The preface to A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary (1961; DED) opened
with an historical sketch of the recognition of the Dravidian family of languages
and the gradual discovery and identification of the two dozen (more or less)
languages of the family. This need not be repeated in this preface to its revision
(DEDR). We content ourselves with repeating, as an act of piety, that in 1816,
only thirty years after Sir William Jones's adumbration of the Indo-European
language family, Francis Whyte Ellis made a similar assertion of 'the family of
languages which may be appropriately called the dialects of Southern India', to
include 'the high and low Tamil; the Telugu, grammatical and vulgar; Carn'at'aca
or Cannad'i, ancient and modern; Malayálma or Malayálam', 'the Tuluva',
'Cod'ugu', and 'the language of the moutaineers of Rájmahàl' (i.e. our Malto).
We pointed out that work on the comparative grammar of the family had
proceeded 'under the handicap of [concerned scholars] having to make each his
own collection of etymologies -- for the first step in comparative grammar is to
find the etymologies'. This was our warrant for our work, beginning in 1949,
which resulted in the publication of DED in 1961, of A Dravidian Etymological
Dictionary: Supplement in 1968 (DEDS), of 'Dravidian etymological notes',
JAOS 92.397-418, 475-91, in 1972 (DEN), and of Dravidian Borrowings
from Indo-Aryan (UCPL 26) in 1962 (DBIA). That we profitably filled a gap in
scholarly resources was stated by Bh. Krishnamurti in 1969: 'it has already
given a thrust to research in Dravidian, judging from the fact that there has hardly
been an article or publication since 1961 which has not liberally drawn on the
materials collected and organized in this work'.
The stimulus for our supplementary publications (DEDS 1968, DEN 1972) was two-fold: (1) discovery and description of new languages and reworking of those already known: (2) the many changes, whether slight or substantial, which our growing knowledge of the field or the comments of our colleagues led us to make in our original statements. Such stimuli have continued unceasingly, and by 1975 we had accumulated more material that we wished to present to concerned scholars. The earlier publications were by then on the verge of becoming unobtainable. They were moreover becoming difficult for scholars to use because much collation was needed between the different publications. The decision was then made for a complete consolidation and revision of our old and new material. The Clarendon Press agreed to provide its backing and expertise (for which we express our gratitude), and the result is this revised edition (DEDR).
Emeneau expresses his gratitude to the Committee on Research of the University of California, Berkeley, for yearly grants which have covered, among other things, the heavy expenses of trans-Atlantic exchange of materials and have allowed Dr. Wayne Surdam to help in the preparation of the indexes. Our thanks are due to the Board of Management of the Boden Fund, Oxford, for a subvention towards the cost of publication.
Our colleagues have put us in their debt by reviews, correspondence, and many suggestions which have bettered our work over the years since we first started it. The late Professor Sudhibhushan Bhattacharya should first be named, for his long collaboration with Burrow in the field and the study, and for his many contributions of material. In DEDS and DEN we expressed gratitude, which we wish to repeat here, to numerous scholars, including B. Ramachandra Rao, N. Kumaraswami Raja, K. S. Kamaleswaran, K. S. R. Sharma, the late M. Kandappa Chetty, Michael Garman, and Martin Pfeiffer. In more recent years we have benefitted by correspondence with K. Paramasivam, S. G. Rudin, Dieter B. Kapp, and Kamil Zvelebil; Paul Hockings must be singled out for his Badaga contributions and for his suggestion that the dictionary would be more easily used if the language sigilla in the numbered paragraphs were printed in italics. Professor P. S. Subrahmanyam has contributed much both in reviews and by correspondence (PSS occurs often in the dictionary entries). Several scholars in recent years have generously sent us vocabulary material before publication; we are grateful to Dieter B. Kapp and Kamil Zvelebil for their contributions, and to Peri Bhaskara Rao for his Gadba vocabulary and M. Israel for that of Kuwi. Finally, our long-time colleague, Professor Bh. Krishnamurti (very often appearing as K.), has contributed more than we can say both in stimulus and in data and etymological connections; we can only regret that his latest suggestion, consolidation of nos. 1584 and 2582 (CDr. borrowings from pre-Telugu *ciḷi < *kiḷi), arrived much too late to be accomodated in the printing.
As we set forth in §9 of the introduction, we have used much more extensively than in our earlier publications the epoch-making work of (Sir) R. L. Turner, A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages. It is with the greatest gratitude and admiration that we dedicate to his memory our present work, which we had hoped that we might present to him in his 95th year.
Plan of the dictionary (§§1-10) xi
Sources of the dictionary (§11) xix
Bibliography and list of sources (§§12-44) xxi
Arrangement of the dictionary (§§45-51) xxxiv
Abbreviations (§§52-54) xxxviii
Notes on transcription (§55) xl
A (1-331) 1
Ā (332-409) 31
I (410-532) 38
Ī (533-556) 53
U (557-727) 54
Ū (728-763) 71
E (764-869) 75
Ē (870-919) 85
AI (920-922) 88
O (923-1025) 89
Ō (1026-1074) 98
K, G (1075-2263) 101
C, J (2264-2900) 201
Ñ (2901-2937) 251
Ṭ, Ḍ (2938-2994) 256
T, D (2995-3567) 259
N (3568-3800) 314
P, B (3801-4614) 340
M (4615-5148) 407
Y (5149-5161) 465
R, &Rline;, Ṛ (5162-5184) 469
L, Ḷ (5185-5201) 470
V (5202-5557) 470
Appendix (1-61) 509
Pālu Kuṟumba 574
Ālu Kuṟumba 574
Beṭṭa Kuruba 575
Naiki of Chanda 691
Jaina Sanskrit 763
Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit 763
'Dravidian Prakrit' 765
Old Marathi 767
References to Turner, CDIAL 768
INDEX OF ENGLISH-MEANINGS 773
INDEX OF FLORA
English and Anglo-Indian 821
CONCORDANCE OF THE GROUP NUMBERS OF THE EARLIER PUBLICATIONS
DED = DEDR 825
DEDS = DEDR 848
DEN = DEDR 852
New groups 853
PLAN OF THE DICTIONARY
§ 1. This dictionary is one of groups of etyma which have been excerpted with their meanings from various sources on the Dravidian languages. Even though it is realized that some such groups have been missed, it is thought that they are few in comparison with those groups that have been found and included. It is hoped that this is true also of individual items within the groups, although it is realized that many of the unplaced words in the central and northern languages might well have found a place if our knowlege of the phonetic correspondences for those languages had been more exact.
