LEXICOSTATISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF DISINTEGRATION OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN by

M. A N D R O N O V Moscow

At present linguists have studied and described grammars and vocabularies of nineteen Dravidian languages which include Tamil, Malayalam, Kota, Toda, Kannada, Kodagu, Tulu, Telugu, Kolami, Naiki, Parji, Gadaba, Gondi, Konda, Kui, Kuvi, Kurukh, Malto, and Brahui. 1 Genetic interrelations of all these languages may be represented in the following way:

I I I
9

II

II
~" O"

II

I
~ 0r

I ,I 84

As is shown, all the Dravidian languages are divided into three groups: Southern (Tamil to Telugu), Central (Kolami to Kuvi), and Northern (Kurukh to Brahui). Their geographical distribution generally reflects the degree of relationship between separate languages which extend from Ceylon and Southern India (Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada) across the Eastern part of the Deccan (Telugu) to the borders of Bengal (Kurukh,
1 A number of Dravidian languages still remain almost unknown or are known only by their names. These are Erukala and Kaikadi (close to Tamil), Badaga (close to

Kannada), Savara (a Dravidian languagecloselyrelated to Telugu and to be distinguished from a Munda language bearing the same name), Pengo, Koya, and Dorli (all belongingto the Central group). This fact, however, does not affectthe results of the present study.

DISINTEGRATION OF

PROTO-DRAVIDIAN

171

Malto), on one hand, and to Pakistan and Afghanistan (Brahui), on the other. Most Dravidian languages have no literature. The only exception is the Southern group where Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, and Telugu have a long literary tradition. Thus, e.g., the earliest Tamil poems date from approximately the 2nd or 3rd century A.D., ~ though the oldest written monuments in this language appear a few centuries later (in the 7th or even 8th century). The earliest inscription in Kannada belongs to the middle of the 5th century and that in Telugu - to 633 A.D. Malayalam can be traced epigraphically to the 10th century, s At least two attempts have been hitherto made to determine the age of the main literary Dravidian languages. Thus, S. K. Chatterji, for example, believes that the disintegration of the Proto-Dravidian language had taken place nearly three and a half thousand years ago in the 15th century B.C. The South Dravidian language which developed out of it existed as such till the beginning of the 7th century B.C. ( ~ 600 B.C.) when Ancient Tamil emerged in its turn. The latter after a few centuries of a transitional period (400-600 A. D.) turned into Old Tamil which we know from literature. 4 Three years later a similar attempt was made by another author, who wrote: "The beginnings of Tamil as a separate independent language of the Dravidian family are not yet elucidated and the exact limits are most difficult to ascertain. It seems to be clear that we may presume a hypothetical stage which might be called Proto-Tamil (several centuries B.C.) and which, in its turn, has developed out of a hypothetical unity of Tamil and Kannada (and possibly some other territorial dialects) which might be termed Proto-South-Dravidian...-5 It is evident from the above table that in the history of the Southern group of the Dravidian languages (which includes four literary languages) several stages should be distinguished. Firstly, there ought to be a stage of the Tamil-Malayalam unity at which Tamil and Malayalam could not be considered two separate languages (at that period such languages as Kota and Toda most probably did not exist also and fell up with the common Tamil-Malayalam language as its dialects). It seems that the later limit of this period cannot be assigned earlier than to the 10th century A.D., that is earlier than the first appearance of inscriptions in Cf. s. Vaiyapuri Pillai, History of Tamil language and literature (Madras, 1956). s A.C. Sekhar, Evolution ofMalayalam (Poona, 1953). 4 S. K. Chatterji, "Old Tamil, Ancient Tamil and Primitive Dravidian", Indian Linguistics, 14 (Calcutta, 1954). 5 K. Zvelebil, "Tentative periodization of the development of Tamil", Tamil Culture, 6 (Madras, 1957), p. 50.

