Similar Thoughts in the Mahābhārata, the Literature of "Greater India" and in the

Christian Gospels
Author(s): Ludwik Sternbach
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society , Jul. - Sep., 1971, Vol. 91, No. 3 (Jul.
- Sep., 1971), pp. 438-442
Published by: American Oriental Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/600264

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of the American Oriental Society

This content downloaded from

78.23.8.206 on Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:51:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
438 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 91.3 (1971)

41R CFI CG, /~) CHJR CIFji CJ>JI

CK-st " '." a" RJR" CL :kM (;t, cRi

t CN &#',P=4 COV,A1 CP^HI CQX? CRu

#@r CSW a FfV CT7JI- CUOrA CV@1

CWFMMU CX'T CYj]7 CZA1I17 DAtt

^i- DBIfTf DCEs DD- DEM DFt

A DGXg:tHt DHG DIt &?| DJ DI

DK-%'A /DL s JNi" ^? h<% ^ ^|: F-

~81 zli EI~g0VI~U t t,l/ffii _t_J * DN;4

Similar Thoughts in the Mahabhdrata, The Literature of "Greater India" and in the Christian Gosp

Wise sayings of India could have influenced the Christian Gospels or vice versa.
There are two golden rules and two proverbs which occur in the Mahabharata and other
Sanskrit literary sources, from which they have been included in the literature of "Greater
India," and in the Christian Gospels. They are: "and why beholdest thou the mote that is
in thy brother's eye but considerest not the beam that is in thy own eye" and "all things
whatsoever ye would that man should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law
and the Prophets," as well as "recompense to no man evil with evil" and "whatever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap."
These sayings are analysed below.

1.
1. Many
Manybooks
booksandand
studies
studieswere
were
written
written
on Indian
on Indian
in- in-
incorporated
incorporated in the
in Sanskrit
the Sanskrit
literature
literature
and in the and
Chris-
in the Chr
fluence on Christianity and Christian influences on tian
tianGospels
Gospels is ofisIndian
of Indian
or Christian
or Christian
origin. Even
origin.
if we Even if
Indian religions, but it will never be possible to give a would know the date of the composition of the Ma-
conclusive answer to these questions. Were the Christian habharata-and this question is still unresolved-we
Gospels influenced by Indian, particularly Buddhist would not know whether a wise saying, a maxim, an
texts, or were the Indian, and particularly the later aphorism, a proverb included therein is of the same date
Buddhist texts, influenced by Christian Gospels? It is as the epic, or one of its parvans or whether it originated
even more difficult to give an answer to the question much earlier and was incorporated later by the compiler
whether a wise saying, a maxim, an aphorism, a proverb of the Mahabharata from the floating mass of oral
tradition. The same is also true for the Christian
** Prepared
Preparedforfor
the the
180th180th
Meeting
Meeting
of the American
of the Gospels.
American Gospels.
Oriental Society in Baltimore, 1970. 2. A good wise saying, a good maxim, a good aphorism,

This content downloaded from

78.23.8.206 on Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:51:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Brief Communications 439

a good proverb can always be used and by anyone. thought; it reads:

