« 이전계속 »
singular being ni-na-du. If any inference may be drawn from this, it is that it is possessive and probably plural. In Mod. Tam. it occurs in the possessive both of sing. and pl. u-na-du, 8. u-madu P. In the Kol dialects it is also found with a plural force under the form bu if my analysis of abu be correct. The absence of e or i in the possessive of the 2nd pronoun is accounted for oy i being the root vowel of the pronoun itself. In Chap. IV. it was stated that "the objective appears to be radically nu or un which is probably a variation of the possessive" (du, ru &c). Malaya. lam has u-de as well as in-de as composite possessives. The archaic possessive function of u in the former is attested by in of the latter, I would therefore explain the pronominal nun and un as contractions of ni-un.
In the original system the roots and postfixes were free, and hence the same root admitted different postfixed or postplaced definitives. With the decay of this freedom, the variety in the definitives and the existence of double plurals, gave rise in the concretionary stage to considerable dialective divergency and some confusion, as in all other pronominal systems using originally several elements for the expression of distinctions in each person. In the closely connected Southern dialects these variations are very marked, and in the Northern they take a still more irregular and seemingly capricious character. In the Tamil 1st person we find the concreted forms yan, nan in the singular agentive, but in the singular possessive ena or en with the corresponding plurals possessive ema and nama. (I omit the poss. postfixes -du,-de, di &c.) In the 2nd person we have ni both in the agentive and possessive of the “Ancient” dialect, but in the “ Modern" un or una in the possessive, corresponding with the plural possessives in both numa Anc. (the full form), and uma Mod. In disintegrated and concreted systems, the original force of the secondary elements passes away, and hence serviles come to replace roots, one form to be substituted for another, generic definitives to receive a special restricted use, special definitives to be generalised or to be clothed with a new special power &c. Thus in Telugu in the singular the definitive -nu has become concreted with the 1st pron. and -Vu with the 2nd, while in Karnataka -nu retains its position in the singulars of both and -vu is plural in both. Hence nivu is “ thou” in Telugu but "you" in Karn. The Telugu plurais are equally irregular and cumulative, for the 1st person takes –mu in addition to the flexional labialising of the root itself (menu), while the 2nd not only labialises the root but adds an ordinary plural definitive (miru). The poss, presents yet another form of the 1st person na- sing, ma- pl. The sexual forms of the 3rd pronoun show similar changes. The proper forms are va-n, or va-nu masc. va-l, or va-lu fem. and du, da or di neut, pustfixed to the def. But in Telugu -du has become masc. (the neuter being varied to -di), In Karnataka the masc, has become va-m and in Telugu the fem. has become a-me, I have already remarked that Telugu also reverses the ordinary functions of the vowels in the 1st person, e being agentive (ne-nu) and a possessive (na-yoka). As in Semitico-African and Indo-European languages, the postfixed agentive forms of the pronouns in some cases echo the definitive and not the pronoun. This is almost uniformly done by Telugu, the 1st person postfixes -nu (from ne-nu), the 2nd person postfixes -vu (from ni-vu), the 3rd masc. -du (from va-du), the fem. •di (from a-di-, now neut. and the neut. -thi (from-a-thi). The concreted definitives of nouns show variations similar to those of the pronouns. Some nouns have the same definitive in all the dialects. Some have a masc. postfix in one dialect, and a fem. in another.
In the Northern languages the dialectic irregularities are still greater than in the Southern, Gond having for “I” the formas na, nu, n0,-an S.; ma, mo, -um Pl.; and for “thou” im, ni S.; im, mi, me Pl. Male and Uraon have similar varieties. Male en “I”, ong poss, Sing., na-m, o-m Pl., em Pl. poss., Uraon en-, eng“I”, em-in Pl. puss, The Northern forms in o resemble the Todava, onę, on, won sing. om, wom. Pl. Todava frequently replaces the a of other Southern dialects by o (e. g. "eye” kon Tod., kan in the other vocabularies; “milk” por, for pal; "six” ore, for aru).
In the Kol dialects the Dravirian roots are still further confused.
The foreign affinities of the Dravirian pronouns, are of two classes, the first embracing those indicative of an archaic extension of the formation beyond the present Dravirian province and the
* The Kol le “we”, be "you" are examples of the plural particles taking the place of pronouns.
second being of a primordial character and pointing towards the derivation of the formation itself.
The pronouns clearly indicate an early prevalence of the archaic Indian formation over Ultraindia and Asonesia, and the forms in which they are found in these regions show that the proper South Dravirian varieties are the oldest and purest, and were first and farthest spread to the eastward. They are found in all their integrity throughout the Australian sub-formation,*—the most ancient in Asonesia—and fragments of them are also preserved in other Asonesian provinces. The dialectic Kol system, on the other hand, is found in its integrity in the Mon-Anam formation, the oldest that is extant in Ultraindia, while it is also partially traceble in Asonesia.