172

M. ANDRONOV

Malayalam. Old Tamil of the previous period should be regarded, consequently, as a parent not only of Modern Tamil but also as that of Malayalam. The process of divergence of these two languages was, naturally, a long one and evidently lasted for more than one century. The decisive part at the final stage of their separation belonged to the development of the original literature in Malayalam and to the fixation of the grammatical norms of the both languages in grammars - Nann01, a g r a m m a r of Tamil ( X I I I - X I V cent.), and Lil~tilakam, a grammar of Malayalam (XIV cent.). The appearance of these treatises concluded the process of separation of the two languages and, having canonized their grammars, made it legitimate in their speakers' eyes. The last consideration is supported by the character of Nannfil which did not describe the Tamil grammar, as it was at that time, but prescribed what it should be in literary compositions and which deliberately omitted some grammatical traits regarded by its author as incorrect or specifically Malayalam. 6 It seems that it was the separation of these two languages, preceded by the growth of dialect distinctions, an intensified struggle for the establishment of the literary standard and increased efforts to protect it from the pressure on the part of Malayalam which became a separate language, that necessitated the compilation of such a grammar, an extraordinary fact as it was in those days. This is indirectly proved also by the high indisputable authority which Nannl enjoyed in all questions of the Tamil grammar since its very first day. 7 Secondly, a period of the Kannada-Tamil linguistic unity should be postulated, i.e. a period when the Southern group of the Dravidian languages consisted only of the c o m m o n Kannada-Tamil language, Telugu, and, in its final stage, Tulu. In view of the fact that the earliest K a n n a d a inscription dates from about 450 A.D. and on presuming that the appearance of the earliest Tamil grammar Tolk~ppiyam (circa V cent. A.D.) was connected with circumstances similar to those just described for NannA1, the closing stage of the process of the KannadaTamil separation can hardly be ascribed earlier than to the 4th or rather 5th century A.D. a That was a period of the origin and rapid development 6 Thus, e.g., NannQ1 does not mention an elision of one of the two vowels when they meet in Sandhi - a feature which is often observed in Tamil of that period as well as in Malayalam and other cognate languages. Cf. M. Andronov, Razgovornyj tamiljskij jazyk i ego dialekty (Colloquial Tamil and Its Dialects) (Moscow, 1962), p. 18-19. 7 Another Tamil grammar, VirasOzhiyam, which appeared in the initial stage of Tamil-Malayalam separation (XI cent.), has never been so authoritative as NannQl. 8 It may be interesting to note here that Kumfirila Bha~ta in his Tantrav~-rttika (about the 7th cent. A.D.) mentions only two South Dravidian languages - .~mdhra (i.e. Telugn) and Dr~viOa.

DISINTEGRATION OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN

173

of the Old Tamil literature (anthologies Pattupp~t.t.u and Ettuttokai), circa II-III cent. A.D.) which could not but speed up the conclusion of the disintegration. It is obvious also that the process of the Kannada-Tamil disintegration lasted approximately as long as that of Tamil and Malayalam, and that, consequently, it hardly began earlier than in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. Lastly, an historical period should be presumed when the common South Dravidian language existed, and there was no distinction between Telugu, on one hand, and unseparated Kannada-Tamil, on the other. Our knowledge of those remote days is extremely scanty, but still it is known that the distinction between Andhra and Dravida was clearly expressed in the time of Aitareya Brahmana, that is approximately in the 7th century B.C? This provides some ground to suppose that the disintegration of the South Dravidian language could not commence later than in the 10th or 9th century B.C. There is no direct evidence concerning the earlier period of history of the Dravidian languages. Nothing definite is known, in particular, about the probable date of the disintegration of the Proto-Dravidian language and the separation of South-Dravidian. It may be presumed from what is generally known of that period of Indian history that the disintegration of Proto-Dravidian could not begin later than the first advent of IndoAryans there, i.e. later than the 15th or 13th century B.C. But the character of the development of the South Dravidian languages presupposed above and its rate, as well as the degree of distinction between the languages of the Southern group, on one hand, and those of the Central and especially of the Northern group, on the other, makes one believe that the opening stage of this process should be evidently assigned to a much earlier period. The solution of this problem can be approached - if not finally achieved by means of the lexicostatistic counting of the percentage of common words retained by the Dravidian languages and by determining on that base the approximate date when their disintegration could begin on each of the above-mentioned stages. As proved by numerous counts in various languages (which included Latin, Greek, Germanic, Romanic, Chinese, Coptic, etc.), semantic and other changes in the lexicon of any language are generally taking place at a practically constant rate. This fact makes it possible to calculate experimentally the so-called coefficient of retention which shows the percentage of words of a certain test list t Cf., e.g., Z. Petrunicheva, Jazyk Telugu(Moscow, 1960), p. 8.