§ 2. The dictionary does not contain proto-Dravidian (PDr) reconstructions. This would have been useful, but it was not thought that the considerable extra expenditure of time that would have been necessary to prepare them was warranted in the present stage of Dravidian studies. Many of the PDr phonemes may easily be reconstructed, i.e. many of the phonetic correspondences are known satisfactorily and might be represented by asterisked symbols. Many, on the other hand, especially for the vowels are not certain, and a degree of certainty sufficient to warrant the use of asterisked symbols could have been attained only by long and intensive study. The object of the dictionary is to provide material for such studies, not to record results which at the moment could be little more than superficial and non-definitive judgements. It is obvious, however, that the grouping of etyma could be accomplished only with the aid of a preliminary set of statements of phonetic correspondences, i.e. by doing much tacit reconstruction. The framework within which the operations took place is given in the table. It may not be overstressing the obvious to point out that this set of phonetic correspondences implies that reliance on phonetic similarities has been eschewed in favour of a search for systematic phonological correspondences.
§ 3. The table contains only the correspondences that it is thought represent
direct descent from PDr. In numerous places in the table several alternative
correspondences are given. These in some instances represent conditioned alternatives, the conditioning contexts of which are already known; e.g. *k- is represented by k- in Tamil, Malayalam, and Telugu, except when a palatalizing
vowel (ĭ̄, ē̆) follows, when it is represented by c- (this is a partial statement).
There are very numerous instances in which the stated phonetic correspondences do not hold in the etymological groupings. Many of these failures of regularity are already explainable in some detail within the limits of our knowlege, and might have been explained in the dictionary entries, except that in our judgement it would have swollen an already large work over-much and our object has been, as is said above, only to provide material for further study.
§ 4. (I) One easy explanation of failures of regularity is provided by the historical phonetic changes within those languages that have a long literary history. These changes have been set out in the table only in part (e.g. *p- in Kannaḍa). An example of those omitted is the development seen in Telugu for PDr *ṟ. This symbol represents a correspondence in which Te. shows ṟ. This, however, holds only for old and literary Te. and for our primary dictionary source for this language (i.e. Sankaranarayana's dictionary, but not Brown's). In the modern colloquial old ṟ has merged with old r in all positions. It is uncertain when and in when dialect of Te. the change began. What is clear is that there are examples of the merger even in the oldest records and that the oldest grammarians warn that the two phonemes should not be confused in writing. A good example is Te. cerugu 'to winnow' in contrast with Ma. cēṟuka, To. k&odieresisside;ṟ-, Ka. kēṟu, Kol. Nk. (Ch.) ke·d-, Pa. kēd-, (NE) kēḍ-, Ga. kēy-, Pe. jēc-, Kur. kē̃snā, Malt. kése (group 2019); all these latter languages quoted have a contrastive representative of PDr *ṟ rather than *r. The Te. word is not recorded in the literature before the Daśakumāracaritramu of the thirteenth century, and apparently there was at that period no literary tradition or dialect evidence used by authors which would have informed them that the form was originally *ceṟugu; reconstruction of older forms by comparison with other languages was, of course, impossible for the grammarians and littérateurs since they did not have recourse to the methods of comparative linguistics. Attention is generally not drawn to such matters in the entries; they are generally clear to scholars in the field. The requisite philological information, moreover, is not always easily at hand, and in many instances is lacking from the records.
§ 5. (2) At times it is either suspected or certain that two slightly different PDr phonological reconstructions are involved in one entry. In other words, already in PDr there were either dialectal phonological differences, or in some instances, what might seem to be phonological differences can be attributed to morphological differences, e.g. different allomorphs of the some root conditioned by different phonological contexts such as are provided by different derivative suffixes.
An example of the first type is group 3067. Te. taṇḍri, inscriptional tanṟi,
Konḍa tanṟi, and Kui-Kuwi tanji look to PDr *tanṟ-. Pa. tend and Ka. tande are
compatible with this, but could as well look to *tant-; Ta. tantai and Ma. tanta
can only be referred to *tant-. It is possible tht PDr already had two forms
*tant- and *tanṟ-. The remainder of the Ta. evidence (entai, nantai, etc.) makes
it at least possible that a stem *tay is involved, preceded by possessive pronominal forms (perhaps *em-, *nam-, *tam-, etc.); the two internal consonant
An example of a morphologically conditioned phonological difference is
seen in such collocations as Te. āḍu and ārcu, respectively intransitive and
transitive of the same verb in group 347 (cf. also groups 1041, 1882, 1942,
and 3852, the latter two of which give evidence for an alternation of *ṭ and
*ṟ in these sets); the exact statement and explanation within PDr is still uncertain. Another morphologically conditioned phonological difference that has
been clearly defined and explained concerns differences in vowel quantities.
Many verbal roots have two allomorphs, one with a long vowel which occurs
when no derivative suffix with an inital vowel follows, the other with a short
vowel which occurs when a derivative suffix with an initial vowel follows.
It has been impossible to include notes on any of these problems; many problems would have required much too extended a treatment for a dictionary of this plan. Many of the forms related in these ways have been put together in the groups. Many others have been separated in groups with cross-references, on the principle that the difference already existed in PDr and that our groups on the whole represent forms that can be connected under one PDr reconstruction. We have not achieved consistency in this matter and have been inclined to conservatism in what has been included within the same group.
§ 6. (3) The Dravidian linguistic area is one in which there has been much
borrowing between related languages. This frequently brings it about that, to
take the simplest case, a language has two forms that descend from the same
PDr reconstruction, and consequently shows two correspondences for the same
PDr phoneme. Often enough it is possible to decide that one of these correspondences represents direct descent from PDr, and that the other represents
borrowing. For example, Te. celāgu 'to sound' and kelayu 'to rage' (group
1574) are both cognates of Ta. cilai 'to sound, roar, rage', Ko. kilc- 'to utter a
shrill cry of joy', To. kis̱- 'to crow', Ka. kele 'to cry or shout with energy or for
joy, vociferate abusively', etc. The first Te. form has c-, the Te. palatalized
representative of PDr *k- before a front vowel. The other form with k- is borrowed from Ka., where palatalization does not occur.
Only the correspondences that it is thought represent direct descent from PDr are in the table. The many forms that show other correspondences have generally been tacitly included in the etymological groups with which they belong, and it is only in exceptional cases that a note has been made of our judgement (or perhaps that of the Tamil Lexicon) that borrowing is involved. To have recorded, and in many instances argued, the borrowing would have swollen the size of the dictionary: separate monographic treatment is required.
