Track
Depository: Mangalore )
5. Hodson, Thomas, Rev. 1859: An Elementary Grammar of the Kannada or Canarese
Language, kɑnnɑd̥ɑ b ʰ ɑ ːs̥eyɑ prɑ ː t ʰ ɑmikɑ vyɑ ː kɑrɑn̥ɑ (Weslyan Mission Press:
Bangalore)
6. Kittel Ferdinand Rev, 1903: A Grammar of the Kanada Language in English Comprising
the Three Dialects (Basel Mission Book and Track Depository: Mangalore) This the most
comprehensive text of all Kannada grammars todate.
7. Kŕis̥n̥ɑmɑːcɑːri Śriːrɑn̊gɑpɑt̥ t̥ ɑn̥ɑdɑ, 1838: Hosɑgɑnɑd̥ɑnud̥igɑnnɑd̥i (Madras)
8. Keːśirɑːjɑ : śɑbdɑmɑn̥idɑrpɑn̥ɑ, Ed . Narasimhachar, D L 1963 (Sharada Mandira: Ramaiah
Street Mysore )
9. Maheedas, B V, 2015: Hosɑmɑːdɑri vyɑːkɑrɑn̥ɑgɑl̥ u in Mumbel̥agu Ed. Prof Navada A
V ( Kannada sahitya prishattu: Bangalore) p, 382-414
10. Maheedas, B V, 2010: Kannada Shastra Sahityakke Kraista Mishanarigala Koduge
(Srinivasa Prakashana: Kanakapura Main Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore) This gives a
hisotorical evaluative account of the Kannada grammatical works up to the end of
nineteenth centuries.
11. Maheedas, B V, 1997 : Kannada Vyakaranagala Hosa Smeekshe mattu itara
Prabandhagalu (Yugapurusha Prakatanalaya: Kinnigoli D K Karnataka)
12. Narasimhachar, R, 1985: A History of Kannada Literature (New Dehli: Asian Educational
Services)
13. Naagavarma, 1884: kɑrn̥ɑːt̥ɑkɑ bʱɑs̥ɑːbʱuːs̥ɑn̥a Ed. Lewis Rice (Its first edition is not
available. In 1985 Asian Educational Services New Dehli have brought out photo copy of
the book. The date of the first edition as mentoned there is taken as such)
14. Rice, Lewis, 1882: ‘Introduction’ in Naagavarma, 1884. Pages i – xxxvii. A very short
history of Kannada literature is also included in this introduction.
15. Saini R S: Post Paniniyan Systems of Sanskrit Grammar (Primal Publications: Dehli )
16. Satpathy, Rabindra Kumar Pāṇinian and Kātantra Systems of Grammar: A Comparative
Study Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1999 Digitized 30 May 2008
17. Seetharamaiah M V, 1979: Pracheena Kannada Vyakarnagalu (Mysore University:
Mysore) It is a study of the four major grammatical texts of old Kannada.
18. Shankara Bhat D N: A living linguist who has done pioneering work in the field of
Kannada linguistics and Dravidian linguistics. His works on Kannada grammar include:
 Kanadakke Beku Kannadadde Vyakarana (2000), Kannada Vyakarnagala Olarachane
(2004), Kannada bhasheya Kalpita Charitre (195), Kannada Sarvnamagalu (2003),
Kannada Vakyagalu (1978). Comments about his theory are given here on the basis of
these works.
19. Dragons That Won’t Be Slain - www.unm.edu/~ldbeene/dragons-2.pdf · PDF file -
University of New Mexico
20. Kɑn̥ɑjɑ ಕಣಜ: http://www.nammakannadanaadu.com/vyakarana/parampare.php
21. sanskrit.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/Panini/HTML
22. http://sanskritdocuments.org/doc_z_misc_major_works/aShTAdhyAyI.pdf
23. http://sanskritdictionary.com/: The meaning of Vɑrn̥ɑsɑmɑːmnɑːyɑ (ವಣಣ ಸಮಾಮಾಾಯ) is

adopted from here: "assemblage or aggregate of letters", the alphabet

24. Sanskrit and kannada words are transliterated using online IPA key board after

http://www.lexilogos.com/keyboard/phonetic.htm