174

M. ANDRONOV

retained by a language in a given period of time (e.g., in one thousand years). With the help of this coefficient it is possible to calculate the difference in time between two historically known stages of one language or the period of time which passed since the beginning of divergence of any two languages traced to one common language. 1~ When one of two or more synonyms had to be selected in drawing control lists in each language, the preference was shown to a word most widely used in everyday speech and most exactly corresponding in its direct meaning to the word of the test list. Synonyms which involved any additional stylistic shade of meaning had to be rejected. Thus, e.g., for No. 21 'ear' a word kfitu was chosen in Tamil, and its synonym cevi was rejected as belonging to the classical language. For No. 23 'to eat' Tamil cfippit.u- was included in the list, whereas its synonyms u.n- and tin_- were rejected, since u.n- belonged to Classical Tamil and ti.n- became rude in the modern language. For No. 54 ' m o o n ' Tamil cantiran_, borrowed from Sanskrit, was preferred to Dravidian tifika.1, generally met with in poetry. For similar reasons a loan-word cOriyan_ was put on the list for No. 82 'sun' instead of classical fi~yi_ru. Synonyms in other languages have been selected in a similar way. n It was only etymologically related words of purely Dravidian origin (in the following table given in one line) that were counted as a retained element of the test list. All borrowings (in the table marked with*) were not counted. Thus, e.g., in No. 3 'bark' Tamil pa.t.tai, Malayalam and Telugu pM.ta were counted as a retained element, and Kannada n~ru was not. Similarly, in No. 9 'blood' Tamil rattam, Malayalam raktam, Kannada rakta, and Telugu raktamu, all borrowed from Indo-Aryan, were not counted at all. The following is the control lists in four main languages of the Southern group:

lg c 10 The latter can be easily obtained by means of the formula t = - ~ , where t denotes

a period of time elapsed since the beginning of disintegration, C is a common portion of words of the test list retained by the compared languages, and r is a coefficient of retention (0.86 for the list of one hundred entries used in the present study). For a detailed description and substantiation of the methods of lexicostatistic dating el., e.g., M. Swadesh, "Towards greater accuracy in lexicostatistic dating, IJAL, XXI (1955), pp. 121-37. 11 The following dictionaries were consulted for the purpose: T. Ramalingam Pillai, An English-English-Malayalam Dictionary, vols. I-I/Orrivandrum, 1956); F. Ziegler, The English-Kannada School Dictionary (Mangalore, 1929); P. Sankaranarayana, An English-Telugu Dictionary (Madras, 1951).

DISINTEGRATION OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN

175 Telugu

Test list 1. all 2. ashes

Tamil

Malayalam

Kannada

ella cdmpal

ella campal

eIld anta bo.di

3. bark 4. belly

patlai vayi.ru

pa!ta ndru vayaru hof!e

bft.dida pat. t.a

5. big

periya valiya dod4a

kad. upu pedda

6, bird 7, to bite 8, black 9. blood 10. bone 11. breast

paravai karlkaru*rattam elumpu marpu *pak.si kalikaru*raktam ellu ma.ru *hakki kadikarurakta elubu ede gun.de nalla *raktamu emuka *pak~i ka.racu-

12. to burn

cutukattu-

sud.ukalcu-

13. claw 14. cloud 15. cold

*nakam *m&am kulirnta

*nakham
uguru

*m~gham ta.nutta

*m~gha tan. d.i

g6ru *m~ghamu

calla
16. to come 17. to die 18. dog 19. to drink

varucanay kuti-

varu*mar# nayu kuti-

barucayunayi

vaccucaccu-

kukka ku.di-

176 20. dry

M. ANDRONOV

traguularnta varan, ta
21. ear 22. earth 23. to eat 24. egg 25. eye 26. fat 27. feather