Therefore, if there does not exist a positive proof of
asamkhydh paradosajni gunajnd api kecana,
borrowing-and that occurs very seldom-it is never
svayam eva svadosajnd vidyante yadi paicasdh
possible to give a conclusive answer to the question from
where this wise saying, etc., was borrowed. It is only (Most people notice the faults of others but see only a
possible to point out parallels and to emphasize similarfew of their merits; there are some who can see their own
thoughts found in the Sanskrit literary works and in faults, but these (are few only; perhaps five or six).
the Christian Gospels. 6. The first of the aphorisms5 is widely quoted in San-
3. In this study, some of these similar thoughts are skrit literature; it occurs among the so-called Canakya's
analyzed; they are limited only to those which appear insayings,6 in the Brhaspati-samhita of the Garuda-
the Mahabharata, the literature of "Greater India" and purana7 and in the Madhavanalakatha.8 All these sources
in the Christian Gospels. change rajan to klalah or nicah.9
The popularity of the saying must have been great,
A. DEPRIVATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF OBJECTIVE VALUE
since it is also often quoted in Subhasita-samgrahas
AND THE CONCEALMENT OF TRUTH ABOUT ONESELF
some of antiquity. We find this verse in the Sarfgadhara
4. In the Adiparvan of the Mahabharata1paddhati we find (345)the
where it is attributed to Vyasa (= Ma-
following aphorism: habharata), the Subhasitaharavali of Harikavi (MS.
BORI 92 of 1883-84, fol. 57 b [543]), the Vidyakarasa-
rajan sarsapamdtrani paracchidrdani paSyasi, hasraka of Vidyakara Misra (360), the Subhasita-ratna-
dtmano bilvamdtrdni pa?yann api na pagyasi. bha.ndagara (54.1), the Subhasita-sudha-ratna-bhanda-
(O king, you see the faults of others even if theygaraare (314.2), the Subhasita-ratna-mala (1.3.86), the
as small as a grain of mustard, but, even seeing them, Subhasita-ratnakara (22.5), the Samayocita-padya-
you do not want to see your own (faults) even if they ratna-malika (2 p 7), the Subhasita-mafijari (1.2.6).
are as big as a bilva-fruit). the Sadacara-sastra (184.212) and others. In all these
5. This verse is spoken by Sakuntala, wife of Dusyanta, secondary sources the verse starts with khalah, but
during her conversation with the latter. Therefore, otherwise
it does not contain any important variants;
begins with the word rdjan. only in some texts of the Mahabharata (and the Su-
Many other Sanskrit verses quote the same aphorism,2 bhasita-mafijari which follows the varia lectio of the
but since the invocation to the "king" is not necessary Mahabharata) we have instead of the comparison with
in a general aphorism, the word rdjan was substituted the bilva-fruit the comparison with an elephant or the
Meru mountain.
by the word khalah or nZcah (the wicked or the low
person); this was done for metrical reasons, but is, at The repute of the verse and of its deep thought in-
fluenced also the literatures of Old Java, Burma, Siam,
least, as far as the meaning of the aphorism is concerned,
not called for. The meaning of the aphorism was by that Champa, Laos, Xieng Mai and the rest of South-East
change spoiled, since it refers to "everyone." This canAsia. We find it almost verbatim in the Sarasamuccaya
be seen from the following Sunskrit aphorisms which also (347) which is an old Javanese Subhasita-sam.graha based
contain the same thoughts in other words. mainly on the Mahabharata, in the Pali Lokaniti (75)
It exists, for instance, in the Mahabharata3 also the and its Burmese translation the Niti Kyan (106) and in
following aphorism: the Pali Dhammaniti (348). All these texts, with the
exception of the Pali Dhammaniti, follow the vulgate
paravacyesu nipu.nah sarvo bhavati sarvadd, text and begin the aphorism with the translation of the
dtmavdcya.m na jdnlte jdnann api vimuhyati. word khalah, while the Dhammaniti refers the verse to
"all." The Pali and Burmese texts change the com-
(Everyone is always able to notice the faults of others parison with the bilva-fruit (sacred to Mahadeva) to
but not his own faults; and if he notices the latter, he
knows how to help himself over the embarassment).
Also a widely quoted aphorism4 expresses a similar 6 MBh(Bh) 1.69.1.
6 Canakya-sara-samgraha version (3.29), Laghu-
canakya version (5.8), Canakya-raja-niti-astra version
1MBh(MBh(Bh) 1.69,1; MBh(R) 1.74.81; MBh(C) (6.48) and several individual texts of the Canakya-niti-
1.3069). sastra version (CNN 51, CNG 86, CNSK 70, CnT II 15,
2 See below. CnT III 7.82, CnT V 124, CnT VII 48, CPS 166.89)
MBh (MBh(Bh) 8.30.87; MBh(R) 8.45.44; MBh(C) Cr 325.
8.2116). 7GP 1.113.56.
4Subhasita-sudha-ratna-bhandagara 358.4 and Su- 8 Sch6hl's edition 14, Pavolini's edition 13, M. K.
bhasitarnava 275 (quoted in B6htlink's Indische Sprziche
Majumdar's edition (GOS 93) 14.
746). 9 Garuda-purana.