§ 7. (4) Many groups include forms whose phonology is in part at least inexplicable on any basis now known. It has however seemed, because of similarities of meaning, that all forms should be included on the chance that they are genetically related and that this can be proved later by intensive study. Examples include groups 360, 4358, and many others.
§ 8. The semantic problem has been handled conservatively. It is clear that in each language independently, items not originally homophones have merged because of the language's phonological changes. These have been on the whole easy to assign to their proper places; e.g. Te. cēru is a merger of two PDr verbs, one with *k- and one with *c-, and the separation has been made in groups 2012 and 2814. On the other hand, it often seems that there were homophones in PDr, since it seems impossible to find anything but an ad hoc, or even at times improbable, connexion between the series of meanings for the two groups of etyma. Here there is much room for difference of opinion as to what semantic developments are probable or plausible, but we have thought it wise to be conservative even when it involves abandoning the groupings of the Tamil Lexicon or Kittel or other dictionaries. A pertinent example is furnished by groups 2684 and 2687, where separation of the groups based respectively on meanings 'to be rolled up, coiled, curled, to revolve' and 'to shrink, contract, shrivel, grow lean' requires recognition that several of the languages have homophones (e.g. Ta. curuḷ, Ta. curi, Ka. surku, To. tu·ḷ-). This is probably an extreme case, but even with some misgivings we felt forced to recognize the ad hoc nature of the connexions made by the dictionaries.
At times there has been separation, but cross-references have been supplied between groups which are certainly or almost certainly related. For example, group 5514 *veṟṟ- 'to speak, tell' is almost certainly related to group 5516 *ven- 'to hear' as a 'transitive/causative' (so P. S. Subrahmanyam; Su. 1973, p. 146), but we have kept the two groups separate in DEDR, as we did in DED, for visual convenience. Other such related groups have been arranged as (a) and (b) under the same number; e.g., group 5496(a) consists of *veḷ- 'white, bright' and its many derivatives and some compounds; group 5496(b) consists of words for 'butter', originally a compound of *veḷ and *ney 'ghee' (in DED the 'butter' words were given as a separately numbered group with cross-reference). Complete consistency has not been sought for in such instances.
On the other hand, cross-references at times mean nothing more than that
there are no insuperable phonological objections to connection between the
One semantic problem of a special nature should be mentioned. This concerns the many items which are names of plants, trees, etc. We give botanical identifications in Latin terminology when it is thus given in our sources. Since these sources derive their identifications from many different botanists of different chronological periods, many uncertainties of identification and inconsistencies in terminology result. We have attempted to resolve these as much as possible by quoting synonymies from J. D. Hooker's The Flora of British India. This work was done in the last quarter of the 19th century. We have supplemented it with Lushington's rather unsatisfactory work published in 1915. Although Hooker is now somewhat antiquated, he has not yet been superseded as a whole, and we have not attempted to use any later Latin nomenclature. Botanical synonymies are given at the end of numbered groups (e.g. App. no. 28). The index of flora does not contain any statements of equivalence of terms.
§ 9. Many of the groups contain at the end notes on Indo-Aryan (IA);
these always follow the sign /. We have avoided inclusion in the dictionary
of words that were certainly borrowed by Dravidian languages from IA languages,
whether Sanskrit, Middle Indo-Aryan, or the modern IA vernaculars. At times
these borrowings show interesting features, either of geographical extension, of
phonological development, or of semantic development. However, it was decided,
while DED was being prepared, that such items should be presented elsewhere;
Dravidian Borrowings from Indo-Aryan (1962) resulted. During the preparation
of DEDR more such items were identified in our older publications; these have
been relegated to an appendix of 61 numbered groups. A very few items of this
kind have been retained, when e.g. it seemed possible that the words were really
Dravidian (e.g. group 5339), or when, as in the case of the words for 'king',
On the other hand, it has seemed useful to include all items which involve a possibility or probability that similarities between Dravidian and IA material indicate borrowing from Dravidian into IA. Much of this material had already been published by Burrow, but new items have appeared, especially of the kind that show Marathi alone on the IA side presenting a similarity with Dravidian material; e.g. group 5342. In presenting similarities which may indicate borrowing by IA from Dravidian, we have tended to refrain from making judgements as to certain, probable, or possible borrowings. It has seemed preferable to present the material and to allow judgements to be presented elsewhere.
Already in DEDS we had begun to use (Sir) R. L. Turner's A Comparative Dictionary of the Indo-Aryan Languages (CDIAL), the first volume of which (the dictionary proper) was completed in 1966. In DEDR we have used and quoted from this epoch-making work much more extensively. Of particular value to us have been such Old Indo-Aryan reconstructions as we are now able to quote from CDIAL in, e.g., App. 3 and App. 5.
§ 10. The many changes which have been introduced into the dictionary by our growing knowlege of the field or by comments of our colleagues should be exemplified.
Simplest are combinations of groups that were separated in DED, etc.; recognition that phonologically or semantically the groups belonged together resulted in combination.
An easy example involving meaning is group 3755, a combination of DED 3114 and 3115 (already combined in DEDS), since, as several Indian scholars pointed out to us, the fruits of two plant species originally separated have the same taste effect. The combination in group 3103 of DED(S) 2529, 'head' words, and DED 2530, 'honeycomb' words, was already made in DEDS, because of the parallel use in Pengo of an unconnected word with both meanings. Less obvious, but still plausible, are the meaning connections involved in the formation of group 3610 by combining DED 2986, DED 2989, and several items meaning 'pleasure' from DED(S) 2988.
Examples involving phonology are usually more complicated. Group 3122,
containing words for 'dig, scratch', combines DED(S, N) 2547, DED 2805, and
DEDS(N) 837, following upon the suggestion by P. S. Subrahmanyam (Su. 1973,
p. 141) that CDr. forms like Pe. ṛav-, Kui ṛaj-, ṛab- are derived by aphaeresis
from PDr. *tar̤- (*tar̤- > *tr̤a- > ṛa-); Ka. tekku 'to lick the itch' of DED 2805 is lost
from the dictionary, its meaning in any case being against its inclusion. The two
groups 4135 *pic- and 4183 *pir̤-, with meanings hardly distinguishable, have
been formed with DED 3404 and DED 3440 respectively as nuclei; some items
have been shifted from DED 3440 to DEDR 4145, DED(S) 3458 has been split
between the two new groups, and DED 3437 has been added to DEDR 4183;
all these changes were made on phonological grounds. The various groups meaning
'dust, powder, earth', DED(S) 2776, 2778, DEDS 525, 555, have been united
as DEDR 3283, the phonological basis being *tūk-: *tukV-: *tū-; contamination
On the other hand, old groups have at times been split. On semantic grounds, DED(S, N) 3296 has been split into DEDR 3999 and 4000; this was already suggested in DEN. Similarly, it was thought that DED(S, N) 426 should be split into DEDR 501 (*ir̤a-), 502 (*ir̤i-), and 503 (*ir̤uk/kk-), since semantically a fairly certain differentiation is possible. DED(S, N) 3255 appears as DEDR 3949; DEDR 4536 'to sell' has been separated from it both on phonological and semantic grounds (Krishnamurti 1980).
