Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Tamil Studies, or Essays on the History of the Tamil People, Language, Religion and Literature c19: XII. The Origin of Malayalam

Tamil Studies, or Essays on the History of the Tamil People, Language, Religion and Literature c19

Language
English

XII. The Origin of Malayalam

c19.2

The home-speech of about seven millions of people in Southern India is Malayalam. It is at present an important language of the Dravidian family; and yet, the exact relationship which it bears to the other members of that family is a subject of some hot discussion among the Dravidian scholars. The solution of this problem is not an easy matter. Unless one has made an historical study of the Tamil and Malayalam languages his conclusion must remain for ever vague and indecisive. Some scholars believe it to be a sister of Tamil like Telugu or Kanarese, others regard it as a highly developed dialect of old Tamil, while a few Indian scholars of Malabar are prone to think that it is a dialect of Sanskrit and that it had nothing to do with Tamil from its very origin. The last seems an extreme view prompted by a false sense of patriotism; and the subject is interesting and important enough to deserve an examination at some length.

c19.3

The etymology of the term ‘Malayalam’ which properly applies to the territory and not language, seems obscure. It does not occur either in early or mediæval Tamil literature. The people of the West Coast call their home-speech as Malayazhma or Malayayma. These are compounds of two Malayalam or rather Tamil words mala, a ‘mountain’ and ālam or ālma, ‘government’. The latter are verbal nouns formed by postfixing the noun terminations am (அம்) and ma or mai (மை) to the verb āl (ஆள்) to rule. ‘Azhma’ may be a mistake for ‘alma’. It is not right to accept the meaning that Malayalam is a ‘deep (ஆழம்) mountainous region’.

c19.4

The Chera or Kerala country, called also the Malai-nadu and Malai-mandalam in Tamil and Malayalam works, was known to the early Greeks as Dimurike or Tamilakam and ‘Kerobothros’ or the Chera country, and to the mediæval nations as ‘Malabar’ (Skt. Malavar, Ar. Mala-barr) or the ‘region of mountains.’ From about the beginning of the sixteenth up to the early years of the last century, Tamil was known to Europeans as the ‘Malabar’ language. But it has been considered by Western scholars as an instance of misapplication of the term ‘Malabar’ to Tamil. However, I am inclined to think otherwise, though with reference to the present condition of the Malayalam language it might be an undue extension of its signification. When the term ‘Malabar’ was first applied to Tamil by the early European travellers or missionaries there was not, as will be shown hereafter, much difference in the colloquial or rather the vulgar forms of the two languages, and they were justified in calling both as the ‘ Malabar ’ language.

c19.5

The people of Kerala or Chera Desa in the third century called themselves Tamilar and even thought it proud to be known by that ‘ sweet ’ name as the following quotation will show :—

c19.6

வண்டமிழிகழ்ந்த
காய்வேற் றடக்கைக் கனகனும் விசையனும்
செங்குட்டு வன்றன் சினவலைப் படுதலும்.—Sil.

c19.7

The work which we have reviewed in the tenth essay is probably the earliest literary record relating to the Chera kings and their subjects whose home-speech was Tamil. And it might conveniently be taken as containing the origins of the Malayalam language. Another Tamil work of about the same period is the Ainkurunuru or the ‘ Five short Hundreds’. It was written by five different poets of the Kerala country and compiled under the orders of the Chera king Yanaikkat-chey-Mandaram-Seral-Irum-porai. A third work of greater importance, but belonging almost to the same period is Silappadikaram. It was composed by Ilango-Adikal, a younger brother of the Chera king Senguttuvan, and forms one of the five Tamil major epics. All these teem with ‘ Malabaricms ’ or usages peculiar to Malayalam, but which are considered as slang or provincialisms in pure Tamil. Words like ஒல்லா (must not), போத்து (he-buffalo), கைநிலம் or கைநிலை (camp), வட்டி (basket), &c., which occur in these Tamil works of the Kerala country, are still current in the spoken language of Malabar and Travancore when they had become obsolete in Tamil.

c19.8

The later Tamil authors of Kerala were Aiyanaritanar, Cheraman Perumal and Kulasekara Perumal. Aiyanaritanar flourished about the seventh or eighth century A. D. He was a prince of the Chera dynasty and wrote a treatise on grammar entitled the 'Venba-Malai.' The other two were kings of Malabar and flourished during the eighth or ninth century. For their literary remains we must refer the reader to the eleventh 'Tirumurai,' of the Saivas, to Mr. Govinda Pillai's 'History of Malayalam Literature' and to our chapter on the Alvars. It must, however, be pointed out here that the proportion of Sanskrit words in the early Tamil works of the Chera country, namely, Ainkurunuru, Paditruppattu, Silappadikaram and Venbamalai is comparatively very small, while in the later writings of the Kerala saints—Cheraman and Kulasekara—it is perceptibly higher, mainly owing to Brahmanical influence. Kulasekara was also a Sanskrit poet. The latest Tamil poet who, according to a current tradition, visited Kerala and lectured on the Ramayana before large audiences was the famous Kamban (A. D. 1145-1205). Lectures in Tamil on the Ramayana were evidently popular and much appreciated in Kerala during this period, and it is interesting to note that even today Kambaramayanam is recited and commented upon by special minstrels or a class of wandering preachers, The first works in the early Malayalam language are accordingly the ‘ Ramacharitram ’ and the ‘ Ramayanam ’ which are more after the model of Kamban’s great work.

c19.9

In ancient Tamil literature Chera or Kerala is invariably spoken of as a Tamil country; and from the Tolkapyam it might be inferred that this kingdom had at least seven Nadus or provinces, namely—Venadu, Puzhinadu, Karka Nadu, Sitanadu, Kuttanadu, Kuda Nadu and Malayama Nadu, in all of which Kodum or vulgar Tamil was spoken. In later Tamil literature Malabar, Travancore and Cochin are called Malainadu or Malai-mandalam. Hence the Chera kings were also called Puzhiyan, Kuttuvan, Kuda-Nadan, Malayaman and Kolli-chilamban (Lord of the Kollimalais). For sometime the Kongu country (Salem and Coimbatore districts) was under them, and hence the people of the country were known also as Kongans. Two Tamil inscriptions in a Jain temple on the Tirumalai hill inform us that Adigaman Ezhini of Tagadur (Salem district) belonged to the Chera or Vanji family. Sita-Nadu is the Nilgiris and it is needless to say that it was within the Chera dominion.