battida kivi en .dina cevi mannu tinu-

katu man. c@pitumutlai kan. kol.utta i.raku

k~tu man.n.u tinnumutfa kan.n.u ko!utta tuval

man.gu tinnumotIe kan. tm kobbida

gruddu kannu krovvina

gari flka
28. fire

neruppu tf bei~ki nippu

29. fish

m~ c~pa
*matsyam pa.raati ni.ra~a kotunalla rumba kod. uiccu*matsya ha_rueguru-

30. to fly 31. foot 32. full 33. to give 34. good

pa_ra-

ali ni.rainta kolunalla

ad. i
*padamu nin .dina

ot.l.e
35. green 36. hair

pacumayir

pacu-

haskftdalu

manci pacci

ven.druka *r6mam

DISINTEGRATION OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN

177

37. hand 38. head 39. to hear 40. 41. 42. 43. heart horn

kai talai k~l.*itayam kompu na_n kolmul_ahkal a.riilai kit.a-

kai tala k~l.-

kai tale k~l.u-

c@i
tala
vinu-

I
to kill

*h.rdayam *h.rdayu kompu kombu g6n nanu kollukollumul.ahkM a.riila kit.amalagisumon.akalu ariele

*hrdayamu kommu n(nu

eampumSkMu

44. knee 45. to know 46. leaf 47. to lie

e_r@uaku

pa.dukonu48. liver 49. long

iral nfn.ta

iral n~vla

Mri kM~yamu udda

50. louse 51. man 52. many 53. meat

p~n_
a.n

p~nu
a.n

h~nu *purus.a halavu

p6.duga p~nu

*purus.Vdu
nana

pala i_raicci

pala

ba.du
54. m o o n 55. mountain

*cantiran_ malai

*marhsam *candran mala

*eandra

*mamsamu *candr~d, u

betta
kon. d.a
56. mouth 57. name 58. neck 59. new

ray peyar ka_luttu putu-

vayu p&u ka.luttu putu-

bayu hesaru kuttige hosa kotta n6ru p~ru me.da

178 60. night 61. nose 62. not 63. one 64. person 65. rain 66. red 67. road 68. root 69. round 70. sand 71. to say

M. ANDRONOV

iravu mfikku alla on_.ru *ma_nita_n ma!ai ce-mval_i v~r *vatt.aman. al

COl"

*rfitri mftkku alla onnu *manu.syan mal_a cuvanna va.li

v~ru

*rfitri mftgu alia ondu *manu.sya male ke-m-

*rdtri mukku kadu okati *manu.s fi .du * var.samu e_r.r a

*vatlaman. al

*mdrga b(ru *bat.ta

*mdrgamu
v~ru

gund. ra usubu pa.rayuh~l.uceppu72. to see

isuka

kay-

kan.un6.duc~cuvittu

73. seed 74. to sit

vitai ulkar-

vita iri-

bede

kulitu75. skin 76. to sleep

t61 ur.ai~ku-

t6lu u.rmi~u-

togalu malagu-

kurcut61u

*nidrincu77. small 78. smoke 79. to stand 80. star

ciriya
pukai nilm~

ce.riya puka nilcikka hoge nilcinna poga nilcucucukka

DISINTEGRATIONOF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN

179

81. stone 82. sun 83. to swim 84. tail 85. that 86. 87. 88. 89. this thou tongue tooth

kal *cariya_n n?ntuvM anta inta ni ndkku pal maram iran. tu nalavetuvetutan. n.fr nahkal, enn_a vel.yar pe~ ma~cal,

*nak.satram kallu *s~ryan nintuvMu d i n~ ndkku pallu maram ran. t.u nat.a*us. .na-

*nak.satra kallu *sarya isubMa d i n~nu nMige hallu mara erad. u na.debeccanna n~ru .rdyi *sftry~.du MuvMamu a f nivu nMuka pallu cett.u ren.du na.dacuveccani nillu m~mu ~mi vella eva.du *strf

90. tree 91. two 92. to walk 93. w a r m 94. water 95. we 96. what 97. white 98. who 99. w o m a n 100. yellow

veil.am nah~al, entu vel.utta aru *str~ ma~f~a

navu ~nu bel.e yaru *str? halad, f

pasupupacca Results o f lexicostatistic counts in four languages of the Southern group

Retained portion of the list (% %) 73 60 59 41 37 42 Period of divergence (thousand years) Beginning of divergence (centuries)

Languages

Tamil : Malayalam Tamil : Kannada Malayalam : Kannada Tamil : Telugu Malayalam : Telugu Kannada : Telugu