The Australian pronouns are nga “I” and ngin, nin, ngi “thou,” with postfixed definitives as in Draverian,-nya,-ni,-ngi, -na, -te, -toa, -du, -pe, -i. Comp. the Drav. -Nu, -na, -n, -vu, and the common noun definitive postfixes. The common form of the 2nd pronoun, nin, is the Dravirian root combined with the contracted Dravirian postfix as in Karnataka, Kurgi and Male nin. In the Australian system the plurals are formed, like the ordinary Dravirian ones, by the plural postfixes, the Dravirian special m plurals being absent unless they are represented by - na. Australian has a distinct dual formed by a Draviro-Australian plural particle -li, -le, -dli, -lin, &c 1st pron., -rang,-ra,-rle. &c 2nd pron. The 2nd has also -Na and the compound -wala in some languages.
The Tobi nang, Ulea ngang, Pelew nak, Banabe nai, Tarawangai, (Austr. ngai], Rotuma ngo, ngou, and the Sumba nyungga of the 1st person, with the Onni ono, Tarawa ungoe, ngoe of the 2nd person, are also Draviro-Australian.
The indication of sex in the 3rd pronoun distinguishes Tarawan and Australian from the proper Malayu-Polynesian languages and is one of the traits that connect the archaic pronominal system of Asoncsia with the Dravirian.
Although the plural forms in m are absent in Australian, it has absolute as well as relative forms of the plural of the first person.
• The first indication of resemblances between the Dravirian and the Australian pronouns is due to Mr. Norris,
In some dialects the former are produced by the union of roots of the 1st and 2nd persons. The latter is represented by the dual forms only. In the Malayu-Polynesian languages the two plurals and also the dual are found, and as they are not now Malagasy, although found in Semitico-African languages, they may be Dravirian traits. In some languages the dual and relative plural are not distinguished.
The general character of the most ancient Asonesian pronominal system-as preserved in various degrees in the Australian languages, in Tarawan, Vitian, Tanan, in Polynesian and in some of the less impoverished Indonesian languages—is similar to the Dravirian, but it is more archaic, more complete and less concreted. The different elements are more numerous and more freely and regularly combinable. In the Australian system we find not only all' the forms that are now extant in South Dravirian, as well as the dual and the peculiar transition or agento-objective forms of Kol, but several others produced by the same power of compounding elements in which these originated. This power is much less impared in Australian and the allied Asonesian systems, and the inference is that in this, as in several other respects, they better preserve the archaic Indo-Asonesian type, and may hence suggest to us what the condition of Dravirian itself was before its forms had become diminished, confused and concreted as we now find then. In Avstralian the pronominal roots are compounded with definitives, singular and plural, with the numeral “two” to form duals, with masc. and fem. definitives in the 3rd person, and in all the 3 persons with each other, thus producing not only absolute and relative plurals of the 1st person, but several other complex plurals. The Viti-Tarawan elements are still more freely compounded and their forms of this kind are consequently more numerous. The incorporation of numerals appears not to have been confined to “two,” for in some of the Papuanesian languages a trinal is found, and in Polynesian the same form has lost its original meaning and become a generic plural. This highly ayglomerative but crude pronominal system bas not been derived from Malagasy, and its presence in Asoncsia is attributable to a prior formation, of Indian origin, similar to the Dravirian but more rich in forms because simpler and less concreted. It thus carries back the Dravirian type to a condition analagous to the American. * To illustrate these remarks by going into details would be to anticipate so far the ultimate aim of our examination of Dravirian and the other S. E. Asian formations, and I must therefore refer the reader to the subsequent section on Australian,
The merely glossarial connection between the Dravirian and the Australian systems embraces the pronominal roots, several of the agentive postfixes, plural postfixes and perhaps some vocalic flexions of the roots. The 2nd pronoun in several dialects changes its proper vowel i to u in the dual and plural. In some the a of the 1st pronoun becomes e in the plural. In Australian as in Dravirian and other compound agglutinative and partially con. creted systems, the pronoun is in some forms replaced or represented by other elements, definitive, numeral &c.
The sexual distinction between the definitives n and I is not found in the known Australian languages or in Tarawan. The 1st and 2nd pronouns do not take sexual postfixes, a fact telling against any surmise that Dravirian may have had them in an early stage.
The North Dravirian pronouns evidently preceded the Tibeto. Burman in the Mon-Anam languages and in Ultraindia generally. They are preserved in the pre-Malayan basis of the languages of the Malay Peninsula-Simang as well as Bỉnuam and they have also spread to the Eastern Islands. The most common form of the 1st pronoun is similar to the Kol ing- with its variations eing, aing, inge-which is a liquid modification of the prevalent South Dravirian possessive en, occurring also in Uraon (eng). Both the Southern and Northern Dravirian en, eng and the Kol form ing, which is probably the original, are dispersed amongst the vocabularies of South Ultraindia and the Malay Peninsula, en Simang; eng Chong, Kambojan; eing, ein, ye Simang; ain, oin, yun Bỉnua; oei, oe Mon. In Indonesia the North Ultraindian form is perhaps found in Sunda aing, but this may be a Niha-Polynesian prefix with the true pronominal root elided. The Timor ani and Kissa ba-nian are probably connected with it. The Sumba nyu-ngga is South Dravirian and Australian in form, but Gond has nu-na. The prevalent Niha-Polynesian forms of the 1st pronoun are not Kol.