c19.10

The names of villages in Malabar and Travancore which have suffixes like, seri, ur, angadi (a bazar), kodu or kod (summit of a hill), kadu or kad (a forest), tod or tottam (a garden or canal), padi, karai, turai, kulam, kuricchi, kalam, vayal, eri, pattu, kundu, tali, iruppu, &c., are all pure Tamil words and indicate that they were originally built and occupied by the Tamils. The names of Malabar villages like Mel (west or upper)-muri, Mel-attur, Tannir-kadu, and Kazhani-paramba support the theory that the ancient inhabitants of Kerala were Tamil Dravidians. Again, from the existence of Tamil words kizhakku (east) and merku (west) in the Malayalam language, Dr. Caldwell argues that ‘the Malayalam is an off-shoot from Tamil, and that the people by whom it is spoken were originally a colony of Tamilians’. This argument confirms beyond a shadow of doubt the Tamil origin of the Malayalam people, though it seems to Mr. Logan fanciful and ingenious. Prior to the fifth or sixth century A. D. the Tamil words குணக்கு, குடக்கு, வடக்கு and தெற்கு expressed the four directions, while கிழக்கு and மேற்கு then meant ‘downward’ and ‘upward.’ In all these the particle கு is a dative case termination meaning ‘direction.’ Later on குணக்கு and குடக்கு became classical or used only in literature, and their place was taken by கிழக்கு and மேற்கு which acquired that significance with reference to the position of the Tamil country lying east of the Western Ghauts. Notwithstanding the striking reverse configuration of the modern Malayalam and Tamil countries, the Tamil word கிழக்கு has come to denote the ‘east’ on both sides of the Ghauts and in both languages. This is no doubt an anomaly and can be explained only by accepting that the early inhabitants of the Malayalam country were Tamil immigrants from the East coast districts.

c19.11

The word மேற்கு has, however, retained in Malayalam its ancient Tamil meaning ‘upward’, and its modern significance is expressed by a Tamil compound படி-ஞாயிறு or the ‘setting sun.’ Doubting the correctness of Dr. Caldwell’s argument Mr. Logan suggests that the terms கிழக்கு and மேற்கு were coined with reference to the rise and setting of the sun. This seems to be very ingenious, because, if that had been the case, the words for ‘east’ and ‘west’ should be cognates and found in all the Dravidian languages; and the necessity to coin a compound Tamil word padi-jnayiru in the place of a simple one, merku, should never have been felt by the early inhabitants of Kerala.

c19.12

Among the towns of the West coast Tondi (modern Kadalundi), Mandai, Musiri and Vanji occur frequently in early Tamil literature. Tondi was a famous sea-port and capital of a division of the Chera country ruled by Poraiyan, while Vanji or Karur was the metropolis of the other division; Musiri (Gr. Mouziris) was a famous emporium of the West and centre of the pepper trade in India. The following quotations from ancient Tamil literature will be found interesting:—

c19.13

(1) செங்கோற், குட்டுவென்றொண்டி.—*Ain.* 178.
(2) கலந்தந்த பொற்பரிசங், கழித்தோணி யாற்கரைசேர்க்குந்து மலைத்தாரமுங் கடற்றாரமுந், தலைப்பெய்து வருநற்கீயும் புனலங்கள் ளின்பொலந்தார் குட்டுவன், முழங்குகடன் முழவின் முசுறி.—*Pur.* 343.
(3) இயற்றேர்க் குட்டுவன் வருபுனல் வாயில்வஞ்சி.—*Pat.* 3.

c19.14

The above are cities of commercial and political importance. Tamil religious literature is replete with descriptions of Hindu shrines visited by the Saints, who composed on the spot hymns about them. Among the towns of religious celebrity come first Gokarnam and Tirucchengunrur (near Quilon). These are seats of famous Siva shrines which were visited by the Tamil saints Appar and Sambandar in the seventh century. Tiruvanjaikulam seems to be a later one, because only one saint, Sundarar, a contemporary of the Chera king Cheraman Perumal sang of it. Among the Vaishnava shrines of the Tamil-Malayalam country Tirumuzhikalam, Tirunavoy, and Tiruvallavazh, were visited by Tirumangai Alvar about A.D. 750; Nammalvar (A.D. 920) mentions in addition to these Trivandram, Tiruvanparisaram, Tirukatkarai, Tirupuliyur, Tiruchengunrur, Tiruvanvandur, Tiruvattaru, Tirukkadittanam and Tiruvaranvilai. Kulasekhara Perumal has sung only Vittuvakkod. The Vishnu shrine at Tiruchengunrur could have come into existence only after the time of Tirumangai Alvar, that is after A. D. 750.

c19.15

This last town which was built on the Chittar river was an important Brahman settlement in the days of Nammalvar (A. D. 920) wherein, as described by him, 3,000 Brahmans lived.—அமர்ந்த சீர் மூவாயிரவர் வேதியர்கள் தம்பதி (VIII, iv. 10.) We have therefore every reason to believe that the Nambudri¹ (or Nambi-sri, Nambi-tiru or Nambi, Tamil நம்பி meaning ‘a noble man') Brahmans settled in Malabar and Travancore between the sixth and eighth centuries of the Christian era. According to Keralolpatti, a mythological account of the Malayalam country composed probably by a Nambudri Brahman during the eighteenth century, Brahmans were brought down by Parasurama from the Punjab and made to settle first at Gokarnam in South Kanara, where they were made to shave their hind lock and to grow it on the front, perhaps as it is said, to prevent their going back to their original home. But we learn from other sources that this king was Mayurasarma—the founder of the Kadamba family and not Parasurama.

c19.16

¹ Compare தம்பிரான் which has become in Malayalam தம்புரான் and தம்பராட்டி.

c19.17

The date of Mayuravarma is about the early part of the sixth century. The Namburi Brahmans must, therefore, have settled in and around Gokarnam, during this period and their migration to the south from this centre must have taken place during the sixth and seventh centuries. The example of Mayuravarma was followed by the Chola and Pandya kings of the time, who invited small colonies of Brahmans now known as the Soliya Brahmans.

c19.18

But this does not mean that there were absolutely no Brahmans in the Tamil country before the sixth century.