An example in which on the evidence at hand it is not possible to decide whether a group should be split or not, is provided by 1827(a) and (b), where a note, based on correspondence with Bh. Krishnamurti, sets forth the problem.
There have been some rather complicated reassignments of items. E.g., DED(S, N) 1496, DED(S, N) 1538, DED 1765 have been rearranged and supplementend by new material to form DEDR 1796 (*kur-), 1852 (*kuṟ-), 2122 (*kor-), of which the meanings are not distinguishable; but the last word has probably not been said on these groups. Some shifts of items, however, are simple; e.g. the shift of Ka. diṅku 'jump' from DED(S) 2728 (DEDR 3326) to DED(S) 2803 (DEDR 2971) is justified by the vowel i (this was already suggested in DEDS).
§ 11. The sources used for the dictionary have been of very various natures.
The lexicons of the four literary languages are voluminous, especially the Tamil Lexicon, which astonishes by the enormous range of vocabulary contained in the literary record of approximately two-millennia duration. On the other hand, not even the Tamil Lexicon is complete and usable as a philological record of the language. Even when it is supplemented by the recently published wordindexes of the oldest Tamil texts, it is impossible to be sure of the earliest occurrence of words, of those that are now only literary, of those that are only lexical, and of dialect forms. Kittel on Kannaḍa and Gundert on Malayalam are much less satisfactory than the Tamil Lexicon philologically, and for Telugu there is so far nothing of this sort available in Telugu-English form, except for indications contained in Krishnamurti's Telugu Verbal Bases. Kittel is probably not as full a representative of the vocabulary of Kannaḍa as the Tamil Lexicon is of Tamil, even when supplemented by recent dialect work; Gundert is clearly not so full for Malayalam, though his work has begun to be supplemented by recent lexical publication. Krishnamurti's work on the Telugu verb has made us realize and regret the more the lack of an exhaustive Telugu-English lexicon; the three recent works on inscriptional Telugu are of extreme value as supplements.
The Tulu dictionary of Männer is unsatisfactory in that it presents material
from several phonologically divergent dialects without indications of the dialect
source of any form. We could not be expected (as some reviewers apparently
did expect us) to sort out these dialect forms, as well as some material that is
Emeneau's fieldnotes provided the Kota, Toda, and Koḍagu data in DED; these have not been published elsewhere, except that much of the Toda material is included in his forthcoming Toda Grammar and Texts. Sakthivel's 1976 Phonology of Toda with Vocabulary contained very few items that were not in DED and DEDS, and presented them in Emeneau's transcription (with one variation only). Some new Koḍagu material was published in S. V. Shanmugam, Dravidian Nouns (1971), and is included in DEDR. The recent exploratory work for 'new languages' in the south has yielded material on Iruḷa and several of the Kuṟumba speeches (Ālu and Pālu); not much of the latter became available in time for inclusion in DEDR. Three southern claimants for 'new language' status, Beṭṭa Kuruba, Belari, and Koraga, were already reported in DEN; the material on Koraga has been enlarged in DEDR from D. N. Shankara Bhat's 1971 publication.
For the Kolami-Naiki of Chanda-Parji-Gadba subgroup, the new Kolami material in Patterns in Clause, Sentence, and Discourse . . . (1973; Pat.) supplements considerably that in Emeneau's 1955 Kolami. The problem of Naiki of Chanda and the Naikṛi dialect of Kolami (DED's Nk.) was treated by S. Bhattacharya in his 1961 paper, which supplied the Nk. (Ch.) material in DEDS; no more material is at hand. There is no new material to add to the Parji data from Burrow and Bhattacharya's 1953 publication, which was used for DED. The Gadba data in DED, gathered from several sources, was supplemented in DEDS from the results of Burrow and Bhattacharya's 1962 paper; long fieldwork and study by Peri Bhaskara Rao added something in DEN and then much in DEDR, thanks to his kindness in making his Ph.D. dissertation available to us before publication.
The older material on the Central Dravidian languages has been considerably
supplemented in recent years. We wrote slightingly in DED about the available
material on the Gondi dialects. In DEDS the situation had already changed because
of the extensive field observations by Burrow and Bhattacharya and their analysis
and publication in 'A comparative vocabulary of the Gondi dialects' in 1960
(Voc.). Excerpts were included in DEDS; we have added much more Gondi
material from this source in DEDR. Other new fieldwork by P. S. Subrahmanyam
and Tyler had already made contributions to DEN. A small amount of Konḍa
data was included in DED from Bhattacharya's 1956 publication of his discovery
of the language; Bh. Krishnamurti's much more extensive material was used for
DEDS through his kindness in making the vocabulary available to us before
publication; DEN used his 1969 publication, and DEDR has further combed this
publication and supplemented it from Burrow and Bhattacharya's old fieldnotes.
Pengo and Manḍa were reported in DEDS and DEN from Burrow and Bhattacharya's fieldnotes and the 1970 Pengo work; a few items have been added
in DEDR, but for Manḍa we still await publication of B. Ramakrishna Reddy's
Of the northern languages, for Kuṛux we still depend chiefly on the old works by Hahn and (especially) Grignard. The works by Bleses and Tiiga have contributed a few items, as has Pfeiffer's 1972 reworking of the old data. For Malto we still depend on Droese's 1884 work, since two recent publications on the language have added no vocabulary items. No new fieldwork has been published on Brahui since Bray, but intensive study of the material has added a few etymologies to DEDS, DEN, and DEDR.
That not all the Dravidian 'languages' have been discovered or accurately placed is clear. The southern work of discovery is not yet complete. Nor is that in central India, since B. Ramakrishna Reddy has reported (but not yet published) Indi and Awe from the Koraput-Kalahandi districts of Orissa; the vocabularies which he kindly furnished to us became available too late for inclusion in DEDR.
Our treatment of the published sources should be set forth explicitly.