1.043

1.693 1.749 2.955 3.296 2.876

10 A.D. 4 A.D. 3 A.D. 10 B.C. 13 B.C. 9B.C.

180

M. ANDRONOV

All the results, except one, are in accord with the historical facts at our disposal which have been discussed in the beginning of this study. 12 The common portion of the test list retained by Malayalam and Telugu turned out unexpectedly low showing an unreally long period of divergence. This might be probably caused by the intensified penetration of Indo-Aryan words in both languages with the following ousting of properly Dravidian words (it is nouns in contradistinction to verbs, i.e. a class of words most subject to borrowing, that prevail in the test list). In comparing each of these languages with Tamil and Kannada, which borrowed Sanskrit words in a lesser degree, the distorting influence of this fact might be not so strong as in comparing them with each other. Still, whatever the reason of such distortion may be, this figure should be ignored as the other two, obtained by comparing the Tamil and Kannada lists with that of Telugu, are close to each other and are in good accord with the historical facts. To determine the time of the disintegration of the Proto-Dravidian language and of the emergence out of it of the South Dravidian language, vocabularies of Parji and Kolami, which are comparatively well known, as well as of Gondi, Kurukh, Malto, and Brahui seem most expedient to be used3 a

Retention o f the words o f the test list in the languages o f the Central and Northern groups

Test list 1. all 2. ashes

Kolami Parji
nfd

Gondi
nfr

Kurukh Malto orma orm~

Brahui

12 Old Tamil texts like Tolk~ppiyam (about the 5th century) and Tirukkura| (the 7th or 8th cent.), when compared with the oldest texts in Kannada, show 91 ~ retention of the test list which points to 3.12 centuries of divergence. This seems to be close to the actual figure, too. x3 For Parji and Kolami there are detailed studies by T. Burrow, S. Bhattacharya, and M. B. Emeneau [cf. T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya, The Parji language (Hertford, 1953); M. B. Emeneau, Kolami: a Dravidian language (Berkeley, 1955)]. For Gondi there are several books, although none of them so thorough as those on Parji and Kolami. However, all together they more or less represent the main vocabulary of that language. Available dictionaries of Kurukh, Malto, and Brahui are quite sufficient for our purpose; cf. A. Griguard, An Oraon-English Dictionary, (St. Gabriel-M6dling, 1924); F. Hahn, Kurukh-English Dictionary (Calcutta, 1903); E. Droese, Introduction to the Malto language, vol. 2 (Agra, 1884); D. Bray, The Brahui language, vol. 3 (Delhi, 1934). Etymologies of all the Dravidian words are drawn from T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau, A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (Oxford, 1961).

DISINTEGRATION OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN

181

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

bark belly big bird to bite

potta per(a) pitle kork-

potta berto

orok pot.ta bir~ya pitt.~ kat.t.na kOrkana kharna

orku pura

kork-

qdre maun ditar qdsu qoclu

8. black 9. blood 10. bone 11. breast 12. to burn 13. claw 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. cloud cold to come to die dog

karl netur bokka pamme edram su.dg6r netir bfda

kariyal m6khar6 nattur kheso boka kh6col boma ku.rna g~ri ku.re

19. to drink 20. (to be) dry 21. ear 22. earth 23. to eat 25. eye 26. fat 28. fire 29. fish 31. foot 32. (to be) full

orokh_ orgu morgar malgur moyol pan~ pa~il p~n~ pafihh panye varverwaiana barna bare caysaiana kh~' ena keye ate netta nai alia ale ununund.ana 6nna 6ne k_h_ayna qdye wattana key kekol kawf k_h_ebda qethwu tftk tftk kh~khel qdqlu tintintindana m6kh_na m6qe kan kan kan _kh.ann qanu koru korukud. korvinj n~ta nenya kis kic kis cicc cicu kaye key kfl kal kal _kh_e.d.d qe.du nin.dnindana nindna nindgre

banning kahing

kuning barring

~_h_af

~Oan

182 33. 35. 37. 38. to give green hand head

M. ANDRONOV

s~kf tal

c?pay key tel

s~ana kai tala k~njana

ci"ina

ciye

k-h_ekkhna qeqe kukk kuku mene margu dn kh.alling m~ka m~ke dge bining

39. to hear 41. horn 42. 43. 44. 45.

vinkom an

yen-

menna marag Fn

I
to kill knee to know

an

ana

puneg

punev

pundana ak_h_na

46. leaf 47. 48. 50. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 65. 66. 67. 68. 70. to fie fiver louse moon mountain mouth name neck new night nose not one rain red road root sans

atkh_a
mar# tarilgud p~n nela mal~ p~r ma.dtaruhg p~nf neli~ vdy pidir pun muizgad, muvad, ala ok ok vana vani key pav pav v~r var man uska en o envitanam vittid tanakf p~n nal~nj