c19.19

The country was deeply plunged in Buddhism and Jainism. The non-Brahman Saivas and Vaishnavas, of course instigated by the few Brahmans, were contending against these religionists. There were not many Brahman religious institutions;

c19.20

nor were there many powerful inducements for Brahmans to migrate to the south. Politically the Tamil countries were in a state of turmoil. The Kalabhras, the Kadambas, the Pallavas, the Chalukyas, the Cholas, the Pandyas and the Cheras were fighting with one another. Religion suffered from the ills of political unrest. There was no definite state religion; each king professed the religion which suited his whims and caprices. Better days dawned during the seventh century when Brahmanism, *i.e.*, the cult of Siva and Vishnu, came out triumphant in the religious struggle. The Tamil countries became more or less quiet. And the very Brahmans who had served as messengers and domestic servants under the wealthy Dravidians, as now, became priests and purohits to the Tamil kings, thus securing for themselves a wider influence in the country. All these led to the construction of a large number of temples to Siva and Vishnu, and to the invitation of more Brahmans from the Aryavarta during the seventh and the early part of the eighth century A. D. for purposes of worship in temples and to serve as purohits to Dravidians.

c19.21

These Brahmans have since been known honorifically as ‘Nambis’ in all the three Tamil countries—Chera, Chola and Pandya—in contradistinction to later Brahman immigrants usually styled as ‘Bhatta.’ The former wear the tuft of hair in front, while the latter keep it at the back of their head. They are called the Purva-sikhai or Puraschudakula Brahmans. All the Brahman saints—Vaishnava and Saiva—and some of the Brahman ministers under the ancient Tamil kings belonged to this Purva-sikhai or the ‘front-locked’ Brahmans. The early Tamils were indebted to them for their civilisation, which developed steadily under the influence of the later Brahman immigrants from the north. These later immigrants who were specially invited by Tamil kings from the middle of the eighth century downwards, kept themselves distinct as a class and formed no social alliance with the Dravidians. They, therefore, came to be considered superior to the Nambis, Nambudris¹ or the Soliya Brahmans. Most of the land grants to the Bhatta or the later colony of Brahmans belong to this period. The early or Nambi Brahmans seem to have entered the Tamil-Malayalam districts from the north-west, while the Bhatta or later Brahmans appear to have taken the southern route through the Telugu country.

c19.22

¹ It is said that the Cherumars called the Nambudris as ‘Chovvar’ which may be a corruption of Sabhaiyar or Savaiyar a name usually applied to the ordinary or plebeian Brahmans of the Tamil districts.

c19.23

When the Nambudri Brahmans settled in Kerala the country was not uninhabited. All the lands were not wholly theirs, nor were they the sole *jenmis*; and we see no special reason why it should be so only in Kerala when such has not been the case in the Tamil or Telugu country. From the Paditruppattu. we learn that the Chera kings lavished presents upon Tamil poets and Brahmans of Malabar and Travancore. Imayavarman is said to have given 500 villages in the district of Umbarkadu to the Brahman poet Kannanar; Senguttuvan the revenues of Umbarkadu to Paranar; Selvakkadunko all the country within his view from the top of the hill Nanra to poet Kapilar; while another king gave a portion of his country to Kappiyanar. How could then such enormous land grants be made, had the country been the exclusive property of the Nambudri Brahmans? Moreover, all these had occurred before the Nambis or Nambudris settled in Malabar and Travancore. The fact seems to be that the whole Kerala country belonged to its kings, and they had a right to dispose of it as they pleased. And out of reverence to learned Brahmans, whom they brought from Upper India from time to time, lands were granted free of tax as Brahmadayam for their maintenance.

c19.24

But the total neglect of the native Tamil literature by the Dravidian inhabitants of Kerala, their general ignorance and their respect for Nambudri Brahmans gave the latter an undue advantage which in course of time showed itself in the Nambudri’s exclusive ownership to all the Kerala country. And to support the theory of their ownership, the Nambudris even fabricated false traditions.

c19.25

The Chera, like the Chola and Pandya countries, was inhabited by all the early Tamil tribes and castes. The identity of some of these minor Malabar castes with those that occur in the inscriptions of Rajaraja Chola (A. D. 985—1013)

c19.26

has been noticed before. Of the remaining castes of Kerala, the numerically most important are the Nayars, the Tiyans, the Iluvans and the Cherumans, none of which are now to be found in the east, though the names of villages like Vellancheri, Idacheri, Ayancheri, Valayanad, Parayancheri and Pallipuram in the Kurumbranad, Valluvanad, Ponnani and other taluks of the Malabar district clearly prove that Kerala was once inhabited solely by the Tamils. Then, how did these castes come into existence and how are they ethnically related to the corresponding castes of the Tamil districts?

c19.27

About a thousand or more years ago all the modern Tamil castes were not in existence; the Tamil people were divided into tribes according to the nature of the soil in which they lived and the conventional tribal names like the Vellalas, Maravas, Idaiyans, Mallars, Pallars, and Kuravas survive to this day in the Tamil districts.

c19.28

The word Nayar, like Vellala which includes a large number of cultivating castes, is a vague name, The present Nayar caste has grown by the gradual accretion to it of Chakkan (oil-presser), Vaniyan (trader or oil-monger), Eruman or Kol-ayan (Tamil shepherd), Kanisan and Panikkan (sub-division of the Tamil Iluvans), of Pallichan and Urali (Tamil Pallis), and lastly of the Vellala castes. Among the important sub-divisions of Nayars, 'Sudran' has no meaning; Agattucharna and Purattucharna are only later innovations introduced after Hyder's invasion.

c19.29

Attikkuricchi¹ and Vattakadan are only territorial names, Kiriyattils alone seem to be the descendants of the pure Velirs or Vellalas² of the West Coast. As late as A. D. 1320 we find the Vellalas as the cultivating caste of Malabar. Thus, none of the ancient Nayars are of Telugu extraction as believed by some scholars.

c19.30

¹ We are not convinced of the correctness of the etymology of ‘Attikurichi’ from Sanskrit *Asti* bone, and Tamil *kura* to cut.

c19.31

² The Cherumars or the natives of the soil address the Nayars as Ilankoil, which is precisely the same title as ‘Ilankokkal’ given to the ancient Vellalas of the Tamil districts.

c19.32

The armies of the Chera kings were recruited from the people of the Kongu country who were a race of fine stalwart warriors:—(1) ஈர்ம்படைக்கொங்கர்கோவே; (2) சேரலாதற்கு திகழொளி ஞாயிற்றுச் சோழன்மகளீன்ற மைந்தன் கொங்கர் செங்களம்வேட்டுக் கங்கைப்பேர் யாற்றுக் கரை போகிய செங்குட்டுவன்.—Sil. xxix. 1-3.