This content downloaded from

78.23.8.206 on Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:51:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
440 Journal of the American O0 riental Society, 91.3 (1971)

nalikera (cocoa-nut), better suited to the

thisscorner,
part oflestthe
he hate thee; reprove a wise man and
world. he will love thee'."l6
7. The second verse'0 was also popular in Sanskrit Here we find for the word "mote" keysam and for the
literature; it is quoted in two older Subhasita-samgrahas,word "beam" korah; in some texts we have mi-beyn
namely Vallabhadeva's Subhasitavali (2808) and the shineykha; on the basis of the latter text a theory was
South Indian Sukti-ratnahara (40.11) where it is at- built that the original was not "mote" and "beam"
tributed to Vallabhadeva. "between your eyes" but "between your teeth"; this
8. The same saying is also well known in the New theory was not accepted by the Gospel of St. Matthew
Testament. In St. Matthew (7.3) we read: "and why and is contrary to the text of the Mahabharata which
beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, could have been the "oriental proverb of the time"
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?,"" which was incorporated in the saying in the St. Matthew
here the "mustard seed" is substituted by "the mote" Gospel.
which is "any small piece of straw or splinter of wood"'2 It is likely that the substitution in the St. Matthew
and the "bilva-fruit" or "cocoa-nut" by "the beam" Gospel of the "mote" and of the "beam" for the "mus-
which is "a large plank."l3 tard seed" and the "bilva-fruit" came from the Jewish
No doubt, the saying was a proverb well known in the story, while the saying itself came from the Ma-
Holy Land; the Abingdon Bible commentary14 considers habharata.
that it "may have been an Oriental proverb of the time" 9. The meaning of the saying is clear; it is the depriva-
and Peake's commentary on the Bible considers it as a tion of the judgment of objective value and the conceal-
saying apparently "a popular one in the early tradition." ment of truth about oneself. The mustard seed or the
It is possible that this was the saying from the Maha- mote are figurative for a small fault, while the bilva-
bharata or also known to the compilers of the Ma- fruit, cocoa-nut or the beam are figurative for a con-
habharata, but could also be an adaptation of a Jewishspicuous moral fault; even a small fault makes it hard to
story according to which a Jewish judge criticized arrive to a true knowledge of others. Obviously, the
another and said "remove the mote from between your meaning of the proverb is general and applies to all men,
eyes" and the other replied "remove the beam from not necessarily to wicked or low persons, but the mean-
between your eyes." We also find in the Talmud (CAra-ing-by the addition of "the wicked" or the "low
khin 16 bl6 where Rabbi Tarfon said "I wonder whether person"-is not completely spoiled, since it only charac-
there is any one in this generation who accepts reproof, terizes the persons who conceal the truth about them-
for if one says to him: 'remove the mote from between selves.
your eyes', he would answer 'remove the beam from However, the Mahabharata saying has one additional
between your eyes!' Rabbi Eleazar b. A. Zariah said premise, not found in other Sanskrit sayings nor in the
'I wonder if there is one in this generation who knows St. Matthew Gospel, that is, "even seeing it"; the addi-
how to reprove!' Rabbi Johanan b. Nuri said: 'throughtion of these words emphasizes the intent of the conceal-
me because I used to complain against him before our ment of one's own truth; it is not a deviation from the
Rabban, Gamaliel Beribbi, and all the more he showeredmain aim of the saying but only the interpretation of the
love upon me, to make true what has been: reprove notsaying which might have been made for metrical reasons
only, since the Mahabharata verse is composed in Sloka
metre; only these verses which repeat the Mahabharata
10 MBh(Bh) 8.30.8. verse contain the same "interpretation," that is the
11 St. Matthew 7.4 continues: "Or how wilt thou saySanskrit verses and the Old Javanese text of the Sa-
to thy brother. Let me pull out the mote out of thinerasamuccaya, while the Pali and Burmese texts, as well
eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?." St. Lukeas the text of St. Matthew, omit it.
6.41 says: "And why beholdest thou the mote that is inB. WHAT IS DISAGREEABLE TO ONESELF SHOULD NOT BE
thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is inDONE TO OTHERS
thine own eye?" 10. In the Vidura-niti of the Mahabharata we find the
12The Abindon Bible Commentary ed. by F. C.
following saying:17
Eiselen, E. Lewis and D. G. Downey ad St. Matthew 7.3.
13 idem. na tat parasya samdadhyat pratikilam yad atmanah,
4 See footnote 12 above. samgrahetnaisa dharmah syat'8 kamdd anyah pravartate.
16 The Babylonian Talmud. Seder Kodashim CArakhin
6 Proverbs 9.8.
16 b (p. 94). Cf. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 17
ausMBh (MBh(Bh) 5.39,57, MBh(R) 5.38.72, MBh(C)
Talmud und Midrasch von H. L. Strack und P. Biller- 5.1517-8).
beck, Miinchen 1922. I. Das Evangelium nach Matheus
18 In some texts c roads without changing the meaning
(p. 496). of the verse: esa samksepato dharmah.