Whatever our guesses, perhaps to be dignified by the term 'informed guesses', may have been as to phonetic inaccuracies contained in any of the published transcriptions and whatever corrections we may have been tempted to make, we have confined ourselves in general to excerpting what is in the records. Very exceptionally it has seemed profitable to add a note on possible corrections. This procedure is better than to edit out peculiarities of a language which later fieldwork may show to be correct. Very occasional harmless changes are introduced in the transcriptions; these have been noted in § 55 on transcription. Even such changes have been sparingly introduced since especially in the records of the central and northern languages we seldom feel sure enough of our interpretation to record it.
The same remarks apply to the meanings that have been found in the printed sources. We have reproduced them with all their peculiarities of English and at times their unintelligibilities. Occasional checking of, for example, the text extracts in the Tamil Lexicon has made it evident that the meanings even of this generally accurate work are at times approximate or inexact. We have not, however, been able to undertake the task of correcting this aspect of such a voluminous work. The dictionaries have at times been so verbose or have given so many synonyms for the same word that in the interest of economy some pruning has been necessary. It is thought that nothing essential has been lost by this practice, or by an arrangement of items that allowed identical meanings to be represented by 'id.'.
§ 12. The bibliography and list of sources, as in the earlier volumes, are
The chief authority for each language appears first in the lists for the various languages and is marked with an asterisk (*). In the entries in the main body of the work, items from these chief authorities have no indication of source. Sigilla are provided for other authorities, and each item from such an authority is marked with the appropriate sigillum, which in general refers only to the one item to which it is prefixed except for very occasional strings of derivatives following such a marked item. Occasionally after or in combination with an item marked with a sigillum as from a secondary source, it is necessary to use a sigillum for the chief authority, and sigilla are provided for this purpose (this situation arises especially for Telugu). Authorities not provided with sigilla are generally identified by the author's name.
A notation of the form '(K also)' means that the other sources and K have the forms or meanings preceding the notation and that K alone has the forms or meanings following the notation.
§ 13. Tamil (Ta.).
Ta. Lex. = *Tamil Lexicon, published under the authority of the University of Madras, 6 vols. and supplement, Madras, 1924-39. The practice of using TLS for the supplementary volume, followed in DEDS, has been discontinued.
PR = A. M.
Tolkāppiyam . . . , with a short commentary in English by P. S. Subrahmanyam Sastri, vol. i, Eḻuttatikāram (Madras Oriental Series, No. 3), Madras, 1930.
Tolkāppiyam-Collatikāram, with an English commentary by P. S. Subrahmanyam Sastri (Annamalai University Tamil Series, No. 9), Annamalainagar, 1945.
Velu Pillai =
§ 14. Malayalam (Ma.).
Malayalam Lexicon: A Comprehensive Malayalam-Malayalam-English Dictionary. Vols. I and II (ed. Suranad Kunjan Pillai; vowels), Vol. III (ed. K. V. Namboodiripad; ka-kī), Trivandrum, 1965, 1970, 1976. Items not distinguished from those in Gundert; sigillum ML.
-- , Anglo-Malayalam Dictionary, 2nd. ed. revised by Oliver F. E. Zacharias, Mangalore, 1933.
Kauṭ. = Bhāṣā Kauṭalīyam, Adhikaraṇas 4-7 (ed. K. N. Ezhuttachan; Madras University Malayalam Series, No. 15), Madras, 1960. Word List in Appendix C, separately paginated, 20 pp.
§ 15. Iruḷa (Ir.).
Zvelebil 1980 = id., 'A plea for Nilgiri areal studies', IJDL 9.1-22 (1980).
§ 16. Pālu Kuṟumba (PālKu.), Ālu Kuṟumba (ĀlKu.).
PālKu. = Dieter
AlKu. = id., 'Childbirth and name-giving among the Ālu Kuṟumbas of South India', Aspects of Tribal Life in South India 1: Strategy and Survival (Studia Ethnologica Bernensia 1, 1978), 167-80.
Z. = items available in Kapp's contributions in the glossaries in Zvelebil's Iruḷa publications.
A few items were communicated by Kapp. [His book, Ālu-Kuṟumbaru Nāya
§ 17. Beṭṭa Kuruba (Kurub.).
§ 18. Kota (Ko.).
*Fieldnotes collected by M. B. Emeneau.
§ 19. Toda (To.).
*Fieldnotes collected by M. B. Emeneau.
TS = id., Toda Songs, Oxford 1971.
MBE 1974b = id., Ritual Structure and Language Structure of the Todas (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 64, part 6), Philadelphia, 1974.
TGT = id., Toda Grammar and Texts (forthcoming in 1983).
Su. 1976 =
Su. 1977 = id., 'Proto-Dravidian *r in Toda', Indian Linguistics 38.1-5 (1977).
MBE 1979 =
§ 20. Kannaḍa (Ka.).
Kurumba dialect, fieldnotes collected by S. Bhattacharya in 1959.
Badaga, selected items from fieldnotes collected by M. B. Emeneau; Hock. = items communicated by Paul Hockings.
§ 21. Koḍagu (Coorg; Koḍ.).
*Fieldnotes collected by M. B. Emeneau.
MBE 1970 =
MBE 1971 = id., 'Koḍagu and Brahui developments of Proto-Dravidian *r̤', IIJ 13.176-98 (1971).
§ 22. Tulu (Tu.).
-- , English-Tuḷu Dictionary, Mangalore, 1888.
Bhattacharya = fieldnotes collected by S. Bhattacharya in 1958.
BRR = items, chiefly of the brahmin dialect, communicated by B. Ramachandra Rao, Department of Kannada, Osmania University.
§ 23. Belari (Bel.).
§ 24. Koraga (Kor.).
§ 25. Telugu (Te.).
SAN = Sūryarāy-āndhra-nighaṇṭavu, Bezwada, 1936-.
VN = Vāviḷḷa Nighaṇṭu, Madras, 1949-.
§ 26. Kolami (Kol.).
Kin. = Fieldnotes from Kinwat collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya and included in W.
P. = Fieldnotes from Pānḍharkavṛa collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya and included in W.
Wagh. = Fieldnotes from Waghpur (Yeotmal) collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1957.
Pat. = Patterns in Clause, Sentence, and Discourse in Selected Languages of India and Nepal, Part IV, Word Lists (ed. Ronald L. Trail), Norman, Oklahoma (Summer Institute of Linguistics) and Kathmandu (Tribhuvan University), 1973. From Wani and Yeotmal taluqs, Maharashtra.
§ 27. Naikṛi (Nk.), a dialect of Kolami (= LSI, Bhili of Basim).
*Fieldnotes collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1950 and 1957. In DED this was wrongly called Naiki (see the bibliographical item referred to for Naiki of Chanda).