c19.33

And this is confirmed by the fact that some of the feudal chieftains of Malabar and Travancore, like the Zamorin of Calicut, belonged to the Pogondan subdivision of the Coimbatore Idaiyans. ‘Kunnala-kon’, one of the titles of the Zamorin, is a pure Tamil expression (*kurunila-kon*) meaning ‘chief or king of a small country,’ and ‘Konatiri’ or Konan-tiru, or *konan* is a title of the Idaiyans of Coimbatore, Madura and Tinnevelly districts. In Malabar, Idaiyans are called Kol-Ayan³ and Eruman (buffalo-men); and these are among the sub-castes of Nayars. The name *Eruman* appears in the Tanjore inscriptions of the eleventh century. It is not surprising that the Tamil Idaiyars are treated as a sub-caste of Nayars, when we find some of them elevated even to the rank of Kshatriya Samantas. The Siviyar (palankeen bearers) and the Agattu-Charna sub-divisions of the Tamil Idaiyan caste are note-worthy, as affording a connecting link between them and the Samantas and Nayars of Malabar. The words குட்டி and கிடாவ and கிடங்கள், which in the Tamil districts signify the ‘young ones of cattle’, denote in Malabar ‘children.’ This shows that the Idaiyars held a dominant place in the constitution of the Nayar and the Samanta castes. Idaiyans, especially of the Kongu country, had their own chieftains and they were good cavalry men. They contributed soldiers and commanders to the Chera army after the conquest of the Kongu country by the Chera kings about the first or second century.

c19.34

³ *Kol* is a contraction of ‘Golla’ which is the name of the Telugu shepherd caste, while ‘ayan’ is that of Tamil Idaiyans.

c19.35

பொருமுர ணெய்திய கழுவுள் புறம்பெற்று
கால்வல் புரவி யண்டரோட்டி.—*Pad.* 88.
(Defeated the Idaiya chieftains who opposed him and routed the Idaiyans of the swift-footed cavalry.)

c19.36

The word Cheruman or Chiruvan means a small man, and the Cherumans were really so in comparison with the robust Kongu Idaiyans and Vellalas who constituted the Nayar or the Nayakar caste. In a Malayalam deed of 1523 A.D. the name of this caste appears as Valli-Alar or Valli-Sattanmar, but not as Cherumars. ‘Valli’ seems to be a mistake for ‘Villi’. Some interesting sub-divisions of this agrestic tribe, like Eralan (ploughmen), Idangai (left-hand), Kaladi (irrigators), Pallan, Paraiyan, Rolan (Irulan or Villi), Valluvan and Vettuvan are found among the Tamil Pallans also. Moreover, the customs and manners of these tribes both in Malabar and the Tamil districts, including their laws of inheritance, agree so completely that one might conclude that the Cherumas and Pallans belonged to one and the same tribe of Naga-Dravidian field labourers and soldiers. As for the Tiyans and Iluvans of Kerala, the latter of whom are found in the Tamil districts as well, we feel some difficulty. Whether they are strangers or autochthones to Southern India it is not possible to discuss here. That the great numerical strength of the Tiyans of Malabar as well as their homogeneous nature seem strictly to point to the latter. Further, the oxogamous groups of the North Malabar Tiyans and the Izhavans of Madura and Tinnevelly are called illams, and one of the former goes by the name of Pazhayar which is a Tamil word meaning ‘toddy drawers’. A note on Tiyan has, however, been appended to this volume and it will give some interesting facts concerning this question. We need not go further into this problem of ethnical affinity between the peoples of Kerala and the two other ancient Tamil provinces. None of the early Malabar castes had any connection whatever with the Telugus, as is believed in some quarters.

c19.37

¹ It will be curious to observe that in one sub-caste of Idaiyans in the Madura district, called the Pendukku-mekki, the Marumakkattayam law of inheritance is followed.

c19.38

If at all there is any Indian province in which little or no real archæological work is done, it is Kerala. Besides the publication of a few copper-plate grants and some stone inscriptions at irregular and long intervals of time by Burnell, Gundert, P. Sundram Pillai and others, no systematic explorations have yet been made and no regular epigraphical researches undertaken. With the very few materials at our disposal we shall attempt to trace the growth of the Malayalam language.

c19.39

Some scholars seem to think that the copper plate grants from Malabar should not be utilised for tracing the growth of the Malayalam language, as the grants are in Tamil and the donors were Perumals or kings of foreign extraction, invited by the Numbudri Brahmans to rule the Kerala country. They are also of opinion that the colloquial Malayalam was quite distinct from the language of inscriptions and that ‘the early poets of (Malabar) were no doubt much affected by influence of the early Tamil poets, who formed a literary school and developed a court language’. The difference between the literary Tamil and the colloquial Tamil—a difference due certainly to the antiquity of its literature and the settled form of the language—cannot be a reason for the disparity between the colloquial language and the language of public documents. For, while literature, chiefly classical literature, is intended only for the educated few, copper-plate grants, stone inscriptions and similar public records are meant for all classes. A comparison of the inscriptions of Rajah Raja Chola (A. D. 985-1013) with the literature of that period would illustrate the above principle. The Kerala inscriptions cannot be an exception to this plain philological truth. Moreover, how are we authorized, in the absence of any work written in the colloquial Malayalam of that period, to say that the colloquial Malayalam was quite distinct from the language of inscriptions? Do the Malayalis really possess any literature anterior to the tenth century A. D. written in the so-called Malayalam language? If at all there be any record written in colloquial Malayalam it must be the inscriptions.

c19.40

¹ In Travancore the archæological Department seems to be doing useful work under the direction of Mr. Gopinatha Rau, M. A.

c19.41

As for the Perumals being foreigners to Kerala, we might say that, till about the ninth century A. D., some at least of the Kerala kings were foreigners, because they inherited the Kerala throne by right of succession in accordance with the Marumakkatayam law, but they were never invited by the Nambudri Brahmans as these would have us believe, in order to enhance their importance and establish their authority in the Kerala country. On the contrary, many Chola and Pandya kings married Kerala princesses and their sons became lawful heirs to the Kerala kingdom :—

c19.42

(1) நெடுநண்டேள்வியந்துவற்கொருதந்தை யீன்றமகள் பொறையன் பெருந்தேயீன்றமகன் செல்வக்கடுங்கோவாழியதன்.—Pad. 70.

c19.43

(2) குடவர்கோமா னெடுஞ் சேரலாதற்குச் சோழன் மணக்கிள்ளியின் றமகன் கடல்பிறக்கோட்டியசெங்குட்டுவன்.—*Ib.* 50.

c19.44

(3) The Chola king Parantaka I (A. D. 907-946) married a Kerala princess.

c19.45

(4) Kulasekhara Pandya took with him ... all the forces of the two Kongu countries that belonged to his mother’s two brothers.—*Mahawanso*, 239.