This content downloaded from

78.23.8.206 on Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:51:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Brief Communications 441

(Do not do to others what is disagreeable to yourself; clearer: "And as ye would that men should do to you, do
that is dharma in brief; the other proceeds from desire). ye also to them likewise."24
The same versel9 is repeated in the AnuSsana- This positive rule seems to be of greater moral value
parvan.20 than the negative one, although some commentators
11. The same thought is also repeated in the so-called argued that the rule in the negative form is of deeper
Canakya's sayings,21 in the Pafcatantra,22 and in the significance and wider application than the positive
Vetalapaicavimiatika23 where we read: form found in the New Testament.
14. It is difficult to prove from where this rule was in-
sruyatdmr dharmasarvasvam .rutvd caivd'vadhdryatdm, corporated into the New Testament; it could have been
dtmanah pratikuldni paresadm na samdcaret. an adaptation of Rabbi Hillel's dictum; it could have
been taken from the floating mass of oral tradition; and
(Listen to the essence of dharma (and) after having
it could have been taken from the Sanskrit literature,
heard it, take it to heart! what is disagreeable to you,
the more so as the last pdda (MBh(Bh) 5.39.57) inter-
do not do to others).
preted by commentators conveyed the positive aspect
The popularity of this golden rule, of this rule of
of the rule "kdmdd anyah pravartate-"the other pro-
dharma, was great; it was quoted in older Subhasita-
ceeds from desire" was interpreted as meaning "the
samgrahas, namely the Sarfngadhara-paddhatiother," (670),i.e., the contrary of the negative action, or the
where it was attributed to Vyasa (= Mahabharata),
positive action-"the positive virtue" proceeds from
Vallabhadeva's Subhasitavali (2950), the South Indian
good actions done according to one's desire.26
Sukti-ratnahara (9.1) and the Vyasa-subhasita-samgraha
15. The positive of this golden rule is well-known in
(17), as well as in Bhoja's work on poetics, the Sara-
Sanskrit literature where it is often quoted. We find two
svatikanthabharana (1.116); it also spread to Ceylon,
similar but not identical verses in the kathd literature;
Tibet and Old Java. Through the Vyasa-subhasita-
in the Pafcatantra we read the following verse:26
samgraha it was incorporated in the Ceylonese Vyasa-
karaya (12) and Siamese Vyakarasataka (12); through samksepdt kathyate jandh kim vistarena
the Tibetan translation of the Canakya-raja-niti-sastra dharmo vah,
it was incorporated in the Tanjur in the Chapter Tsa- paropakdrah punyaya papdya parapzdanam.
na-kahi-rgyal-pohi lugs kyi bstan-bcos (1.5) and in the
She-rab dong bu (212); in Old Javanese the first verse and in the Vikramacarita and the Vetalapafcavimsatika
became known through the Mahabharata in the Sa- we read the following verse:27
rasamuccaya (47) and the second verse through the ?riyatdm dharmasarvasvam yad uktam Sdstrokotibhih,
Paficatantra in the Sarasamuccaya (50). paropakdrah punydya papaya parapzdanam.
12. The same golden rule is also known in Old China.
Confucius is reported to have said "Do not do to others In both these verses cd, which contain the main
that you would not wish done to yourself." Rabbi Hillel thought, are identical and say: "To help others is a
also was reported to have said: "What is hateful to virtue; to injure them is a sin."; the introductory part
(ab) is similar in both cases and states that the rule
thyself that do not to another. This is the whole law, the
rest is the commentary. Go, thou art perfect." above is the essence of dharma very well known.28 That
the truths-the negative and the positive-are comple-
13. All these rules are expressed in the negative; do not
mentary to each other and are the development of the
do what is disagreeable to others! In the New Testament,
the same rule is put in the positive. In St. Matthew
(7.12) we read: "All things whatsoever ye would that men 24 A positive aspect of this rule is also found in Aris-
should do to you, do ye to them; for this is the law and toteles's answer to the question how he should act to-
the prophets" and in St. Luke (6.31) we read it even wards friends. However, to this very narrow question
(since it refers to friends only), Aristoteles replied: "As
we would that they should act towards us."
19 With the varia lectio mentioned above. 25 P. N. Menon on the Vidura-niti in "Indian
20 MBh (MBh(Bh) 13.114.8, MBh(R) 13.114.8, Classics" Series No. 3, Palghat, 1955; p. 217.
MBh(C) 13.5571). 26 PP 3.93, Pts 3.102, PtsK 3.103.
27 VCsr 13.2 and Vet 10.2.
21 Cr 1008 (Canakya-raja-niti-sastra version [1.7] and
28 In the first instance it says: "whatfor many words,
individual texts of the Canakya-niti-astra version
in short the law (dharma) says, oh men"; in the second
[CNG 6, CNI I 23, CNg 17, CNl 69, CNB 19, CN?Linstance
69, it says: "Listen to the essence of law (dharma)
CNSPK 91, CNST 98, CNglV 18, CPS 3.6]). which is proclaimed in millions of books." The first
22 Pts 3.103, PtsK 3.104, PD 302.31. verse is also quoted in the Subhasita-ratna-bhandagara
23 Vet 10.2 (Sivadasa version). (377.13).