§ 28. Naiki of Chanda (Nk. (Ch.)).
§ 29. Parji (Pa.).
§ 30. Gadba (Ga.).
Salur dialect (formerly wrongly called Poya)
S. = Fieldnotes collected by Bh. Krishnamurti and by S. Bhattacharya (1951).
§ 31. Gondi (Go.).
A = Fieldnotes collected in Adilabad by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1951.
Koya T. =
PSS 1970 =
§ 32. Konḍa.
BB. = fieldnotes collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1957-8.
BB, 1972 = previously unrecorded items from the 1957-8 fieldnotes, reported by T. Burrow in review of Krishnamurti's volume, in IIJ 14.141-4 (1972).
§ 33. Pengo (Pe.).
§ 34. Manḍa (Manḍ.).
*Fieldnotes collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1964 and 1965-6.
Burrow 1976 =
§ 35. Kui.
* -- , A Vocabulary of the Kui Language (Kui-English) (Bibliotheca Indica, work 252), Calcutta, 1929.
Mah. = the book noted as Kuwi (Mah.), which often quotes Kui (Kondh) parallel words; these are recorded here when not found in Winfield or elsewhere.
§ 36. Kuwi.
Ṭ. = fieldnotes on Ṭēkriya Kondh (Navrangpur district), collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1964.
Ḍ. = fieldnotes on the dialect of the Ḍongriya Kondhs, collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1966.
Kasipur = fieldnotes on the dialect of a Kondh from Kasipur, collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1966.
§ 37. Kuṛux (Oraon, Kuruḵẖ; Kur.).
-- , A Grammar of the Oraon Language, Calcutta, 1924.
-- , Kurukh Grammar, Calcutta, 1900.
Tiga = Kh.
BB. = fieldnotes on the Mirdha dialect, collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1958.
Pfeiffer 1972 =
§ 38. Malto (Malt.).
BB. = fieldnotes collected by T. Burrow and S. Bhattacharya in 1958.
§ 39. Brahui (Br.).
MBE 1961a =
MBE 1961b = id., 'North Dravidian velar stops', Te. Po. Mī. Maṇivir̤ā Malar (T. P. Meenakshisundaram volume), 371-88.
MBE 1962 = id., 'New Brahui etymologies', Indological Studies in Honor of W. Norman Brown (1962), 59-69.
BDCG = id., Brahui and Dravidian Comparative Grammar (UCPL, vol. 27), Berkeley, 1962:
MBE 1971 = id., 'Koḍagu and Brahui developments of Proto-Dravidian *r̤', IIJ 13.176-98 (1971).
MBE 1980a = id., 'Brahui laterals from Proto-Dravidian * r̤', JAOS 100.311-2 (1980); also Suniti Kumar Chatterji Commemoration Volume (ed. Bhakti P. Mallik; University of Burdwan, 1981), 101-5.
Krishnamurti 1969 =
§ 40. Works on general Dravidian linguistics.
DCV = Dravidian Comparative Vocabulary, vol. 1, Madras, 1959.
DEDS = id., A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary : Supplement, Oxford, 1968.
DEN = id., 'Dravidian etymological notes', JAOS 92.397-418, 475-91 (1972).
Su. 1973 =
Su. 1971 =
Zvelebil 1973 =
Zvelebil 1977 = id., A Sketch of Comparative Dravidian Morphology, Part One (Janua Linguarum, Series Practica 180), The Hague, 1977.
Burrow 1968 =
Burrow 1969 = id., 'Dravidian and the decipherment of the Indus script', Antiquity 43.274-8 (1969).
Burrow 1972 = id., 'The Primitive Dravidian word for the horse', IJDL 1.18-25 (1972).
MBE 1971 =
MBE 1974a = id., 'The Indian linguistic area revisited', IJDL 3.92-134 (1974).
MBE 1975 = id., 'Studies in Dravidian verb stem formation', JAOS 95.1-24 (1975).
Su. 1969 =
Krishnamurti 1980 =
De Vreese 1973 =
Dr. Ling. = Dravidian Linguistics: Proceedings of the Seminar on Comparative Dravidian held at the Annamalai University, January 11-14, 1968, edited by S. Agesthyalingom and N. Kumaraswami Raja (Annamalai University Department of Linguistics, Publicaton No. 17), Annamalainagar, 1969.
§ 41. Works on Indo-Aryan.
Turner, CDIAL =
Hem. Uṇ. =
Paramānandīyanāmamālā of Makarandadāsa (ed. E. D. Kulkarni), Poona, 1968.
Śabdaratnākara of Vāmanabhaṭṭa Bāṇa (ed. B. R. Sharma), Darbhanga, 1965.
Apabhraṃśa (Mahāpurāṇa) = Ratna Nagesha Shriyan, A Critical Study of Mahāpurāṇa of Puṣpadanta [A Critical Study of the desya and rare words from Puṣpadanta's Mahāpurāṇa and his other Apabhraṃśa works], (Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Series, No. 26), Ahmedabad, 1962.
Avahaṭṭha = M. Shahidullah, Les chants mystiques de Kāṇha et de Saraha: Les Dohākoṣa en Apabhraṃśa, avec les versions tibétaines, Paris, 1928.
-- , Bhargava's Standard Illustrated Dictionary of the English Language (Anglo-Hindi), 7th ed., Banaras, 1947.
§ 42. Works on Indian linguistics in general.
Burrow 1967 =
MBE 1969 =
MBE 1978 = id., 'Towards an onomastics of South Asia', JAOS 98.113-30 (1978).
MBE 1980b = id., 'Indian demonstrative pronominal bases -- a revision', Proc. Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 16-18, 1980, 20-7.
Parpola 1977-78 =
LSB = Linguistic Survey Bulletin, ed. D. N. S. Bhat. Reproduced from typescript; circulated from Deccan College; 20 parts, Feb. 1968-March 1970.
§ 43. Miscellaneous works
Penzl 1955 =
§ 44. The following are our sources for identification of flora and fauna.
The Fauna of British India, esp. Mammalia, 2nd ed. by R. I. Pocock, 2 vols., London, 1939-41.