c19.46

Matrimonial alliances among the three Tamil dynasties seem to have continued until about the down-fall and extinction of the ancient Pandya and Chola houses between the 11th and 13th centuries, when the influence of the Nambudri Brahmans began to extend even into the Kerala royal households. The latest alliance of this kind was between Ravivarma alias Kulasekhara and a Pandya princess in A.D. 1299. This Kerala king defeated Vira Pandya and was crowned on the banks of the Vaiga. He ruled over Kerala, Pandya and Chola countries till about 1316. Probably this was the period when the communication between Kerala and the other two Tamil countries began to decline; and this was the period when the Nambudri Brahmans laid the foundation stone for the ill-planned tottering edifice of the Malayalam tongue, by their closer touch with the Nayar and other high caste Dravidian families.

c19.47

The statement that the early Malayalam poets were affected by the early Tamil poets seems rather surprising, the term ‘early’ not referring to the same age, as both are of unequal antiquity. Malayalam had scarcely any literature worth the name before the middle of the thirteenth century, whereas Tamil literature dates from the opening years of the Christian era. Tamil has a grammar written three centuries before Christ, whereas Malayalam had none till so late as A. D. 1860. Tamil, at least the literary phase of it, had been well defined and formed two milleniems ago, while Malayalam is even to-day in a state of formation. It is inconceivable, therefore, how the early Malayalam literature could have been influenced by the early Tamil poets, particularly when we remember that all social intercourse between Kerala and the Tamil country had ceased at least one century before the birth of the Malayalam literature, unless it be that early Tamil literature was the literature of the early people of Kerala also.

c19.48

The statements of Dr. Caldwell that the separation of Malayalam ‘from Tamil evidently took place at a very early period, before the Tamil was cultivated and refined’, and that Tamil ‘bids fare to supersede the Malayalam’ are thus opinions which need stronger evidence before they could be accepted.

c19.49

Returning now from our digression to the copper-plate grants of Malabar, we find in the Mamballi inscriptions of Sri Vallavan Kodai (A. D. 973) the language used is pure colloquial Tamil interspersed with a few Malabaricms like ஒள்ள for உள்ள, சங்வரன் for சங்கரன், எடம் for இடம் &c. Verbs are inflected as in அட்டிக்கொடுத்தான்¹; and the datives of அமுது and அவன் as அமுதினுக்கு and அவன்க்கு but not as அமுதின்னு and அவன்ணு as now. And in the Kottayam plates of Vira Raghava Chakravarti (A. D. 1320) the language is also Tamil freely intermixed with Malabar idioms like வாதில் for வாயில், படிஞ்ஞாறு for படிஞாயிறு, ஒள்ள and ஒண்டாயில் for உள்ள and உண்டாகில், இருந்தருள for இருந்தருள, எழுந்நள்ளி for எழுந்தருளி &c.; and verbs were still inflected. We find also caste names like வெள்ளாளர், ஈழவர், தச்சர் and தீயர். All these will be made more clear in the following section which deals with the linguistic evidence of the growth of the Malayalam language.

c19.50

¹ The word அட்டி in the expressions அட்டிக்கொடுத்தல் and

c19.51

To illustrate the development of the Malayalam language and the peculiarities of each period of its growth, typical selections are given below from Panikkar's Ramayanam, Krishna-gatha, Adhyatma Ramayanam and Nala Charitam, each of which may be taken as representing a particular period in the growth of the Malayalam language together with short explanatory and philological comments:—

c19.52

(1) கொண்டலிந்நேரிருண்டு சுருண்டு நீண்டொளிவார்ந்து திங்ஙம், குந்தளபாரமோடு முகில்குலத்திட மிந்நல்போலே, புண் டரீ கேக்ஷணந்நரி கெப்பொலிந்தவள் வீதசொந்நாள்.

c19.53

அட்டிப்பேறு is not correctly understood in Malabar. The Malabar Gazetteer explains அட்டிப்பேறு (attiperu) as 'a parcel of rights'. Prof. Wilson thinks that atti is the less accurate reading of otti (ஒத்தி) a mortgage. I think both are incorrect. Atti is a pure Tamil word meaning 'poured' and it corresponds to the Skt. Udagapurvam. Attikoduttal is to give by pouring water and atti peru is the acceptance of a gift made as above. During the 17th century its exact meaning was, however, forgotten and the redundant expressions like நீரோடுகூடி அட்டிப்பேறும் நீரும் கொடுத்தான் came into use.

c19.54

(2) அம்மதா நந்நேரம் தந்மகந்தந்நேயும் செம்மெயெடுத்துக்கொண் டங்குபோவான் சாரத்து நிந்நொரு நேரத்துச் சொல்லிநாள் நீலக்கார் வேணிமா ரெல்லாரோடும். வாய்ப்பார்ந்நு நிந்நுள்ள கார்ப்பாஸம் கொண்டுள்ள கூர்ப்பாஸம் மேநியில சேர்த்தெப்போழும்.

c19.55

(3) நூறாயிரம் கபி வீரந்மார் போகணம் ஓரோதிசிபட நாயகந் மாரோடும். ராகவாஸ்தலோ பாந்தே ஸஞ்சரிக்கும்போள் ராகேந்து முகிலீத கண்டு விஸ் மயம்பூண்டாள். க்ருத்ர ராஜதுமொரு பத்ரவா நாயுள்ளொரு குத்ர ராஜநெப்போலே பத்தவைரத்தோடதி க்ருத்த நாயக்ரே செந்நு யுத்தவும் துடங்வினான்.

c19.56

(4) பூத்தும் தளிர்த்துமல்லாதே பூரூஹங்களில் பேர்த்துமொந் நில்லி விடேகாண்மான் ஆர்த்து நடக்கும் வண்டிந் சார்த்தும் குயில் குலவும் வாழ்த்துந்நு மதந்றே கீர்த்தியே மற்றொந்றில்ல. [ளே அபத்ரவிச் சீடேண்ட ஞானொருவநத்தில் மேவுந் நாண ஆரெந்நாலும் ரக்ஷிப்பாநிநி அபரந்வருமோ கேணாளே.