This content downloaded from

78.23.8.206 on Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:51:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
442 Journal of the American Oriental Society, 91.3 (1971)

same
same thought
thoughtininIndia
India
is is
clear
clear
from
from
the the
factfact
that that
in the Javanese (Sarasamuccaya 27) and occurs also in the
in the
Paficatantra
Paficatantraboth
boththese
thesetruths
truths
follow
follow
eacheach
otherother
(Pts (PtsEpistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians (6.7) where
3.102-3, PtsK 3.103-4). In all these cases, i.e., in the it reads: "Whatever a man soweth that shall he also
verses quoted in paras 9, 10 and 13 the axiom, the golden reap."30
rule of not doing to others what is disagreeable to oneself The two proverbs form parts of MahabhArata verses31;
or to do others good, is considered as a rule of law, as anthe other parts of Mahabharata verses could not be
eternal truth. That is the case not only in the Mahabha-traced in the New Testament and it must be assumed
rata and the sources based on the Mahabharata or that in India as well as in the Holy Land these proverbs
Canakya, or in the katha literature, or in Rabbi wereHillel's
currently known and no borrowing could have
dictum, but also in the saying quoted in St. Matthew.
occurred; they were probably independently borrowed
from the floating mass of oral tradition.
C. PROVERBS.
17. It is difficult, almost impossible, to prove any bor-
16. In addition to these aphorisms found in the rowing by the New Testament from the gnomic litera-
Mahabharata, the literature of "Greater India" and ture
in of India, but it is very likely that the golden rules of
The New Testament, we also find in these sources two deprivation of the judgment of objective value and the
common proverbs, parts of Mahabharata verses; they concealment of truth about oneself and of not doing to
are Mahabharata (MBh(Bh) 3.198.43) which says: "Do others what is disagreeable to oneself, were influenced
not react to evil with evil" and Mahabharata (MBh(Bh) by thoughts born in India.
12.287.44) which says: "Whatever one has sown that one LUDWIK STERNBACH
UNIVERSIT] DE LA SORBONNE NOUVELLE, PARIS (III)
reaps." The first is also known in Old Javanese (Sa-
rasamuccaya 323) and occurs in the Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to Romans (12.17) where it reads: "Recompense 30 See also Galatians (6.8-9). Similar, but more com-
no man evil for evil,"29 the second is also known in Oldplete is the saying in the Second Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Corinthians (9.6) where it says: "He
which soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly; and
29 Similarly St. Matthew (5.39): "But I say unto you,he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bounti-
that ye resist not evil"; the First Epistle of Paul the fully."
Apostle to the Thessalonians (5.15): "See that none 31 Both were well known in India and widely quoted
render evil for evil unto any man"; and the First Epistle
in the Sanskrit literature, e.g. Kathasaritsagara 3.17.148,
General of Peter (3.9): "Not rendering evil for evil." etc.

