Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c10.s3: § 3. Telugu Phonetics

Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c10.s3

Language
English

§ 3. Telugu Phonetics

c10.s3.1

Here again the grammar has been formed on Sanskrit models, but the pattern is either Pāṇini's or Hemacandra's treatise, and the terminology, chiefly, that of Pāṇini¹.

c10.s3.2

¹ The dates of Nannaya Bhaṭṭa and Ātharvaṇācārya can easily be fixed. Nannaya Bhaṭṭa translated the first part of the Mahābhārata into Telugu for Vishṇuvardhana who was Rāmānujācārya's chief convert, and therefore lived in the middle of the 11th century ["Cyclic Table" by C. P. Brown; *Madras Journal*, x., p. 52; Brown's "Telugu Grammar" (2nd ed.), p. i.]. Ātharvaṇācārya is generally supposed to have preceded Nannaya; but this cannot be the case, as he twice cites Hemacandra by name ("Triliṅgaçabdānuçāsana", i., 5; iii., 13 of the Madras MS.). Hemacandra was probably born in 1088 A. D. and died in 1172 A. D. (*Bombay Journal*, x., p. 224); Ātharvaṇācārya must, therefore, have written about fifty years later than Nannaya, and was probably a Jain rival of this Brahman.

c10.s3.3

The earliest of the two grammars is by Nannaya; he begins by saying that Sanskrit has fifty letters, Prakrit ten less, but the Telugu has thirty-six, as the other letters only occur in Sanskrit words which have been adopted in that language. These letters he says are: a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, ĕ, ē, ai, ŏ, ō, au, two anusvāras (o and c ), k, g, two č (č and ţ), two ǰ (ǰ and ḍ), ṭ, ḍ, ṇ, t, d, n, p, b, m, y, r, l, v, s, ṟ, ḷ².

c10.s3.4

² "Āndhraçabdacintāmaṇi", i., 14-18 and 23.

c10.s3.5

Ātharvaṇācārya is by no means so precise, but as he is later than Nannaya what he says is of little importance. He mentions seven or (excluding ai and au) five vowels (*i. e.* a, i, u, e, o) which might be short, long or *pluta*³. He does not specifically enumerate the consonants.

c10.s3.6

³ "Triliṅgaçabdānuçāsana", i., 8-11. "Prāṇāḥ sapta svarūpeṇa" (8) "*vacam* (*read* aucam) vinā svarāḥ pañca hrasvadīrghaplutais tridhā" (9).

c10.s3.7

Thus two Telugu grammarians, not of the Aindra school, have treated the Telugu alphabet far more completely than was done by Aindra grammarians in respect of the Tamiḷ, though the Telugu grammarians hold the strange theory that the Telugu language is a "Vikṛiti" of Sanskrit⁴, and treat the grammar as a mere appendix to Sanskrit and Prakrit grammar.

c10.s3.8

⁴ "Āndhraçabdacintāmaṇi", i., 12. iii., 8. 43. 59. 83. iv., 2. 11. 23. 28. 42. 46. Thefirst of these sūtras is: "Ādyaprakṛitiḥ prakṛitiç cā 'dye, eshā tayor bhaved vikṛitiḥ." Ahobala says on this: " 'Ādyaprakṛitiḥ' iti sarvabhāshāmūlakatvena Āndhrabhāshāhetutvena cā 'dyā Saṁskṛitabhāshā."—" 'Eshā' Āndhrabhāshā."

c10.s3.9

This theory is an important one in considering references to foreign words in Sanskrit grammatical works, and has been, as yet, quite misunderstood. The meaning of the term vikṛiti, as thus used, is as follows: The grammarians (as is required in Hindu cosmogony⁵) considered all languages to be eventually derived from the Sanskrit, much as in Europe, in the Middle Ages, Hebrew was supposed to be the source of all languages then known; they also considered merely the *external* forms of words and not the *meaning*[^1). It was thus easy to find a plausible explanation of any foreign words by means of Sanskrit. The Mīmāmsists contended against this doctrine, as they attached more importance to the *meaning* than to the *form*[^2). In considering foreign words mentioned by Sanskrit grammarians it is necessary to keep the nature of this theory in view.

c10.s3.10

⁵ *See* Muir's "Sanskrit Texts" (i., pp. 480 ffg.) where several passages are to be found in which it is asserted that peoples of quite different races, e. g. Oḍras, Draviḍas, Kāmbojas, Yavanas and Cīnas (Manu, x., 43-4); Yavanas, Cīnas, Pahlavas, Āndhras and Kāmbojas (Çāntiparvan); Çakas, Yavanas, Kāmbojas, Colas and Keralas (Harivaṁça) were originally Xattriyas. This notion is found already in the Brāhmaṇas.

c10.s3.11

Comparing the Telugu-Canarese alphabets with the Tamiḷ it is, then, impossible to suppose that the last is the work of Sanskrit grammarians; for had they been the authors of it, it would have been far more perfect[^3), and would have shown signs of adaptation which are wanting in it. Add to this that the Tamiḷ letters ḷ, ḻ[^4) and ṟ are totally distinct from the Telugu-Canarese corresponding letters and ṉ superfluous, and the amount of proof that the Vaṭṭeḻuttu is of independent origin, and not derived from the S. Açoka character, appears to be conclusive[^5).

Linked texts (3)