c19.57

The first quotation is from the Ramayana of Kannassa Panikkar (A. D. 1350). It does not appear that there was any real literature in Malayalam before this period. The language of this work is wholly Tamil, with of course Malayali peculiarities. In this extract குந்தளபாரம் and புண்டரீகேக்ஷணன் are the only two Sanskrit compounds, and the rest are all Tamil words. The grammatical terminations இன், ஒடு, அத்து, ஆன் and the tense particles are all Tamil. And the only Malayalam usages are வார்ந்நு for வார்ந்து, இட for இடை, போலே for போல and அரிகே for அருகே ; and திங்ஙம் (dense, thick) is only a vulgar form of Tam. திணுங்கு. Most of the Tamil words used in this extract, which are still current in Tamil, have become obsolete in Malayalam giving way to words of Sanskrit origin. Here the verbs are always inflected and the practice of dropping the personal endings has not yet come into existence. It is a translation of a Sanskrit work and Sanskrit words and expressions are freely used to the extent of about 50 per cent, though the grammar is throughout Tamil. On account of these peculiarities which bring it closer to Tamil, the author has been styled by Malayalam scholars rightly, perhaps wrongly, the Chaucer of Malayalam literature.

c19.58

The second extract is from the Krishnappattu of Cherusseri Namburi (A. D. 1550). The author uses only one Sanskrit word (வேணி) in the first quotation, which is written in pure colloquial Tamil. The only Malayalam peculiarities are தன்னே for தன்னை, அங்ங for அங்கு and சொல்லினாள் for சொன்னாள். A Tamilian may not use அம்ம and செம்மே in poetry, because they are colloquial and considered slang in Tamil. In the second passage, the writer uses two Sanskrit words கார்ப்பாஸம்(cotton) and கூர்ப்பாஸம் (coat), which no Tamil writer will ordinarily use. The rest are Tamil words, some being slightly modified. எப்போதும் is எப்பொழுது, ஆர்ந்நு is ஆர்ந்து. Though the author was a Brahman Sanskrit scholar he has not used so many Sanskrit words as Kannassa Panikkar, because the work was primarily intended for females and ordinary readers. The Krishnagatha is written in the colloquial Tamil or a Tamil dialect of the Kerala country known as Malayalam. In this work verbs are mostly inflected, while neuter verbs have invariably dropped their inflexional terminations. The clipping of personal endings in verbs must have already commenced during the early part of the 16th century. And the forms of Tamil words used here are mostly those that we find in the vulgar conversation of the uneducated Tamilians. செயிச்சு for செய்வித்து, பச்சோடம் for பச்சைப்படம், வேணுன்ன for வேணுமென்ற &c. He has largely used colloquial Tamil words like அஞ்சுக, மச்சு, மாடி, தென்னல், சேவடி, தின்மை, &c. which have become obsolete in modern Malayalam. The dative case in ன்னு or ந்து has also come into usage along with other Tamil grammatical forms. The author is now gratefully remembered by all the non-Brahman classes of Kerala as the pioneer of liberal education ; he was the first Brahman who wrote for the benefit of the Sudra castes in their own tongue, the Malayalam, in spite of the fact that the Nambudris despised their dialect ; and he is justly called the ‘ Morning Star’ of modern Malayalam literature.

c19.59

The next author we have to consider is Tunjat Ezhuttachchan who flourished about A. D. 1650. All his works are translations from Sanskrit, and he has freely used Sanskrit words and expressions, more abundantly than any other writer who preceded him. He was the first to use the Sanskrit case endings as in orodisi, sthalopante, and adverbs like ittham, iti, pura &c.; relative pronouns like *tat*, *mat*, *tava*, &c. He has even added Sanskrit case terminations to Tamil nouns as in கரே, இவ்விடை; and locatives in ங்கல (correctly, ங்க + இல் = in the place) make their first appearance. Awkward combinations of Sanskrit and Tamil words like சித்தகாம்பு, கார்வெண்ணி, வசத்வேனசெய்யுந்நு &c., and the arbitrary construction of Tamil words so as to obscure their derivations as in தருக்கண், எழுநௌளி, உரியாகெ, எழுநீற்று, &c., were introduced by this writer. He followed no rules of grammar or vocabulary, because there was no grammar neither before nor after him in the Malayalam language. It is in his works that we find uninflected verbs largely used, though occasionally appear verbs with personal endings. It would be difficult for any one to read his works without a good knowledge of Sanskrit. To him the study of Malayalam meant the study of Sanskrit. We might boldly say that Ezhuttachchan was the first Malayalam writer who gave a death blow to Tamil his mother-tongue. For this act of vandalism he is admired by the people of Malabar as the ‘Father of the Malayalam classical literature.’

c19.60

The latest writer we have to deal with is Unnayi Variyar who lived about A.D. 1750. His Nalacharitam is an admirable production. Though he was a good Sanskrit scholar like Ezhuttachchan, he has not spoilt his work by introducing into it too much Sanskrit. His setting of Sanskrit *slokas* is choice and his use of the Manipravala style is graceful. In the two passages given above there are only about half a dozen Sanskrit words, while the rest are pure Tamil. The negative particle ஆ, the case post-positions இல், இன், எ or ஐ, றே (உடைய) and verbal endings மான், பான், ஆல் (ஆல் in கேணாளே) are all Tamil. In மேவுன்னோணாளே the particle ன்ன is only a contraction of கின்ற, கின்ன or இன்ன which is a sign of the present tense; similarly ன்னு is an abbreviation of கின்றது. Thus if the Sanskrit passages are not taken into account, his vocabulary and the structure of his composition are mainly Tamil.

c19.61

It may be assumed that grammar and dictionary tend to contribute to the fixity and permanence of a language. The early Tamil inhabitants of Kerala were mostly merchants, cultivators and soldiers, and they did not care for literary excellence or even to improve their mother-tongue. Nor did the later Malayalis care to write one, because the Dravidians were most of them uneducated and the Brahmans cared little for a Dravidian tongue. That work was reserved for a foreigner--Dr. Gundert, who was at once their Agastya and Divakara. Owing to the curious mixture of the agglutinative Tamil with the inflectional Sanskrit, the work of bringing out a satisfactory Malayalam grammar has become a super-human task. The language has not yet reached its classic stage; and it is still in a state of formation. Neither its grammar nor its vocabulary is settled; and the very fact that it still retains the peculiar Tamil letters ழ and ற proves its very late separation from Tamil.

c19.62

GRAMMAR :—To determine what words are of pure Tamil origin and what not, we have definite grammatical rules giving the letters which should come at the beginning, middle and end of words. This is not possible in the case of Malayalam which has freely borrowed words from Sanskrit and foreign languages and incorporated them in its vocabulary.