~tge

pdnu mash

bar par6l pun6 kh~ser puna ma_kh_a mul oft k h_eso pab q~so pdwu

ba
pin qasru pftskun pune mdqu mu_nyu

hal orot

al(O-

k hfsun

71. to say 72. to see 73. seed 74. to sit

indana vfja

uska anna

dne

k-haning
gota okhna blci gola oke

DISINTEGRATION OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN

183

75. skin 76. to sleep 77. small 78. smoke 79. to stand 80. star 81. stone 82. sun 83. to swim 84. tail 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. that this thou tongue tooth tree two to walk

t6l ma.ricinni pog ilsukka

t61 ma.dcin

t6l khandrnd qandre cunak m6sga nillana ijna sukkum bink6 po.rd bfri 6gna bdru 6ge qoli dt i nin ta.rte palu manu -is ~ke d~r
atom amm

nilpcukka kel

moge ile bln.dke

m6!h_ saling

_kh_al

pod

t6ke
a i

t6ka
a

t6kar Mal ~tal imma k_h_ola d f nin tatk_h_a pall mann ~n. .d ~kna
e

da
n~

niv nalka pal mak in(di~) a.dgir am ~ em pilla

in neva.d pel meri ir(d. u)

pal mard ran.d

ird

94. water 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. we what white who woman

nfr am nato vii ed ammal bah ve.dta b61 3m ekda n3 pello 3m iku n3re(h) peli

nan ant

184

M. ANDRONOV

Results of lexicostatistic counting in languages of the Central and Northern groups in comparison with those o! the Southern group (Tamil, Kannada, Telugu)
Retained portion of the list Period of divergence (thousand years) Beginning of divergence (centuries)

Languages

(% %)
Tamil : Kolami Tamil : Parji Tamil : Gondi Tamil : Kurukh Tamil : Malto Tamil : Brahui Kannada : Kolami Kannada : Parji Kannada : Gondi Kannada : Kurukh Kannada : Malto Kannada : Brahui Telugu : Kolami Telugu : Parji Telugu : Gondi Telugu : Kurukh Telugu : Malto Telugu : Brahui Kolami : Parji Kolami : Gondi Kolami 9 Kurukh Kolami : Malto Kolami 9 Brahui Parji : Gondi Parji : Kurukh Parji : Malto Parji : Brahui Gondi : Kurukh Gondi : Malto Gondi : Brahui Kurukh : Malto Kurukh : Brahui Malto : Brahui 35 34 29 25 23 21 40 39 30 29 26 22 40 38 29 24 23 16 54 46 31 29 19 43 29 29 22 24 24 18 63 19 17

3.480 3.423 4.103 4.596 4.872 5.174 3.037 3.121 3.945 4.103 4.465 5.019 3.037 3.207 4.103 4.731 4.872 6.075 2.042 2.574 3.882 4.103 5.505 2.797 4.103 4.103 5.019 4.731 4.731 5.607 1.521 5.505 5.874

15 B.C. 15 B.C. 22 B.C. 26 B.C. 29 B.C. 32 B.C. 11 B.C. 12 B.C. 20 B.C. 22 B.C. 25 B.C. 31 B.C. 11 B.C. 13 B.C. 22 B.C. 28 B.C. 29 B.C. 41 B.C. 1 B.C. 6 B.C. 19 B.C. 22 B.C. 36 B.C. 8 B.C. 22 B.C. 22 B.C. 31 B.C. 28 B.C. 28 B.C. 37 B.C. 5 A.D. 36 B.C. 39 B.C.

F o r g r e a t e r c o n v e n i e n c e the figures s h o w i n g the b e g i n n i n g o f d i v e r g e n c e o f e a c h p a i r o f l a n g u a g e s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d in a t a b l e o n t h e n e x t p a g e . T h e difference o f t w o o r t h r e e c e n t u r i e s in s o m e o f t h e figures is n a t u r a l in v i e w o f the space o f t i m e i n v e s t i g a t e d here. Still g r e a t e r difference m a y

DISINTEGRATION OF PROTO-DRAVIDIAN

185

o o ~

Tamil Kannada Telugu Kolami Parji Gondi Kurukh Malto Brahui 4A.D. 10 15 15 22 26 29 32

4A.D.