The following has been used occasionally for caste and tribal identifications:
§ 45. The overall alphabetic arrangement of groups is that of the Tamil
alphabet: a, ā, i, ī, u, ū, e, ē, ai, o, ō, au, ḵ, k, ṅ, c, ñ, ṭ, ṇ, t, n, p, m, y, r, l, v,
r̤, ḷ, ṟ, ṉ. In the few instances when a place had to be found for an h which
was uninterpretable in terms of any of the other (PDr) phonemes, it was put
in the end position of Devanagari h. Since many of the languages, unlike Tamil,
have voiced stop phonemes in contrast with voiceless stop phonemes, but since
these are generally relatable in reconstruction to the phonemes written with
voiceless stop symbols, we have thrown together g and k, j and c, ḍ and ṭ, d
Although we use the order of the Tamil alphabet, we do not thereby commit ourselves to placing groups in the order of the Tamil items that they may contain. The order of the groups is essentially that of the PDr phonemes in the reconstructed PDr roots or stems involved, with the order of the Tamil alphabet applied to these phonemes. This is possible since the inventory of Tamil phonemes probably corresponds very closely to that of the PDr phonemes -- though it does not follow that all, or even most, Tamil forms will serve as PDr reconstructions. For example, PDr *k- is palatalized in Tamil before front vowels (an approximate statement); Tamil, therefore, in many forms has the initial phoneme c- when the reconstructed PDr form would have k-. All such items that are recognizable are placed in the alphabetic position of k-. Similarly, when in our judgement a PDr form would have begun with an n- which is lost in Tamil, the entry is alphabetized under n-, and when Tamil shows in the initial syllable i or u as a dissimilation product of e or o before the low vowel a in the next syllable, we have followed what evidence there may be for e or o and placed the entry in this alphabetic position. And so for much else.
For the alphabetic orders used in the indexes by language, see the introduction to the indexes.
§ 46. Within each group of etyma the language appear in the following order.
Tamil (Ta.) Kolami (Kol.) Malayalam (Ma.) Naikṛi (Nk.) Iruḷa (Ir.) Naiki of Chanda (Nk. (Ch.)) Pālu Kuṟumba (PāKu.) Parji (Pa.) Ālu Kuṟumba (ĀlKu.) Gadba (Ga.) Beṭṭa Kuruba (Kurub.) Gondi (Go.) Kota (Ko.) Konḍa Toda (To.) Pengo (Pe.) Kannaḍa (Ka.) Manḍa (Manḍ.) Koḍagu (Koḍ.) Kui Tulu (Tu.) Kuwi Belari (Bel.) Kuṛux (Kur.) Koraga (Kor.) Malto (Malt.) Telugu (Te.) Brahui (Br.)
The sigilla given in parentheses are those used in the groups of etyma. The
order is essentially a geographical one, working from south to north. It reflects,
however, some of the subgroupings that are already possible: Ta.-Ma., Ko.-To.,
Kol.-Nk. (Ch.)-Pa.-Ga., Go.-Konḍa, Pe.-Manḍ., Kui-Kuwi, Kur.-Malt. On the
bases of subgrouping, Koḍ. should precede Ka., but it would have been inconvenient to make the change while producing printer's copy. The head position
of Tamil is in some sense justified, since the great richness of the Tamil Lexicon
The order of the languages as just given is broken only for the reason stated in §48.
§ 47. Within the group of forms drawn from any one language into an entry, the ordering depends largely on various factors of convenience -- derivation, alphabetical order, the need for economizing on space, etc. One overall factor often appears, viz. to give a verb before its homophonous or derived noun or nouns; even this, however, is often overridden for various reasons. And in sum, there is at times very little consistency in this matter, since nothing seemed to depend on it and it would have added greatly to our labours to achieve perfection in this comparatively unessential matter.
Alternative forms were frequently combined by the use of parentheses enclosing a phoneme; e.g. in group 1822 Te. k(r)uḷḷu denotes the two forms kruḷḷu and kuḷḷu, the second being a historical development of the first. Alternative occurrences of long and short vowels are often indicated by the combined makron and breve; e.g. in group 168 Ka. amakĭ̄re denotes amakire and amakīre.
§ 48. Frequently it has seemed useful to include within a group of etyma items which doubtfully belong there. These are preceded by a question mark (?). This sign belongs only to the item immediately following it. If a language is represented by only one item or several items of this character, the question mark precedes the sigillum for the language. If it should happen that the first language sigillum in a group of etyma would be preceded by a question mark, this item is put at the end of the group; this is the only reason for varying the order of languages as set forth in §46.
Frequently it is uncertain, for phonological reasons or semantic reasons or both, with which of two (or more) groups of etyma an item belongs. It is entered in both (or all) with cross-references (usually of the form 'or with group . . .').
§ 49. Certain features of morphology are useful for comparative purposes and have been indicated in as short a form as possible. For some nouns in certain languages, especially Kota and Toda but also others, oblique stems have been given because of the occurrence in them of special suffixes or special morphophonemics; the style used to indicate these is '(obl. . . .)'. For Ta., Ko., To., Koḍ., and Kol. every verb stem is accompanied in parentheses by its past-tense stem; for the so-called 'strong verbs' of Ta. and the corresponding class in Koḍ. the past-tense stem is preceded by the future stem. In all the other languages for which evidence is available (it is lacking for Tulu and scanty for some of the central languages), past-tense stems are given when they show morphophonemic peculiarities. Since other verb forms than these often are irregular or peculiar, they also are given, usually with an indication of their place in the paradigmatic system; the past-tense stem usually follows any others.
§ 50. Each numbered group of etyma ends, unless it is an entirely new group,
with an indication of where the material was entered in the earlier publications.
The indication is basically of the form DED 000. This would indicate that all
The system of indication described in the preceding paragraph makes it generally possible to refer from this publication to the earlier ones. The reverse process, i.e. reference from earlier publication to this, is made possible by the provision of a concordance at the end of the work, after the indexes. In the first part of the concordance the serial group numbers of DED are accompanied by the corresponding group numbers of DEDR. Again, there may be some complexity when an old group has been split; e.g. the material in DED 4355(a) now appears in DEDR 5215, 5320, 5342, 5513, and so the concordance indicates. After the DED concordance there is provided a concordance for the supplementary groups indicated by DEDS, and a concordance for the supplementary groups indicated by DEN. There is provided also a list of the numbered groups which are entirely new.
Since this double system fails to indicate shifts of single items or small groups of items, users interested in the origin or the fate of such items must be referred to the language indexes of the present work and the earlier works. No item, we hope, has failed to find its place in the indexes.