c19.63

The coalescence of letters or *sandhi* in Malayalam, owing to the influence of Sanskrit, follows wholly neither the rules of Sanskrit nor of Tamil. Sometimes the one, sometimes the other is followed, and in some cases neither. Sanskrit rules are sometimes applied to Tamil words. The expression வில்முரிஞ்-ஞொச்ச, if the Tamil rules are applied, must be வின்முறிஞ்ஞொச்ச and சொல்ல + இல்ல will become சொல்லவில்ல and not சொல்லீல்ல, nor are they according to the Sanskrit rules. பல + இடம் will be in Tamil பலவிடம் and not பலேடம் as in Malayalam. In the last example the Sanskrit rules are applied to pure Tamil words. Many of the Tamil *sandhis* which existed in early Malayalam or Tamil have now become obsolete, as in விண்டலம், எண்டிசை, மேற்றரம் (now மேத்தரம்), பொற்றுடி (பொலத்துடி), &c. In Malayalam ண் + ச becomes ஞ், ந் + க becomes ங்க, ள் + த becomes ள்த்த or த்த, but these are not allowed by the Tamil rules of *sandhi*. The Malayalis cared more for ease and always tried to avoid difficulties instead of facing them boldly. Hence, they have abbreviated several compounds : thus, செய்து + கொள்ள + ஆம் has become செய்தோளாம், செய்ய + வேண்டும் = செய்யேண்டு, அங்கு + நின்று + அங்ஙுந்து, போக + வேண்டும் = போகனம் and so on.

c19.64

Most of the differences between Tamil and modern Malayalam as regards grammatical endings and formation of words are attributable to this principle of laziness or phonetic decay; and the dropping of personal suffixes in finite verbs is partly due to this cause and partly to their redundancy. In the Tamil sentence நான் அடித்தேன், either நான் or ஏன் in அடித்தேன் may be safely omitted without impairing the idea expressed by that sentence. Thus, Malayalam may be said to be passing through, like English, the analytical stage. In Malayalam அடிச்சு will be vague without the nominative which should be made explicit.

c19.65

From the early Malayalam literature, which extended down to the sixteenth century, we find that verbs were inflected, and that the pronominal terminations disappear in the succeeding two hundred years. In a Malayalam sale deed of 1756 A. D. expressions like எழுதிக்கொடுத்தான் and எழுதிச்சகொண்டான் were freely used. In the Tamil of the infant and the illiterate the idea of ‘I beat’ is expressed even to this day by நான் அடிச்சே (Cor. அடித்தேன்), ‘you beat’ நீ அடிச்சே (Cor. அடித்தாய்), and ‘he beat’ அவன் அடிச்சா (Cor. அடித்தான்). Thus, the subjects நான், நீ and அவன் are clearly given out and the personal endings ஏன், ஆய் and ஆன் are, as a rule, contracted or dropped. In the East coast, however, this Tamil of the populace has been constantly subjected to corrections and modifications with reference to the approved literary Tamil of the learned section. The same process was certainly in operation among the early Tamils of the Kerala country who were mostly illiterates; but since these grammatical and lexicographical forms were left unrestrained by any fixed rules, and since this process of phonetic decay was aided by the indifferent attitude of the Nambudri Brahmans who were quite ignorant of literary or classical Tamil, they had come to be eventually accepted as correct usages in their later corrupt Sanskritized Tamil or Malayalam literature.

c19.66

This was how the personal terminations of Tamil verbs were dropped in Malayalam. There are yet some traces of verbal inflexions in the second person plural as in கொள்வின் and in the first person plural as in தாரும்—we will give, &c. It is not, therefore, correct to say, as some Malayalam scholars seem to assert, that there are no traces of inflexions in the colloquial Malayalam or that Malayalam verbs were never inflected.

c19.67

We may explain the vagaries of Malayalam language, which is technically called the "levelling" of inflexions, and its grammar by taking one or two specific instances:—

c19.68

(1) அஹிச்சத் ரத்திங்கல் இருந்நு...இதிந்நு வருத்தியெந்நு சொல்லுந்நு;

c19.69

(2) ரக்ஷிக்குந்நு தளியாதிரிமார்.—Ker.

c19.70

In the first quotation the termination 'ந்நு' serves different purposes; ந்நு in இருந்நு is a modified form of Tamil ந்து (particle of past tense); ந்து in இதந்து is a contraction of ங்கு (dative case suffix); ந்து in யெந்து is an abbreviation of என்று; and ந்து in சொல்ல்ந்து is a modification of கின்றது, குன்னது or உன்னு (present tense). In the second example குந்து is the same as கின்றது, but here the neuter inflexional ending is retained. We have reasons to believe that the high-caste personal endings in verbs were gradually dropped in Malayalam, the neuter endings taking their place regardless of gender; and these also in course of time disappeared. There are many such grammatical irregularities and fluctuations, but only a few are quoted here as illustrations.

c19.71

VOCABULARY :—The same uncertainty exists in the matter of vocabulary also. It has no dictionary like the Divakaram and the Pingalandai of Tamil or like the Amarakosh of Sanskrit. The following are some of the irregularities which might be noticed in the Malayalam vocabulary.

c19.72

(1) The same word is used in various forms. For example, the Tamil word கமுகு (areca-nut) appears in Malayalam as கமுக and கவுங்; கழுகு (vulture) as கழு வந், கழுக, கழுங்; கயிறு (rope) as கயறு and கழறு; பருத்தி (cotton) as பரித்தி and பாத்தி &c.

c19.73

(2) Words of different origin appear in the same form. Tamil உவர் becomes ஓர which is apt to be confounded with ஓரம் (margin); Tamil இயக்க as ஏக்க, while ஏக்கம் means sighing; வெக்கை (heat) as வெக்க and வைக்க (to put) also as வெக்க; தளி is a ‘temple’ as well as to ‘sprinkle’ (தெளி) &c.

c19.74

(3) Sometimes த, ற and ர are indiscriminately used as in அகத்துக and அகற்றுக, உறவு and உரவு &c. This is very common in the vulgar Tamil of to-day.

c19.75

(4) Compounds are so contracted and joined together that none of its component words can be identified. Tamil தேய+பிறை becomes in Malayalam தேற; அக்கி த்திரி is ‘agnihotri’, ‘patteri’ is ‘Bhattasri’ &c.

c19.76

(5) Vowels which necessitate the use of the lips are usually changed or omitted; இரு becomes இரி; உரை, உரி (as in உரியாடு); தலை, தல; உயிர்ப்பு, வீர்ப்பு; புறவு (pigeon) ப்ராவு ; &c.

c19.77

(6) Probably for the same reason when two vowels of the same class come together either of them is altered. Thus கநா becomes கிணவு; கடா, கிடாவ; பலா, பிலாவ, &c. In all these examples the final is short or குற்றுகரம்.