10 9

15 11 11

15 12 13 1

22 20 22 6 8

26 22 28 19 22 28

29 25 29 22 22 28 5A.D.

32 31 41 36 31 37 39 39

9 11 12 20 22 25 31 11 13 22 28 29 41

1 6 19 22 36 8 22 22 31

28 28 37 5A.D. 36

39

Note: All the figures, except those specially marked, show centuries B.C. be expected, at least in some cases, due to possible mistakes in drawing up control lists. Besides, the rate of divergence in the languages of the Central and especially of the Northern group could exceed normal because of strong influence on the part of Aryan and Iranian languages. The absence of dated literary monuments in the languages of these groups does not allow to calculate an average deviation, if there were some. At the same time, the comparison of these figures with each other and with the figures received for the languages of the Southern group makes one believe that on the whole they are close to reality. 14 An exception is the result of word counting in the Brahui list. If the figures shown by such pairs as Tamil-Brahui, Kannada-Brahui, and, probably, Parji-Brahui may be regarded as realistic, all the other are evidently exaggerated. This could be caused by various reasons, such as mistakes in drawing the control list, great deviation in the retention rate following strong foreign influence, insufficient knowledge of some nonliterary languages resulting in inadequately low number of etymologies common only to the Northern group or only to the Northern and Central groups (the last is proved, in particular, by the fall in the percentage of Brahui words common to Gondi, Kurukh, and Malto, though all these languages are certainly nearer to Brahui than Tamil or Kannada). ~ The results of counts in Kui, which are generally somewhere in between those of Gondi and Kurukh-Malto, were not included here.

186

M. ANDRONOV

These and similar circumstances do not allow to determine whether Brahui belongs to the Northern group or it should be singled out in a separate group. 15 Nevertheless, the above lexicostatistic analysis provides, in spite of some drawbacks, a much more detailed and clear picture of the disintegration of the Proto-Dravidian language than that available before. The separation of Brahui from Proto-Dravidian seems to have taken place still in the very beginning of the fourth millennium B.C. The separation of Kurukh-Malto should be ascribed to the second and that of the KuiGondi - to the first half of the third millennium B.C. Then, from the middle of the second millennium, the separation of Parji-Kolami (XVXI B.C.) went on. In spite of general opinion, the so-called SouthDravidian language had existed, as proved by the figures, for an extremely short period of time and almost immediately broke up (X-IX B.C.) into Telugu (-Tulu) and Kannada-Tamil. 16 The latter, on the contrary, was remarkably long-lived and disintegrated only in the beginning of the Christian era (III-IV A.D.). The divergence of Tamil and Malayalam took place in X-XIII A.D. Plausible results have been also achieved in an attempt to determine a probable date of the divergence of Kurukh-Malto (V.A.D.) and ParjiKolami (I B.C.). Still it may be expected that after some additional work on the control lists these dates will probably become somewhat nearer our days. At the same time, some of the figures are in contradiction with the present-day conception of relationship between certain Dravidian languages. Thus, e.g., there is no explanation of the process of divergence between Kurukh-Malto, on one hand, and Gondi (XXVIII B.C.) and Parji-Kolami (XiX-XXII B.C.), on the other. Such instances prove that the inner development of the Central group of the Dravidian languages must have been rather complicated in its nature. More descriptive study of Brahui, dialects of Gondi (some of which may be separate languages) and a number of other non-literary languages has evidently to be conducted before next steps towards further elaboration of the classification of the Dravidian languages may become possible? 7
x5 Cf., e.g., S. Konow's classification in the Linguistic Survey oflndia, vol. IV (Calcutta, 1906), p. 285. An opposite view see in M. B. Emeneau, Brahui and Dravidian Comparative Grammar (Berkeley, 1962), pp. 62-70.

16 This fact can explain the position of Tehigu which is equally connected both with the Southern and Central groups. Cf. also B. Krishnamurti, Telugu Verbal Bases (Berkeley, 1961),pp. 236, 254, and especially269. 1~ The use of a special regional test list, which would reflect Indian flora, fauna, and mode of life, might be promising here. Unfortunately, in the absence of dated literary monuments in these languages, the retention rate for such a list can hardly be calculated.