§ 51. The groups of etyma are numbered from 1 to 5557. There are not, however, exactly 5557 groups, since after the numbering had been completed and as the concordance (DED = DEDR, etc.) was being prepared, it was discovered that several groups had been left unnumbered and that several others had been accidentally omitted from their proper places. All these had to be provided with the number of the previous group followed by A (viz. 583A, 854A, 1273A, 1634A, 1693A, 3160A, 3326A, 3431A, 3621A, 4145A, 4265A, 5400A, 5410A). These were 13 in all. Moreover, the group numbered 4054 was discovered to be of non-Dravidian origin and had to be left blank (it appears as App. 46). The correct number of groups is then 5569. In addition, the Appendix contains 61 groups consisting of items of Indo-Aryan or other non-Dravidian origin; these had originally (with the three exceptions App. 37, App. 40, App. 59) been contained in DED or DEDS.
Abbreviations for language names are here given alphabetically, with references to the paragraphs of the bibliography.
ĀlKu. = Ālu Kuṟumba (§ 16) Bel. = Belari (§ 23) Br. = Brahui (§ 39) Dr. = Dravidian Ga. = Gadba (§ 30) Go. = Gondi (§ 31) Ir. = Iruḷa (§ 15) Ka. = Kannaḍa (§ 20) Ko. = Kota (§ 18) Koḍ. = Koḍagu (Coorg) (§ 21) Kol. = Kolami (§ 26) Kor. = Koraga (§ 24) Kur. = Kuṛux (Kuruḵẖ) (§ 37) Kurub. = Beṭṭa Kuruba (§ 17) Ma. = Malayalam (§ 14) Malt. = Malto (§ 38) Manḍ. = Manḍa (§ 34) Nk. = Naikṛi (§ 27) Nk. (Ch.) = Naiki of Chanda (§ 28) Pa. = Parji (§ 29) PālKu. = Pālu Kuṟumba (§ 16) PDr. = proto-Dravidian Pe. = Pengo (§ 33) Ta. = Tamil (§ 13) Te. = Telugu (§ 25) To. = Toda (§ 19) Tu. = Tulu (§ 22)
Ass. = Assamese
Beng. = Bengali
BHS = Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit (§ 41)
Guj. = Gujarati
H. = Hindi (§ 41)
IA = Indo-Aryan
Konk. = Konkani
Kum. = Kumaon
Mar. = Marathi (§ 41)
Ar. = Arabic Bal. = Baluchi Pers. = Persian
BSO(A)S = Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African) Studies IA = Indian Antiquary IIJ = Indo-Iranian Journal IJDL = International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society JAS = Journal of the Asiatic Society (Bengal) JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society TPS = Transactions of the Philological Society UCPL = University of California Publications in Linguistics
adj. = adjective
adv. = adverb
caus. = causative
coll. = colloquial
cpd. = compound
excl. = exclamation
fem. = feminine (gender), female
hon. = honorific
imper. = imperative
impf. = imperfect
inscr. = inscriptional, in inscriptions
interj. = interjection
intr. = intransitive
lex. = lexical
loc. = locative; local (usage)
masc. = masculine (gender)
n. = noun
neg. = negative
neut. = neuter (gender)
§ 55. For those languages that have the contrast, viz. Ta., Ma., To., Ka., Te. Konḍa, r is the post-dental one-flap and ṟ the alveolar trill; for Gondi, see below. Similarly, other alveolar phonemes are printed with an underline (ṯ, ḏ, ṉ) in contrast with the dentals; the languages are Ko. and To. for ṯ and ḏ, Ta. for ṉ.
Retroflexes are indicated by an underline dot, as is usually done. In citing the newly published Kol. material (Pat.), ṭ and ḍ have been substituted for T and D. It must be noted that ṛ has various phonetic values. In Ko. it is a retroflex one-flap tremulant, in To. a retroflex trill. In modern IA it is in general a retroflex or post-alveolar one-flap, and this is probably the value in Kol. (SR and Kin.) and Nk. That this is the value of ṛ in the Gondi records is indicated in Voc., pp. 74 f., where some account is given of its complicated distribution in the Gondi dialects. For this or a very similar value in Konḍa, Pengo, and Kuwi, see the most recent accounts of these languages. In Parji ṛ is of somewhat uncertain phonetic character, but corresponds to southern and PDr. *r̤. Our use of r̤ for the retracted (or retroflex) fricative (transcribed variously as ḻ, ṛ, ẓ, zh, etc.) of Ta., Ma., Ka., and inscriptional Te., has been defended recently by Harold Schiffman in a distinctive-feature analysis for Tamil ('The Tamil liquids', Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 100-110 ).
Some of the phonetic characteristics of Toda were given in TPS 1957, pp. 18-26; they are treated in much more detail in the forthcoming Toda Grammar and Texts by Emeneau. Here it may be noted that c = [ts], &cangle; = [tš], z, = [dz], j = [dž]; ł and &lstroketod; are voiceless laterals, respectively alveolar and retroflex; s̱ is an apico-alveolar sibilant with flattened body of tongue contrasting with s (post-dental), š (apico-alveolar palatalized), and ṣ (retroflex sibilant); ï is a high back unrounded vowel, ö is central rounded.
Koḍ. has ï, a high back unrounded vowel, and ë, a mid-back unrounded vowel.
In the northern languages ḵẖ of the Kur. and Br. sources represents a voiceless
velar fricative [x], and x has now been substituted for ḵẖ in the material from
these languages; g̣ in the Malto record and g̠ẖ in Br. represent the corresponding
voiced fricative [
The transcriptions of the central languages are now much clearer than they were when DED was prepared. When the Gondi dialects were investigated (see Voc.), many problems were solved. The transcription -rr- in many of the sources represents the alveolar trill (ṟ). Corresponding to this, the Hill-Maria dialect (Ma.) has a voiced velar fricative which is transcribed r̥ in Voc.; its voiceless allophone, appearing before a voiceless stop, is transcribed ẖ.
Some of the problems posed by the old recordings of Kuwi have yielded to modern fieldwork; BB 1963 and Israel's grammar must be referred to. In quoting Schulze we have now substituted c for his ẓ, j for z, y for j, kk for ck; Fitzgerald's n̄&gmacr; has been replaced by ŋ. It is clear that Fitzgerald used r for ṛ and ṛ for r; we have not changed his transcription in this matter, for fear of introducing further error into an already difficult and sometimes faulty transcription.
In the Konḍa material R represents a voiceless apico-alveolar trill, with ṟ the corresponding voiced sound.
In some of the sources ch is used for the palatal stop or affricate (like English ch). We have always transcribed this as c, reserving ch for the corresponding aspirated stop as in the IA languages.
In Emeneau's field and published material length of vowel is indicated by [.] rather than by the macron (or acute accent) of the other sources. This has been retained, particularly in the case of Toda since the substitution of the macron would have introduced typographical complexities which are better avoided for a language in which the typographical situation is already complex enough.