c19.78

(7) Sanskrit words when adopted are so far distorted by the Dravidian Malayalis that it would be difficult to discover their correct forms:—chite is ‘jata’; chattam, ‘srarddham’; kotamba, ‘godhuma’; chetu, ‘Sakatam’; chirta, ‘Sridevi’; vakkanam, ‘vyakyanam’; veli, ‘bali’; so forth. It cannot be ascertained on what principle mesham becomes medam and vesham as vezham, which in Tamil means an ‘elephant’. The unnatural partiality of the Kerala people to Sanskrit has induced them to derive some pure Dravidian words from Sanskrit ; பச்சில or பசுமை இலை (green leaf) is derived from Sanskrit patram; மடு or மட்டு (honey) from Sanskrit madhu; மை from Sanskrit mashi &c.

c19.79

(8) Surds in most cases are changed into nasals. குஞ்சி becomes குஞ்ஞி; குன்று, குன்னு; நாம்பு, ஞாம்பு; நாறு, ஞாற்று; அங்கு, அங்ஙு; தாழ்ந்த, தாண; பஞ்சு, பஞ்ஞி; &c.

c19.80

This change is noticeable in the early Tamil works of the Chera poets. Malayalam has a softer and more nasalized sound than Tamil. And this may be due to the climatic conditions in the Kerala country, which has an unusual rain-fall of 116 inches in a year. The peculiarities of the Malayalam language may be stated curtly thus: ‘it is the home-speech of a Brahman-oppressed Dravidian race, whose vocal organs were affected by an incessant cold’. Highly cultivated languages like Sanskrit or Tamil are always free from such confusions which characterize the lower stages of a human speech.

c19.81

We shall conclude this short essay with a statement of the circumstances which led to the origin of the Malayalam language. It must not be difficult to determine them as the change has taken place within the past six or seven hundred years.

c19.82

(1) The natural facilities for communication between the East and the West coasts of the Indian Peninsula were very little. The lofty ranges of the Western Ghats, with only a few passes between, and the impenetrable and extensive forests down the sides cut off the two regions.

c19.83

(2) The marriage connections between the Chera and the two other Tamil dynasties had ceased partly on account of the extinction of the ancient line of the Pandyas in the twelfth and of the powerful Cholas in the thirteenth century, and partly owing to the wars of succession which resulted from a conflict of the ordinary and the nepotic laws of inheritance. The latest alliances on record are the marriages of the father of Kulasekhara Pandya (A. D. 1190) with a Kongu or Chera princess and of the Chera king Ravi Varma or Kulasekhara (A. D. 1300) with a Pandya princess. To this should be added the union of the aggressive Nambudris with the Chera princesses to prevent foreign intervention in their social and political affairs.

c19.84

(3) The study of Tamil literature was neglected in the Chera country owing to the dominating influence of the Nambudri Brahmans, which kept the non-Brahman Dravidians of the country perfectly ignorant of their rich literature, and owing to the extinction of the ancient Chera line of kings who patronized it.

c19.85

(4) The introduction of Judaism, Christianity and Muhamadanism direct from Western Asia at a very early period, the frequent internal troubles among the feudal chiefs of Kerala, and the constant wars between them and the Pandyas and Cholas for nearly four centuries from the eighth gradually tended to diminish their intercourse. The Chola king Ko-Chengannan is said to have defeated the Chera Kanaikkal Irumporai and taken him prisoner. This forms the subject of ‘Kalavali Forty’ of the poet Poigaiyar. During the middle of the eighth century the Pandya king Parankusan or Ko-Maran Jatavarman defeated the Chera kings in a series of battles at Vilijnam, Pulandai, Kottar, Chevur and other places. All these are mentioned by the commentator of Iraiyanar's Agapporal. We need not enumerate here the other wars in which the Cheras suffered defeat, as they are given in the South Indian Inscriptions.

c19.86

(5) The customs and manners of the Nambudri Brahmans and their sexual connection with the Sudras, which in course of time spoiled both Sanskrit and Tamil, were looked upon with disfavour by the East Coast Brahmans or *Bhattas*, who always regarded the former as an inferior class on that account, though to a lesser degree than they did the Nambi or the 'front locked' brethren of their own country.

c19.87

(6) For this reason none of the later religious reformers—Ramanuja, Madhva and others—did not care to introduce their reforms in Kerala. In a vast country of 14,250 square miles there were in the days of the Tamil Saints (650-950 A.D.) only one Siva shrine and thirteen Vishnu temples, whereas during the same period there were at least 300 temples dedicated both to Siva and Vishnu in a small area of 3,259 square miles—we mean in the Tanjore district. Hinduism, as it was understood and practised in the North and East, was evidently at a great discount in Kerala during that period. Even now pilgrims from the Tamil land rarely visit these shrines in Malabar and Travancore, excepting one or two, as they are practically unknown to Hindu devotees.

c19.88

(7) Last of all comes the climate of Kerala with its incessant rain throughout the year and its dampness and heat on account of the proximity of mountains, which make the country uninhabitable for the East Coast people.

c19.89

To summarize: Tamil, Vadugu(Telugu)and Karunatam (Canarese) are the only Dravidian languages which are mentioned in the early Tamil works. Malayalam as a distinct language does not appear in any Tamil work anterior to the fifteenth century. From the fact that Tamil has not been influenced to such an extent like the other two, and that it alone has a grammar and literature from the earliest times, we have very strong reasons to believe that it is the oldest of the South Indian vernaculars. We are not prepared to accept the opinion of Mr. Rice that ‘Kannada was the earliest to be cultivated of all the South Indian languages’, as he himself says in another place that none of the extant works in Canarese go earlier than the ninth century. It is quite natural to scholars, who have made a special study of some particular vernacular, like Dr. Gundert, Mr. Logan or Mr. Rice to speak highly of it to the disparagement of the other languages of the same group. But to get a comparative estimate of them it would always be safer to follow the views of Dr. Caldwell, who has made a critical study of all the Dravidian languages without any bias towards any one of that group. The map will explain graphically the order of migration of the several Dravidian races and the degree of relationship among their languages. The grammar and vocabulary of Tamil and Telugu are quite different, and the age when they had parted from each other goes back to pre-historic times. These considerations would favour our regarding them as sister languages. And the greater affinities of grammar and vocabulary which exist between the early Canarese and the early Tamil seem to point out that the former was the first born daughter or rather the youngest sister of Tamil; and this seems to receive an additional support from the fact that the northern limit of Tamil (Tirupati) which is bounded by Telugu has for the last two thousand years remained unaltered, while its north-western boundary had even before the fifth century A. D. been encroached by Canarese from Dvarasamudram and Coorg down to the Coimbatore district.

First 88 of 90 passages. Read on

Cites (15)