The Present
Present Tense
Tense Morph
Morph in
in Tamil
Tamil

Two basic hypotheses

hypotheses concerning
concerning the
the etymology
etymology of ofthe
thepresent
presenttense
tensemorph
morphininTamil
Tamil
have so far
far been
been offered:
offered: one,
one, connecting
connecting thethe present
presenttense
tensemarker
markerwith
withthe
theadverb
adverbinru
inru
'today', another,
another, explaining
explaining the
the morph
morph inin question
questionas
asaacoalescent
coalescentsuffix
suffixofof-ku
-kuplus
plusa aform
form
of the verb
verb il.
il. This
This paper
paper offers
offers two
two other
other hypotheses,
hypotheses,more
moreplausible
plausiblethan
thanthe
thetwo
twomen-men-
tioned above.

1. It is a well-known
well-known fact
fact among
among Dravidianists
Dravidianiststhat,
that,
byin in
Bloch,2
Bloch,2 and
and again
againby byAndronov.3
Andronov.3Julien
Julien Vinson
Vinson hashas
Dravidian
Dravidian languages,
languages, the
the present
present tense
tense markers
markersseem
seem to
to
indicated
indicated in
in quite
quitestrong
strongterms
termsthe
thepossibility
possibilitythat
thatthethe
be later innovations,
innovations, developed
developed independently
independentlyin indiffer-
differ-
Dravidian
Dravidian verbverb had
hadonlyonlytwo
twosimple
simpletenses:
tenses:"Ma
"Matheorie
theorie
ent languages
languages of
of the
the family,
family, and
and not
not reconstructable
reconstructable for
surfor
les
les deux
deux temps
tempssimples
simplesprimitifs
primitifsduduverbe
verbedravidien,
dravidien,
the parent
parent speech,
speech, not
not even
even inherited
inherited from
fromthetheproto-
proto-
un passe
passe parfait
parfait etetun unaoriste
aoristeprototype
prototype dudu
present
present
et et
dudu
forms ofof North
North Dravidian,
Dravidian, Central
Central Dravidian,
Dravidian,and
andSouth
South
futur
futur posterieurs,
posterieurs,me mesemble
sembleincontestable."4
incontestable."4
Dravidian.
Dravidian. This
This fact
fact was
was noticed
noticed by
by Caldwell,'
Caldwell,'repeated
repeated
As far
far as
as Tamil
Tamil isisconcerned,
concerned,wewecan
caneven
even
point
point
to to
thethe

"... it has only

only three
three tenses,
tenses, the
the past,
past, the
thepresent,2 J.
present, J. Bloch,
Bloch, Structure
Structuregrammaticale
grammaticaledes deslangues
langues
dra-
dra-
vidiennes,
vidiennes, Paris
and the aorist or indefinite future. There is reason to Paris (1946),
(1946),pp.pp.52,
52,59,
59,60.60.
3 M.
suspect, also, that originally it had no present tense, but M. S.
S. Andronov,
Andronov,Dravidijskie
Dravidijskiejazyki,
jazyki,Moskva
Moskva(1965)
(1965)
only a future and a past" (R. Caldwell, A Comparative p. 76.
Grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian Family of 4 J. Vinson, Manuel de la langue tamoule, Paris (1903),
Languages, 3rd ed., 1956 repr., p. 446). p. IV.

This content downloaded from

78.23.8.206 on Sun, 31 Dec 2023 05:51:32 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms